"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[clarkgoble]

On 9/26/2017 at 4:47 PM, blueglass said:

Maybe someone can help me find the quote -  I think Richard Bushman goes with Joseph possibly finding a "masonic artifact" of some kind.  

I searched Rough Stone Rolling and couldn't find anything about a "masonic artifact." The only references to masonry are either anti-masonic elements purportedly in the Book of Mormon or masonic influences on the temple in chapter 25.

There are references to gold books in masonry of course. For those who adopt the Scottish Rite in addition to normal masonry you sign a Gold Book when becoming a 33rd degree mason. A somewhat related book is the Golden Book of St. Laurents. It's a record of Count De St. Laurent's attempts to form a supreme council during the 1830's. It's in the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania at the moment.

Beyond that I don't think there are any masonic artifacts of that sort. There certainly were within masonry legends of missing artifacts. John Brooke in Refiner's Fire raises that possibility as a potential source for the "idea" of the Book of Mormon. That might be what you're thinking of. That tradition comes into masonry largely due to conflicts between Scottish masonry (usually thought to be the original source of masonry) and London masonry that claimed to be older in the 18th century. Typically historians see the origin as Scottish masons raising templar connections to appear even more ancient than London and to have secret hidden artifacts. The Brooke claim honestly seems pretty dubious and really has no support for it. It's pure speculation without even fleshing out the idea. (Unfortunately Brooke does that a lot)

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are missing the point.  I will stipulate to that- no problem.  I did not get a chance to read your reference

But where is the extra-spiritual evidence that Jesus died for your sins?

How far does the fact that Jerusalem exists get you toward the idea that "Christianity is true?"

It doesn't.  

The bible OR the BOM could be absolutely historically accurate in every single detail, talking donkeys, sun stopping etc and still not provide justification for the belief that the death of one human can take away the sins of all who have lived.

It is a totally preposterous notion for the naturally inclined.  That is precisely why it is so important to use postmodernists to show that in a religious context, religious experience justifies religious belief

Going after historical evidence is barking up the wrong tree.  Yes the events need to have "really happened" for the RELIGIOUS, and SUPERNATURAL message to be justifiable but such evidence is hardly sufficient in itself to justify supernatural beliefs

And yes I know that to God nothing in Mormon theology is "supernatural" but for us it appears to be, as a smartphone would appear in 1492.

I don't know the science of the atonement do you?  For us it is "supernatural" and without a natural explanation- for now.  And since we are alive NOW that makes it supernatural for all practical purposes.

Well Mark, I no longer view the atonement as a supernatural nor a scientific phenomena, so to me your challenge on this particular subject is misplaced. I view it as an ethical or moral phenomenon - a spiritual event. It satisfied a moral law of justice. Justice is not a supernatural nor scientific concept. It is a spiritual one. I think I do get where you are coming from, but as always I try to be precise in these matters. It helps keep communication and concepts clear. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think we struggle because of a language problem here. Being historical is very different from having historicity.

Okay.  An event or story can be "historical" (as in "based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past") and yet lack "historicity" (as in "the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction"):

1. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an entirely fictional work.  There are no historical persons or events described in it.
2. Disney's animated film, Moana is a story set in a "historical" Polynesian setting (Polynesians actually existed, had a culture, sailed the oceans, etc.), but the story itself, and the characters and specific described in it, are entirely fictional.
3. Mel Gibson's Braveheart tells a story about an actual historical person, William Wallace, but is also heavily fictionalized in many respects.  So it contains some elements of "historicity" (William Wallace, King Edward, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, etc. were all real people/events, but the film's depiction of Jus primae noctis, Wallace having an affair with Isabella, the death of Longshanks, etc. are fictional).
4. Michael Apted's film, Amazing Grace, tells a story about an actual historical person (William Wilberforce) and actual events (Wilberforce's efforts to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire).  It nevertheless contains several factual inaccuracies, though most of these are apparently unintentional, and are not integral to the plot.

And so on.  A story can be entirely ahistorical (LotR), or be fictional and yet based very broadly on some "historical" person or culture or event (Moana), or have "historicity" (based on actual persons/events) and yet have substantial ahistorical elements within it (Braveheart), or predominantly have "historicity," albeit with some ahistorical errors or license (Amazing Grace).

Quote

And so this problem comes back to us in terms of the text - when we speak of historicity, we speak of an idea that is particularly modern in nature and in application. To what extent is the Book of Mormon presented as a real history of real events?

I think to a very great extent.  

Quote

And to what extent is the Book of Mormon an interpretation of a potentially real history or real events?

That's up to the individual, I suppose.

Quote

Now we might argue (understandably) that this doesn't change the very basic ideas that Nephi was a real person, and that Moroni was a real person, and that because they were real people, that real things happened to them, which constituted their history. But, this isn't something that creates an understanding of real historicity in the text. At best, it creates that belief that allows us to read the text in an appropriate way (which is important). But, then we inevitably carry a whole set of baggage of interpretations of the text. And we create problems if we assert that our interpretations or understandings are in fact representative of that historicity.

I don't understand what htis means.

Quote

And then we have the problem that much of the Book of Mormon is written long after the events it described took place - and inevitably they are interpreted (with all of the same problems that I mention for us in our interpretations). Some of the events described in this later written text are not (at least not in the sense that we use the term) factual, or historical. Some of it is simply a matter of what details are included and which are not.

I can accept that.  But I think that means we need to accommodate errors/omissions/distortions in a text which presents itself as having "historicity."  Utter, 100% factual accuracy is not, I think a precondition to a narrative having "historicity."  There is a very, very large difference between a narrative that is outright fictional/ahistorical (Lord of the Rings) and the corollary absence of historicity and a narrative that is substantively nonfictional/historical (Amazing Grace) and the corollary presence of historicity.

Quote

When we look at comments like that made by RevTestament:

Quote

I believe it can be proven better in a court of law to say that the NT for instance is historical than it is fiction.

I don't disagree.

I do, but that's a different discussion, I think.

Quote

I think we end up creating future problems for ourselves when we assert that the experiences that come with the production of the Book of Mormon and its translation from the Gold Plates are in fact direct evidence of some sort for the historicity of the Book of Mormon text.

I don't understand.  The text of the Book of Mormon exists.  It had to come from somewhere.  Someone wrote it down.  Who was it?  Who formulated that narrative?  Was it Joseph Smith?  A 19th-century cabal?  Mormon (chiefly as editor) and Moroni?  What "evidence" exists for the proposition that the text is a translation of an ancient narrative discovered by Joseph Smith?  What "evidence" exists that the text is a 19th-century fabrication?  What are we to make of the statements from the Witnesses?  Are the Witnesses credible?  What countervailing evidences exist to rebut their claims?  What about the physical descriptions of the Plates (weight, appearance, color, composition, flexibility, characters, etc.)?  Are those descriptions metallurgically plausible/feasible?  What about "textual evidences" within the translated text?  Is the chiastic structure of Alma 36 significant?  What about the olive culture described in Jacob 5?  What about the apparent anachornisms?  The "deutero-Isaiah" problem?

These are all questions that grapple with "evidence."  Testimonial evidence.  Textual evidence.  Historical evidence.  Circumstantial evidence.  I think that those who are concerned about the ultimate question of "historicity" can engage in some real and meaningful study and analysis of the items to reach a conclusion about historicity or its absence.

I quite agree that we pretty much lack "direct evidence" of the provenance of the Book of Mormon.  But there is still plenty of other forms of "evidence" with which we can work in order to achieve an informed opinion.  In the end, though, it still comes down to . . . faith.

Quote

And finally, on top of this, we have the challenge that comes with a more nuanced view of the text. It's quite possible to understand that with it's literary characteristics, a text can take liberties with what me might consider history (as a modern concern).

I agree.  In Amazing Grace, the characters sing the song using the melody we now use.  However, that tune was apparently not paired with the text of that hymn until some fifty years later after the events described in the film.  The film shows historical figures in England shaking hands, when bowing was probably the actual form of greeting.  Towards the beginning of the film, Barbara Spooner refers to Napoleon as the ruler of France. But this scene takes place in 1797, which was two years before Napoleon came to power.  One character, Clarkson, describes king as insane because he (the king) "claims he can see Germany through his telescope" (Germany did not exist as a unified state at the time).  Dialogue throughout the film is fabricated to further the narrative, to illustrate it.  And yet overall, I would say that the film succeeds in depicting a fairly accurate recitation of historical events.

I think the Book of Mormon is, in some ways, in the same boat.  An author, long after the historical events occurred and the historical persons have died, relied on historical documents to generally summarize and distill actual historical people and events into a necessarily brief narrative.  "Liberties" are pretty much required (Amazing Grace tells a story spanning decades in less than two hours of movie, and the Book of Mormon tells bits and pieces of a 1000-year chronology in about 500 pages), but the substantive information in both stories is represented as having historicity, and is intended to be taken as having historicity.

In contrast, the "Inspired Fiction" theory posits that the Book of Mormon is more like Star Wars: an entirely fictional narrative that nevertheless tells an interesting story about characters and events that we should care about, and with lessons to be learned therefrom.

Quote

And in this way, some elements of the text may be read as having more potential historicity than others. This is why decisions on what is included (as opposed to what is not) when the text is originally assembled can be seen as impacting this sort of question. And why a sort of blanket understanding of historicity with the Book of Mormon is a challenge, just as it is with the Biblical text.

It might be better to simply refer to the historical nature of the text of the Book of Mormon, and the necessity to understand the text as an authentic historical work, rather than on insisting on historicity, for which real evidence is extremely limited.

I think Stephen Smoot has the better argument here: The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon

He quotes Hugh Nibley:

Quote

The Book of Mormon must be read as an ancient, not as a modern book. Its mission, as described by the book itself, depends in great measure for its efficacy on its genuine antiquity. 

I think that's right.  The book only has real, fundamental, life-changing, salvific value if it is what it claims to be: a translation of an ancient record about real persons and real events.  

He also quotes Richard Bushman:

Quote

The greatest error would be to mistake these narratives from ancient times as mere objects of curiosity, revealing a Mormon taste with the mysteries of antiquity. . . . Joseph Smith’s revelations . . . made new sacred narratives that were themselves the foundation for belief. . . . The Book of Mormon throughout is composed of happenings wherein God directed, reproved, punished, and redeemed his people. What distinguished Mormonism was not so much the gospel Mormons taught . . . but what they believed had happened—to Joseph Smith, to Book of Mormon characters, and to Moses and Enoch. . . . The core of Mormon belief was a conviction about actual events. . . . Mormonism was history, not philosophy. . . . The strength of the church, the vigor of the Mormon missionary movement, and the staying power of the Latter-day Saints from 1830 to the present rest on the belief in the reality of these events.

 I think that's right.  Without historicity, the Book of Mormon has considerably less value.

He also quotes Grant Hardy:

Quote

Joseph and his associates insisted from the beginning that the Book of Mormon was a translation from an authentic ancient document written in “Reformed Egyptian” on metal plates and buried by the last ancient author about AD 421. . . . The strong historical assertions of the book seem to allow for only three possible origins: as a miraculously translated historical document, as a fraud (perhaps a pious one) written by Joseph Smith, or as a delusion (perhaps sincerely believed) that originated in Smith’s subconscious.

I think that's right.  I am far less interested in a religious message from Joseph Smith if his narrative about the Book of Mormon was the result of profound mental illness or fraud (even pious fraud).  But the "Inspired Fiction" theory posits one or both of these as an alternative to the third option: That the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Smoot sums things up this way:

Quote

No matter how ingenious, or sympathetic, these attempts to deny the Book of Mormon’s historicity and yet maintain its “inspiration” may be, they simply don’t work. The logical flaws in any Inspired Fiction reading of the Book of Mormon are not only too numerous and fail to account for the historical evidence concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but also grotesquely deform the Book of Mormon into something neither it nor its millions of faithful adherents ever claimed it to be. “For a variety of reasons,” Givens succinctly explains, “such efforts [to read the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] may be well intentioned, but they are untenable.”

Yep.

So in the context of this thread, where the "Inspired Fiction" theory is posited as lens through which we can view the Book of Mormon, and where that lens is distinct from a separate lens of "historicity" (not perfect, pristinely-recorded, 100% accurate, but substantively), I think we need to examine the claims for "historicity."  I'm not sure we need to "insist" on . . . well, anything.  We are simply critiquing two competing and mutually contradictory and mutually exclusive characterizations of the Book of Mormon.  Is the book what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?  Or is it the product of a profoundly insane/deluded mind and/or 19th-century conspiracy to defraud?

Hmm.  Given these two choices, maybe we need to "insist" after all...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

On 9/26/2017 at 7:30 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

The church doesn't own the land. They were offered it a year or two ago and were not interested. I visited the property shortly after the most recent re-digging was done and I met the property owner. The hill and cave are just in someone's backyard (a large one), and they told me about how they had talked with the church about selling the land but it hadn't gone anywhere. The guy was still hopeful that something could come of it through BYU, which whoever he had talked to in he church had suggested. He said that if there wasn't any movement by the spring (we visited in the fall), that he'd rent a back hoe and tear the hill apart to see if he could find anything... I think it's been two years since then.

Wow, how cool.  Thanks for this insight.  I read this article a couple years ago and found it really interesting.  

http://rationalfaiths.com/discovering-the-lost-mormon-cave/

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well Mark, I no longer view the atonement as a supernatural nor a scientific phenomena, so to me your challenge on this particular subject is misplaced. I view it as an ethical or moral phenomenon - a spiritual event. It satisfied a moral law of justice. Justice is not a supernatural nor scientific concept. It is a spiritual one. I think I do get where you are coming from, but as always I try to be precise in these matters. It helps keep communication and concepts clear. 

I am not quite sure what a "moral law," is or could be, or how to define it. We know what is moral and what is immoral but that is a different question. Are moral laws real? Are they closing around somewhere in space? Who made the moral laws? Did we agree to any of them?

I think more in terms of moral practices. Looking at this from both of secular side in the religious side one can say that on one hand God gave us the rules for a peaceful society and on the other hand that they evolve as practices which have been found to work.

The bottom line for me is that that's exactly what they are. They are rules which society has found are necessary to regulate Behavior.

Theists typically takes them to be given by God.  The secularist may believe that they have evolved. I of course am a theist. But with the notion found in Mormonism of a human God and a string of God's going back into Infinity those distinctions become quite blurry.

But if you're definition of moral law is simply the idea of a principle which always works to produce peace in society then we are in agreement.

This was dictated into a device so forgive all the spelling errors etc

Edited September 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

On 9/27/2017 at 12:43 AM, Glenn101 said:

What other evidences make you think it was just sand or something heavy?

Glenn

Well, there's the Peter Ingersoll affidavit.  

Quote

"One day he [Joseph Smith] came and greeted me with a joyful countenance. Upon asking the cause of his unusual happiness, he replied in the following language, 'As I was passing, yesterday, across the woods, after a heavy shower of rain, I found, in a hollow, some beautiful white sand, that had been washed up by the water. I took off my frock, and tied up several quarts of it, and then went home.

"'On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible.

"'To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly, I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them but they refuse to see it, and left the room.'

"Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.' Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book and believed there never was any such book, yet, he told me that he actually went to Willard Chase to get him to make a chest in which he might deposit his golden Bible. But, as Chase would not do it, he made a box himself, of clapboards and put it into a pillow case and allowed people only to lift it and feel of it through the case."

Then from Lucy Mack Smith's history when talking about the legal complaint against Joseph brought by Lucy Harris in 1829.  

Quote

"’The witnesses, being duly sworn, the first arose and testified, that Joseph Smith told him that the box which he had contained nothing but sand; and he, Joseph Smith, said it was gold, to deceive the people.

“’Second witness swore that Joseph Smith had told him that it was nothing but a box of lead, and he was determined to use it as he saw fit.

“’Third witness declared that he once inquired of Joseph Smith what he had in that box, and Joseph Smith told him that there was nothing at all in the box, saying that he had made fools of the whole of them, and all he wanted was to get Martin Harris's money away from him, and that he (the witness) was knowing to the fact that Joseph Smith had, by his persuasion, already got two or three hundred dollars.’

Then there are the accounts of Harris later saying he never saw the plates physically and that even the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates physically either.   There are enough questions out there about the legitimacy of actual plates existing.  I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, only saying that there is enough to reasonably question.  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

On 9/27/2017 at 7:45 AM, Gray said:

“They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”  —Emma Smith

It's hard for me to picture a material that would fit this description.

 

Yes, there are statements like this, but I will mention that this statement by Emma was very late, and that makes it less reliable, also considering that we know Emma wasn't accurate with all her statements (polygamy testimony) that I don't think we can just accept at face value that this is factually correct. 

I do think its possible there was a physical item with metallic page like features at one point, I'm not ruling that out, but I just question what was most likely considering all the evidence.  

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think enough people saw or felt metallic sheets that it's hard to dismiss that. It's also hard to see how Joseph would have had access to such things. 

The Church doesn't own Miner's Hill unless they've bought it very recently. Here's a discussion of an amateur excavation from a couple of years ago. Lots of pictures of the cave. It's not terribly big.

I had a friend on a film crew on Cumorah and they found a cave there. But it appeared to have likely been from the prohibition era. I know there are photos of it around but I think the Church wanted it kept quiet so people wouldn't go drawing fanciful conspiracy theories.

Yes, I'm not dismissing those accounts, just trying to balance those accounts with others.  Since you say its hard to see how Joseph would have had access to such things, wouldn't that be reason to believe that there wasn't an artifact with metallic pages?  

Thanks for that link on the cave expedition, I remember reading it before and it was fun for you to dig that article up again.  What's funny to me, is that the kind of people the church doesn't want to go about "drawing fanciful conspiracy theories" have a lot more in common with the original church founders than the current leadership.  

[FearlessFixxer]

I feel like if the church abandoned the historicity claim on the BoM it would go a long way to dampen the number of people that leave.  

There would be a domino effect and a spectrum of belief would be more palatable and more accepted at the local level.

It seems like right now, a member with a testimony of god and the basics of the gospel, but doubts about the historicity of the BoM would not be able to 100% authentic at church (in most wards)

I realize that the church is not going to take any cues from me, but that is what I would do if I was in charge (I know, I know....good thing I am not in charge)

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I feel like if the church abandoned the historicity claim on the BoM it would go a long way to dampen the number of people that leave.  

I disagree.  I think some people leave over "historicity" issues, but there is a pastiche of commingled reasons people cite when leaving.  If anything, I think abandoning the foundational truth claims of Joseph Smith would accelerate departures, a la "What!?  You've told me my entire life that the Book of Mormon is about real people and real events, and now your saying it's just a piece of fiction?  That's the last straw, I'm outta here!"

But this is just a purely hypothetical exercise anyway.  I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the Church to abandon its claims about the Book of Mormon.

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

There would be a domino effect and a spectrum of belief would be more palatable and more accepted at the local level.

I think the "domino effect" would go the other way.  If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, then Joseph Smith was a liar / fraud / crazy guy.  And if Joseph was deluded / insane / profoundly dishonest in his foundational claims, then why accept him as prophet?  And we we reject him, we must reject his successors, and the whole kit n' caboodle.

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

It seems like right now, a member with a testimony of god and the basics of the gospel, but doubts about the historicity of the BoM would not be able to 100% authentic at church (in most wards)

I don't think any of us are "100% authentic."  We all have things we are not sure about.  But we aren't "100%" perfect, either.  Hence we go to Church.

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I realize that the church is not going to take any cues from me, but that is what I would do if I was in charge (I know, I know....good thing I am not in charge)

Your proposed course of action would gut the LDS Church.  It would destroy its foundational elements.  It would undermine the veracity of its truth claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I'm not dismissing those accounts, just trying to balance those accounts with others.  Since you say its hard to see how Joseph would have had access to such things, wouldn't that be reason to believe that there wasn't an artifact with metallic pages?  

Thanks for that link on the cave expedition, I remember reading it before and it was fun for you to dig that article up again.  What's funny to me, is that the kind of people the church doesn't want to go about "drawing fanciful conspiracy theories" have a lot more in common with the original church founders than the current leadership.  

In some ways. But the Church is much larger today. So they have to worry about different things. 

To your first point I'm not quite following your logic. I think it's an argument Joseph wouldn't have had a metallic artifact unless he was telling the truth about the plates and angel. For someone like say Vogel who simply is assuming a naturalist position where Joseph's claims are false, then of course one has to figure out an explanation for the plates. The only possible choices are no plates or forged plates. However just as it's fair for critics to attack metal in the Book of Mormon is perfectly fine for apologists to attack the issue of metal in the translation process. It seems very unlikely that Joseph could have gotten metal and very unlikely people were wrong about thinking there was metal.

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac writes:

Quote

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an entirely fictional work.  There are no historical persons or events described in it.

While this is true, there are historical persons and events which (may) have influenced the book, and stand behind the events and characters. Did Meriadoc Conan, the historical figure reputed to have founded House Rohan in Brittany offer a source of inspiration?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meriadoc_Brandybuck

What about the ring of Silvanius, an artifact discovered in England by a farmer, plowing his field in 1785, and the corresponding curse tablet discovered in 1929 (when Tolkein was asked to help authenticate it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Silvianus

My favorite of recent memory involves The Phantom of the Opera. In the preface, written in 1909, we read this:

Quote

It will be remembered that, later, when digging in the substructure of the Opera, before burying the phonographic records of the artist's voice, the workmen laid bare a corpse. Well, I was at once able to prove that this corpse was that of the Opera ghost. I made the acting-manager put this proof to the test with his own hand; and it is now a matter of supreme indifference to me if the papers pretend that the body was that of a victim of the Commune.

We read this as part of the fiction, right? But in fact not all of it is entirely fictional. There is this article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-record-find-21416298/

Quote

With 20 years' hindsight, it's easy to see that it was right there on the page, hiding in plain sight: "It will be remembered that, later, when digging in the substructure of the Opéra, before burying the phonographic records of the artist's voice, the workmen laid bare a corpse." Thus wrote Gaston Leroux in his horror classic, The Phantom of the Opera, first published in 1910. As readers, we are naturally drawn to the last words of that sentence: "a corpse." Dead bodies—fact or fiction—get our attention. Based on the author's clues, the mind races to the crime scene: "the substructure of the Opéra." And so, in our haste to discover this poor unfortunate's identity, we overlook the most important words of the sentence: "before burying the phonographic records."

Few readers pick up a novel, especially a thriller, expecting a guidebook. They want to be swept away by plot and character; the story's setting is usually an afterthought. Novelists, however, know better. The best fiction is grounded, made real, by its sense of place.

So the question is not, what corpse?

It is, rather, what records?

Music lovers around the world were stunned this past December when the Opéra National de Paris and the Bibliothèque Nationale de France announced a major discovery: a time capsule, dredged up from a subbasement of the Palais Garnier, which is also known as the Opéra. Carefully packed away inside two large metal urns was not just one phantom of the opera but many—24 gramophone discs featuring such long-dead artists as Nellie Melba, Adelina Patti, Emma Calvé and Enrico Caruso. In 1907, the discs had been entombed, like Aida's lovers, beneath a great architectural monument.

I think that we can find that when we talk about these issues, the lines can blur.

Quote

I can accept that.  But I think that means we need to accommodate errors/omissions/distortions in a text which presents itself as having "historicity."  Utter, 100% factual accuracy is not, I think a precondition to a narrative having "historicity."  There is a very, very large difference between a narrative that is outright fictional/ahistorical (Lord of the Rings) and the corollary absence of historicity and a narrative that is substantively nonfictional/historical (Amazing Grace) and the corollary presence of historicity.

But in a sense, historicity and its problems are all about "utter 100% factual accuracy". That's the point. We are using this term inappropriately at times. And we are saying things that we don't mean because we don't always understand what we are really saying.
 

Quote

I don't understand.  The text of the Book of Mormon exists.  It had to come from somewhere.  Someone wrote it down.  Who was it?  Who formulated that narrative?  Was it Joseph Smith?  A 19th-century cabal?  Mormon (chiefly as editor) and Moroni?  What "evidence" exists for the proposition that the text is a translation of an ancient narrative discovered by Joseph Smith?  What "evidence" exists that the text is a 19th-century fabrication?  What are we to make of the statements from the Witnesses?  Are the Witnesses credible?  What countervailing evidences exist to rebut their claims?  What about the physical descriptions of the Plates (weight, appearance, color, composition, flexibility, characters, etc.)?  Are those descriptions metallurgically plausible/feasible?  What about "textual evidences" within the translated text?  Is the chiastic structure of Alma 36 significant?  What about the olive culture described in Jacob 5?  What about the apparent anachornisms?  The "deutero-Isaiah" problem?

These are all questions that grapple with "evidence."  Testimonial evidence.  Textual evidence.  Historical evidence.  Circumstantial evidence.  I think that those who are concerned about the ultimate question of "historicity" can engage in some real and meaningful study and analysis of the items to reach a conclusion about historicity or its absence.

I quite agree that we pretty much lack "direct evidence" of the provenance of the Book of Mormon.  But there is still plenty of other forms of "evidence" with which we can work in order to achieve an informed opinion.  In the end, though, it still comes down to . . . faith.

The Book of Mormon is written in English. It is a modern text. We have some sense of where it comes from. We know who wrote it down (there might be a couple of places where we still have an unknown penmanship in the original manuscript, but if there are, they are very small selections). We don't have any idea with the other things you ask about. Did Joseph Smith pick the words? Did he read them off the seer stone? You ask all these questions, but I don't think that you can really answer them. Some of these questions have something to do with understanding the narrative (where we talk about authors and language), but others simply don't (the question of the plates is completely irrelevant - artifacts themselves can tell us nothing about the text). Is the chiastic structure in Alma 36 significant? Is it something that we simply find (and is really coincidental)? Is it something put in by a translator? Did the translator have chiasmus in the text in front of him, and he kept the structure in place?

No matter how much you like the testimonial evidence, or the historical evidence, or the circumstantial evidence, none of it can speak to the historicity of the text. It cannot do what you claim it does. And you see how you are doing exactly as I suggested? What historian follows this as a routine methodology for investigating historicity?

Quote

I think the Book of Mormon is, in some ways, in the same boat.  An author, long after the historical events occurred and the historical persons have died, relied on historical documents to generally summarize and distill actual historical people and events into a necessarily brief narrative.  "Liberties" are pretty much required (Amazing Grace tells a story spanning decades in less than two hours of movie, and the Book of Mormon tells bits and pieces of a 1000-year chronology in about 500 pages), but the substantive information in both stories is represented as having historicity, and is intended to be taken as having historicity.

At some point, Hebrew scripture includes the Book of Esther. It is historical. It reads like history. It is represented as having historicity. And it is still a work of fiction.

Quote

I think Stephen Smoot has the better argument here: The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon

I don't disagree with Smoot in the sense of how we read. I think that it is important to read the Book of Mormon as a historical book (just as it's important to read Cinderella as a Fairy Tale). How we read the book, and the question of historicity only become entangled when we make assertions (like you do) that the narrative of its coming forth is somehow an argument for it's historicity.

And finally, (and perhaps this best illustrates the issue that I am trying to raise that you don't seem to understand) you make this comment:

Quote

So in the context of this thread, where the "Inspired Fiction" theory is posited as lens through which we can view the Book of Mormon, and where that lens is distinct from a separate lens of "historicity" (not perfect, pristinely-recorded, 100% accurate, but substantively), I think we need to examine the claims for "historicity."

In a real discussion of historicity, we want to answer this question that you raise - where is it not perfect? Where is not 100% percent accurate? I think that you can say that it is substantively accurate, but this comes across as nothing more than a platitude. Why? Because you cannot tell me where it is completely 100% accurate and where it isn't. You can't even tell me how much of it is perfectly accurate and how much of it isn't. You provide a sort of generalization in the absence of any real way to begin to measure these ideas. These are the kinds of questions that historicity actually tries to answer. We need to stop using that language and use other language instead. I am not complaining about suggesting that the Book of Mormon is a book about real things that happened in the past. I am complaining about the way that the word "historicity" itself is being thrown around inappropriately.

Of course, it goes deeper than this - but this is where the discussion has to start. Despite the fact that Esther in the Old Testament is fiction, it is read by lots of people who read it as if it has complete historicity. So the way that we read the text (and how it influences) is really indifferent to the question of actual historicity - it's what we believe about the text that matters. I would be much more comfortable if we talked about an authentic historical text (which doesn't carry all of these other overtones). And if you have read my FairMormon presentation on translation, you will see that I talk about the need to distinguish between the modern Book of Mormon (which of necessity represents an interpretation) and it's sources in the Gold Plates.

Perhaps I am just to fussy, or feel the need to be too precise.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

To your first point I'm not quite following your logic. I think it's an argument Joseph wouldn't have had a metallic artifact unless he was telling the truth about the plates and angel. For someone like say Vogel who simply is assuming a naturalist position where Joseph's claims are false, then of course one has to figure out an explanation for the plates. The only possible choices are no plates or forged plates. However just as it's fair for critics to attack metal in the Book of Mormon is perfectly fine for apologists to attack the issue of metal in the translation process.

Supernatural explanations for the plates can't really be tested so all we have are the witness claims that often contradict each other.  Its like trying to prove Bigfoot sightings or alien abductions.  There are no physical evidences of substance, and there are no limits to the reasons people invent for why something happened.  

I'm approaching it from a naturalistic perspective because that is where I orient these days.  Does that make me a "critic", personally I don't label myself that way, but I do consider myself a critical thinker.  I also consider myself a Mormon, and I'm sometimes an an apologist as well on certain topics.  I like the Ann Taves thesis best for a materialization of the Golden Plates that gives Joseph the benefit of the doubt from a motive perspective.  

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, there's the Peter Ingersoll affidavit.  

Then from Lucy Mack Smith's history when talking about the legal complaint against Joseph brought by Lucy Harris in 1829.  

Then there are the accounts of Harris later saying he never saw the plates physically and that even the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates physically either.   There are enough questions out there about the legitimacy of actual plates existing.  I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, only saying that there is enough to reasonably question.  

I think though one has to engage with the questioning. In particular I think you aren't quite being fair to the accounts. So while Harris says he didn't see the plates physically he does say he handled them while they were covered with a cloth. Ditto Cowdery. To the eight witnesses there's no account by any of the eight that they didn't see the plates physically other than the late Burnett claim. While it's of course fair to distrust their accounts, there's just no account that the eight only had a visionary experience of the plate and even the two who did also had physical data as well. Taves basically just discounts any account of the physicality saying they were just repeating Joseph's descriptions. (See page 39 & 40) That's deeply problematic to the evidence although perhaps understandable given the thesis she's attempting to defend.

Enough people handled the plates through the cloth that the "sand" account is pretty dubious at best. Even if one thinks it a fraud one has to explain those encounters with the cloth covered plates. That means lead or tin sheets at a time when Joseph was so poor he couldn't have afforded such sheets.

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Pete Ahlstrom]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  I think some people leave over "historicity" issues, but there is a pastiche of commingled reasons people cite when leaving.  If anything, I think abandoning the foundational truth claims of Joseph Smith would accelerate departures, a la "What!?  You've told me my entire life that the Book of Mormon is about real people and real events, and now your saying it's just a piece of fiction?  That's the last straw, I'm outta here!"

But this is just a purely hypothetical exercise anyway.  I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the Church to abandon its claims about the Book of Mormon.

I think the "domino effect" would go the other way.  If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, then Joseph Smith was a liar / fraud / crazy guy.  And if Joseph was deluded / insane / profoundly dishonest in his foundational claims, then why accept him as prophet?  And we we reject him, we must reject his successors, and the whole kit n' caboodle.

I don't think any of us are "100% authentic."  We all have things we are not sure about.  But we aren't "100%" perfect, either.  Hence we go to Church.

Your proposed course of action would gut the LDS Church.  It would destroy its foundational elements.  It would undermine the veracity of its truth claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with you that historicity is the church's line in the sand and church authority/joseph smith as prophet is seemingly tied to it. However, couldn't joseph be rescued with some sort of "lying for the lord" or something along the lines of Holland's wrong roads story where he says God deliberately led him down the wrong path so doubt would be quickly erased?

Edited September 28, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I feel like if the church abandoned the historicity claim on the BoM it would go a long way to dampen the number of people that leave.  

There would be a domino effect and a spectrum of belief would be more palatable and more accepted at the local level.

It seems like right now, a member with a testimony of god and the basics of the gospel, but doubts about the historicity of the BoM would not be able to 100% authentic at church (in most wards)

I realize that the church is not going to take any cues from me, but that is what I would do if I was in charge (I know, I know....good thing I am not in charge)

From my experience, most active LDS are naive to the discussions about BoM historicity.  I can understand the church's hesitancy to promote a more nuanced approach to this issue, because the majority of active members aren't aware of this being an issue at all, and the potential for a negative response is what they are worried about.  They are taking a very very slow approach to this inoculation strategy, only time will tell if this was a smart approach or not.  

[FearlessFixxer]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  I think some people leave over "historicity" issues, but there is a pastiche of commingled reasons people cite when leaving.  If anything, I think abandoning the foundational truth claims of Joseph Smith would accelerate departures, a la "What!?  You've told me my entire life that the Book of Mormon is about real people and real events, and now your saying it's just a piece of fiction?  That's the last straw, I'm outta here!"

But this is just a purely hypothetical exercise anyway.  I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the Church to abandon its claims about the Book of Mormon.

I think the "domino effect" would go the other way.  If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, then Joseph Smith was a liar / fraud / crazy guy.  And if Joseph was deluded / insane / profoundly dishonest in his foundational claims, then why accept him as prophet?  And we we reject him, we must reject his successors, and the whole kit n' caboodle.

I don't think any of us are "100% authentic."  We all have things we are not sure about.  But we aren't "100%" perfect, either.  Hence we go to Church.

Your proposed course of action would gut the LDS Church.  It would destroy its foundational elements.  It would undermine the veracity of its truth claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see what you are saying and I don't totally disagree.  There would be people who would leave, but when the dust settles then I think in the long term it would be a net positive to membership numbers.  I could be wrong.

[FearlessFixxer]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From my experience, most active LDS are naive to the discussions about BoM historicity.  I can understand the church's hesitancy to promote a more nuanced approach to this issue, because the majority of active members aren't aware of this being an issue at all, and the potential for a negative response is what they are worried about.  They are taking a very very slow approach to this inoculation strategy, only time will tell if this was a smart approach or not.  

I agree.  If it happens it will be slow and over time.  I think it would start with people like Al Fox or other popular speakers introducing the idea that it is ok to reject the historicity part of the BoM as long as you have a testimony of the message.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think though one has to engage with the questioning. In particular I think you aren't quite being fair to the accounts. So while Harris says he didn't see the plates physically he does say he handled them while they were covered with a cloth. Ditto Cowdery. To the eight witnesses there's no account by any of the eight that they didn't see the plates physically. While it's of course fair to distrust their accounts, there's just no account that the eight only had a visionary experience of the plate and even the two who did also had physical data as well.

Enough people handled the plates through the cloth that the "sand" account is pretty dubious at best. Even if one thinks it a fraud one has to explain those encounters with the cloth covered plates. That means lead sheets at a time when Joseph was so poor he couldn't have afforded led sheets.

Clark, when you have contradictory statements by an important witness like a Harris or Cowdery, how do you determine which statements are more likely to reflect the facts?  It sounds to me like you're dismissing or devaluing the statements that don't align with your perspective, and elevating those that do.  

You're also overstating the evidence about the eight witnesses, we simply don't have statements from all of them on this subject, so you're preferencing the statements that we have and applying that to all eight witnesses.  Also, consider how witnesses of Strange didn't deny their experience either, or look at Martin Harris later statements about the flying scroll. 

I think you're being unfair in so readily dismissing the sand accounts, they aren't dubious at best, they just don't align with your paradigm.  And you tell me Joseph couldn't have afforded metal plates which seems to be evidence that he didn't have metal plates, not evidence for metal plates (weird how you're interpreting the evidence this way.)  And why do you keep bringing up "fraud", I haven't said that once in any of my posts on this subject, you seem to want to jump to this kind of a defense which tells me you're not being objective about the evidence.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Supernatural explanations for the plates can't really be tested

Nor can naturalistic ones.  I mean, how would we, in 2017, go about "testing" the "Nearly 200 years ago Joseph fabricated a set of fake plates and passed them off as real" theory?

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

so all we have are the witness claims that often contradict each other. 

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing the overall weight of the evidence as to witness statements.  I am not persuaded that the contradictions are sufficiently material as to dismiss all witness statements.  Taken as a whole, these statements provide us with quite a few coherent data points that are "testable" in same sense.  For example, the weight and dimensions of the plates is somewhat testable.  The metallurgical composition is less so, but theories about a tumbaga alloy appear to do a pretty good job of reconciling several interrelated data points (the gold appearance of the plates, their ability to hold etched symbols on the surface, the weight of the plates relative to their dimensions and proposed metallurgical composition, etc.).

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its like trying to prove Bigfoot sightings or alien abductions. 

Poisoning the well, you are.  Boring, it is.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are no physical evidences of substance, and there are no limits to the reasons people invent for why something happened.  

Yes, there are limits.  I'd expound, but I'm not persuaded you are interested in a substantive, good faith, civil discussion.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm approaching it from a naturalistic perspective because that is where I orient these days. 

I respect that.  I would be interested in a coherent "naturalistic" explanation for the Plates.  So far the explanations I have seen have been . . . rather poor.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does that make me a "critic", personally I don't label myself that way, but I do consider myself a critical thinker.  I also consider myself a Mormon, and I'm sometimes an an apologist as well on certain topics.  I like the Ann Taves thesis best for a materialization of the Golden Plates that gives Joseph the benefit of the doubt from a motive perspective.  

Okay.  I'm in the midst of assessing her thesis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree with you that historicity is the church's line in the sand and church authority/joseph smith as prophet is seemingly tied to it. However, couldn't joseph be rescued with some sort of "lying for the lord" or something along the lines of Holland's wrong roads story where he says God deliberately led him down the wrong path so doubt would be quickly erased?

Elder Holland's story is nothing akin to "Lying for the Lord," which itself is a canard and a damnable lie.  You should be ashamed for presenting it.

Here is what Elder Holland said:

Quote

Wasting time on a wrong road now meant we would face the difficult task of making our way home in the dark.

As we did whenever we had a family problem or concern, we prayed. After we both said amen, Dad turned and asked me what I thought we should do. I answered and said, “All during the prayer, I just kept feeling, ‘Go to the left.’”

Dad responded, “I had the exact same impression.”

This was my first experience receiving and recognizing revelation.

We started down the dirt road to the left. We had traveled only about 10 minutes when our road came to a sudden dead-end. My father promptly whipped the truck around, roared back to that fork in the path, and started down the road to the right. Fortunately, there was still just enough light to help us navigate the web of dirt roads that would take us home.

We were almost back to St. George, now on roads my father knew well, and the thick darkness of the night was lit by pinholes of thousands of stars.

I was troubled. With my head resting on my dad’s leg and my legs stretched across the seat, I asked, “Dad, why did we both feel like Heavenly Father told us to go down the road to the left when it was the wrong road?”

My dad said, “Matty, I’ve been thinking and silently praying about that same thing all the way home, because I really did feel a very distinct impression to take the road to the left.”

I was relieved that my first experience with revelation had a “second witness.”

He continued, “The Lord has taught us an important lesson today. Because we were prompted to take the road to the left, we quickly discovered which one was the right one. When we turned around and got on the right road, I was able to travel along its many unfamiliar twists and turnoffs perfectly confident I was headed in the right direction.

“If we had started on the right road, we might have driven for 30 minutes or so, become uneasy with the unfamiliar surroundings, and been tempted to turn back. If we had done that, we would have discovered the dead-end so late that it would have been too dark to find our way back in totally unfamiliar territory.”

I understood and have never forgotten the lesson my Heavenly Father and earthly father taught me that afternoon. Sometimes in response to prayers, the Lord may guide us down what seems to be the wrong road—or at least a road we don’t understand—so, in due time, He can get us firmly and without question on the right road. Of course, He would never lead us down a path of sin, but He might lead us down a road of valuable experience. Sometimes in our journey through life we can get from point A to point C only by taking a short side road to point B. We had prayed that we could make it safely home that day, and we did.

So no, Elder Holland did not claim that God "lied" to or deceived him, as you falsely suggest.

No, Elder Holland did not claim that God misled him.  "Sometimes in response to prayers, the Lord may guide us down what seems to be the wrong road—or at least a road we don’t understand—so, in due time, He can get us firmly and without question on the right road."

I don't see how Elder Holland's eminently sound counsel is at all relevant to the issue of the Plates.  But it did let you slip in an scurrilous falsehood about the Church, so there's that...

I think the good faith has gone out of our interaction, so I'll leave the last word to you.

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I see what you are saying and I don't totally disagree.  There would be people who would leave, but when the dust settles then I think in the long term it would be a net positive to membership numbers.  I could be wrong.

I think we can just agree to disagree.  How's that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Elder Holland's story is nothing akin to "Lying for the Lord," which itself is a canard and a damnable lie.  You should be ashamed for presenting it.

Here is what Elder Holland said:

So no, Elder Holland did not claim that God "lied" to him or led him down the "wrong" path, as you falsely suggest.

No, Elder Holland did not claim that God misled him.  "Sometimes in response to prayers, the Lord may guide us down what seems to be the wrong road—or at least a road we don’t understand—so, in due time, He can get us firmly and without question on the right road."

I don't see how Elder Holland's eminently sound counsel is at all relevant to the issue of the Plates.  But it did let you slip in an scurrilous falsehood about the Church, so there's that...

I think the good faith has gone out of our interaction, so I'll leave the last word to you.

-Smac

You are free to believe what you want. You are also free to accuse me of bad faith due to mere disagreement. However, I didn't equate lying for the lord and what holland did (notice the "or").

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Clark, when you have contradictory statements by an important witness like a Harris or Cowdery, how do you determine which statements are more likely to reflect the facts?  It sounds to me like you're dismissing or devaluing the statements that don't align with your perspective, and elevating those that do.  

Again though I think it's important to get straight what is being claimed and what is contradictory. I have no trouble with Cowdery or Harris having a visionary experience yet people handling physical plates. Clearly for a time Harris doubted his experience and then later came to stop doubting it. More important are I think the eight witnesses along with other witnesses of the physical plates such as Josiah Stowell. In particular he's significant since he wasn't an insider like Lucy or Emma.

So I disagree I'm devaluing statements that don't align with my view. I'm simply noting what the witnesses claimed to have known and how. For instance when Harris during his period of doubt says no one saw the plates including the eight and Joseph, upon what basis is he able to make that claim?

As to evaluating the witnesses, I think there's a big difference between third hand accounts and direct experience. So an account by an antagonistic witness claiming Joseph told him it was all a fraud and was just sand seems problematic when people testify there were gold looking leafs. That's not just privileging one witness above others but noting the rather common treatment of witnesses in law or history.

Is it possible it's all fraud? Given the public evidence of course one can rationally belief it was a fraud. However rationally believing there were no metal plates of some sort seems much more difficult to argue for. That's why even Taves has Joseph making the plates at a certain point (without really engaging with why that'd be problematic)

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[FearlessFixxer]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can just agree to disagree.  How's that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Absolutely.