Liberal Theology and Traditional Lds Apologetics

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just curious- how does history "validate" the atonement?

Historically how does one man's death 2000 years ago cause your sins to be forgiven?  What objective link could there possibly be that would make that a rational connection strong enough that one would use the word "validates"?

"Jesus died on Calvary therefore my sins are forgiven". 

I get it in the world of faith but as a historian, where is the syllogism?   Where is the connection ?

You are not correctly interpreting what I said. That is why hermeneutics, even in conversation, is so very important - especially in monological conversations such as on this forum. What I meant to communicate is that in my faith experience, traditions, testimonies, witnessing, martyrdom, historic teachings, and the experience of persecution are all collectively and each individually very important. Each of those we learn about as we study church history. Church history is a window into those who have suffered, testified, and who overcame great obstacles for their faith. Their lives are inspirational and a witness to the continuity of faith over the centuries. Their creeds are irrelevant. Their lived lives speak volumes. is inspirational, and yes, validates. That is one reason that Foxes Book of Martyrs is the closest thing to a second scripture (I am exaggerating when I say that)  in the Anabaptist community and home.

The church history historian gathers the testimonies, the accounts of faithful lives, and those who weren't quite so faithful (like the video above) to provide a record of lives lived faithfully in the presence of huge problems. And these are not always from a thousand years ago. Canadian Anabaptists are very interested in the study of the Holdomor right now. In the early 1930s, perhaps 30-50,000 German speaking Ukrainian Anabaptists were killed, died, banished to Siberia, or were exiled to Latin America and Canada by Stalinist extremists. Some of this is due to them being ethnically German, some because of their prosperity ( they were the upper class peasants as strange as that sounds), and some for their faith in an atheistic and anticlerical society. This is a modern part of Church History. The faithful and serious Anabaptist church historian has to seek to understand the causes -- they weren't all faith-related. Some were economic, agrarian, and simple grudges settled in an unsettled time. Here in Mexico, Catholic historians have the same kind of thing in the study of the Cristero fighting from 1926-1940 - the exact same years. Almost half as many people died or were displaced in those years as in the much better known "Mexican revolution."

And of course Mormon church historians and faithful folks in the pews do the same things. Faithful LDS church historians debate with each other about causation. Anyone who has attended an MHA meeting knows that. Read the studies of the Missouri period by LeSueur and those by Baugh and you won't be certain you are reading about the same people in the same time. That is what makes good church history so interesting. So yes, I find inspiration in the history of the Christian Church, including the LDS Church.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Tishbite said:

Quote

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires an affirmative rejection of The Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

While agree that viewing the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" does require "an affirmative rejection of the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is," I do not think that necessarily entails the death of the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Yes, it seems that some can make a fictional Book of Mormon work in their worldview.  While I find this to be a precarious position, I respect it and welcome such people in full fellowship.

Quote

Much of the Bible is pseudepigrapha, and Jews and Christians still find scriptural value in its words.

Yes, but I don't think pseudepigraphic outlook necessarily creates the same "historicity" problem as we see in the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon.

Quote

Moses did not actually write the Pentateuch,

Jeff Bradshaw addresses this issue fairly well.

But does the Documentary Hypothesis posit that Moses is entirely ahistorical?  That he never existed?

Quote

Job is probably religious fiction,

John S. Tanner addresses this well.

Quote

the second part of Isaiah was not written by the same person as the first part, 

Yes, we've had plenty of discussion about the Deutero-Isaiah issue.

Quote

and even the gospels were most likely not authored by those to whom they are traditionally ascribed. But that does not necessarily mean they are not necessarily inspired, or that we cannot at least find inspiration in them.

But surely you can see the qualitative and quantitative differences between, on the one hand, apparent/likely misattributions (who wrote what and when) and, on the other hand, the utterly ahistorical "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon, which requires a rejection of the existence of the Lehites/Jaredites/Mulekites, rejection of the text for what it claims to be, rejection of Joseph Smith's testimony about the text, rejection of the existence of the plates, rejection of the statements of the Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses, rejection of Joseph Smith's theophanies with Moroni, and on and on?

Quote

The Book of Mormon could be similarly viewed as pseudepigraphic without rejecting their scriptural value, and such a view is not the same as the illogical rejection of the existence of Christ while still claiming his divine Saviorship. 

With respect, I disagree.  The book is not presented as "fiction," either in its content or by Joseph Smith.  To call it "inspired fiction" is to reject what the book and Joseph claim it to be.  

I will elucidate: Historicity matters vis-à-vis The Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel.  It is an essential component of my faith. On this point I agree with Joseph Smith, who said (emphases added): "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."

The historicity of God, the "idea that he actually exists," is a dealmaker for me.  The absence of it is a dealbreaker.  If God does exist, then I can continue with an inquiry as to His "character, perfections, and attributes," His relationship to and plan for us, and so on.  But if God does not exist, if He's just a piece of "fiction" that makes people feel good, then I would not stay in the Church.  

Similarly, I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity.   The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly.  As President Hinckley put it (speaking broadly of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling): "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

My view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture.  Consider the following observations (emphases added):

• Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)
• In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I agree with these sentiments.  I think historicity is integral to meaningful acceptance of The Book of Mormon, of Joseph Smtih, and of the Restored Gospel generally.

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it.

I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 15, 2020 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the dictionary definition is a good place to start: "historical authenticity."

To that we can add this bit of sage wisdom from Joseph Smith:

As I see it, the "historicity" of Jesus Christ is more or less synonymous with "the idea that he actually exists."  That He is not a figment of our imagination.  He is not a fictional hero, like Superman or Captain America.

I think it is not really possible for "any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation" without that first, vital point: acceptance (usually on faith) that God "actually exists."

Similarly, I submit that this principle extends to The Book of Mormon.  The "Inspired Fiction" concept would have us reject the reality of the Lehites/Jaredites/Mulekites, and instead view them as admirable, but nevertheless fictional, characters in a story imaginged by Joseph Smith.  I just cannot get on board wtih that.  Such a sentiment requires us to reject virtually all of the narrative of the Restoration.

Thanks,

-Smac

The "ideas" mentioned here are faith based, not based in history.

How do we know from history that God exists and all the rest of it?

I speak with him daily, and so do others, but I have no objective evidence for their subjective claims, just as they have no objective evidence for mine.

The historical evidence I have for the existence of God dates from my first experiences of God. If you want to call that history fine.

 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The "ideas" mentioned here are faith based, not based in history.

Faith in Jesus Christ only makes sense if He was/is "historically authentic" (as opposed to a fictional character).

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How do we know from history that God exists and all the rest of it?

We've been over this.

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I speak with him daily, and so do others, but I have no objective evidence for their subjective claims, just as they have no objective evidence for mine.

I'm not speaking of evidentiary issues.

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The historical evidence I have for the existence of God dates from my first experiences of God. If you want to call that history fine.

Okay.

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Faith in Jesus Christ only makes sense if He was/is "historically authentic" (as opposed to a fictional character).

Not really.  One can certainly take the Jesus story as myth and still have faith in Jesus Christ.  It simply means they don't think he was born of a virgin, died and raised himself and all of that.  But, they could still believe Jesus Christ is God's SOn sitting in yonder heavens being and advocate and all of that.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We've been over this.

I'm not speaking of evidentiary issues.

Okay.

-Smac

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Not really.  One can certainly take the Jesus story as myth and still have faith in Jesus Christ. 

Yeah but but wouldn't make good sense, would it.  People would be believing in someone who was not real, or not as real they believed him to be.  Let's not encourage that kind of belief, okay? Let's just believe in things that are real.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It simply means they don't think he was born of a virgin, died and raised himself and all of that.  But, they could still believe Jesus Christ is God's SOn sitting in yonder heavens being and advocate and all of that.  

 

Yeah, not a good thing to do, generally.  It would be akin to believing in Greek mythology, believing they lived but were not as the myths portray them to be.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Let's just believe in things that are real.

Like invisible people, spirits and angels and clear parables with no historical evidence for them.

Best wishes 

Edited June 16, 2020 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet again we totally agree!-

I'm glad.  For a second I thought I was going to have to straighten you out...  

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Because there is less objective evidence, as you say, in history itself and then we add more uncertainty with spiritual statements attributed to "this Yeshua guy"  the evidence gets so mushy that what rational person would base their eternal destiny on it??

There is actually logic and beauty in His teachings, which make His a logical course to follow... even if you aren't concerned with your eternal destiny. 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So for the spiritual statements we have spiritual evidence, which in my opinion is capable of producing "knowledge" and certainty- and  the historical statements producing mush.

Take your pick!  Mush or certainty?  When God speaks to you there is no going back to mush and no need for it!

I understand your point... believe me. When God speaks to you, it is actually dangerous to go back.... spiritually that is. You were just sounding like you were equating historicity with objectivity, and I felt compelled to clear that up for the reader...  

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I'm glad.  For a second I thought I was going to have to straighten you out...  

There is actually logic and beauty in His teachings, which make His a logical course to follow... even if you aren't concerned with your eternal destiny. 

I understand your point... believe me. When God speaks to you, it is actually dangerous to go back.... spiritually that is. You were just sounding like you were equating historicity with objectivity, and I felt compelled to clear that up for the reader...  

 

History is mostly secondary source  "hearsay" statements which would not be admissible in court. 

No I would never say history is "objective". For me a statement is not objective unless the observation can be replicated experimentally.

That's a little hard without a time machine.

Alma gets that in the 32nd chapter.

Even spiritual experiences can be "objective" by trying belief in the concept and see how it grows in your heart, producing certainty and therefore "knowledge".

That's straight Alma and straight Wm. James 

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Like invisible people, spirits and angels and clear parables with no historical evidence for them.

Best wishes 

If someone or something didn't exist as a historical reality in the past, then it did not really exist even if some people believe it did.

[Nevo]

I guess I am in the "Inspired Fiction" camp, although I don't really like that label. 

I consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture and I feel closer to God when I read it. I find many of its teachings to be beautiful and profound. It speaks truth to me and invites me to be a better person.

But I don't think it describes historical people or events. I used to hold out hope that perhaps some historical kernel underlay the stories, like a palimpsest. For a long time I adopted as my working hypothesis Blake Ostler's theory of the Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an ancient source. That at least allowed for the existence of the gold plates and Moroni. But in recent years I've become increasingly persuaded that the Book of Mormon is wholly modern.

Nephi as trained scribe/metal-worker, the first-person narrative, the Brass Plates, the transoceanic voyage, the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah.... None of these strike me as historically credible. And that's just 1 Nephi. Add to that the anachronisms and the manifest implausibility of two nations being destroyed down to the last man on the same hill for the same reason ("secret combinations") and it seems we're dealing with something other than historical fact.

Of course, the main evidence for the Book of Mormon's modern origin is its literary dependence on the King James Bible. To take just one example, Abinadi's argument for the Resurrection in Mosiah 16:6-11 uses Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as parts of the Gospel of John, though in slightly disguised form. As Nicholas Frederick observes, "Abinadi's speech represents a sophisticated weaving of language from the New Testament with Abinadi's own, careful to maintain the important terms and structure while also altering the order of words" (in Abinadi: He Came Among Them in Disguise, ed. Shon D. Hopkin, 131).

Thomas Wayment has recently written that "Joseph's engagement with the Bible was both interpretive and thoughtful, suggesting that the Book of Mormon, in part, expresses the intellectual collision of biblical texts that already existed in Joseph Smith's mind through his cultural upbringing, and that those texts were revised through a process that can be described as inspiration" (in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, 668).

Joseph Smith's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants interact with the New Testament in much the same way the Book of Mormon does. Here is Nicholas Frederick again: "Very rarely does the Doctrine and Covenants simply insert allusions to the New Testament in a word-for-word manner. The revelations maintain a careful balance between maintaining enough of the New Testament's language to preserve the phrasal link with it, while at the same time changing enough of the language so that the allusion works within its new context almost seamlessly" (in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, 720). We see something similar in Joseph's 1832 history.

 All of this, I submit, points to Joseph Smith as the human author of the Book of Mormon.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Nevo

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I guess I am in the "Inspired Fiction" camp, although I don't really like that label. 

I consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture and I feel closer to God when I read it. I find many of its teachings to be beautiful and profound. It speaks truth to me and invites me to be a better person.

But I don't think it describes historical people or events. I used to hold out hope that perhaps some historical kernel underlay the stories, like a palimpsest. For a long time I adopted as my working hypothesis Blake Ostler's theory of the Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an ancient source. That at least allowed for the existence of the gold plates and Moroni. But in recent years I've become increasingly persuaded that the Book of Mormon is wholly modern.

Nephi as trained scribe/metal-worker, the first-person narrative, the Brass Plates, the transoceanic voyage, the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah.... None of these strike me as historically credible. And that's just 1 Nephi. Add in the anachronisms and the manifest implausibility of two nations being destroyed down to the last man on the same hill for the same reason ("secret combinations") and it seems we're dealing with something other than historical fact.

Of course, the main evidence for the Book of Mormon's modern origin is its literary dependence on the King James Bible. To take just one example, Abinadi's argument for the Resurrection in Mosiah 16:6-11 uses Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as parts of the Gospel of John, though in slightly disguised form. As Nicholas Frederick observes, "Abinadi's speech represents a sophisticated weaving of language from the New Testament with Abinadi's own, careful to maintain the important terms and structure while also altering the order of words" (in Abinadi: He Came Among Them in Disguise, ed. Shon D. Hopkin, 131).

Thomas Wayment has recently written that "Joseph's engagement with the Bible was both interpretive and thoughtful, suggesting that the Book of Mormon, in part, expresses the intellectual collision of biblical texts that already existed in Joseph Smith's mind through his cultural upbringing, and that those texts were revised through a process that can be described as inspiration" (in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, 668).

Joseph Smith's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants interact with the New Testament in much the same way the Book of Mormon does. Here is Nicholas Frederick again: "Very rarely does the Doctrine and Covenants simply insert allusions to the New Testament in a word-for-word manner. The revelations maintain a careful balance between maintaining enough of the New Testament's language to preserve the phrasal link with it, while at the same time changing enough of the language so that the allusion works within its new context almost seamlessly" (in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, 720). We see something similar in Joseph's 1832 history.

 All of this, I submit, points to Joseph Smith as the human author of the Book of Mormon.

So, there you are.  Someone who doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. So now my question to myself is: What am I going to do with you?  How should I respond to your unbelief, or assertion to the contrary?

I suppose I will simply respect your right to believe whatever you believe while I go on my way relying on the faith God has given to me.  Maybe while saying a word or two about how I believe you should ask God to tell you what is true.

[Nevo]

Kent P. Jackson asked: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book?"

I'm not sure that Joseph Smith "repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied" about either the Book of Mormon or his experiences with angels. Joseph Smith lived in another world from ours, one that embraced the supernatural. As David D. Hall wrote of an earlier generation of New Englanders: "Theirs was a world of wonders. Ghosts came to people in the night, and trumpets blared, though no one saw the trumpeters. . . . The townsfolk of New Haven saw a phantom ship sail regally into the harbor. . . . Voices spoke from heaven and children from their cradles. All of these events were 'wonders' to the colonists, events betokening the presence of the supernatural" (Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 71). This visionary culture persisted into Joseph Smith's day. As the historian Adam Jortner observes: "Americans of the early republic lived in a world of miraculous reports and supernatural adventures, backed with the language of facticity and sense evidence."

Quote

There were at least six well-known angelic visitations in the United States between 1776 and 1830. . . . Caleb Rich encountered 'a person, or the likeness of one...with a bible in his hand' in April 1778. This angel sermonized on the biblical truth of universal salvation, then vanished. Rich joined the Universalists. In Appalachia, Adam Livingston applied to a Catholic priest to exorcise his haunted house, and once the ritual was completed, an angel appeared, 'and staid with them three days and nights & instructed them in all points of Religion.' Livingston became a Catholic. The Seneca Prophet and the Delaware holy woman Beata each encountered angelic beings between 1799 and 1806. The Prophet referred to angels who invested him with supernatural powers when he met with President Jefferson in 1802. Elizabeth Babcock received 235 angelic visitations between 1806 and 1811. She and her husband broke with the Freewill Baptists, forming a new church based on the primacy and authority of direct contact with God through angels. Similarly blessed with manifold angelic visits were the Shakers, whose sojourn in America quickly turned biblical: when the sect settled in Ashfield, Massachussetts, the town became the battleground where 'Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels.' The battle could be heard for seven miles, according to the 1816 Testimonies of the Ever Blessed Mother Ann Lee. Thus, by the time Joseph Smith had his first visit from the angel Moroni (traditionally dated to 1823), angels had already visited Universalists, Catholics, Native American prophets, Freewill Baptists, and Shakers—and those are simply the angelic visits whose subjects did not claim to be dreaming.

— Adam Jortner, Blood from the Sky: Miracles and Politics in the Early American Republic (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2017), 1, 7.

The Three Witnesses were particularly open to visions and the supernatural. As one contemporary reported of Martin Harris, "no matter where he went, he saw visions and supernatural appearances all around him. He told a gentleman in Palmyra, after one of his excursions to Pennsylvania, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another" (Vogel, EMD, 2:271). After relating a story about parties unknown plowing his field one night and meeting Moroni one day while riding in a wagon with Oliver and Joseph (he was carrying a knapsack and told them, "I am going to Cumorah"), David Whitmer told Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in 1878: "When we see things in the Spirit and by the power of God they seem to be right here present. The signs of the times indicate the near approach of the coming forth of the other plates, but when it will be, I cannot tell. The Three Nephites are at work among the lost tribes and elsewhere. John the Revelator is at work..." (EMD, 5:45-46).

The past is indeed a foreign country. I don't know what the seventeenth-century New Englanders or the Seneca Prophet or Joseph and the Witnesses experienced—it doesn't map to my experience of reality—but I have no reason to believe that they were all deliberately lying.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Nevo

[Nevo]

Since I'm thinking about it, I might as well also mention an interesting article by M. David Litwa. His article isn't about the Book of Mormon but rather about the "use of an eyewitness as a literary character to guarantee the (spiritual and moral) truth of a narrative" in ancient texts, specifically in the Gospel of John. I've excerpted those portions of the article that I think have resonance for our discussion here.

Quote

To understand the Beloved Disciple as eyewitness in the Gospel of John, we compare other eyewitness claims in contemporaneous literature. This literature indicates that the appeal to an eyewitness was a recognisable historiographical convention. It helped to make a story appear historical. Historical discourse was culturally valued in the ancient world and coded as ‘true’. Thus writers seeking to attain plausibility used the tropes of historical discourse, including the appeal to an eyewitness (M. David Litwa, "Literary Eyewitnesses: The Appeal to an Eyewitness in John and Contemporaneous Literature," New Testament Studies 64 [2018], 346).

One piece of literature he analyzes is a history of the Trojan War by Dictys of Crete, who claimed to be an eyewitness. 

Quote

When he died and was buried, wooden tablets inscribed with his work were laid in his tomb. Centuries later, these tablets were rediscovered when the historian’s grave was opened in the thirteenth year of the Roman emperor Nero (66 CE). Local shepherds unearthed a sealed tin box which they thought contained hidden treasure. They pried it open, but were disappointed when they found only wooden tablets inscribed with a strange script. They delivered the tablets to a local magistrate, who brought the work to the attention of the emperor. Nero commissioned a Greek translation of the text and lodged it in his library. Such, at any rate, is the cover story provided by the document’s prologue. (347-48)

😮

Quote

The only problem with this whole scenario is that, in the view of all scholars working today, Dictys of Crete did not exist. He is entirely the creation of an author who wrote the Diary presumably in the first century CE (a papyrus from the early second century survives). This author portrayed Dictys as an eyewitness, but Dictys himself (never mentioned in Homer) is a purely literary character previously unknown. The real sources for the Diary were the Homeric epics, which the author of the Diary attempted, in various ways, to revise and historicise. . . .

Whether or not the ancients realised it, ‘Dictys of Crete’, or rather the person who forged the Diary of the Trojan War, was a literary artist posing as an eyewitness to make vivid and valuable historical fiction seem like history. Yet ‘Dictys’ was not alone. Many other revisionist accounts of the Trojan War circulated in antiquity under the names of so-called eyewitnesses. They include the previously mentioned ‘Dares of Phrygia’, as well as ‘Sisyphus of Cos’, ‘Pheidalius of Corinth’, ‘Antipatrus the Acanthian’, ‘Corinnus of Ilium’ and ‘Cephalus of Gergithion’. All these names appear to be invented. Still, the clear details of their accounts, the stories about how their writings were found and especially their eyewitness claims served to authenticate their accounts for generations of readers. (349)

Litwa then turns his attention to the case of Antonius Diogenes:

Quote

Antonius Diogenes (writing during the reign of Domitian or in its wake) wrote a work called the Wonders beyond Thule. Unfortunately this 24-book composition does not survive. Thus scholars must depend upon a summary of the Patriarch Photius (810-91 CE) and scant papyrus fragments.

According to Photius, Antonius’ claimed source was a document inscribed on cypress-wood tablets. This document was buried in the funerary urn of a certain Deinias. This Deinias himself played a decisive role in the narrative of the Wonders. He is the main narrator of the story, which he relates to an Arcadian ambassador named Cymbas. By his own testimony, Deinias set out on a journey for the sake of historical inquiry (κατὰ ζήτησιν ἱστορίας). He claims to be an eyewitness of some rather fantastic events, or at least to have heard them from eyewitnesses.

At the end of his life, Deinias was buried in the city of Tyre. After the Greeks under Alexander the Great sacked Tyre in 332 BCE, the tablets were discovered in Deinias’ tomb. One of Alexander’s officials, a man called Balagros, wrote about the discovery to his wife Phila. This letter, which provided precise details concerning the tomb inscriptions, was integrated into another letter that came to serve as a preface to the whole work.

As in the case of Dictys, modern readers suspect that the ‘discovery’ of ancient tablets written by an eyewitness is a literary device. (350)

Litwa suggests that "introducing an eyewitness was a standard historiographical convention used to authenticate revisionary works that otherwise might have been questioned for their novelty in form and content" (355).

Quote

Strikingly, Damis, Dictys, Deinias and the Beloved Disciple all wrote down their testimony. . . . By representing the original testimony as a document in stable form, the perception of its accuracy was increased for the community of readers. The eyewitness’ testimony was not lost or allowed to degrade through the vagaries of oral transmission. Of course, the original draft of the eyewitness’ testimony was lost in the case of Damis and the Beloved Disciple; thus its original wording could not be verified. Yet this may have been the intent of the authentication device. A past eyewitness is generated whose testimony is deliberately put beyond empirical verification. (357-58)

Litwa closes with some reflections on the issue of using deceit to convey truth.

Quote

Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery, though controversial in some respects, has demonstrated that Christian authors felt little inhibition about employing deceit in the cause of truth. We know that contemporaneous biographies readily mixed fact with fiction, especially when the fiction had some profound moral or spiritual payoff. . . .

The character of the Beloved Disciple may be literary, but the faith that he inspires is real. ‘These things are written that you may believe’ (John 20.31). Presumably, this is why the Beloved Disciple was written too: to confirm the faith of those who had it and to inspire faith in those who did not. What precisely does the Beloved Disciple help one to believe? For the Christian author, it is a message that gives no mere temporal benefit or slight moral improvement. It is a message that gives life. In itself, a lie does not give life, though it may open up the possibility for it. . . . The author of John . . . wrote a book that he believed was true – historically but especially spiritually – and used a literary device to support that truth. (360-61)

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Nevo

[smac97]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Faith in Jesus Christ only makes sense if He was/is "historically authentic" (as opposed to a fictional character).

Not really. 

I think reasonable minds can disagree about this.  I cannot place reliance for my salvation on a fiction.

As I've said before:

Quote

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

I'm sure there are some folks who are able to pound the square peg of "Inspired Fiction" into the round hole of the Restored Gospel.

However, I am sure there are people who, having abandoned belief in The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be (and for what Joseph Smith, and the Witnesses, and the Church claim it to be), were not able to stay the course.  They're gone.  And the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon was a key part of their departure.  I find that quite sad and troubling.

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

One can certainly take the Jesus story as myth and still have faith in Jesus Christ. 

I think that's pretty hard to maintain.  And unrealistic.  This particularly so in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  Again, from Joseph Smith:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that he actually exists;

Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes;

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. 

I just can't wrap my head around the sentiment of "I reject the existence of God.  It's a fairy tale.  And the divine sonship of Jesus Christ is, ipso facto, a myth.  I reject that Jesus Christ was born to Mary, lived a sinless life, atoned for my sins, was killed, was physically resurrected in glorified form, and ascended to heaven.  But I 'still have faith in Jesus Christ.'"

As Joseph said, without a belief that God "actually exists" the faith of "every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive."

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It simply means they don't think he was born of a virgin, died and raised himself and all of that. 

In short, it "simply" eviscerates the essence and significance of what "faith in Jesus Christ" means.

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But, they could still believe Jesus Christ is God's Son sitting in yonder heavens being and advocate and all of that.  

Could you elaborate on this?  Are you making this up as you go along, or is there some sort of systematized, coherent explanation of what you are saying?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

All of this, I submit, points to Joseph Smith as the human author of the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand "points to" does not make the full case, much less impugn the book's religious value.

It cannot be "proven" either way and yet again we can still take it for its religious value.  I oppose the notion that the book is "fiction" in any  complete sense of the word, though I am sure everyone here puts me in that camp.

To get a little technical, I believe that the statement "The Book of Mormon is fiction" is a dialetheistic statement that can be both true and false at the same time, due to the ambiguity of that statement. No I am not kidding. 

Bolding and italics are mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism#Dialetheism_resolves_certain_paradoxes

 

Quote

 

Dialetheism (from Greek δι- di- 'twice' and ἀλήθεια alḗtheia 'truth') is the view that there are statements which are both true and false. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms.

Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. A common mistake resulting from this is to reject dialetheism on the basis that, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes a theorem if a contradiction is true, trivialising such systems when dialetheism is included as an axiom.^[1] Other logical systems, however, do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Dialetheists who do not want to allow that every statement is true are free to favour these over traditional, explosive logics.

Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions.^[2] Jc Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate.^[3] Harvard philosopher Cristobal de Losada Lopez de Romana has been acclaimed for his works rebutting LNC and arguing against theories around explosion. While admitting to not fully pursuing his ideas due to cowardice and focusing on other works he characterizes as Malthusian (not in their alarmist quality but rather in the start contrast between their widespread popularity and low accuracy), he has pushed these theories farther than many others before.

Contents

• 1Motivations
  • 1.1Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes
  • 1.2Human reasoning
  • 1.3Apparent dialetheism in other philosophical doctrines
• 2Formal consequences
• 3Advantages
• 4Criticisms
• 5See also
• 6References
• 7Sources
• 8External links

.....

Human reasoning[edit]

Ambiguous situations may cause humans to affirm both a proposition and its negation. For example, if John stands in the doorway to a room, it may seem reasonable both to affirm that John is in the room and to affirm that John is not in the room.

Critics argue that this merely reflects an ambiguity in our language rather than a dialetheic quality in our thoughts; if we replace the given statement with one that is less ambiguous (such as "John is halfway in the room" or "John is in the doorway"), the contradiction disappears. The statements appeared contradictory only because of a syntactic play; here, the actual meaning of "being in the room" is not the same in both instances, and thus each sentence is not the exact logical negation of the other: therefore, they are not necessarily contradictory.

 

 

Similarly it appears that "fiction" on this board means anything that is not literal.   In that case I would say that the proposition is both true in one sense and false in another, the false sense being that the Book was written by Joseph Smith as a made-up story.   I simply cannot believe he was capable of that.  Who would be?

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:07 PM, Navidad said:

Pete Enns is not a liberal theologian!

I never said he was- remember someone else said that - but I am just curious what you would then regard as "liberal"?

Do you favor his views?

I don't think we have had a theological discussion on anything except what you don't like about our doctrine you see as "exclusive"

It might be interesting to discuss something else.

Quote

Peter Eric Enns (born January 2, 1961) is an American Biblical scholar and theologian. He has written widely on hermeneutics, Christianity and science, historicity of the Bible, and Old Testament interpretation. Outside of his academic work Enns is a contributor to HuffPost and Patheos.^[1] He has also worked with Francis Collins' The BioLogos Foundation.^[2] His book Inspiration and Incarnation challenged conservative/mainstream Evangelical methods of biblical interpretation.^[3][4][5] His book The Evolution of Adam questions the belief that Adam was a historical figure.^[6][7] He also wrote The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It and The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More than Our 'Correct' Beliefs.

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

Looks to me that I better get acquainted with what he has to say, seems to be right up my alley.  I do not purport to know anything about "Christian Theology" unless it is LDS.

Maybe you could turn me on to some others that think as he does?

[mfbukowski]

On 6/12/2020 at 12:36 PM, Navidad said:

This is not an easy distinction. For me, it involves taking the whole body of someone's work, preaching, and lived life. Peter Enns is an Evangelical for sure, however he is on the progressive side of Evangelicalism. He used to teach at a very conservative Presbyterian seminary. He wrote a book on Old Testament interpretation that some of the board members did not like because he questioned some points of innerancy. The faculty reviewed his work and declared him to be Evangelically orthodox, but the board fired him anyway. He now teaches at a Baptist college and seminary where I attended. Someone, in this discussion quoted D. Moody Smith (not to be confused with Dwight L. Moody) from Duke University (he has passed away). He was a great scholar of the New Testament, but was much more a mainstream Liberal theologian. Typically a Liberal theologian believes the scriptures become inspired when they become active in a human experience. That process of becoming alive in someone's life is how they become inspired. They are not in and of themselves, sitting on the shelf inspired or inerrant. Notice I capitalize the terms Evangelical and LIberal, because together with Fundamentalists they comprise the three tiers or groups of non-LDS Christian Biblical interpretation. I am not merely using the terms as adjectives, but as categories. It is very hard to categorize my LDS Christian friends in this regard. Most of the folks I know in the pews are Fundamentalists in their interpretation, but would be rejected by non-LDS Fundamentalists for adding to the scriptures. It is not fair or accurate to say that only LDS Christians believe in additional revelation. What is fair and accurate is that the LDS belief that those additional revelations constitute scriptures is what sets them apart. I hope all this helps a little bit.

OK found this- sorry I missed it before.  I inserted the bold italics of course.  Can you recommend the works of a leading theologian who holds the views I emphasized?

 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/13/2020 at 12:20 PM, Navidad said:

So is the definition of having solved a faith crisis a return to the church? Hmmmm.....

I would say that every apologist who is active in the church today went through a "faith crisis" and returned to the church- it happens all the time.  I really don't understand your skepticism 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:45 AM, Tishbite said:

While agree that viewing the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" does require "an affirmative rejection of the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is," I do not think that necessarily entails the death of the Book of Mormon as scripture. Much of the Bible is pseudepigrapha, and Jews and Christians still find scriptural value in its words. Moses did not actually write the Pentateuch, Job is probably religious fiction, the second part of Isaiah was not written by the same person as the first part, and even the gospels were most likely not authored by those to whom they are traditionally ascribed. But that does not necessarily mean they are not necessarily inspired, or that we cannot at least find inspiration in them. The Book of Mormon could be similarly viewed as pseudepigraphic without rejecting their scriptural value, and such a view is not the same as the illogical rejection of the existence of Christ while still claiming his divine Saviorship. 

Welcome to the board, and since you are not eligible yet to receive "likes", please consider this one! 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:50 AM, Navidad said:

You are not correctly interpreting what I said. That is why hermeneutics, even in conversation, is so very important - especially in monological conversations such as on this forum. What I meant to communicate is that in my faith experience, traditions, testimonies, witnessing, martyrdom, historic teachings, and the experience of persecution are all collectively and each individually very important. Each of those we learn about as we study church history. Church history is a window into those who have suffered, testified, and who overcame great obstacles for their faith. Their lives are inspirational and a witness to the continuity of faith over the centuries. Their creeds are irrelevant. Their lived lives speak volumes. is inspirational, and yes, validates. That is one reason that Foxes Book of Martyrs is the closest thing to a second scripture (I am exaggerating when I say that)  in the Anabaptist community and home.

The church history historian gathers the testimonies, the accounts of faithful lives, and those who weren't quite so faithful (like the video above) to provide a record of lives lived faithfully in the presence of huge problems. And these are not always from a thousand years ago. Canadian Anabaptists are very interested in the study of the Holdomor right now. In the early 1930s, perhaps 30-50,000 German speaking Ukrainian Anabaptists were killed, died, banished to Siberia, or were exiled to Latin America and Canada by Stalinist extremists. Some of this is due to them being ethnically German, some because of their prosperity ( they were the upper class peasants as strange as that sounds), and some for their faith in an atheistic and anticlerical society. This is a modern part of Church History. The faithful and serious Anabaptist church historian has to seek to understand the causes -- they weren't all faith-related. Some were economic, agrarian, and simple grudges settled in an unsettled time. Here in Mexico, Catholic historians have the same kind of thing in the study of the Cristero fighting from 1926-1940 - the exact same years. Almost half as many people died or were displaced in those years as in the much better known "Mexican revolution."

And of course Mormon church historians and faithful folks in the pews do the same things. Faithful LDS church historians debate with each other about causation. Anyone who has attended an MHA meeting knows that. Read the studies of the Missouri period by LeSueur and those by Baugh and you won't be certain you are reading about the same people in the same time. That is what makes good church history so interesting. So yes, I find inspiration in the history of the Christian Church, including the LDS Church.

It's nice that historians collect testimonies, of course

But what does that fact have to do with the testimonies being "true" in the sense of "correct in the eyes of God"?

Lots of people believe in lots of things, and the belief that one man died to remove the sins of humanity is rather odd and certainly has little do with with the history of people who believed it.

I see the world as an atheist who got clobbered by the Holy Ghost- BEFORE I was a member incidentally, so that goes against your view that non-members can be inspired by the Holy Ghost- anyway, an atheist who got clobbered by the Holy Spirit- or something- that was outside myself telling me emphatically that the LDS church was where God wanted me.

No possible doubts.   I knew the experience was from God and I knew that he knew that I knew....

No option.

So I am a total mystic regarding religioius belief.   I have a testimony that God lives and speaks to his children and wants me here where I am.

I know that by some means God has forgiven my sins, and the church teaches me it is through the atonement.

But I am not about to devote my life to any cause because a lot of people think it's historically true.   To me that's absurd.

If I had been abducted by aliens, I might beieve the stories of others, but I am not about to devote my life to studying aliens because a lot of people believe in them

That is really how I see the importance of church history.   His and Her Story- times hundreds of millions does not make it "true" enough to commit your life to the story.

One needs to have a better reason than that lots of people believe it.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would say that every apologist who is active in the church today went through a "faith crisis" and returned to the church....

 From the personal stories of FM members I have heard and read over almost 20 years while many have done that, a number became apologists not because of personal faith crises,  but because they saw others’ experiences with such and wanted to help them.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 From the personal stories of FM members I have heard and read over almost 20 years while many have done that, a number became apologists not because of personal faith crises,  but because they saw others’ experiences with such and wanted to help them.  

Dang.

I got it wrong again.

[Calm]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Dang.

I got it wrong again.

Many apologists share their own faith crises publicly. It is respectful not to share others‘ experiences unless they are okay with that, so it is understandable why it comes across that way. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Many apologists share their own faith crises publicly. It is respectful not to share others‘ experiences unless they are okay with that, so it is understandable why it comes across that way. 

Thanks for explaining it.