church history The 1922 B.H. Robert's Meeting With General Authoriteis Re: Book of Mormon Problems and the Secret Meetings That Followed it

[Fair Dinkum]

While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"

In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 

The questions were quite straight forward:

• when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages.
• Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms.
• The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.
• The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism.
• The use of silk was unknown to the Americas.

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

Quote

"At the meeting Roberts presented the matter, told them frankly that he was stumped and ask for their aide in the explanation. In answer, they merely one by one stood up and bore their testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon... Bro. Roberts could not criticize them for not being able to answer it or to assist him, but said that in a Church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary. After the meeting he wrote Pres. Grant expressing his disappointment at the failure... These are some of the things which has made Bro. Roberts shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Instead of regarding it as the strongest evidence we have of Church Divinity, he regards it as the one which needs the most bolstering."  - Studies of the Book of Mormon page 22-23

Quote

I was very greatly disappointed over the net results of the discussion. There was so much said that was utterly irrelevant, and so little said, if anything at all, that was helpful in the matters at issue that I came away from the conference quite disappointed. - B.H. Roberts in letter to President Grant following meeting.

Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 

Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.

https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712

Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.

Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The questions were quite straight forward:

• when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages.
• Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms.
• The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.
• The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism.
• The use of silk was unknown to the Americas.

I think we have come a long way in explaining some of these issues. The words steel, scimiters, and silk might all have been the best words that could be used in the 19th century English language to describe these items, without them being the exact same things as we know them today.  The diversity of native languages did not all have to stem from the language of the Lamanites. There could have been other groups of people and cultures that were the origins some of them. 

[Duncan]

According to Truman Madsen the meetings weren't so much as to get the other General Authorities to answer his questions but "to identify for them certain criticisms that might be made against the Book of Mormon"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1973&context=byusq

Again from the Madsen article, In a 1923 letter to the First Presidency he even said, "that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine...I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it"

He was a believer in the Book of Mormon until he died in 1933

[Fair Dinkum]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He was a believer in the Book of Mormon until he died in 1933

Here is his full quote and another just prior to his passing:

Quote

"In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. The report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a 'study of Book of Mormon origins,' for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it. I do not say my conclusions for they are undrawn. It may be of great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it."Roberts 1985, pp. 57–58

Quote

August 1933 (6 weeks before Roberts death):  Roberts has a 3.5 hour interview with Wesley Lloyd—which is recorded in Lloyd’s journal. Roberts had been Lloyd’s mission president. Lloyd reviews the history of Robert’s writings and his meetings with the church leadership after writing his “Difficulties” document. He then discusses Robert’s “Book of Mormon Study,” which he seems to believe actually was sent to Heber J. Grant. The rest of this paragraph is a section from Lloyd’s journal:  “Roberts…set forth a revolutionary article on the origin of the Book of Mormon and sent it to Pres. Grant. It’s an article far too strong for the average Church member but for the intellectual group he considers it a contribution to assist in explaining Mormonism. He swings to a psychological explanation of the Book of Mormon and shows that the plates were not objective but subjective with Joseph Smith. That his exceptional imagination qualified him psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting to the world the Book of Mormon and that the plates with the Urim and Thummim were not objective….. He explained certain literary difficulties in the Book…These are some of the things which have made Bro Roberts shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Instead of regarding it as the strongest evidence we have of the Church Divinity, he regards it as the one which needs the more bolstering. His greatest claim for the divinity of the Prophet Joseph lies in the Doctrine and Covenants.”

 

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Here is his full quote and another just prior to his passing:

 

i'd be more interested in actually reading the full Lloyd's journal account rather than someone's else's assessment of it, there are segments taken out of it

you are aware that he died on Sept. 27, 1933, not in August? He told a "long time friend" of his, Jack Christiansen just days before he died in Sept, “You accept Joseph Smith and all of the scriptures.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/b-h-roberts-after-fifty-years-still-witnessing-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

This is old news, obviously for some but read this article from John W. Welch that talks about the Wesley Lloyd entry

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1986/03/b-h-roberts-seeker-after-truth?lang=eng

Edited July 16, 2020 by Duncan

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be more interested in actually reading the full Lloyd's journal account rather than someone's else's assessment of it, there are segments taken out of it

you are aware that he died on Sept. 27, 1933, not in August? He told a "long time friend" of his, Jack Christiansen just days before he died in Sept, “You accept Joseph Smith and all of the scriptures.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/b-h-roberts-after-fifty-years-still-witnessing-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

As one who studied this issue deeply years ago, I think (and my points are contradictory):

1.  The Lloyd journal account isn't necessarily reliable as a piece of evidence.

2.  Roberts developed a faith crisis with the Book of Mormon over issues which, today, seem trivial.  But they weren't trivial then.  He thought some sort of revelation from the President of the Church was necessary to resolve the crisis when, in fact, the President of the Church does not deliver revelations in that manner.  Joseph Smith may have provided revelations like that, but no President since then has done so.

3.  Roberts' contradictory statements saying that he accepted all the scriptures does not erase his history of difficulties with the Book of Mormon.  One does not erase or explain the other by any means.  He was a General Authority and a Church Historian. 

4.  I think much of Roberts' crisis had to do with his personality of self-aggrandizement, his defensiveness over his minority status as a general authority (a Seventy rather than an Apostle; although Joseph Smith elevated the Seventy, Brigham Young did not); his conflicts with the Brethren over his political aspirations.  He was always on the outs with the Brethren, largely because of his need for self-promotion. His faith crisis was some sort of psychological need to confront the Brethren, who didn't rise to the occasion as he thought necessary. 

5.  Again, his issues with the Book of Mormon seem rather trivial today and have been well-documented and discussed.  Although there's some of Jack Welch's article with which I disagree, he summarizes the issues at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/finding-answers-bh-robertss-questions-and-unparallel.   In particular, I do not think one can argue that the Book of Mormon is not a rip-off of View of the Hebrews by pointing to its differences, a common apologetic approach but false logically.  But a lot of Welch's paper is helpful.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

Up until last year, the Maxwell Institute had most of the Preliminary Reports online, including John Welch's 1985 response to the publication of the Roberts Study.  Fortunately, Book of Mormon Central has taken up the slack.  (*edit: and Bob Crockett beat me to the punch in in posting it.)

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/finding-answers-bh-robertss-questions-and-unparallel

When I read the Study back in 1985, I had the feeling that I had been dropped down a well, one scholar wide, and 63 years deep.  I'd heard about the Study from people who claimed it was totally devastating to the Book of Mormon, but I thought it was naive.  And that was just based on what I had read up to 1985.  Nibley, Sorensen, and a few years of FARMS articles.  Now, it's almost 100 years deep and no wider.  While Roberts was disappointed that all the other GAs did was bear their testimonies at the Study, time has shown that they were right.  A determination to face problems in order to publically demonstrate one's scholarly integrity has the unfortunate effect of stiffling imagination (there might be different ways of looking at the issue) and perspective (not all the information we want in 1922 is available in 1922).  Think about how Roberts might have composed his study if he had been able to Google "Olmec iron" or watch the National Geographic Special on the Mesoamerican LiDar survey now streaming on Disney +, or read Mormon's Codex, and Second Witness, and talk with Brian Stubbs about Uto-Aztecan, or even read Nibley's books.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 16, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[smac97]

On 7/16/2020 at 10:09 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"

In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 

An interesting topic.

Quote

The questions were quite straight forward:

• when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages.
• Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms.
• The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.
• The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism.
• The use of silk was unknown to the Americas.

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

Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 

And now, 98 years later, do we have more information about these questions?  Have they been addressed?

Yes.  And extensively so.  We have considerably more information now than we did in 1922.  We have considerably more trained scholars researching and publishing about these topics than we did in 1922.

Isn't that wonderful?  No need to look backward in time and fret about how members of the Church lacked these resources.  We have these resources now.  I am very happy about, and grateful for, that.

Quote

Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities. 

That leaders of the Church in 1922 lacked information, training, etc. to meaningfully address scientific / historical / anthropological / linguistic / paleontological issues is not a very big deal for me.

Shoot, it's not even a big deal for me about today's General Authorities lacking such background/training.  That's not really their job, after all.  I look to the General Authorities to preach and testify of Jesus Christ and the Restored Gospel, to competently administer the affairs of the Church, and to provide guidance on moral and spiritual issues faced by members of the Church.  The bullet list above is way down on their list of priorities, I hope.

My sister's father-in-law is a Seventy.  He's a very smart guy (a physician by training).  My father's cousin is also a Seventy (an oil and gas lawyer, IIRC).

I have met both of these men.  I have listened to their talks at general conference (one each, I believe), and have appreciated the counsel they have given.

I hardly know my father's cousin, but I've had a number of opportunities to talk with my sister's FIL.  We talk about family, the Church, and all sorts of things.  In some of these discussions he has raised points that arise from his training as a doctor.  I have enjoyed these chats.  However, I have never asked him about amerindian linguistics, or pre-columbian horses, or references to "steel" or "scimitars" ("cimeter") or "silk" in the Book of Mormon.  Why?  Because AFAIK he lacks training, experience, etc. in the scholarly disciplines relating to these topics.  And also because I'm not sure these topics are particularly relevant to his calling as a Seventy.

Quote

Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.

https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712

Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged. 

I think Hugh Nibley was the proximate "father of apologetics" in the Church.  But he stood on the shoulders of Elder Roberts (see here).

Since then, we have had a wealth of scholars and groups who, largely via the Internet, have brought apologetics into the the reach of the everyday members:

• LDS.org generally (and the "Gospel Topics" essays in particular)
• The Maxwell Institute's website
• Institute courses
• The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
• The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
• FAIR (the site, the materials available in their bookstore, their symposia, etc.)
• Interpreter Foundation (website and publications)
• Jeff Lindsay's website
• Book of Mormon Central
• Book of Abraham Central
• Books, articles and video presentations by Dan Peterson, Matthew Roper, Matthew Brown, Richard L. Bushman, Terryl and Fiona Givens, William Hamblin, John Tvedtnes, John Gee, Jack Welch, John L. Sorenson, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and on and on and on...

I think this is a wonderful thing.

Quote

Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.

Hmm.  I think most Latter-day Saints don't read the Book of Mormon and come away with concerns about pre-columbian horses, "silk," etc.  Some do, of course.  And when that happens, there is a wealth of information available to them.  Immediately.  For free.

Quote

Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.

I rarely share hearsay anecdotes, but I'll relax my rule for this one.

BH Roberts served as president of the Eastern States Mission from 1922 to 1927.  My grandfather's cousin, Owen Grant Macdonald (he went by his middle name), served as Elder Roberts' assistant or secretary during part of that period.  He and my father were good friends, and conversed often.  One day, my father asked him about speculation about BH Roberts having lost his testimony.  Per my dad (whom I just called to confirm), Grant responded that this was "absolutely false," that he (Grant) had worked with Elder Roberts closely (as in the same office) for over a year in the mission field, that Elder Roberts was "full of fire and testimony" and never gave any indication of struggling in his faith.

This jibes with the characterization from the thesis you link to in the OP (p. 7) :

Quote

For over fifty years, from his appointment in 1888 to his death in 1933, B. H. Roberts was at the top of the Mormon hierarchy and their most outspoken advocate. His official position was that of one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventies whose responsibilities were to oversee missions and education. 

The author later goes on to suggest that Elder Roberts may have had a "waivering commitment" to the "historicity" of the Book of Mormon (p. 22).  On this point, here are two sources of information:

• B.H. Roberts on the Book of Mormon
• Did B. H. Roberts, a Mormon leader, lose faith in the Book of Mormon?

The author also states: "Whether or not Roberts’s second study was ever presented to church officials is a matter of debate."  (p.22.)  However, from the first bulleted link above:

Quote

Just before his death in September 1933, Elder Roberts was visited at his office by a long-time friend, Jack Christensen. During the conversation, B. H. Roberts spoke of his Book of Mormon studies and then gave Christensen his considered judgment: “Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon.”  

Elder Roberts had sent the entire 435 pages to President Heber J. Grant and the Quorum of the Twelve on March 15, 1923. In a cover letter, he wrote:

“This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins,’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.”

Is this "435 pages" sent to Pres. Grant the "second study" referenced in the master's thesis?

Anyway, I don't expect you to take my multiple-hearsay anecdote as competent evidence as to where BH Roberts stood.  For me, though, I trust my father.  A lot.  He's been very candid with sharing his thoughts on the Church and its leaders, and I am grateful for that.  He has helped me develop a more clear-eyed perspective on the Restored Gospel.  So for me, his recollected discussion with his Uncle Grant is credible and noteworthy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Up until last year, the Maxwell Institute had most of the Preliminary Reports online, including John Welch's 1985 response to the publication of the Roberts Study.  Fortunately, Book of Mormon Central has taken up the slack.  (*edit: and Bob Crockett beat me to the punch in in posting it.)

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/finding-answers-bh-robertss-questions-and-unparallel

When I read the Study back in 1985, I had the feeling that I had been dropped down a well, and scholar wide, and 63 years deep.  I'd heard about the Study from people who claimed it was totally devastating to the Book of Mormon, but I thought it was naive.  And that was just based on what I had read up to 1985.  Nibley, Sorensen, and a few years of FARMS articles.  Now, it's almost 100 years deep and no wider.  While Roberts was disappointed that all the other GAs did was bear their testimonies at the Study, time has shown that they were right.  A determination to face problems in order to publically demonstrate one's scholarly integrity has the unfortunate effect of stiffling imagination (there might be different ways of looking at the issue) and perspective (not all the information we want in 1922 is available in 1922).  Think about how Roberts might have composed his study if he had been able to Google "Olmec iron" or watch the National Geographic Special on the Mesoamerican LiDar survey now streaming on Disney +, or read Mormon's Codex, and Second Witness, and talk with Brian Stubbs about Uto-Aztecan, or even read Nibley's books.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I most definitely thought Roberts' discussion was naive.    

[Fair Dinkum]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I rarely share hearsay anecdotes, but I'll relax my rule for this one.

I enjoyed reading your grandfather's recollections Thanks for relaxing your rules.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Rather than addressing each bullet point, I just wish to mention one thing. “Steel”, also appears in the Bible. 
 

To address only one point, 

I am a true believer in every way, if my children were to read my writings, opinions, about the Bible that I found. They would come to believe I was a closest atheist, and it might cause them issues with their own Faith. But I am not an atheist, I am just observant. I began taking correspondence courses, about the Bible at age 11. I also grew up in the home of a Minister, my own Father. 
 

There are many issues, or seemingly controversial, or contradictory areas of all Scripture. Make no mistake about it, anything touched by man, is almost always flawed in some, if not many ways. My guess is the only exception, is the 10 Commandments, and then only because it was written by the very “finger of God”. 
 

In fact many years ago, when this discussion board hard a large range of opinions and posters, we have a very devout Evangelical (I won’t mention his name). In fact, he was and “true blue Evangelical”, who wanted to become a Minister. So, during his years long study of the Bible, in Seminary College, he because a non-believer, due to, too many contradictions in the Bible.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.

Hmm.  I think most Latter-day Saints don't read the Book of Mormon and come away with concerns about pre-columbian horses, "silk," etc.  Some do, of course.  And when that happens, there is a wealth of information available to them.  Immediately.  For free.

Dang - did I wake up in the year 2002?  This criticism, and its valid and worthy mic drop response, are about word-for-word straight out of the late great apologetics battles of like two decades ago.    And the wealth of information has only grown vaster, quicker, and free-er.

Is this thread going to bring up "the embarrassing issue of nephite coinage"?  Maybe the classics never go out of style.

[JLHPROF]

Am I the only person who doesn't care about historical issues with the Book of Mormon?  

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a revelation written by the hands of men.  If it gets some historical facts in error that is utterly meaningless.  They have no bearing on salvation and whether it happened in South, Central or North America makes no difference.
Its doctrine is flawless.

Edited July 16, 2020 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

I think it's fair to say this thread was inspired by this:

https://scholarworks.unr.edu//handle/11714/6712

Or maybe not the writing in particular, but an interview with Shannon Montez, the author.

It appears those responding hadn't read it, so I figured I'd link it.

It's an interesting focus on the meetings of 1922.  

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Am I the only person who doesn't care about historical issues with the Book of Mormon?  

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a revelation written by the hands of men.  If it gets some historical facts in error that is utterly meaningless.  They have no bearing on salvation and whether it happened in South, Central or North America makes no difference.
Its doctrine is flawless.

How could the doctrine be considered flawless if we assume there are mistakes of men?  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Am I the only person who doesn't care about historical issues with the Book of Mormon?  

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a revelation written by the hands of men.  If it gets some historical facts in error that is utterly meaningless.  They have no bearing on salvation and whether it happened in South, Central or North America makes no difference.

Its doctrine is flawless.

How could the doctrine be considered flawless if we assume there are mistakes of men?  

Perhaps the "mistakes of men" are not in the doctrine?

In the law, when an appellate court publishes an opinion, it is comprised of two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

"Ratio decidendi" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'the reason' or 'the rationale for the decision'. The ratio decidendi is 'the point in a case that determines the judgement' or 'the principle that the case establishes'."

"Obiter dicta" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'by the way', that is, a remark in a judgment that is 'said in passing.'"  "For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only."

If we analogize this to scriptures (as being comparable to a published opinion), the "doctrine" in the text would be equivalent to Ratio Decidendi, with the residual text being Obiter Dicta (which can contain "mistakes of men").  The textual narrative is the framework, the tree from which the doctrinal fruit grows .

For me, this helps me reconcile the beauty of the doctrines with the presence of "errors."  For example, it is one thing to say that the Nephite record was not utterly "historically accurate" in its depiction of the Lamanites.  That they could have been, or actually were, "racist" or "ethnocentric" in their views of the Lamanites.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It is understandable how some, without this nuanced understanding, could read the Book of Mormon as a text that portrays the Nephites as having what we today would deem “racist,” or more properly ethnocentric, attitudes towards non-Nephites. “Could the Nephites have been racist in their views of the Lamanites?” asked John A. Tvedtnes. “Perhaps, in the same sense that the biblical patriarchs were racist when it came to their pagan neighbors—the Hittites, the Canaanites, and the Amorites—and did not want their offspring to marry these unbelievers.”

Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.” Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.” Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description.”

It should not be overlooked that the Book of Mormon itself condemns this Nephite ethnocentrism. Jacob slammed Nephite ethnic pride when he declared, “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. . . . Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:5, 9). Clear at the end of Nephite history, tribalism and ethnocentrism was eschewed, and portrayed as leading to hatred, wickeness, pride, vanity, and rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (4 Nephi 1:38–43). Whatever ethnocentric attitudes the Nephites may have exhibited were thus condemned by the Book of Mormon prophets.

The Book of Mormon had an editor.  Perhaps Mormon was sufficiently inspired to craft a narrative that contains pure "doctrine" while also addressing the errors and flaws of those who sought to discern and obey those doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's fair to say this thread was inspired by this:

https://scholarworks.unr.edu//handle/11714/6712

Or maybe not the writing in particular, but an interview with Shannon Montez, the author.

It appears those responding hadn't read it, so I figured I'd link it.

It's an interesting focus on the meetings of 1922.  

I believe Roberts stumbled in his faith.  His immense ego (a good quality sometime, bad at other times) and personal pride made it difficult to be humble about it.  I think we should celebrate this story as showing us that faith isn't something to be taken for granted.  He's like many others. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case.

 

"a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary"? Somebody is overreacting a bit... 

It kind of sounds like those today who demand the Brethren to seek / get a revelation on their particular issue and even sometimes their preferred decision -- the crisis is in them (not downplaying anyone's reaction to pressures they find difficult to manage), not the Restored Gospel.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by CV75

[Islander]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Am I the only person who doesn't care about historical issues with the Book of Mormon?  

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a revelation written by the hands of men.  If it gets some historical facts in error that is utterly meaningless.  They have no bearing on salvation and whether it happened in South, Central or North America makes no difference.
Its doctrine is flawless.

Amen to that. Although I tend to follow the research at the Maxwell Institute and other sources, it is out of sheer curiosity. My testimony of the Restored Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with such peripheral, non-doctrinal issues.

The fundamental flaw in human communication is language. It is an approximation of thought and emotion and rather a futile attempt to express, within the boundaries of individual limitations, what our cognition manages to grasp. 

We can only use the words we know to describe what we think we see/understand. 

1920 Flying saucer a.k.a 1980 space craft...

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"

In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 

I assume your thread has more to do with BH Roberts, but I will address some of the concerns he raised.

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The questions were quite straight forward:

• when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages.

Agreed. Natives preexisted the landing.

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

• Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms.

Wrong. Horses were actually indigenous to the Americas, and meandered over to Asia. To assume they went totally extinct in the Americas is not wise. DNA of horse dung has been found in Alaska dating back only about 6000 years - well after their presumed extinction. Not all wild horses in the Americas have Spanish lineage. Some have more Siberian lineage....

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

• The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.

But iron is not. We know that Natives did use meteoric iron. Assuming they used steel like back in the Middle East, the forging process was not very good, and the steel was of fairly low quality. It would rust fairly readily. That is why few swords from the Middle East survive even though it is much drier there than in say Eastern N. America, where one could hardly expect such swords to survive 2000 years.

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

• The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism.

Scimitars is not an Arabian word. It is an English word, which seems to have been derived from the Italian word  scimitarra. The Persians and Iranians used a curved sword they called the Shamshir. The Muslims were actually somewhat slow to adopt the shamshir, instead favoring a straight double edged design used by Mohammed. Muslims were not the first to use a curved sword, but they predated the Muslims, and came from further east in Asia. Their exact origin is unknown.

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

• The use of silk was unknown to the Americas.

It is true that the Americas did not have the silk worm. However, it is known that Natives used the florescence of the milk weed in the same fashion with similar results - a very silky fabric. Anyone coming across such  fabric would probably call it silk.

 

[Nevo]

B.H. Roberts produced three critical studies of the Book of Mormon:

• "Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study",  141 typed pages
• "A Book of Mormon Study", 427 typed pages
• "A Parallel", 18 typed pages

Roberts presented the first paper to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in January 1922. He shared the "Parallel" with Elder Richard R. Lyman in 1927 and it circulated in the Mormon underground from the 1940s onward. But his major study was never presented to the Church leadership (and wasn't published until 1985, over the Church's objections). That one is by far the most damaging, in my view. I'm guessing most of those who've been making "nothing to see here" posts haven't read it. It's brutal.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I believe Roberts stumbled in his faith.  His immense ego (a good quality sometime, bad at other times) and personal pride made it difficult to be humble about it.  I think we should celebrate this story as showing us that faith isn't something to be taken for granted.  He's like many others. 

Thanks, Bob.  I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with the immense ego stuff.  It certainly seems evident his views changed as he researched, and I think it's true he was quite passionate about the concerns raised, particularly as they relate to the BoM.  As per his faith, I"m not sure he'd categorize it that way.  It appears to me he held the Book of Mormon to carry inspiration even though it was not historical as claimed.  

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

B.H. Roberts produced three critical studies of the Book of Mormon:

• "Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study",  141 typed pages
• "A Book of Mormon Study", 427 typed pages
• "A Parallel", 18 typed pages

Roberts presented the first paper to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in January 1922. He shared the "Parallel" with Elder Richard R. Lyman in 1927 and it circulated in the Mormon underground from the 1940s onward. But his major study was never presented to the Church leadership (and wasn't published until 1985, over the Church's objections). That one is by far the most damaging, in my view. I'm guessing most of those who've been making "nothing to see here" posts haven't read it. It's brutal.

I agree.  I think its pretty normal to feel there's nothing to see when heavy weights like Truman Madsen made a case.  

To the point, though, the five questions that posters here see no issue with, as posted in the OP,  amounted to introductory issues, it appears, for Roberts.  When he realized he didn't have sufficient answers to the 5, and others could not seemingly even take them seriously, he looked deeper and realized there were far more issues.  Yes, that the Church attempted to keep the 427 page "A Book of Mormon Study" hidden (and successfully did so through Madsen's conciliatory work on the topic), I think, demonstrates your point---"It's brutal".  

What I think we learned, though, is Roberts was completely wrong about this.  The issues simply don't need to be addressed in order for the Church to maintain.  That is to say, the early 1922 meeting with the 1st Presidency and Twelve that seemingly disappointed Roberts so much, was perhaps the best the Church could do to maintain its course.  I honestly doubt it's much different today--98 years later.  If an insider GA spent immense effort researching the issue and attempted to gather the 1st Presidency and 12 to address the findings, they'd likely respond with testimony bearing, dismissing the problems as insignificant.  That'd be my guess.  And the Church would maintain because, in truth, most active members do not see issue particularly if the leadership does not.  

[Duncan]

I have read the "Studies of the Book of Mormon" back in the 90's, I can't recall much of it though and I have been a fan, so to speak, of Elder Roberts since. I don't really buy into the idea he doubted the Book of Mormon, based on my readings from him. I had recently come across a PH.D. thesis out of Alaska that argues it is a European lie that horses weren't in the Americas when the Spaniards came here, basically saying that the natives Americans were so uncivilized that we had to save them, they didn't even have horses.

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/7592

"They always had the horse"

Edited July 17, 2020 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have read the "Studies of the Book of Mormon" back in the 90's, I can't recall much of it though and I have been a fan, so to speak, of Elder Roberts since. I don't buy into the idea he doubted the Book of Mormon, based on my readings from him. I had recently come across a PH.D. thesis out of Alaska that argues it is a European lie that horses weren't in the Americas when the Spaniards came here, basically saying that the natives Americans were so uncivilized that we had to save them, they didn't even have horses.

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/7592

"They always had the horse"

Thanks, Duncan, for your views.  I think it gets fairly murky to start accusing Roberts of losing his testimony or faith or whatever.  After he pushed for the Church to focus on addressing difficulties, seemingly out of frustration with him, the Church sent him on a mission...and he accepted..gone for 5 years.  .  And from what it appears, he worked his pants off for the Church.  If during that time, he had lost faith in the BoM, or the Church or movement, it certainly doesn't show.  I think it's pretty fair to conclude he gave his all to the Church, at least as much can be expected from a human, until he died.  That says something about how he viewed truth claims that the BoM being scripture.  No matter how far we take his criticisms and concerns, it's obvious he never gave it all up. But there does appear to be nuance, as people 5 years ago liked to say, and a heavy dose of what appears to be "hey the Church does good, we've got something for others to benefit from, there is inspiration in the scriptures..."  and the like.  Part of that, I suppose, rests squarely on the believability and interpretation of Lloyd's journal entries.