Jump to content

'Inspired fiction' and doctrine and covenants section 27


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting thoughts. 
 

But now that we have digital, will we still need brick-and-mortar libraries for all that stuff? Even microfilm is antiquated these days. 

Probably not.  I made the "library" comment mostly tongue-in-cheek. ;) Still, though I don't have a reference (I'd have to look through 200-300 pages of notes to find it), one of the early Brethren did say that the day will come (during the Millennium, if I remember correctly) when records such as the ones I mentioned (that is to say, the actual artifacts themselves, not simply "work product" (my phrase) that has come from a translator or whomever), will be available to a wider audience.  I think, among many other words I could use, that this will be fascinating.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Probably not.  I made the "library" comment mostly tongue-in-cheek. ;) Still, though I don't have a reference (I'd have to look through 200-300 pages of notes to find it), one of the early Brethren did say that the day will come (during the Millennium, if I remember correctly) when records such as the ones I mentioned (that is to say, the actual artifacts themselves, not simply "work product" (my phrase) that has come from a translator or whomever), will be available to a wider audience.  I think, among many other words I could use, that this will be fascinating.

Perhaps the artifacts will be kept in a granite vault hollowed out of a mountain. We already have experience with that sort of thing. 😉 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

The inspired fiction model exists for the same reason people believe the Genesis flood is allegory. The observable evidence just does not match the story, yet people feel compelled for various reasons to retain their faith anyway. The flood is sometimes discussed as literal, sometimes local, and sometimes allegorically in my experience in the church. I strongly suspect the historicity of the Book of Mormon Is following a similar digression and will eventually be abandoned as being historical by all but a few on the fundamentalist fringe. Despite the good efforts of apologists there’s just way too much working against it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The inspired fiction model exists for the same reason people believe the Genesis flood is allegory. The observable evidence just does not match the story, yet people feel compelled for various reasons to retain their faith anyway. The flood is sometimes discussed as literal, sometimes local, and sometimes allegorically in my experience in the church. I strongly suspect the historicity of the Book of Mormon Is following a similar digression and will eventually be abandoned as being historical by all but a few on the fundamentalist fringe. Despite the good efforts of apologists there’s just way too much working against it. [Bold supplied by Kenngo1969.]

If your prediction, which I have bolded, ends up coming to pass, then, for the first time, I will be proud to count myself among those on the "fundamentalist fringe"! :D;)

Link to post
5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If your prediction, which I have bolded, ends up coming to pass, then, for the first time, I will be proud to count myself among those on the "fundamentalist fringe"! :D;)

I'll try again, in different words:

There's a 5th century AD Jewish-Christian text, that is not the Book of Mormon, that describes Israelites departing Jerusalem in 600 BC for an island in the sea that was given to them by God. Those Israelites kept their history on tablets that were meant to be another testament of Jesus Christ and salvation to the rest of us, if we would only read their history and ponder upon it and imitate the lessons learned from it.

Do you believe it matters whether this text is historical or fictional?

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to post
4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'll try again, in different words:

There's a 5th century AD Jewish-Christian text, that is not the Book of Mormon, that describes Israelites departing Jerusalem in 600 BC for an island in the sea that was given to them by God. Those Israelites kept their history on tablets that were meant to be another testament of Jesus Christ and salvation to the rest of us, if we would only read their history and ponder upon it and imitate the lessons learned from it.

Do you believe it matters whether this text is historical or fictional?

What do you mean you will "try again"?  Unless JarMan is your sockpuppet, I don't recall having dialogued with you previously in this thread.  And if JarMan is your sockpuppet, while it's none of my business how the powers-that-be run the Board, that might be of interest to the mods.  And in any event, I don't understand the point of your question, because, while I am reluctant to superimpose 21st-century historiography standards on the Book of Mormon, I do accept it as a genuine record of actual ancient peoples.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If your prediction, which I have bolded, ends up coming to pass, then, for the first time, I will be proud to count myself among those on the "fundamentalist fringe"! :D;)

You and I both. I think, though, that the fringers are and always will be those who have not duly considered the violence that the “inspired fiction” theory does to the doctrinal structure of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What do you mean you will "try again"?  Unless JarMan is your sockpuppet, I don't recall having dialogued with you previously in this thread.  And if JarMan is your sockpuppet, while it's none of my business how the powers-that-be run the Board, that might be of interest to the mods.  And in any event, I don't understand the point of your question, because, while I am reluctant to superimpose 21st-century historiography standards on the Book of Mormon, I do accept it as a genuine record of actual ancient peoples.

Hmm. It has been a while since a sock puppet has been outed on this board. I guess we’re due for another unmasking. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. It has been a while since a sock puppet has been outed on this board. I guess we’re due for another unmasking. 

Let he who has not set up multiple sock puppets on this board to play games with posters cast the first stone.

Link to post
On 3/21/2021 at 6:58 PM, smac97 said:

In any event, I am curious if there are any adherents of the "Inspired Fiction" on this board would be willing to share their thoughts regarding the inclusion of the purportedly-fictional Moroni on this list of persons who shall "drink of the fruit of the vine {} on the earth" with Jesus Christ (perhaps at Adam-ondi-Ahman?).

I'm a former member and have no personal interest in any view of the Book of Mormon.  Historical, inspired, or otherwise.  However, I don't think any of the counter-theories for creation of the book are very persuasive.

Others have described Joseph Smith as a religious genius. And I agree with this view. He had an incredible memory and the ability to synthesize ideas from wildly different sources into a self-consistent theology.  And, Section 27 is another great example of this skill. Note that both Elias and Elijah are mentioned.  Problem is that Elias is the same person as Elijah.  I know BRM tries to resolve this problem in the section introduction but again, as one with no personal interest in Section 27 being "true", the easiest explanation is that Joseph didn't realize Elias and Elijah are the same name or that he may have messed this up while dictating.  Why would Joseph include and unknown prophet in a list of well-known prophets?  And to your point, why would he exclude other prominent prophets? This doesn't make much sense if the Lord was dictating.  But if we explain this as an example of Joseph doing his religious genius thing, then it becomes simple to explain.  Ultimately, however one chooses to "resolve" these questions is up to a matter of faith and belief. Ultimately, it is a choice.

Regardless, I actually still read the Book of Mormon and D&C on occasion.  There are important things to learn from both books.  

Edited by Ipod Touch
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Note that both Elias and Elijah are mentioned.  Problem is that Elias is the same person as Elijah.

The problem is, that even Jesus referred to Elias (Elijah) as being John the Baptist.  The name Jesus, is actually Joshua, but calling Him Joshua is too confusing.  How many James are there?  Jesus's brother, Jude was actually named Judas, but we don't want to confuse him with Judas Iscariot.  How many Mary's are there?  Yes, Elijah and Elias are the same name, but not necessarily the same person.

Edited by T-Shirt
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The problem is, that even Jesus referred to Elias (Elijah) as being John the Baptist.  The name Jesus, is actually Joshua, but calling Him Joshua is too confusing.  How many James are there?  Jesus's brother, Jude was actually named Judas, but we don't want to confuse him with Judas Iscariot.  How many Mary's are there?  Yes, Elijah and Elias are the same name, but not necessarily the same person.

I understand the point you are making and I think it is a good one.

However, in this case where it is primarily a matter of different bible versions using Elijah vs Elias (and as they are Hebrew/Greek equivalents), I am still inclined to think that Joseph Smith not knowing, or simply misspeaking is the simplest explanation. 

Link to post
15 hours ago, JarMan said:

 I strongly suspect the historicity of the Book of Mormon Is following a similar digression and will eventually be abandoned as being historical by all but a few on the fundamentalist fringe. 

I know that is already the case in many regions.  Our lessons involving the history of creation, the flood, Adam and Eve always are very nuanced, Fundamentalists are seen as sweet and lovable crackpots.  "The scriptures say..." (insert literal interpretation) is one way nuanced views can be discussed without offending someone.

" What do we learn about God from the story of the flood?" is also tactic I hear often.

It's hard to get through those kinds of lessons without alienating one side or the other 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If your prediction, which I have bolded, ends up coming to pass, then, for the first time, I will be proud to count myself among those on the "fundamentalist fringe"! :D;)

And there is no way to PROVE either side!  🤨

Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How 'bout it Rajah Manchou?  Are you JarMan's sockpuppet?

I read it as Rajah seeing history repeating itself generally speaking and not specific to this thread. I see Rajah and Jarman as very different, very consistent to their own style and preferred context of posts. 
 

There are requests for info that have been asked in the past and answers forgotten or not seen. 

Edited by Calm
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

I understand the point you are making and I think it is a good one.

However, in this case where it is primarily a matter of different bible versions using Elijah vs Elias (and as they are Hebrew/Greek equivalents), I am still inclined to think that Joseph Smith not knowing, or simply misspeaking is the simplest explanation. 

That is certainly one way to look at it and I can understand that point of view. However, there are some things that would indicate otherwise.  Joseph clearly understood that the name, "Elias" was often used as a title rather than a proper name.  Joseph, in his revelations, referenced John the Baptist, Noah and John the Revelator as having the title of Elias.  Whether or not Joseph knew the names were the same, I cannot say with certainty, however, in Section 110 it refers to Elias as having committed  to Joseph and Oliver, the, "Dispensation of the gospel of Abraham" indicating that this Elias was a man who lived during the time of Abraham.  Joseph would certainly have known that there was no mention of an Elias in the Old Testament during the time of Abraham, so why would he make up the name?  Could there have been a second Elijah during the days of Abraham that is not mentioned in the Bible?  If so, would it not have been confusing to Joseph Smith if an Angel appeared and said he was Elijah to give the keys of the gathering of Israel and then a few minutes later another angel appears and says he is Elijah to  confer other keys?  It would certainly make sense that the first could call himself Elias to avoid that confusion.  In addition, Joseph understanding the title, "Elias", this angel could have been someone else entirely, coming in the Spirit of Elias, or as a forerunner.  Finally, this section was originally recorded in Joseph Smith's journal by Warren Cowdery several days later.  It was the last entry in his journal.  We don' know the source of what Warren wrote and there could be errors.  The revelation was never published in Joseph Smith's lifetime so he could not have commented or made corrections.  It was included in the Doctrine and Covenants several years after Joseph's death.

Edited by T-Shirt
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And there is no way to PROVE either side!  🤨

Not yet.  Patience, Young Grasshoppa!  Patience! ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

That is certainly one way to look at it and I can understand that point of view. However, there are some things that would indicate otherwise.  Joseph clearly understood that the name, "Elias" was often used as a title rather than a proper name.  Joseph, in his revelations, referenced John the Baptist, Noah and John the Revelator as having the title of Elias.  Whether or not Joseph knew the names were the same, I cannot say with certainty, however, in Section 110 it refers to Elias as having committed  to Joseph and Oliver, the, "Dispensation of the gospel of Abraham" indicating that this Elias was a man who lived during the time of Abraham.  Joseph would certainly have known that there was no mention of an Elias in the Old Testament during the time of Abraham, so why would he make up the name?  Could there have been a second Elijah during the days of Abraham that is not mentioned in the Bible?  If so, would it not have been confusing to Joseph Smith if an Angel appeared and said he was Elijah to give the keys of the gathering of Israel and then a few minutes later another angel appears and says he is Elijah to  confer other keys?  It would certainly make sense that the first could call himself Elias to avoid that confusion.  In addition, Joseph understanding the title, "Elias", this angel could have been someone else entirely, coming in the Spirit of Elias, or as a forerunner.  Finally, this section was originally recorded in Joseph Smith's journal by Warren Cowdery several days later.  It was the last entry in his journal.  We don' know the source of what Warren wrote and there could be errors.  The revelation was never published in Joseph Smith's lifetime so he could not have commented or made corrections.  It was included in the Doctrine and Covenants several years after Joseph's death.

Thank you for providing this additional context.  In particular the detail of the about Cowdery.  But you raise an interesting point about Joseph viewing Elias as title.  Clearly, he did. 

I think our little exchange here demonstrates a meta point.  Ultimately, we have to make a choice about what we believe.  Clearly, each of us cane make reasonable and coherent points and counterpoints about this particular question.  At one point in my life I was under the delusion that "reason" or "faith" compelled us to adopt certain beliefs and views.  But these days, I'm convinced that reason and faith may indeed lead us very far down a particular path but at the end of the day, we have to decide what views and beliefs we will embrace.

Edited by Ipod Touch
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How 'bout it Rajah Manchou?  Are you JarMan's sockpuppet?

What are you talking about?

By try again, I mean I've posted twice about the History of the Rechabites as an example of an inspired fiction that follows the same narrative as the Book of Mormon. You can see my previous two posts about it in this thread. 

I am not JarMan. Calm down

So let me try again:

There's a 5th century AD Jewish-Christian text, that is not the Book of Mormon, that describes Israelites departing Jerusalem in 600 BC for an island in the sea that was given to them by God. Those Israelites kept their history on tablets that were meant to be another testament of Jesus Christ and salvation to the rest of us, if we would only read their history and ponder upon it and imitate the lessons learned from it.

Do you believe it matters whether this text is historical or fictional?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I read it as Rajah seeing history repeating itself generally speaking and not specific to this thread. I see Rajah and Jarman as very different, very consistent to their own style and preferred context of posts. 

If I am JarMan then those pages and pages of me arguing with myself about whether or not Eric Garner was killed by a chokehold was an epic display of schizophrenia. 😁

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

But you raise an interesting point about Joseph viewing Elias as title.  Clearly, he did. 

Not the first time similar things have happened. Paul essentially gave Christ the title of Adam. (referred to in this talk https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng ).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What are you talking about?

By try again, I mean I've posted twice about the History of the Rechabites as an example of an inspired fiction that follows the same narrative as the Book of Mormon. You can see my previous two posts about it in this thread. 

I am not JarMan. Calm down

So let me try again:

There's a 5th century AD Jewish-Christian text, that is not the Book of Mormon, that describes Israelites departing Jerusalem in 600 BC for an island in the sea that was given to them by God. Those Israelites kept their history on tablets that were meant to be another testament of Jesus Christ and salvation to the rest of us, if we would only read their history and ponder upon it and imitate the lessons learned from it.

Do you believe it matters whether this text is historical or fictional?

Smug dismissiveness noted.  For that reason, along with our previous history, I choose to refuse to dialogue with you on this thread or any other, as well as about this subject or any other.  Have a nice evening.  Oh, and I am perfectly calm, thank you: I don't need to take a warm, soothing bath, nor do I need any camomile tea, to pet a puppy, to listen to any soothing music, to take any tranquilizers, or to resort to any other such measures.  Again, have a nice evening.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Smug dismissiveness noted.  For that reason, along with our previous history, I choose to refuse to dialogue with you on this thread or any other, as well as about this subject or any other.  Have a nice evening.  Oh, and I am perfectly calm, thank you: I don't need to take a warm, soothing bath, nor do I need any camomile tea, to pet a puppy, to listen to any soothing music, to take any tranquilizers, or to resort to any other such measures.  Again, have a nice evening.

I have no problem with you not dialoguing with me. But this is the second time you've accused me of lying, to get me banned, and then run away without an apology when its revealed you were wrong to accuse me. If you don't want to discuss with me, then simply don't discuss with me. No need to stir drama up and call in the mods. Overreaction.

Link to post
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Let he who has not set up multiple sock puppets on this board to play games with posters cast the first stone.

I’m no stone caster. But not only have I not done such a thing, it would surprise me to learn it is as common as you claim. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...