Writing about the Book of Mormon as an environmentalist

[tagriffy]

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

On 11/8/2022 at 9:19 AM, tagriffy said:

As I have mentioned, my journey into Mormonism started with a rejection of biblical inerrancy and a concurrent acceptance of modern historical-critical biblical studies. I took for granted that you would see the straight-line relationship between rejecting biblical inerrancy and rejecting BoM historicity while still seeing both as inspired writ. Here, I was wrong, so I'm going to spell this out some more.

Not only do I not see a "straight-line relationship" between the two concepts, I see a gaping chasm between them.  

First, amend the second sentence to read, "I took for granted that you would see the straight-line relationship between rejecting biblical inerrancy and rejecting BoM historicity while still seeing both as inspired writ that I do." The three originally missing words may well explain much of the rest of your post. If those three words a really big difference to how you would have responded initially, then you can probably ignore most of the rest of this post.

It is good to have confirmation that we were in fact talking past each other, and specifically I took for granted something I shouldn't have. But your response after this statement basically misses the point. I am basically describing my thought process. That biblical inerrancy and BoM historicity are not precise analogs is irrelevant to what I am describing. What is important here is that I was being told the same things about biblical inerrancy that Oaks, Holland, et al. about Book of Mormon historicity.

In fact, before I started writing this post, I took a copy of the Oaks essay you keep posting, replaced references to BoM historicity for biblical inerrancy and replaced the term "Latter-Day Saints" with "Christians." From there, all one needs to do is replace LDS-specific examples for Evangelical-specific ones, and you have substantially the same essay! I am saying that is what was being pressed on me as an Evangelical. The two issues are parallel enough that for me, there is a straight-line relationship between the two.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

I think the third point above ("'Stories that Require Historicity' - {T}here are major portions of the scriptures that must be 'historical...'") is a very big hurdle for you.  As I have noted: 

No, not really. I distinguish between mythos and logos. I recognize that all scripture is in the realm of mythos. So even where scripture does deal with historical matters (normally a matter for logos), there really isn't anything that I think must be historical. That's why arguments comparing BoM historicity with Jesus' existence tend to fall flat on me. As mfbukowski pointed out above, its the ideas that matter, and ideas are true regardless of whether the stories used to express them actually happened.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

I am.  But the comparison is way too apples-and-oranges-ey. 

I am curious why you are not comparing apples to apples.  That is, comparing the rejection of BoM historicity with the rejection of Biblical historicity.

But I do reject biblical historicity in many aspects. In my last post I named no less than four books I considered "Inspired Fiction." I also reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11 entirely. I mentioned legendary accoutrements that makes it extremely difficult to recover the historical core, if any. So, for example, I can't positively affirm that Abraham and Moses actually existed or that the Exodus took place. The conquest of Jericho as depicted in the Bible is not historically accurate--if it happened at all. Daniel as depicted in the book bearing his name didn't exist. Like you said, inerrancy presumes and requires historicity. Knock out inerrancy and questions about inerrancy come into play.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

On 11/8/2022 at 9:19 AM, tagriffy said:

Given that Scripture is supposed to be inerrant,

What?  How is that a "given"?  The Bible makes no such claim for itself, nor does the Book of Mormon, nor have any prophets/apostles.

On 11/8/2022 at 9:19 AM, tagriffy said:

if one can't affirm historicity for the BoM, then it simply can't be inspired writ. Oaks' argument in a nutshell.

No, that's not an accurate summary of Oaks' argument.  He does not assume inerrancy or tie it to historicity as you do.

Remember, I am describing my thought processes. I'm trying to give you a means of putting yourself in my shoes. The "given" is my situation at the time. It's irrelevant that the Bible makes no such claim for itself. What matters is that at that time, what was being pressed on me was that Scripture had to be inerrant. If it has errors, then it is not Scripture. If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then it is in error and cannot be Scripture whatever other factors that might be brought to bear on it. As you said, inerrancy presumes and requires historicity.

I did misattribute Oaks here. I had in mind you saying this--

On 11/1/2022 at 10:45 AM, smac97 said:

Both believers in and skeptics of the Book of Mormon, by and large, view historicity as being the sine qua non of the Book of Mormon's claim to status as inspired writ.

--and somehow thought Oaks said it. In any case, I'm not saying Oaks (or you) assume inerrancy or tie it to historicity.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

I am sorry, but this is not illuminating at all.  Oaks, Holland, Givens, Peterson, et al. are all, I think, reasonably characterized as never having harbored notions of inerrancy (whether as to the Bible or to the Book of Mormon).  It has never been the burden it apparently was on you.  And yet they are still all adamant about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, with no assumptions about it also needing to be inerrant.

Again, I am not saying they did. I'm not even tying inerrancy to historicity, as such. I am talking about the type of arguments that are being made. To summarize those arguments:

1. Believers in biblical inerrancy view inerrancy as being the sine qua non of the Bible's claim to status as inspired writ.

2. As you said, "Both believers in and skeptics of the Book of Mormon, by and large, view historicity as being the sine qua non of the Book of Mormon's claim to status as inspired writ."

Now do you see the similarity I am pointing to?

Step by step, this is how it breaks down:

1. I had accepted both summaries when initially considering the Book of Mormon.

2. Because I couldn't affirm BoM historicity, I rejected its claim to status as inspired writ.

3. I later wound up rejecting biblical inerrancy, and learned that inerrancy is not the sine qua non to its claim to status as inspired writ.

4. I turned back to the Book of Mormon, still rejecting its historicity, and asked whether historicity really was the sine qua non of its claim to status as inspired writ.

5. I learned it was not.

That is as simple as I can break it down. Of course living through the process was much more complicated.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

I think Peterson's comments here are devastating to your position that "biblical inerrancy subsumes historicity" (unless, of course, I am substantially misunderstanding you, in which case I am happy to be corrected).

I don't know if you were misunderstanding me. You did put it way better than I did by saying inerrancy presumes and requires historicity. That restatement alone might clarify a whole bunch of things.

On 11/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

On 11/8/2022 at 9:19 AM, tagriffy said:

This is also why I could say that consideration of the prophet/fraud dichotomy is beyond the scope my essay in "Environmental Theory." To borrow something Ben said about the Voree Plates:

The reason why the disputed epistles of Paul are disputed is because the literary evidence suggests Paul didn't write them. The reason biblical scholars talk about Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah is because the literary evidence suggests they don't belong to the same time and author as Isaiah the son of Amoz. The reason the Documentary Hypothesis was formulated is because the literary evidence suggests that the Torah is not a unified work by a single author. It such cases, what is said by (or claimed for as the case may be) these texts is trumped by that evidence.

Well, we're getting pretty far afield here.  

Only if you're taking it simply as a position statement rather than a description of a thought process. 2 Thessalonians is one of the disputed Pauline epistles. It starts with "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in god our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1). The letter then goes on to claim, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write" (3:17). So not only does the letter claim Paul wrote it, it goes out of its way to provide a token of its authenticity. Mind you, since even the earliest readers are likely to be reading copies of copies of copies, that token is pretty meaningless.

Now, from what I gather, 2 Thessalonians is one the more disputed of the disputed epistles even in mainline scholarship. But let us suppose for the moment that 2 Thessalonians is not genuinely authored by Paul. What does that mean about the actual writer? What does that mean for the letter itself? Those are important questions, but they go beyond the scope analyzing the text, which can only tell us about the text itself. Answering those questions is a matter of theological reflection, not literary analysis. I say this because if 2 Thessalonians is pseudepigraphal, we wind up with that question McCarthy confronts us with "Is God unwilling to impart inspiration through seemingly fraudulent pseudepigrapha?"

I don't intend to get involved in a long argument about the Book of Abraham. The bottom line is that we have the papryi, we have the text of Abraham, and they do not match. Even the Church admits this without too much equivocation:

Quote

The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.

Anyway we look at it, something other than a straightforward translation of the papyri is going on here. Personally, I subscribe to what I call the springboard view, which is, as described in the same article:

Quote

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. 33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34

Or one could say with anti-Mormons that this proves Joseph is a fraud. Or one could say any number of things. All of which has nothing to do with analyzing the text itself. But it comes back to that question, "Is God unwilling to impart inspiration through seemingly fraudulent pseudepigrapha?"

Whatever you say about Joseph's involvement in the Book of Mormon, its all going to come down to that question.

Edited November 10, 2022 by tagriffy

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I am saying that is what was being pressed on me as an Evangelical. The two issues are parallel enough that for me, there is a straight-line relationship between the two.

For me, part of this issue (and I have addressed it in other places) is that Mormons have a tendency to think about the Book of Mormon in the ways that they would think about the Bible. However, this is problematic, since the Book of Mormon isn't an original language source, and reflects a culturally moderated version of that source. It is a much better parallel to say that the Book of Mormon functions in the way that the King James translation of the Bible functions. It is much more nuanced. On this basis one can, for example, reject specific elements in the King James text or the text of the Book of Mormon as being non-historic artifacts of translation while not rejecting the broader claims of the text to be a historical document.

One way of illustrating this is Skousen's massive work on the historical text of the Book of Mormon itself. We can track the entire manuscript history - and we place this really high value on the original text of the Book of Mormon. And yet, it is still, merely a translation - and as a translation meant for a specific audience. Mormonism has a strong tendency to try and frame the Book of Mormon using that same notion of inerrancy that we get from Evangelical Christianity, and the swing to a near King James onlyism that occurred within Mormonism when the first major English alternative translations of the Bible came out.

At any rate, we have to have (at least in discussions about history and historicity) a much clearer distinction made between the gold plates and their contents, and the Book of Mormon.

[tagriffy]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

For me, part of this issue (and I have addressed it in other places) is that Mormons have a tendency to think about the Book of Mormon in the ways that they would think about the Bible. However, this is problematic, since the Book of Mormon isn't an original language source, and reflects a culturally moderated version of that source. It is a much better parallel to say that the Book of Mormon functions in the way that the King James translation of the Bible functions. It is much more nuanced. On this basis one can, for example, reject specific elements in the King James text or the text of the Book of Mormon as being non-historic artifacts of translation while not rejecting the broader claims of the text to be a historical document.

I agree. This is an issue I am careful about. For example, I expressed a need for caution about deciding what is on the brass plates even from a Smithian lens elsewhere. It would be especially easy to pick on the description that "they did contain the five books of Moses" (1 Ne. 5:11) in light of the Documentary Hypothesis. If we take the phrase to mean the Pentateuch as we now have it, the phrase is clearly anachronistic. But if the phrase is a non-historic artifact of translation, the Documentary Hypothesis is not a particularly strong threat to historicity. The phrase could simply translate something like Torah, with the rendering "five books of Moses" simply being more familiar to the target audience. We can only be sure of what is clearly quoted or alluded to.

48 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

One way of illustrating this is Skousen's massive work on the historical text of the Book of Mormon itself. We can track the entire manuscript history - and we place this really high value on the original text of the Book of Mormon. And yet, it is still, merely a translation - and as a translation meant for a specific audience. Mormonism has a strong tendency to try and frame the Book of Mormon using that same notion of inerrancy that we get from Evangelical Christianity, and the swing to a near King James onlyism that occurred within Mormonism when the first major English alternative translations of the Bible came out.

The tendency to frame the Book of Mormon using the same notion of inerrancy is a problem, but I'm not so sure it is the problem. As smac97 pointed out, you don't have to directly tie historicity to inerrancy while maintaining historicity is the sine qua non of the BoM being inspired writ. The problem for me, both with the Bible and the Book of Mormon, was the assertion of the sine qua non. With biblical inerrancy, this means the choice is between biblical inerrancy and atheism. With BoM historicity, the choice is, to use Hamblin's phrase, "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet."

This is not just an issue of translation. A particular translation doesn't need to be inerrant for the Bible itself to be inerrant (excluding the King James-only folks, of course). The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be an entirely accurate translation for it to be ancient. With the Bible, you just strive to find a better translation if you're not in a position to learn and read the originals. With the Book of Mormon, you keep in mind that it is a translation and remember the adage “traduttore, traditore.”

 

[smac97]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I cannot agree with any of these arguments which require historicity to make the IDEAS TAUGHT "true" if and only if they actually happened.

It's horrible logic.

Well, I am open to correction.

I previously summarized my stance on historicity here.  To sum up, there are some portions of the biblical narrative where historicity is irrelevant, where the story told does not need to have actually happened, but is instead presented as a parable (the Talents) or allegory (the Olive Tree) or heavily poeticized (the creation of Eve). 

Then there are portions of the narrative that are substantively "true" (as in they are presented as having actually happened), but about which we lack context and particulars, and/or about which we harbor flawed/finite understandings/perspectives.

And then there are the portions of the narrative that require historicity.  Consider whether Jesus was born, lived, died, was resurrected and ascended, in the circumstances generally (though not necessarily with 100% factual precision and accuracy) described in the Bible.  These circumstances really need to have happened in order for them to have salvific power and meaning to me.  If Jesus was just a regular mortal rabbi with some thoughtful things to say, then He has no more significance in my life than Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Kahlil Gibran, and other philosophers and thinkers.  Their words are useful, sure, important even.  But their lives and teachings are not necessary, and have no particular effect on my eternal destiny.  

Perhaps the central "idea" of the New Testament - or even the Bible or the Scriptures altogether - is encapsulated in John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf or Captain America. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

 

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"But if Jesus didn't die for us, then our sins are not forgiven."

Nope.

We are freed from guilt about our sins because God gave a model to visualize of a Human Being so elevated that he overcame all evil AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THAT OUR SPIRIT CONFIRMS THAT MODEL.

That's not how I understand things to work.  There are plenty of people walking around without feeling any particular "guilt" for their sins.  But more to the point, the Atonement is less about assuaging guilt about sins (though that is one of the happy results of it) and more about payment for sins.  About satisfying the law of justice.  Alma 42 provides an excellent treatment of this:

Quote

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.
15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.
16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?
18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

In the eternal scheme of things, sins do not just disappear into the ether.  Someone must pay for them.  And not in some abstract "Okay, I guess I feel bad about this" kind of way.  See D&C 19:

Quote

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

The entire Plan of Salvation is predicated on Jesus Christ being real, not just a fictional hero with some thoughtful insights into the human condition.

To be clear, I don't think Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, Peterson, Givens, Hamblin, and all the others who have written about the importance of historicity are taking an all-or-nothing approach.  We have long acknowledged that portions of the Bible are not presented as, and need not be construed as, literal recitations of events.  

As Elder Talmage put it: “The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.”

See also here:

Quote

Moses 3:9. What Do the Two Trees Represent?

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 86).

Elder McConkie was one of the most doctrinaire leaders of the Church, and yet he still understood that the Bible includes "figurative" elements.

And here (same link) :

Quote

Moses 3:21–23. Adam’s Rib

President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Eve was not literally created from Adam’s rib. He said: “The story of the rib, of course, is figurative” (“The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71).

See also this 1986 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund:

Quote

What are we to do with all of the symbolic language in the Bible—the imagery, figurative expressions, parables, allegories, types, shadows, similes, and hyperbole? Sometimes this imagery is clear and powerful, but often it seems baffling and strange.

Approximately 27 percent of the 1,184 pages of the Old Testament is made up of prophetic writings, or what the people at the time of Christ called simply “the prophets.” (See, for example, Luke 24:27, 44.) At almost any point in those writings we are immediately confronted by symbolic language.

Sidney B. Sperry noted some years ago that this penchant for figurative language is partially due to the fact that the Bible is the product of Oriental or Eastern peoples—and Eastern peoples are much more prone to use imagery than are the Occidentals or Western cultures:

“We ofttimes read our Bible as though its peoples were English or American and interpret their sayings in terms of our own background and psychology. But the Bible is actually an Oriental book. It was written centuries ago by Oriental people and primarily for Oriental people …

“It may be of interest to contrast the speech of modern and ancient Palestinians with our own. In thought and speech the Oriental is an artist; the Occidental, on the other hand, may be thought of as an architect. When speaking, the Oriental paints a scene whose total effect is true, but the details may be inaccurate; the Occidental tends to draw diagrams accurate in detail.” (Ensign, May 1972, pp. 29–30.)

While this difference provides some interesting challenges for the modern reader in our Western civilization, those challenges are not insurmountable, and when they are met, the returns can be productive and satisfying.

Since a thorough explanation of the use of symbolic imagery in the Old Testament, or even in “the prophets,” would require a work far beyond the scope of this article, we shall only give a general introduction to the subject. This introduction, however, should serve to help decipher imagery wherever it is found in the scriptures.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I make this broad declaration, that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure of any kind, He always holds Himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure, if God has not given a revelation or interpretation of the subject.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., p. 291.)

There are occasional uses of figurative imagery, such as Ezekiel’s “wheels” (see Ezek. 1:15–21), for which the Lord has not yet given us the interpretation. But for the most part, we do have the keys for understanding the symbolic imagery used by the Lord and his prophets.

Six guidelines can aid us as we deal with figurative language in the scriptures:

1. Do the scriptures give the interpretation of the symbol? Often the Lord reveals the keys to the imagery right in the scriptures. A classic example is the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. (See Dan. 2:19, 31–45.)
...
2. Do the writings of modern prophets help us interpret the symbolic imagery? Sometimes the key to understanding a symbol may not be found directly in the scriptures, but prophets of the Restoration have helped clarify the meaning.
...
4. Let the nature of the symbol teach you. While the Hebrews loved imagery and used it heavily, they did not choose their symbolism arbitrarily. They drew their imagery from the objects and events of everyday life and made spiritual parallels. This is a very important point, for often we can let the symbol itself teach us about its significance.

Last year Saints Unscripted came out with a very good video about the historicity of the Bible and how its varied parts are of varied genres:

 

Conversely, the all-or-nothing approach to historicity has been considered, and answered, by the "Inspired Fiction" folks, with "nothing" as the answer.  This approach requires a total, 100% absence of historicity.  There was never a guy named Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no records kept and later abridged by Mormon, hence no Moroni, hence no Moroni to appear to Joseph Smith, hence no records to be uncovered under a large stone on a hill in Palmyra.

Conversely, the perspective I have found persuasive, as articulated by Oaks, Holland, Givens, etc., does not require the scriptures to be 100% historical, just mostly so.  As Daniel Peterson put it:

Quote

Historical knowledge does not, it is true, attain the same kind or degree of certitude as can be attained in a chemistry lab, or at the end of a geometric proof—though, even those two areas may not deliver quite as much certainty as is commonly thought [12]—but it can attain a plausibility or probability that comes very close to certainty. And we are right to call it, precisely, “historical knowledge.” Historicity is not the same thing as inerrancy. An inerrant narrative would certainly be historical. But there are plenty of substantially accurate historical narratives that are not inerrant. In fact, there is (so far as I am aware) no other kind. Although nobody in his or her right mind would ever call Josephus or al-Tabari inerrant, much less the author or authors of The Annals of the Cakchiquels, we still find these writers indispensable for the reconstruction of what we generally regard as fairly reliable histories of Second Temple Jewry, the early Arab Muslims, and the inhabitants of pre-Columbian Guatemala.
...
President Brigham Young offered another reason why inerrancy is hardly to be sought, even in the scriptures themselves: “I do not even believe,” he reflected, “that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities.” [26]
...
I want my position to be clearly understood. On essential issues such as the resurrection of Christ, we can trust that the accounts given in the scriptures are fundamentally and significantly correct. And, perhaps even more important, we can trust that the prophets have identified sound lessons for us, that they have given us the real meaning—or, at least, the most significant portion of it, since there is probably no way to exhaust completely the meaning of anything consequential—for the events they narrate. But I will go even beyond that. If I have seemed during this paper to insist only on accuracy in the big picture, while appearing ready to jettison the minor details, I want to make it clear that although I reject inerrancy, I believe that the scriptures are substantially accurate even in the details, that the narratives of the Bible are by and large accurate, that there were Nephites, and that their history is as accurately told in the Book of Mormon as it is humanly possible to tell a story. I believe that considerable evidence can be amassed to support these propositions and to sustain and confirm the witness of the Spirit.

I think this position works very well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

That may be true, but I think the Book of Mormon is still interesting and worth studying apart from the question of whether or not there were Nephites.

I quite agree.

But historicity is, for me, required to the extent the Book of Mormon is presented as more than mere literature, as having persuasive evidentiary value re: Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, of the truthfulness and reality of the Restoration of the Priesthood, of the authority of the Church and the prophets and apostles, of the validity and value of the ordinances, of the need to accept and abide by these things, as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," and so on.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

When I was in Utah this summer, I picked up a new book called Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide. The authors, you may be surprised to learn, express a strong preference for literary and theological approaches to the Book of Mormon over attempts to situate it in antiquity. 

That's not surprising at all.  This approach allows the reader to adopt a take-it-or-leave-it-but-mostly-leave-it perspective on the book.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quoth Becerra, Easton-Flake, Frederick, and Spencer: 

Quote

What drives many Book of Mormon scholars today, it seems, is a worry that an exclusive concern for just the one question of historicity might compromise the larger apologetic task. They want a book that's true and valuable not only because it's historical (although that's obviously important).

Historicity is "obviously important"?  I agree with that.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

They want a book that's true in a hundred other ways also, and in ways that matter to human beings on an existential and not just on an intellectual level.

I agree with this, too.  The text's real value is its salvific import, with "historicity" being an essential component therein.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

Their experience leads them to believe that questions beyond that of historicity are what many or even most readers of the Book of Mormon want answers to.

I think most "outsider" approach the Book of Mormon with the implicit assumption that in order for it to have real salvific meaning, both the text and its later acquisition of and translation through Joseph Smith must substantively reflect actual persons, events, and so on.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

As we've said before, readers of the Book of Mormon today are as likely—if not in fact more likely—to reject the Book of Mormon for reasons that have nothing to do with historicity.

That's a fair point.  The Book of Mormon being "true" requires more than historicity alone.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

They're as likely or more likely to drop the book and the religion endorsing it because the volume seems to them to be irrelevant, archaic, boring, unenlightening, or ethically troubling. . . .

Yep.  There are a variety of sociological, cultural and other barriers to accepting the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

A simple simile might be useful in expressing what's happening among newer Book of Mormon scholars. Returning again and again to the issue of Book of Mormon historicity can feel like starting a car in the garage over and over again to prove that it runs—but only seldom putting the thing into drive to see what it might do. Book of Mormon researchers today increasingly feel that it's time to trust all the evidence that the car runs and take it out onto the road. . . .

I'm not sure I understand the simile.  Is taking the car "out onto the road" a comparison to "historicity" being presumed, rejected, or disregarded?

"Returning again and again" to the issue of whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God would certainly be an impediment to reviewing the Bible from an academic/intellectual perspective.  Hamblin touches on this here:

Quote

There is a lot of talk among Mormon scholars about bracketing truth claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This immediately leads to the question: why would one want to bracket truth claims?  The answer is generally that we can understand a particular part of Mormonism better by bracketing truth claims about other parts of Mormonism.
...
Although in our post modern age it may seem passé, to me the purpose of both religion and the academy is precisely to discover and understand truth, not to bracket it.  Our quest should be for the good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy.  If we bracket truth claims about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, I believe many elements of the text become less comprehensible, and, indeed will become misunderstood.  Furthermore, it give non-Mormons a distorted view of what Mormons really believe.  Mormon truth claims are central to the nature of Mormonism and the beliefs of individual Mormons.  Bracketing or ignoring them necessarily distorts what Mormonism is really all about.  It is essentially pretending that Mormonism is something different than it really is.  Bracketing truth claims never helps us understand the truth in the broader sense.  It necessarily masks, hides, or distorts the truth, whatever that truth may be.

It seems to me that if someone has to bracket their truth claims about Mormonism in order to facilitate dialogue, it should be the non-Mormons.  Mormon truth-claims are an integral part of Mormonism.  To understand it properly you need to understand those truth claims.  It really doesn’t help a non-Mormon understand Mormonism better if she doesn’t understand that Mormons believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the deity and resurrection of Jesus, or the authentic prophethood of Joseph Smith.  If we bracket truth-claims about these matters, non-Mormons will never accurately understand Mormonism.  Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.  When I approach the Buddhavacana, I understand that most western non-Buddhist scholars believe that most of the Tripiṭaka does not represent the actual words of the historical Buddha.  I get it.  But when I read that scripture, I try to understand what it means to Buddhists who believe in the historicity of the Tripiṭaka, because that permits me to understand Buddhism better.  I bracket my truth claims in order to better understand Buddhism.  I don’t ask the Buddhists to bracket their truth claims.

That does not mean, of course that there aren’t a lot of things about Mormonism that can’t be discussed without any reference to truth-claims: the social order of a Mormon ward; the colonization of Utah; the impact of the Deseret Alphabet, etc.  But bracketing truth claims about the Book of Mormon will ultimately lead to misunderstanding that book.  Grant Hardy’s wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon is a case in point.  Although he chose to bracket historicity issues, the fact of the matter is, there was no reason for him to do so.  He could have written precisely the same book, with precisely the same insights, without bracketing historicity.

The book by Becerra et al seems to be intended for this paradigm (a review on Amazon) :

Quote

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the field of Book of Mormon Studies at just about any stage of its history (past, present, or future). It provides indispensable context for the literary and theological and Americanist turns rapidly gaining rise, and it outlines a vision for a future field that is no longer riven by ideological squabbles but instead invested in collaboratively exploring every possible avenue of interest on the Book of Mormon. Thoroughly researched, accessible, useful for both established and young scholars alike--I cannot recommend this book highly enough to *any* student of the Book of Mormon.

Meanwhile, however, the Church and its leaders, missionaries and members are more interested in presenting the book for its spiritual and religious value and meaning (as opposed to just asking people to consider its literary value).

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Nevo said:

Quote

We fully appreciate those who worked professionally over the course of six or seven decades to set the Book of Mormon in the ancient world and who proved themselves to be astonishingly prolific and creative in their efforts. . . . [N]ow, we believe, there's good and faithful reason to muster exactly the same kind of commitment and ingenuity and put that into a host of other questions regarding the book's truth. (112–113)

 

That sounds wonderful.  I have no objection to it at all.  They are not rejecting historicity, they are saying that there is more to think and talk about than that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 9, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I am open to correction.

I previously summarized my stance on historicity here.  To sum up, there are some portions of the biblical narrative where historicity is irrelevant, where the story told does not need to have actually happened, but is instead presented as a parable (the Talents) or allegory (the Olive Tree) or heavily poeticized (the creation of Eve). 

Then there are portions of the narrative that are substantively "true" (as in they are presented as having actually happened), but about which we lack context and particulars, and/or about which we harbor flawed/finite understandings/perspectives.

And then there are the portions of the narrative that require historicity.  Consider whether Jesus was born, lived, died, was resurrected and ascended, in the circumstances generally (though not necessarily with 100% factual precision and accuracy) described in the Bible.  These circumstances really need to have happened in order for them to have salvific power and meaning to me.  If Jesus was just a regular mortal rabbi with some thoughtful things to say, then He has no more significance in my life than Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Kahlil Gibran, and other philosophers and thinkers.  Their words are useful, sure, important even.  But their lives and teachings are not necessary, and have no particular effect on my eternal destiny.  

Perhaps the central "idea" of the New Testament - or even the Bible or the Scriptures altogether - is encapsulated in John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf or Captain America. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

 

That's not how I understand things to work.  There are plenty of people walking around without feeling any particular "guilt" for their sins.  But more to the point, the Atonement is less about assuaging guilt about sins (though that is one of the happy results of it) and more about payment for sins.  About satisfying the law of justice.  Alma 42 provides an excellent treatment of this:

In the eternal scheme of things, sins do not just disappear into the ether.  Someone must pay for them.  And not in some abstract "Okay, I guess I feel bad about this" kind of way.  See D&C 19:

The entire Plan of Salvation is predicated on Jesus Christ being real, not just a fictional hero with some thoughtful insights into the human condition.

To be clear, I don't think Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, Peterson, Givens, Hamblin, and all the others who have written about the importance of historicity are taking an all-or-nothing approach.  We have long acknowledged that portions of the Bible are not presented as, and need not be construed as, literal recitations of events.  

As Elder Talmage put it: “The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.”

See also here:

Elder McConkie was one of the most doctrinaire leaders of the Church, and yet he still understood that the Bible includes "figurative" elements.

And here (same link) :

See also this 1986 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund:

Last year Saints Unscripted came out with a very good video about the historicity of the Bible and how its varied parts are of varied genres:

 

Conversely, the all-or-nothing approach to historicity has been considered, and answered, by the "Inspired Fiction" folks, with "nothing" as the answer.  This approach requires a total, 100% absence of historicity.  There was never a guy named Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no records kept and later abridged by Mormon, hence no Moroni, hence no Moroni to appear to Joseph Smith, hence no records to be uncovered under a large stone on a hill in Palmyra.

Conversely, the perspective I have found persuasive, as articulated by Oaks, Holland, Givens, etc., does not require the scriptures to be 100% historical, just mostly so.  As Daniel Peterson put it:

I think this position works very well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your response. I respect your intellect highly but I don't think we will ever agree on this one! 

But we can try. I think I would like to make some comments point by point in separate posts just to focus on some of your statements here and put them under a microscope and see if we even CAN agree somewhere.

We live in different universes it seems, though unified by the same gospel. That HAS to account for some base of agreement!

It might be interesting, but I know you must be a busy guy, and I am too.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Quote

Quote

As I have mentioned, my journey into Mormonism started with a rejection of biblical inerrancy and a concurrent acceptance of modern historical-critical biblical studies. I took for granted that you would see the straight-line relationship between rejecting biblical inerrancy and rejecting BoM historicity while still seeing both as inspired writ. Here, I was wrong, so I'm going to spell this out some more.

Not only do I not see a "straight-line relationship" between the two concepts, I see a gaping chasm between them.  

First, amend the second sentence to read, "I took for granted that you would see the straight-line relationship between rejecting biblical inerrancy and rejecting BoM historicity while still seeing both as inspired writ that I do."  The three originally missing words may well explain much of the rest of your post. If those three words a really big difference to how you would have responded initially, then you can probably ignore most of the rest of this post.

The three added words don't really help me better understand your position.  I see no particular connection between A) rejecting biblical inerrancy and B) rejecting BoM historicity.  

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

It is good to have confirmation that we were in fact talking past each other,

Well, some of that happens in most conversations of this sort.  But in the main I think we are substantively speaking to each other, but not agreeing.  That's fine.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

and specifically I took for granted something I shouldn't have. But your response after this statement basically misses the point. I am basically describing my thought process. That biblical inerrancy and BoM historicity are not precise analogs is irrelevant to what I am describing.

I understand that you are presenting your thought process.  What I am not understanding is your attempt to connect or intertwine biblical inerrancy (a notion essentially foreign to and rejected by the Latter-day Saints) and BoM historicity (a notion plainly presented by the Church and overwhelmingly accepted by its members).  

You seem to be saying that you rejecting the former created - for you - logical causality for rejecting the latter.  That is where you lose me.  I don't understand this "straight-line relationship" (which, in any event, you are now describing as "irrelevant to what {you are} describing").

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

What is important here is that I was being told the same things about biblical inerrancy that Oaks, Holland, et al. about Book of Mormon historicity.

Again, rejecting the Bible's inerrancy is, in my view, a materially different proposition from rejecting its substantive historicity. 

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

In fact, before I started writing this post, I took a copy of the Oaks essay you keep posting, replaced references to BoM historicity for biblical inerrancy and replaced the term "Latter-Day Saints" with "Christians." From there, all one needs to do is replace LDS-specific examples for Evangelical-specific ones, and you have substantially the same essay!  I am saying that is what was being pressed on me as an Evangelical. The two issues are parallel enough that for me, there is a straight-line relationship between the two.

Virtually any essay could be decontextualized and distorted this way.  And I doubt Pres. Oaks would agree with that, as I'm pretty sure he rejects the notion of biblical inerrancy.

Meanwhile, you are ignoring Daniel Peterson's essay, in which he addresses inerrancy and historicity in the head-on way I think you would like to see, and yet his conclusions are very different from yours.  Where you take a potato / po-tah-to approach to the two concepts (inerrancy and historicity), he explicitly argues that "historicity and inerrancy are not the same thing," that "there are plenty of substantially accurate historical narratives that are not inerrant," and that "{i}n fact, there is (so far as I am aware) no other kind" except "not inerrant" narratives.  The difference, though, is that Peterson actually walks me through his reasoning, whereas you do not.

Similarly, Hoskisson characterizes inerrancy as a "red herring" for the Latter-day Saints.  And then he explains why.  In contrast, you resort more to conclusory, just-trust-me-on-this types of claims ("I was being told the same things about biblical inerrancy that Oaks, Holland, et al. about Book of Mormon historicity" ... "all one needs to do is replace LDS-specific examples for Evangelical-specific ones, and you have substantially the same essay").

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I am saying that is what was being pressed on me as an Evangelical. The two issues are parallel enough that for me, there is a straight-line relationship between the two.

I understand that is your conclusion.  But I still don't understand how you reached it.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Quote

I think the third point above ("'Stories that Require Historicity' - {T}here are major portions of the scriptures that must be 'historical...'") is a very big hurdle for you.

No, not really. I distinguish between mythos and logos.

Can you maintain that distinguishment when considering whether or not Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God?

Assuming by "mythos" you mean "the underlying system of beliefs, especially those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group," and by "logos" you mean "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe," I question the utility of this paradigm (as can happen when Hellenic philosophy is the lens through which the Gospel is viewed).  For example, the Latter-day Saints do not, believe in "supernatural forces," since God is the "God of nature" and operates within (not above) it.  Miracles and such are not violations of the natural law, but rather higher manifestations of it.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I recognize that all scripture is in the realm of mythos.

I don't.  

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

So even where scripture does deal with historical matters (normally a matter for logos), there really isn't anything that I think must be historical.

How do you reconcile this with Joseph Smith-History, which A) is canon, B) describes Joseph's experiences as literal - not figurative or imaginary - events, and C) is nearly entirely rejected under your approach?

What about the Doctrine & Covenants?  Are there any portions of it that "must be historical"?  Are we free to reject the historicity of all the persons and events described in it?

JS-H 1:2

Quote

In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the eighth year since the organization of the said Church.

Well?  Are these "various events" "history" or not?  Had they "transpired" or not?

Verse 3:

Quote

I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont.

While the precise date on which Joseph Smith was born may not matter, whether he was born at all surely does.

Is the birth of Joseph Smith something that "must be historical"?  Why or why not?

Verses 14-15:

Quote

So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty.
...
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God.

Does historicity matter here?  If Joseph lied about this, or was deluded about it, such that the event here never happened, does that matter?  Can we read this and his subsequent recitations of the First Vision and say "none of this must be historical" to have salvific meaning and import?

Is whether Joseph Smith was a historical or fictional person irrelevant to our examination of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints?

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

That's why arguments comparing BoM historicity with Jesus' existence tend to fall flat on me. As mfbukowski pointed out above, its the ideas that matter, and ideas are true regardless of whether the stories used to express them actually happened.

With respect, I disagree.  I said this back in 2020:

Quote

Fables, parables, etc. have value irrespective of their historicity. On the other hand, Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of His historicity. Historicity matters when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. An imaginary/figurative Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

"It is the idea of a life preserver that matters, and is true regardless of whether or not you actually have one thrown to you as you are flailing about in the storm-tossed seas."

Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior of the World has to be more than simply an "idea."  It has to be true and real.  

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Quote

I am curious why you are not comparing apples to apples.  That is, comparing the rejection of BoM historicity with the rejection of Biblical historicity.

But I do reject biblical historicity in many aspects.

To an extent, so do I (or else I bracket the particular depictions of certain events and persons).  But that doesn't answer my question.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

In my last post I named no less than four books I considered "Inspired Fiction."  I also reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11 entirely. I mentioned legendary accoutrements that makes it extremely difficult to recover the historical core, if any.

Yes, I understand that.

But do you reject "biblical historicity" as to Jesus being the Son of God, His miracles, his death and resurrection and ascension?

I feel quite at liberty to either reject or remain ambivalent about some portions of the biblical narrative.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Regarding the Flood, I am okay with the idea of

• A) ancient and modern prophets and apostles
• B) speaking with limited and/or not-pristinely-accurate-and-correct information about
• C) an event that happened centuries before they were born, and
• D) the specific particulars and parameters of which event are not essential to my salvation.

Similarly, I am open to the possibility that Job was an ahistorical figure.  

Such accommodation is not, I think, infinite.  For example, I can't get on board with Jesus Christ being only a mythical/metaphorical figure.

My position is not nearly as rigid and absolutist as yours.  It appears that we can both accommodate some ahistoricity in the Bible.  That's reasonable.  But your position requires absolute ahistoricity for the Book of Mormon.  I find that as untenable as an absolute rejection of the Bible's historicity. 

You seem to be tacitly - though grudgingly - admitting this, as evidenced by you pointing to some portions of the Bible here and there that you think are ahistorical (or are potentially so, or were never intended to be construed as strictly historical, and so on).  Nothing new or remarkable about that.

But can you reject the entirety of the Bible's historicity - including its depiction of the life and ministry and miracles of Jesus Christ - and then proceed to declare that only "the ideas {in the Bible} matter," and that "ideas are true regardless of whether the stories used to express them actually happened"?

Imagine a group of people have chartered a yacht for an afternoon excursion.  One afternoon John and Steve are the only ones on deck, and John falls overboard.  He resurfaces and calls to Steve for help:

• John: "Steve!  Help!  Throw me a life preserver!"
• Steve: "Sure thing, brother!  Here's an imaginary one!"  {Makes a throwing motion with his arms.}
• John: "What are you doing?  Go get a life preserver and throw it to me!  I'm drowning!"
• Steve: "No need, John!  It's the idea of a life preserver that matters.  A figurative life preserver is just as effective to keep you afloat and save your life as an actual one.  So just hold on to the idea!"
• John: "What?  No!  I need an actual life preserver because I am actually drowning!"
• Steve: "Well, no, the idea of throwing you a life preserver is true regardless of whether I throw an actual one to you.  Have you ever read The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale?..."

John drowns.  Steve sighs.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Remember, I am describing my thought processes. I'm trying to give you a means of putting yourself in my shoes. The "given" is my situation at the time. It's irrelevant that the Bible makes no such claim for itself.

Okay.  Your personal thought processes notwithstanding, I think most other people find that pretty relevant.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

What matters is that at that time, what was being pressed on me was that Scripture had to be inerrant.

I think what matters is whether the idea of inerrancy is correct and necessary.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

If it has errors, then it is not Scripture.

Which would speak to the fundamental flaw of inerrancy.  It's self-defeating and imputed onto the text by subsequent actors who were melding their philosophies with the actual text.  And again, the Bible never makes claims of inerrancy.  

Meanwhile, however, the Book of Mormon does make claims to historicity, as do Joseph Smith and the Witnesses.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Again, I am not saying they did. I'm not even tying inerrancy to historicity, as such. I am talking about the type of arguments that are being made.

You are applying "the type of arguments that are being made" about inerrancy of the Bible to a substantially different topic (historicity) about a different text (the Book of Mormon).  I don't think that works.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

To summarize those arguments:

1. Believers in biblical inerrancy view inerrancy as being the sine qua non of the Bible's claim to status as inspired writ.

2. As you said, "Both believers in and skeptics of the Book of Mormon, by and large, view historicity as being the sine qua non of the Book of Mormon's claim to status as inspired writ."

Now do you see the similarity I am pointing to?

No.  Not a whit.  Inerrancy and historicity are quite different topics of inquiry.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Step by step, this is how it breaks down:

1. I had accepted both summaries when initially at the Book of Mormon.
2. Because I couldn't affirm BoM historicity, I rejected its claim to status as inspired writ.
3. I later wound up rejecting biblical inerrancy, and learned that inerrancy is not the sine qua non to its claim to status as inspired writ.
4. I turned back to the Book of Mormon, still rejecting its historicity, and asked whether historicity really was the sine qua non of its claim to status as inspired writ.
5. I learned it was not.

That is as simple as I can break it down. Of course living through the process was much more complicated.

I get that you have projected your conclusions about biblical inerrancy onto the quite different question of BoM historicity.  But I don't see that projection as logically sound or reasonable.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I don't intend to get involved in a long argument about the Book of Abraham. The bottom line is that we have the papryi,

That is nowhere near the "bottom line."  Again, see Gee, Muhlestein, FAIR and Lindsay.

Again, the Church isn't the only group needing to update its narrative.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

we have the text of Abraham, and they do not match.

They match in some pretty significant respects.

15 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Even the Church admits this without too much equivocation:

It looks like you missed these parts of the essay: 

Quote

Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process. Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today. The relationship between those fragments and the text we have today is largely a matter of conjecture.
...
It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Where you say "the bottom line is that we have the papryi," the Church says that "{o}nly small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession exist today ... we now have only a fraction of the papyri he {Joseph Smith} had in his possession ... The loss of a significant portion of the papyri..."

Where you say "the bottom line is that" the text of the BOA does not "match" the extant fragments, the Church says that we lack the means to "reconstruct the process" whereby the BOA text came to be, that the relationship between the extant fragments and the BOA text "is largely a matter of conjecture," that attempting to "assess Joseph's ability to translate papyri" is "likely futile" (because, again, "we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession"), that "it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments," and that the lost portions of what Joseph had "means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 9, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism has a strong tendency to try and frame the Book of Mormon using that same notion of inerrancy that we get from Evangelical Christianity.

Could you elaborate on this?  Is this a from-the-pulpit or a from-the-pews phenomenon?  Both?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?  Is this a from-the-pulpit or a from-the-pews phenomenon?  Both?  

I think it's both - but I don't think that most people would necessarily frame it in this way. One of the key elements in my view on this would be the 8th Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." This is generally understood as implying that the Book of Mormon must be translated correctly - thus leading to a sense of inerrancy in the text. In 1992, the First Presidency issued a statement about the continued support for the King James text - that letter contains some really interesting comments:

Quote

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

This is a pretty good indicator. The Bible is missing bunches of stuff, there are no original manuscripts which we can use to make comparisons, but, since the Book of Mormon is translated correctly, we don't have any need of original manuscripts (like the Gold Plates) to verify its accuracy, and so the Book of Mormon can be used to correct the Bible.

As an aside, most modern translations are better than the King James text in my opinion. But in any case, this is inerrancy (for the Book of Mormon) in a nutshell.

Of course, the first bit of that letter is also interesting:

Quote

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The earliest leaders of the Church used the King James out of necessity - it was the only widely circulated translation of the Bible into English. The Revised Version wasn't published until 1885. The contrast is interesting. Joseph Smith in the 1840s claimed that the King James translation wasn't particularly good. The best version he claims to have read was a New Testament text translated by Luther. But after the Revised Version appears, suddenly the LDS Church is heavily invested in something akin to King James -onlyism.

Mormonism's inerrancy take on the Book of Mormon is also supported by its place as a convert church - most of its converts have at least some familiarity with the idea of inerrancy, and it is easy enough to substitute one inerrant text for another. I think that there is some influence that has occurred over time in the way these issues are expressed.

Further, this issue of original manuscripts of the Bible - see how this plays a part in current LDS approaches to the text of the Book of Mormon? We want to recover that 'original text' - just look at the many volumes Skousen has produced to do just this. And these ideas are absorbed by the membership - how many times have I heard someone in church teaching a lesson where they refer back to the 'original reading' of a passage in the Book of Mormon? (This is a different context from a more academic paper). Very little consideration is given to the fact that in many instances, Joseph Smith made changes himself - and they were often interpretational changes (that is, they weren't simply corrections of an orthographic error).

At any rate, I think that you could separate questions of inerrancy from questions of translation or transmission - but this isn't usually how members of the Church or Church leaders generally approach the issue. Most member view the Book of Mormon as having some degree of inerrancy and self-sufficiency that are hallmarks of Evangelical belief.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[tagriffy]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

On 11/1/2022 at 5:14 PM, tagriffy said:

No, my objective is not to persuade my readers. At least, not necessarily and not anymore.

Okay.  This actually helps clarify a bit.  Your purpose is not to "persuade," but to . . . what?  To "inform?"  To "educate?"

For myself, I have a hard time with the idea that scholarly writing is not intended to persuade its audience.  But perhaps that because my lawyer job is too deeply engrained in my way of thinking.  

As noted above, attorneys need to be able to write not only "persuasively" (that is, to argue in favor of a particular position, "aimed at creating a desired outcome with a specific audience"), but also an "objectively" (a "warts and all" assessment of a case, intended for the client or another attorney in the firm, an "objective analysis of the law that measures the strengths and weaknesses of the client’s position and balances them").

It seems like you are proposing to "objectively" about a disputed issue, which issue you nevertheless presuppose as established for your purposes.  For example, let's say that a law firm has a client bring in a document which he (the client) believes to be a valid and enforceable contract.  The partner at the firm reviews the document and finds that some portions of it are written in such a way as to create reasonable grounds for the opposing party to dispute the validity/enforceability of the document as a contract (though the document may be useful for purposes other than being a contract).  The partner calls in a junior associate, explains the situation, and asks him to draft an inter-office memorandum evaluating the utility of the document other than as a contract (such as, for example, evidence that the opposing party had previously waived a claim to real property which he now says he owns). 

The associate attorney's assignment, then, is both "objective" in that the partner wants a "warts and all" assessment of the document, but not about the ultimate issue of whether the document is a contract.  Instead, the associate attorney's memorandum presupposes, for the sake of analysis only, that the document is not an enforceable contract, and instead addresses whether it has alternative usefulness (such as evidence of waiver).

Could something similar be said about your proposed article?  You want to write about the Book of Mormon presupposing - but not attempting to establish - its lack of historicity, and from that point proceed to analysis of the text as being useful in some alternative way (the "inspired fiction" approach to "interpreting" what the text is saying, or whatever label you end up using).

Is that a fair summary?

You'll have to forgive me jumping around a bit again. This is the section that really got me thinking we are still talking past each other.

I would say your summary is fair enough, but still imprecise for what I want to do and why I said I'm not necessarily interested in persuading my readers. Sure, I want to create a desired outcome for my audiences (note the plural), but a lot will turn on what the desired outcome is. For that we will have to talk about likely (as opposed to ideal) audiences. Broadly speaking, I think I have to address three types of audience:

1. People who already think Joseph wrote the BoM, what you called the "Dan Vogel"-type.

2. People who don't think Joseph wrote the BoM, what you called "Dan Peterson"-type.

3. People who are or were in category 2 but are now moving into category 1 and were fed the Oaks/Holland line for all or most of their lives. They are either on the verge of or in the midst of a faith crisis as a result.

What would I need to persuade people in category 1 of? Certainly not that Joseph wrote the BoM! I'm preaching to the choir there! Yet you'll note that I was criticizing environmentalists:

Quote

Environmentalists have a special onus to produce what Todd Compton calls “holistically positive treatment[s] of the environmental Book of Mormon.” The environmentalist position is traditionally a position taken by anti-Mormons and used to attack Mormonism. This is why we need to show our “purpose and intent is basically positive.” Religious environmentalists need to display “their reverence and affection for the book.” All environmentalists who do not wish to be classed as anti-Mormons should “address the constructive side of their task.” Arguing with historicists may have its place, but mostly it just produces friction. We need a better way to move ahead.

Quote

***-for-tat argumentation fragments the discussion and requires environmentalists to continually reinvent the wheel.

Quote

Finally, a positive Book of Mormon theory allows us to move forward with our own agenda and engage the work in a “warm, convincing way.”7 Currently, environmentalist scholarship is focused on showing Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Such work has its place, but this is merely the “constant reiteration of fundamentals.” Apologetics also move the Book of Mormon away from the spotlight. If we are to do constructive work on the Book of Mormon, then we had better focus on the Book of Mormon. Stating a theory about the Book of Mormon will shift the spotlight where it belongs. We could do more important work while leaving apologists to debate the fundamentals.

Quote

However, if Book of Mormon studies remain mired in debates about its origin, such work is unlikely. Environmentalists need to move beyond continued debate over these first principles.

In terms of "Environmental Theory," I'm basically saying: "Look! We have wood, we have nails, we have tools. Stop arguing about how to build a table and actually build a table!" So if I'm trying to persuade this group to do something, it would be to stop dwelling on proving Joseph wrote the BoM and start working on developing what Smithian authorship means for interpreting the BoM.

What could I persuade people in category 2 of? Certainly not that Joseph wrote the BoM! I doubt that would truly be possible without a recorded confession from Joseph. So for this group, my work would ideally act much like your description of the associate attorney's task. Plus a little bit more: to give a fallback position if they find themselves drifting into category 3. I would suppose the reason why the associate attorney is doing the work you describe is so that a strategy is available should the judge rule the document is not really a contract.

People in category 2 is the group I have to be most cautious with. It is not my object to tear down their faith. So besides the practical reason I talked about in a previous post, not wanting to tear down anyone's faith is a big flashing yellow light when it comes to engaging historicists. If I keep pausing to score apologetic points, that is going to prove to be so jarring that this audience simply won't be able to see what I see.

This sets up a solid contrast. Historicists have much more freedom to engage in apologetics (in either perjorative or non-perjoritive senses) than I do. They can use scorched earth, take no prisoners tactics. If I did the same, I would rightly be classed as anti-Mormon. That's another reason to be cautious about picking fights I don't need to. So at the very least, I need to be pretty certain I have to engage.

So the desired outcome here is that those in category 2 see the potential of a Smithian approach, even if that is something they don't actually need.

People in category 3 will probably be the smallest yet most important of my audiences. This audience needs something completely different than those in categories 1 or 2. If they are already heading toward category one, the most I would do would be to push them over the edge. If they are already there and wondering what to do about it, I could provide a live option for them. But in the end, that is all I can do. They still need the will to believe in order to grasp it. The desired outcome here would be that they simply consider the option.

On 11/4/2022 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

That is a reasonable response.  You are quite correct.  There are legitimate differences between writing about a religious topic (either informally or in a "scholarly" way) and writing in a legal/adversarial setting.  

That said, it was intended as an analogy, a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.  Moreover, in your first post you sure seemed to be open to analogies to legal argument: "The 'destructive' side refers to the fact that if I'm going to write about Joseph as the author, I have to argue the case that he is indeed the author. I don't think I have to prove it, and I'm not so arrogant as to believe I can anyway. I think I only need to establish a good enough case, a la "Environmental Theory," to get on with the work of analyzing the Book of Mormon from that perspective."

If you need to "argue the case" about X an important part of that will generally be responding to opposing viewpoints / arguments / evidence about X.

Before responding to this, I need to thank you. This part of your response triggered something that helped me think things through more precisely.

It got me looking back and remembering what the function of "Environmental Theory" or any potential rewrite would be. The answer is that it is an introduction, of course. An introduction to what? At the time, I was hoping to eventually produce a full-blown commentary on the Book of Mormon. But if not an actual commentary, then a body of work.

That in turn got me thinking about the purpose of an introduction to a commentary. Part of it is certainly to make a good enough case to analyze a given work from a particular perspective. So talking about making a good enough case to proceed isn't exactly incorrect.

But since I was thinking about commentaries, I started thinking about commentaries I've read where I either had deep reservations about the case or even outright disagreed with the commentator. In many cases, it still proved to be fruitful reading, if for no other reason than it gave me new perspectives to consider. I've never tossed aside a commentary simply because I disagreed with the approach they took, no matter how strongly I disagreed with it.

So the introduction is not just about establishing a good enough case to proceed, but also about establishing the parameters. When I got to a particular passage, even if I disagreed with the initial case, I could say, "I can see that given this particular perspective."

Looked at from this perspective, I still don't necessarily need to prove anything, but I do have to give readers reason to try to see things from the lens I'm using.

Of course, such authors still generally respond to opposing viewpoints / arguments / evidence about X. So this doesn't necessarily advance this discussion much. The question isn't so much about whether I'm going to have to respond to at least certain arguments, but how to respond.

Are you game for an experiment?

On 11/4/2022 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

I think what you reference as "the evidence we need to decide the matter" is better characterized as "the evidence we would like to have to decide the matter."  There are endless circumstances in which people are required to "decide the matter" based on less evidence than they would like to have.  This is because the decision needs to be made, even when the evidence is not as extensive or as probative as we would like.  

I definitely agree with this. If you had a proverbial Welcome to Zarahemla sign or I had a recorded confession from Joseph Smith, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

On 11/4/2022 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

Your posture here kind of demonstrates my point.  You have staked out a position that not only does "decide the matter {of historicity of the Book of Mormon}," but proceeds to analyze the text with that presupposition in place.

It's not like I haven't made an argument showing why I'm staking out that position. But to be fair, I'm not doing anything other than what any other commentator on Scripture does. Do you think historicists haven't staked out a position and then proceeded with that presupposition in place? Was Morris not staking out a position on the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and proceeding with that presupposition in place? Were Albright and Mann not staking out a position on Matthean priority and proceeding with that presupposition in place?   Taking a position and proceeding on it is something pretty much everyone has to do when analyzing a text.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The three added words don't really help me better understand your position.  I see no particular connection between A) rejecting biblical inerrancy and B) rejecting BoM historicity.  

Well, some of that happens in most conversations of this sort.  But in the main I think we are substantively speaking to each other, but not agreeing.  That's fine.

I understand that you are presenting your thought process.  What I am not understanding is your attempt to connect or intertwine biblical inerrancy (a notion essentially foreign to and rejected by the Latter-day Saints) and BoM historicity (a notion plainly presented by the Church and overwhelmingly accepted by its members).  

You seem to be saying that you rejecting the former created - for you - logical causality for rejecting the latter.  That is where you lose me.  I don't understand this "straight-line relationship" (which, in any event, you are now describing as "irrelevant to what {you are} describing").

Again, rejecting the Bible's inerrancy is, in my view, a materially different proposition from rejecting its substantive historicity. 

Virtually any essay could be decontextualized and distorted this way.  And I doubt Pres. Oaks would agree with that, as I'm pretty sure he rejects the notion of biblical inerrancy.

Meanwhile, you are ignoring Daniel Peterson's essay, in which he addresses inerrancy and historicity in the head-on way I think you would like to see, and yet his conclusions are very different from yours.  Where you take a potato / po-tah-to approach to the two concepts (inerrancy and historicity), he explicitly argues that "historicity and inerrancy are not the same thing," that "there are plenty of substantially accurate historical narratives that are not inerrant," and that "{i}n fact, there is (so far as I am aware) no other kind" except "not inerrant" narratives.  The difference, though, is that Peterson actually walks me through his reasoning, whereas you do not.

Similarly, Hoskisson characterizes inerrancy as a "red herring" for the Latter-day Saints.  And then he explains why.  In contrast, you resort more to conclusory, just-trust-me-on-this types of claims ("I was being told the same things about biblical inerrancy that Oaks, Holland, et al. about Book of Mormon historicity" ... "all one needs to do is replace LDS-specific examples for Evangelical-specific ones, and you have substantially the same essay").

I understand that is your conclusion.  But I still don't understand how you reached it.

Can you maintain that distinguishment when considering whether or not Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God?

Assuming by "mythos" you mean "the underlying system of beliefs, especially those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group," and by "logos" you mean "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe," I question the utility of this paradigm (as can happen when Hellenic philosophy is the lens through which the Gospel is viewed).  For example, the Latter-day Saints do not, believe in "supernatural forces," since God is the "God of nature" and operates within (not above) it.  Miracles and such are not violations of the natural law, but rather higher manifestations of it.

I don't.  

How do you reconcile this with Joseph Smith-History, which A) is canon, B) describes Joseph's experiences as literal - not figurative or imaginary - events, and C) is nearly entirely rejected under your approach?

What about the Doctrine & Covenants?  Are there any portions of it that "must be historical"?  Are we free to reject the historicity of all the persons and events described in it?

JS-H 1:2

Well?  Are these "various events" "history" or not?  Had they "transpired" or not?

Verse 3:

While the precise date on which Joseph Smith was born may not matter, whether he was born at all surely does.

Is the birth of Joseph Smith something that "must be historical"?  Why or why not?

Verses 14-15:

Does historicity matter here?  If Joseph lied about this, or was deluded about it, such that the event here never happened, does that matter?  Can we read this and his subsequent recitations of the First Vision and say "none of this must be historical" to have salvific meaning and import?

Is whether Joseph Smith was a historical or fictional person irrelevant to our examination of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints?

With respect, I disagree.  I said this back in 2020:

"It is the idea of a life preserver that matters, and is true regardless of whether or not you actually have one thrown to you as you are flailing about in the storm-tossed seas."

Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior of the World has to be more than simply an "idea."  It has to be true and real.  

To an extent, so do I (or else I bracket the particular depictions of certain events and persons).  But that doesn't answer my question.

Yes, I understand that.

But do you reject "biblical historicity" as to Jesus being the Son of God, His miracles, his death and resurrection and ascension?

I feel quite at liberty to either reject or remain ambivalent about some portions of the biblical narrative.  See, e.g., here:

My position is not nearly as rigid and absolutist as yours.  It appears that we can both accommodate some ahistoricity in the Bible.  That's reasonable.  But your position requires absolute ahistoricity for the Book of Mormon.  I find that as untenable as an absolute rejection of the Bible's historicity. 

You seem to be tacitly - though grudgingly - admitting this, as evidenced by you pointing to some portions of the Bible here and there that you think are ahistorical (or are potentially so, or were never intended to be construed as strictly historical, and so on).  Nothing new or remarkable about that.

But can you reject the entirety of the Bible's historicity - including its depiction of the life and ministry and miracles of Jesus Christ - and then proceed to declare that only "the ideas {in the Bible} matter," and that "ideas are true regardless of whether the stories used to express them actually happened"?

Imagine a group of people have chartered a yacht for an afternoon excursion.  One afternoon John and Steve are the only ones on deck, and John falls overboard.  He resurfaces and calls to Steve for help:

• John: "Steve!  Help!  Throw me a life preserver!"
• Steve: "Sure thing, brother!  Here's an imaginary one!"  {Makes a throwing motion with his arms.}
• John: "What are you doing?  Go get a life preserver and throw it to me!  I'm drowning!"
• Steve: "No need, John!  It's the idea of a life preserver that matters.  A figurative life preserver is just as effective to keep you afloat and save your life as an actual one.  So just hold on to the idea!"
• John: "What?  No!  I need an actual life preserver because I am actually drowning!"
• Steve: "Well, no, the idea of throwing you a life preserver is true regardless of whether I throw an actual one to you.  Have you ever read The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale?..."

John drowns.  Steve sighs.

Okay.  Your personal thought processes notwithstanding, I think most other people find that pretty relevant.

I think what matters is whether the idea of inerrancy is correct and necessary.

Which would speak to the fundamental flaw of inerrancy.  It's self-defeating and imputed onto the text by subsequent actors who were melding their philosophies with the actual text.  And again, the Bible never makes claims of inerrancy.  

Meanwhile, however, the Book of Mormon does make claims to historicity, as do Joseph Smith and the Witnesses.

You are applying "the type of arguments that are being made" about inerrancy of the Bible to a substantially different topic (historicity) about a different text (the Book of Mormon).  I don't think that works.

No.  Not a whit.  Inerrancy and historicity are quite different topics of inquiry.

I get that you have projected your conclusions about biblical inerrancy onto the quite different question of BoM historicity.  But I don't see that projection as logically sound or reasonable.

That is nowhere near the "bottom line."  Again, see Gee, Muhlestein, FAIR and Lindsay.

Again, the Church isn't the only group needing to update its narrative.

They match in some pretty significant respects.

It looks like you missed these parts of the essay: 

Where you say "the bottom line is that we have the papryi," the Church says that "{o}nly small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession exist today ... we now have only a fraction of the papyri he {Joseph Smith} had in his possession ... The loss of a significant portion of the papyri..."

Where you say "the bottom line is that" the text of the BOA does not "match" the extant fragments, the Church says that we lack the means to "reconstruct the process" whereby the BOA text came to be, that the relationship between the extant fragments and the BOA text "is largely a matter of conjecture," that attempting to "assess Joseph's ability to translate papyri" is "likely futile" (because, again, "we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession"), that "it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments," and that the lost portions of what Joseph had "means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri."

Thanks,

-Smac

I notice you rely a lot, in my opinion, on arguments from authority while I tend to disregard them

James 1 and Moroni 10 suggest that we find our own testimonies, ironically when even following that advice is using James and Moroni's positions as coming from authority!

The only reason I follow THAT advice is because I personally automatically reject authority unless I find it to be true for myself anyway!

When I found a church that actually taught what I knew to be a justified principle, I was already sold on the concept!

I judge what the Apostles say based upon what I have proven for myself, not because they are Apostles.

I would only quote an apostle when I knew that that might reach someone who does NOT think as I do, in order to convince them of my point.

Is that what you are doing here, or is it something you believe BECAUSE someone or something says you should?

The idea for me that sins can be "paid for" is something I don't think I have ever accepted.

How much does fornication cost?

How can someone else pay the bill if we can't know how much it costs?

I can see that removing it from your life means tha YOU have changed (repentance) and changed roads and thereby become more like the Ideal Human, but what you have done is over and gone. The change is it's own reward because your life is now better and have a better life. You have lost your need for "crack cocaine " ( sin) and so your life becoming better is it's own reward. Now you are free from all the results of sin.

You are forgiven and now out of sin's prison. You have done all you can do to correct the mistakes 

How can another person correct MY mistakes? Why would HIS death pragmatically help MY life?

Usual answer " It's a mystery, but I KNOW that the atonement of Christ has taken away my sins"

Fine! The belief itself HAS pragmatic truth, BECAUSE it gives you freedom from the prison of sin!

Notice that in either case, the BELIEF is what frees you!!

You have guilt that disappears when you BELIEVE you have done all you can do to remove it.  "And we KNOW that is true, because we personally FEEL it in our hearts! "

No history required.

But suppose someone still insists on history?

All they are doing is putting their faith on history.

It's still a faith position!  That person still must believe in their feelings about history

 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I notice you rely a lot, in my opinion, on arguments from authority while I tend to disregard them

Well, not really.  I have quoted Oaks and Holland, yes, but also Peterson, Jackson, Hoskisson, Givens, Hamblin, Smoot and a bunch of others who have no particular "authority." The commonality here, then, is not referencing their arguments based on "authority,"  but rather based on the substantive reasoning in the arguments themselves.  An "argument from authority" is fallacious because it appeals to the status of the person cited rather than to the merits of their argument.  I don't think I have done that.

Having said that, there are times in which the "authority" of the person is appropriately cited.  While we may endlessly argue as to the morality of elective abortion, through the Dobbs decision the Supreme Court returned the legality of the issue to the several states.  Dobbs overturned Roe precisely because of the "authority" of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution.

In a religious context, I think the Church - more specifically, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve - have the authority to establish/declare the parameters of our "doctrine."  Thus, when Amasa Lyman preached sermons disputing the divinity of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, he was corrected by those in authority, who were the final arbiters of doctrine in an ecclesiastical context.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

James 1 and Moroni 10 suggest that we find our own testimonies, ironically when even following that advice is using James and Moroni's positions as coming from authority!

The only reason I follow THAT advice is because I personally automatically reject authority unless I find it to be true for myself anyway!

When I found a church that actually taught what I knew to be a justified principle, I was already sold on the concept!

I judge what the Apostles say based upon what I have proven for myself, not because they are Apostles.

I am, for myself, the ultimate arbiter and decision-maker.  But I take a somewhat inverted approach.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

For myself, I am leery about reliance on one leg of the "stool" (reason) and mostly or entirely disregarding the other three: personal revelation, prophets and scripture.  I'm just not persuaded that my reasoning about and grasp of God, the Universe and Everything is superior to the cumulative wisdom of past and present prophets and apostles.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would only quote an apostle when I knew that that might reach someone who does NOT think as I do, in order to convince them of my point.

Is that what you are doing here, or is it something you believe BECAUSE someone or something says you should?

Nobody has told me to do or say anything.  I have read quite a bit about " the Inspired Fiction" approach and find it problematic in a number of respects.  Beyond that, there are a variety of learned and thoughtful treatments of this same issue which I have found helpful.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The idea for me that sins can be "paid for" is something I don't think I have ever accepted.

How much does fornication cost?

How can someone else pay the bill if we can't know how much it costs?

I refer you to D&C 19 and Alma 42.  Words like "paid for" and "cost" are figurative, not literal, characterizations.

The scriptures are replete with words and concepts like "redeem" and "redemption" and "redeemer," "atone" and "atonement," and so on.

• He was wounded for our transgressions, Isa. 53:5 (Mosiah 14:5).
• As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. 15:22.
• We have redemption through the blood of Christ, Eph. 1:7, 14 (Heb. 9:11–15; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Alma 5:21; Hel. 5:9–12).
• Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah, 2 Ne. 2:6–7, 26 (Mosiah 15:26–27; 26:26).
• Jesus Christ hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, Morm. 7:5–7.
• The Son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many, Matt. 20:28 (1 Tim. 2:5–6).
• Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, Titus 2:13–14.
• The Son took upon himself men’s iniquity and transgressions, redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice, Mosiah 15:6–9, 18–27.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can see that removing it from your life means tha YOU have changed (repentance) and changed roads and thereby become more like the Ideal Human, but what you have done is over and gone.

My past sins may be "over," but they are certainly not "gone."

Again, see D&C 19.  What I have "done" through sin must, in the end, be "paid" for, whether through accepting the Atonement or, short of that, through my suffering. 

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The change is it's own reward because your life is now better and have a better life.

But the "demands of justice" still need to be met.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have lost your need for "crack cocaine " ( sin) and so your life becoming better is it's own reward. Now you are free from all the results of sin.

With respect, no, that is not so, or at least not fully correct.  Ceasing to commit a sin does not absolve or erase past instances of having done it.  The consequences of sin cannot be set aside using "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" reasoning.  "Justice" and "Mercy" are both part of the Plan of Salvation, but the latter cannot "rob" the former.  As Bruce Hafen put it: "The 'justice of God' (Alma 41:2;42:14) is a principle so fundamental that without it, 'God would cease to be God' (Alma 42:13)."  And Alma: "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."  (Alma 42:25.)

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are forgiven and now out of sin's prison.  You have done all you can do to correct the mistakes 

If I am "out of sin's prison," it is because I rely on what you appear to dispute above, namely, the power of Christ to redeem me from, to atone and "pay" for, my sins.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How can another person correct MY mistakes? Why would HIS death pragmatically help MY life?

Usual answer " It's a mystery, but I KNOW that the atonement of Christ has taken away my sins"

Fine! The belief itself HAS pragmatic truth, BECAUSE it gives you freedom from the prison of sin!

Notice that in either case, the BELIEF is what frees you!!

Well, no.  It is Christ that frees me.  My faith is required to bring me within the ambit of the Atonement, but does not - in and of itself - "free" me.  

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have guilt that disappears when you BELIEVE you have done all you can do to remove it. 

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  My guilt is not a matter of me feeling it or not, but rather a matter of whether I have committed the sin or not.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"And we KNOW that is true, because we personally FEEL it in our hearts! "

No history required.

All sorts of history is required.  But for the Gospel (literally, "Good News"), we would be forever lost.  Eve figured it out long ago:

Quote

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

Moses 5:11-12.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But suppose someone still insists on history?

All they are doing is putting their faith on history.

It's still a faith position!  That person still must believe in their feelings about history

Not sure what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by smac97

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

But historicity is, for me, required to the extent the Book of Mormon is presented as more than mere literature, as having persuasive evidentiary value re: Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, of the truthfulness and reality of the Restoration of the Priesthood, of the authority of the Church and the prophets and apostles, of the validity and value of the ordinances, of the need to accept and abide by these things, as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," and so on.

The text's real value is its salvific import, with "historicity" being an essential component therein.

Yes, we have different perspectives on this. I don't think the Book of Mormon needs to be historical to be an evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or for its words to have "salvific import." I don't think the value of King Benjamin's invitation to put off the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Christ, or Moroni's invitation to come unto Christ and be perfected in him, depends on the historical existence of Zarahemla or the River Sidon. If I "give place" to these words and plant them in my heart, and they begin to enlarge my soul and enlighten my understanding, it's immaterial to me whether or not King Lib begat Hearthom. I concur with Moroni that "every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God" (Moroni 7:13).

The Book of Mormon has blessed my life and the lives of those I love, and I am loath to part with it and with all the other blessings of membership in the Church simply because I cannot, in good conscience, accept its historicity. For me, "reason and rightness" require that I "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good," as far as that is in my power. It does not require that I "consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all," as Elder Holland put it. I believe in a God who places his treasure in earthen vessels.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  I have quoted Oaks and Holland, yes, but also Peterson, Jackson, Hoskisson, Givens, Hamblin, Smoot and a bunch of others who have no "authority" to speak of.  The commonality here, then, is not "arguments from authority."  But rather the substantive reasoning in the arguments themselves.  An "argument from authority" is fallacious because it appeals to the status of the person cited rather than to the merits of their argument.  I don't think I have done that.

Having said that, there are times in which the "authority" of the person is appropriately cited.  While we may endlessly argue as to the morality of elective abortion, through the Dobbs decision the Supreme Court returned the legality of the issue to the several states.  Dobbs overturned Roe precisely because of the "authority" of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution.

In a religious context, I think the Church - more specifically, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve - have the authority to establish/declare the parameters of our "doctrine."  Thus, when Amasa Lyman preached sermons disputing the divinity of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, he was corrected by those in authority, who were the final arbiters of doctrine in an ecclesiastical context.

I am, for myself, the ultimate arbiter and decision-maker.  But I take a somewhat inverted approach.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

For myself, I am leery about reliance on one leg of the "stool" (reason) and mostly or entirely disregarding the other three: personal revelation, prophets and scripture.  I'm just not persuaded that my reasoning about and grasp of God, the Universe and Everything is superior to the cumulative wisdom of past and present prophets and apostles.

Nobody has told me to do or say anything.  I have read quite a bit about " the Inspired Fiction" approach and find it problematic in a number of respects.  Beyond that, there are a variety of learned and thoughtful treatments of this same issue which I have found helpful.

I refer you to D&C 19 and Alma 42.  Words like "paid for" and "cost" are figurative, not literal, characterizations.

The scriptures are replete with words and concepts like "redeem" and "redemption" and "redeemer," "atone" and "atonement," and so on.

• He was wounded for our transgressions, Isa. 53:5 (Mosiah 14:5).
• As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. 15:22.
• We have redemption through the blood of Christ, Eph. 1:7, 14 (Heb. 9:11–15; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Alma 5:21; Hel. 5:9–12).
• Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah, 2 Ne. 2:6–7, 26 (Mosiah 15:26–27; 26:26).
• Jesus Christ hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, Morm. 7:5–7.
• The Son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many, Matt. 20:28 (1 Tim. 2:5–6).
• Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, Titus 2:13–14.
• The Son took upon himself men’s iniquity and transgressions, redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice, Mosiah 15:6–9, 18–27.

My past sins may be "over," but they are certainly not "gone."

Again, see D&C 19.  What I have "done" through sin must, in the end, be "paid" for, whether through accepting the Atonement or, short of that, through my suffering. 

But the "demands of justice" still need to be met.

With respect, no, that is not so, or at least not fully correct.  Ceasing to commit a sin does not absolve or erase past instances of having done it.  The consequences of sin cannot be set aside using "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" reasoning.  "Justice" and "Mercy" are both part of the Plan of Salvation, but the latter cannot "rob" the former.  As Bruce Hafen put it: "The 'justice of God' (Alma 41:2;42:14) is a principle so fundamental that without it, 'God would cease to be God' (Alma 42:13)."  And Alma: "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."  (Alma 42:25.)

If I am "out of sin's prison," it is because I rely on what you appear to dispute above, namely, the power of Christ to redeem me from, to atone and "pay" for, my sins.

Well, no.  It is Christ that frees me.  My faith is required to bring me within the ambit of the Atonement, but does not - in and of itself - "free" me.  

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  My guilt is not a matter of me feeling it or not, but rather a matter of whether I have committed the sin or not.

All sorts of history is required.  But for the Gospel (literally, "Good News"), we would be forever lost.  Eve figured it out long ago:

Moses 5:11-12.

Not sure what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yeah, we are not communicating here.

Your case is  based on the experience of others, every name mentioned, every scripture cited, your need to believe that events "really happened" without a statement of what "really" means, when all we have to go on is personal experience.

The church has no more authority over MY life than what I grant it, it's not the supreme court. Of course I grant it authority because it IS God's church here on earth. But if a prophet goes wacko, and God tells me so, I'm out.

My answers would have been "I know the gospel is true because God has shown me in my my own heart and personal experience that it is"

If we postulate that he can do that,that is itself true or false, no further alleged evidence is necessary.

No one can prove history, all that is based on the "testimony", in a legal sense, of others which to me, is hearsay "evidence" ie no evidence at all.  THAT is argument from authority to me, taking someone else AS "authority".

I am a skeptic, God is the only one I don't argue with!  He wonks you upside the head and that's it for me!

Calm says being bold in testimony is bad, I disagree 

So long story short, we don't communicate well about religion. Thanks for the little discussion.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Calm says being bold in testimony is bad, I disagree 

Where did I say that?  That doesn’t sound like me.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where did I say that?  That doesn’t sound like me.

It was here on board. You know how to research, here I don't.

The basic idea was if you speak about having a very heavy testimony experience, others might not believe or think God doesn't like them. I think it might have been about praying for trivial things like finding keys etc. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It was here on board. You know how to research, here I don't.

The basic idea was if you speak about having a very heavy testimony experience, others might not believe or think God doesn't like them. I think it might have been about praying for trivial things like finding keys etc. 

i doubt I implied never be bold in testimony speaking or suggesting one shouldn’t share significant testimony experiences, especially since I do that myself frequently.  My guess is I was talking about congregational speaking, but even there I would attach a massive condition to that.  Choose  your time and place to be bold.  Let the Spirit guide.  At times that is the way to go, at others speaking in gentleness is, probably most times and places deserve a mix.  There is a difference in recognizing not all will benefit from what you say and some may even be harmed and therefore adjusting some in order to minimize harm and not being bold, imo.  One could, for example, share a time one received what was an obvious answer (at least to oneself) and speak about how that time helps one get through the dark, silent times.

I am rarely so black and white as to say never do this or always do that (though I do say always try and let the Spirit lead, but I believe reality is sometimes you won’t be able to hear it, so reason and experience may be what you must depend on).

Edited November 10, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

Yes, we have different perspectives on this. I don't think the Book of Mormon needs to be historical to be an evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or for its words to have "salvific import." 

Okay.  I wish you well.

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I don't think the value of King Benjamin's invitation to put off the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Christ, or Moroni's invitation to come unto Christ and be perfected in him, depends on the historical existence of Zarahemla or the River Sidon.

Does it matter if we reject the historicity of Christ, if we re-characterize Him as purely fictional figure?

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

If I "give place" to these words and plant them in my heart, and they begin to enlarge my soul and enlighten my understanding, it's immaterial to me whether or not King Lib begat Hearthom.

I tend to pay more attention to what I suppose could be called orthopraxy, which in my view is a mixture of right motives and right conduct.  I think someone who is earnestly seeking to do what is right may nevertheless err here and there in his understanding of this or that point of doctrine.  As Joseph Smith put it: "It [doesn't] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."

However, there comes a point where "err{ing} in doctrine" can become a serious thing.  

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I concur with Moroni that "every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God" (Moroni 7:13).

So do I.  Not sure what that has to do with historicity.

Meanwhile, how does one "concur with," say, JS-H 1:30-35?

Quote

30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.
31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.
33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;
35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

"Inspire Fiction" requires rejection of this as a fabrication, right?  No Moroni, ergo no Gold Plates and other artifacts.  No Gold Plates, ergo the Witnesses were lying and deceived, and Joseph Smith was deluded or lying throughout his life.

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

The Book of Mormon has blessed my life and the lives of those I love, and I am loath to part with it and with all the other blessings of membership in the Church simply because I cannot, in good conscience, accept its historicity. 

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.

It looks like there are exceptions to this, and I am glad of that.  But in the main, in my experience people who encounter a "faith crisis" tend to use ahistoricity as evidence tending away from maintaining faith in the Restored Gospel.  

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

For me, "reason and rightness" require that I "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good," as far as that is in my power. It does not require that I "consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all," as Elder Holland put it. I believe in a God who places his treasure in earthen vessels.

I am glad you can thread that needle.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your case is  based on the experience of others, every name mentioned, every scripture cited, your need to believe that events "really happened" without a statement of what "really" means, when all we have to go on is personal experience.

I am using "really" in its normative, from-the-dictionary sense, not in any particular idiosyncratic way.

I need Christ to be "real," to be more than just an idea, in a similar sense to a drowning man needing a life preserver to be "real."

I need Christ to be "real," and not merely figurative or metaphorical, in the same way I need "real" food and water to continue to life.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church has no more authority over MY life than what I grant it, it's not the supreme court.

I quite agree.  Back in 2020 I wrote: "The Church, on the other hand, only has as much authority as the individual chooses to cede to it.  And submission to that authority can be limited or withdrawn by the individual at any time, for any reason or no reason at all."

That said, to join the Church is to submit to its authority.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I grant it authority because it IS God's church here on earth. But if a prophet goes wacko, and God tells me so, I'm out.

Same here.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My answers would have been "I know the gospel is true because God has shown me in my my own heart and personal experience that it is"

If we postulate that he can do that, that is itself true or false, no further alleged evidence is necessary.

I agree. 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No one can prove history,

"Prove" in what sense?

Do you deny that the Civil War happened?  That Donald Trump was the President of the United States in 2018?  That Luther nailed this theses to the chapel door?

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

all that is based on the "testimony", in a legal sense, of others which to me, is hearsay "evidence" ie no evidence at all. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  In a historiographical context, rejecting data from "hearsay evidence" would eviscerate the discipline.  The same can be said in a Latter-day Saint context.  Every single statement attributed to God which has been preserved in scripture is "hearsay evidence."

You seem to be rejecting hearsay evidence as "no evidence at all."  Am I reading you correctly?  

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is argument from authority to me, taking someone else AS "authority".

A witness is providing evidence.

I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy.  An excerpt:

Quote

{T}here should be little surprise that history, which manifestly operates on a lower level of certainty than those sections of almanacs that predict times of sunrise, can generally furnish plausibility and even a very high degree of probability—but no more than that. But this is true of all history, not merely of that area of history that focuses on religion and religious claims. Leopold von Ranke’s contention that real, scientific historians can and must describe the past “as it actually happened” is dead. Nobody that I know or read believes that totally objective, scientific history—history written without preconceptions and without prejudgments—is possible.

Witness statements are often all we've got in terms of "evidence," and quite often not even that.  

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a skeptic, God is the only one I don't argue with!  He wonks you upside the head and that's it for me!

Calm says being bold in testimony is bad, I disagree 

So long story short, we don't communicate well about religion. Thanks for the little discussion.

Okay.  I think we can have spirited, and yet respectful and civil, discussions about items about which we disagree, and then still come away on good terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 10, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am using "really" in its normative, from-the-dictionary sense, not in any particular idiosyncratic way.

I need Christ to be "real," to be more than just an idea, in a similar sense to a drowning man needing a life preserver to be "real."

I need Christ to be "real," and not merely figurative or metaphorical, in the same way I need "real" food and water to continue to life.

I quite agree.  Back in 2020 I wrote: "The Church, on the other hand, only has as much authority as the individual chooses to cede to it.  And submission to that authority can be limited or withdrawn by the individual at any time, for any reason or no reason at all."

That said, to join the Church is to submit to its authority.

Same here.

I agree. 

"Prove" in what sense?

Do you deny that the Civil War happened?  That Donald Trump was the President of the United States in 2018?  That Luther nailed this theses to the chapel door?

I don't understand what you are saying here.  In a historiographical context, rejecting data from "hearsay evidence" would eviscerate the discipline.  The same can be said in a Latter-day Saint context.  Every single statement attributed to God which has been preserved in scripture is "hearsay evidence."

You seem to be rejecting hearsay evidence as "no evidence at all."  Am I reading you correctly?  

A witness is providing evidence.

I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy.  An excerpt:

Witness statements are often all we've got in terms of "evidence," and quite often not even that.  

Okay.  I think we can have spirited, and yet respectful and civil, discussions about items about which we disagree, and then still come away on good terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agree and I think this post nails the misunderstandings.  And yes I have read the works of Prophet Dan  and I agree with him nearly of the time. 

Will be in touch

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Does it matter if we reject the historicity of Christ, if we re-characterize Him as purely fictional figure?

For me, it does matter. It matters that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead. On the other hand, I find the idea of Christianity so compelling that I might still believe even if there were no grounds for believing that Jesus was a historical person.
 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, how does one "concur with," say, JS-H 1:30-35? "Inspire Fiction" requires rejection of this as a fabrication, right?  No Moroni, ergo no Gold Plates and other artifacts.  No Gold Plates, ergo the Witnesses were lying and deceived, and Joseph Smith was deluded or lying throughout his life.

Joseph may have been lying, but I think it is more likely that he was relating things that he experienced. Seeing angels is outside of my experience but I am open to the possibility. That said, I don't view the Book of Mormon as a historical account of "the former inhabitants of this continent," so, yes, I think Joseph was mistaken about that. As he was probably mistaken about moon Quakers, Adam's altar, Zelph, and other things.
 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

To speak to President Oaks's comments, I don't know that "concepts of faith and revelation" are rejected in this approach. Speaking for myself, I still have "faith" that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God ("revelation"). As far as "not even good scholarship" goes, I have no idea what books or articles President Oaks may have been thinking of when he made that remark. I have never seen a sustained argument made for the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction."
  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 understand your concern and I partly share it. But I think the "all or nothing" approach may do more damage in the long term. I am not a prophet, but I don't foresee the challenges to historicity going away. I see them becoming more acute in the coming decades. The Church is already doing a good job of driving out many of its "best and brightest." I expect that trend to continue if we don't make any room for nuanced belief, if pre-critical, pre-modern readings of scripture are the only ones deemed to be spiritually safe.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Nevo

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

I understand your concern and I partly share it. But I think the "all or nothing" approach may do more damage in the long term. I am not a prophet, but I don't foresee the challenges to historicity going away. I see them becoming more acute in the coming decades. The Church is already doing a good job of driving out many of its "best and brightest." I expect that trend to continue if we don't make any room for nuanced belief; if pre-critical, pre-modern readings of scripture are the only ones deemed to be spiritually safe.

And that is ultimately the issue. The challenges should come but to affirmatively deny the BoM's historicity in its totality without nuance seems inconceivable at this point. And yes, it does pull us into questions about the historicity of Christ and whether even the Christ story is more of the inspired fiction variety. Is there a way to distinguish between what the conventional LDS belief about Christ is and the conventional LDS belief about the restoration of the priesthood is? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

And that is ultimately the issue. The challenges should come but to affirmatively deny the BoM's historicity in its totality without nuance seems inconceivable at this point. And yes, it does pull us into questions about the historicity of Christ and whether even the Christ story is more of the inspired fiction variety. Is there a way to distinguish between what the conventional LDS belief about Christ is and the conventional LDS belief about the restoration of the priesthood is? 

The key is teaching people that truth is paradigms/beliefs /theories/ stories that work for a specific purpose. 19th century stories about physics don't work anymore because of the nature of physics as an empirical science, but even today's stories about physics will change

The church's central paradigm is the paradigm/story/belief that belief in a perfect human and encouragement to become such, can actually make one into a perfect being.

That's the immortality and eternal life of humankind.

But the only evidence is in the heart and perhaps some case studies in how beliefs in that improve people.

Two paradigms, one scientific, one spiritual, both work because they accomplish their purposes in practice.

THAT is the way it should be taught imo.

The Christ story cannot be empirically verified, we don't have a sin scale to see how many sin units are lost by repentance!

Yet billions of lives have changed for the better because of the belief!

It works to perform its purpose!

Lives are changed by "accepting Jesus" and his glorious atonement! Indisputable!

The modifications to the Christ paradigm including the physicality of God, in the BOM, and Joseph's additions, made it clearer, improved the paradigm - it makes perfection a personal goal for everyone who believes it, and as a lifestyle, a praxis, it is clearly effective in the lives of those who take it to heart.

I know many who have left still follow most of the moral principles and central practices- that also shows that the paradigm works!

It's literalism imo that is the problem.

And one can say "literal or figurative? It doesn't matter, the paradigm has improved my life".

THAT is essentially my stand in a nutshell.

"How God did/does it doesn't matter, that's his business"

AND you can get your own testimony!  I surrender to the Boss- He knows how to run his business!

EDIT: On the other hand the general membership does not understand postmodernism which I think possibly was designed by God for the restoration, to understand these principles. So realistically we may have wait till pragmatic postmodernism is the predominant understanding of language and literature, and the meaning of "Truth".

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[tagriffy]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The three added words don't really help me better understand your position.  I see no particular connection between A) rejecting biblical inerrancy and B) rejecting BoM historicity. 

In that case, we may as well just cut to the chase then.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

22 hours ago, tagriffy said:

To summarize those arguments:

1. Believers in biblical inerrancy view inerrancy as being the sine qua non of the Bible's claim to status as inspired writ.

2. As you said, "Both believers in and skeptics of the Book of Mormon, by and large, view historicity as being the sine qua non of the Book of Mormon's claim to status as inspired writ."

Now do you see the similarity I am pointing to?

No.  Not a whit.  Inerrancy and historicity are quite different topics of inquiry.

22 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Step by step, this is how it breaks down:

1. I had accepted both summaries when initially at the Book of Mormon.
2. Because I couldn't affirm BoM historicity, I rejected its claim to status as inspired writ.
3. I later wound up rejecting biblical inerrancy, and learned that inerrancy is not the sine qua non to its claim to status as inspired writ.
4. I turned back to the Book of Mormon, still rejecting its historicity, and asked whether historicity really was the sine qua non of its claim to status as inspired writ.
5. I learned it was not.

That is as simple as I can break it down. Of course living through the process was much more complicated.

Expand  

I get that you have projected your conclusions about biblical inerrancy onto the quite different question of BoM historicity.  But I don't see that projection as logically sound or reasonable.

This statement alone demonstrates you don't get what I am saying. I am also at my wit's end trying to get you to understand. And I certainly don't have time to debate your strawman of what I am saying. So at this point, I'm just leaving this aside.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

22 hours ago, tagriffy said:

So even where scripture does deal with historical matters (normally a matter for logos), there really isn't anything that I think must be historical.

How do you reconcile this with Joseph Smith-History, which A) is canon, B) describes Joseph's experiences as literal - not figurative or imaginary - events, and C) is nearly entirely rejected under your approach?

What about the Doctrine & Covenants?  Are there any portions of it that "must be historical"?  Are we free to reject the historicity of all the persons and events described in it?

The book of Jonah A) is canon, B) describes Jonah's experiences as literal--not figurative or imaginary--events, and C) is nearly entirely rejected under my approach.

More seriously, I recognize that Joseph Smith-History is an iteration of a story that had been in the process of development for roughly twenty years and would have probably continued to develop if Joseph had lived another twenty years after this iteration. I also recognize that Joseph was writing about his past from the perspective of his now. And I allow for the possibility that in this iteration, Joseph may not have fully understood what was going on. As he said elsewhere:

Quote

You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.

Mind you he said this around five years after he wrote what is now Joseph Smith--History. This is a person who knows he is telling stories that are hard to believe and must use the language of mythos to even try to communicate what he experienced.

As for the Doctrine and Covenants, to me you are simply asking the wrong question. The primary question is why these particular revelations are included in the Standard Works. It's not about the people and events described therein. So in that sense, the answer is no, none of it must be historical.

On 11/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, smac97 said:

Yes, I understand that.

But do you reject "biblical historicity" as to Jesus being the Son of God, His miracles, his death and resurrection and ascension?

With the exception of Jesus' death, these things are in the realm of mythos. I'm indifferent to their historicity. I believe he rose from the dead; in what form is not something I can positively affirm and is also a matter of indifference for me in any case.

On 11/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, smac97 said:

My position is not nearly as rigid and absolutist as yours.  It appears that we can both accommodate some ahistoricity in the Bible.  That's reasonable.  But your position requires absolute ahistoricity for the Book of Mormon.  I find that as untenable as an absolute rejection of the Bible's historicity. 

It's what the evidence leads me to believe. Show me a proverbial Welcome to Zarahemla sign and I'll change my position.

On 11/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, smac97 said:

But can you reject the entirety of the Bible's historicity - including its depiction of the life and ministry and miracles of Jesus Christ - and then proceed to declare that only "the ideas {in the Bible} matter," and that "ideas are true regardless of whether the stories used to express them actually happened"?

If this isn't clear by now, the answer is yes.

On 11/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, smac97 said:

That is nowhere near the "bottom line."  Again, see Gee, Muhlestein, FAIR and Lindsay.

I tell you what. Get the consensus of Egyptology behind them and then you'll have something. Meanwhile, we have the papyri, we have the text of Abraham, and they do not match.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, tagriffy said:

Meanwhile, we have the papyri, we have the text of Abraham, and they do not match.

Fyi I believe in the catalyst theory for both Bom AND Boa.

He was, I think, "reading tea leaves", a known device seers use.

Remember he received both by the "gift and power of God".

Believe it or don't- only God doing the same for each of us explains it.

Extreme? I thought so too until I got my own testimony