Inspired Fiction - Did Joseph Smith Believe He Was Translating Real Records?

[the narrator]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can't say that Smith believed the plates were invisible to the eye or only existed spiritually and also believed that he could sell them for actual money because they were made of actual, visible, gold.

I could say that Joseph never believed that they existed only spiritually and that they were very real to him. I could also say that he sincerely remembered wanting to sell them when he later gave that account. I could further say that Joseph believed he could make them visible and tangible to sell but believed he was prohibited by God from doing so.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Some will insist that that which is not real to them in their minds was nonetheless very real to Joseph Smith in his, and that he operated in good faith. So, they say he was not lying, but that he held to a different paradigm and preconception about spiritual matters than they do. Both they and Joseph simply have a different sets of experiences and working models; no one is necessarily lying.

So he was schizophrenic?

[ZealouslyStriving]

29 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I could say that Joseph never believed that they existed only spiritually and that they were very real to him. I could also say that he sincerely remembered wanting to sell them when he later gave that account. I could further say that Joseph believed he could make them visible and tangible to sell but believed he was prohibited by God from doing so.

So... Schizophrenic?

[ZealouslyStriving]

This is what someone who believes he is in touch with heaven and believes he can manifest things that don't really exist sounds like when expounding their ideas. (I'm not going to link to where this came from because this isn't meant to mock or make a spectacle of the poor man):

"Isaiah chapter 28:3 is a topic that says the reason why the wisdom of the wise shall perish is pride and the crown of pride shall be like a fading flower is Ephraim judgment. I’ve seen it happen in the church of Ephraim. That church is the restoration church. Some of us are Judah and it says the scepter shall not depart from Judah and Manasseh is the call I was given and it’s on dads side no matter what dad says or rebellious family say who want to stay strictly Ephraim. I was called to One Mighty and Strong in the crown and also in Church apostles in the Bible and Book of Mormon church blessings even if a lot of the Book of Mormon wasn’t true. Even if a lot of the Bible isn’t accurate doctrine in practice. I don’t have anyone in my family seeming willing because the drug lords would like us at no time for depriving the gangs of drugs in southwest or north or west or south of border which won’t be my field most likely in this life I’m too disappointed the fellowship of the church tried to put me with Assad as a missionary partner and didn’t even get anyone and Anwar was his missionary partner and the men kept asking me and said stuff to me sometimes about Assads daughter and I liked her temperament when it was sweet but not as she was stressed and she isn’t my woman she’s married and is a cousin to the family. Those are only missionaries assigned to that region besides mafia and drug cartels so there is one left not saying who and he’s so old he may not go in near future. Now I don’t have money or ability to travel with arthritis so if it happens it will be social media and delegation and books and articles and reform. I’m not into cultural integration with anyone including the church because of be not conformed to the ways of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Bible says as does Book of Mormon that King of north Assads daughter would be offered to be wife option and I would not be for her and she would not be for me because north and south kingdom unity would come only by Messiah and not by marriage of mine but by His marriage of the Bride the church and Christ. So it was unwise to mingle too much and so there will be no Messiah of me but of Christ there is already. And that means I was King of South II ring bearer but the Messiah of Israel is King as for how I am concerned. So if there is a mission to Native Americans all we need to do is suit their needs other than selfish ones like don’t grow or don’t maintain fabric of infrastructure or society or don’t have technology that is even done by natives but by hand only and it’s like the Amish Christian debate. We do need to keep up with population demand. But the ministry I did was said to be based on ruling southern kingdom and only to last for three and a half years like Jesus ministry was but he was to be cut off and as for me it says I’d live on as Prince and rest for some reason I feel a wall to working at all as if constrained and I have a push to work up against the wall and so when I eat I feel like I’m eating my own bones so when I work out I feel like it’s heavy and too empty. And I feel leaned on to climb I want to be in the Kingdom of God but the church hasn’t been civil with me for about 20 years and I’m not sure why other than they want me to do all their missionary work and not stop working to bring money in and never share it and never have a church life and guys I’m not interested in being your work horse if you don’t let me enjoy the fruit of it. I was miserable there no one acts like they’re much of them in the real world it feels like here’s Gods word interpretation by man and how unable we are to attain it and we try and someone won’t let it flow so we have to take them into jail or battle and the church was overrun by aggressive people and they all keep bruising my head and heal. I’m not Satanic guys I just wish you knew that at church I’ve been trying to keep the law for what I’m accountable for and I think it’s private but circumcising of the heart means we are debtors to keep the whole law or perish. My heart was crucified and I died so the law beyond that is death as we receive only Christ as life and I didn’t want that to kill me as he said Jesus is life and life more abundantly i want my memories and life back but the church here believes we can’t have lives but quoting scripture and judging and retorting and hearing all the garbage and I don’t want that aspect of life anymore I want to live it. You have lost the grasp on what pride is. It means you think that by constraining someone’s body forcing them by constraint into this city of Independence MO as your Zion so called and using occult force to force them into groupie connectivity that it is righteous but that if we have any unique gifts or qualities we are evil or treaded on. I don’t believe that way and never did. Until I have a wife I don’t want to be at church and until you all stop hurting me and my first cousin Adam or John Larson and calling them me and making my works look like your own messiah and making their works look like me I don’t know what the point is. One was kicked out the other is not a baptised member of the RLDS or LDS anything he could be but I doubt it because he was never made to and at this point I think he values his life enough not to submit to abuse but the baptism is the same if it’s by authority and at this point I don’t know if his was blessed of Israeli priesthood regardless of restoration story which was blessed of Israel on my lineage of Bonheoffer. The Mormonism is the issue if its teaching polygamy but that is going on even in Christianity guided as divorce and remarriage. That’s Muslim influence. And yes we all are Hales and Smiths. Hales are Native American and they are Muslim roots for some and Levite for others. All the natives are Muslims or Christians or Hindus or they are Sikhism. Some are spiritism. They don’t agree with me at all to some perspectives but it’s because they have not had money to civilize beyond their charitable community standards. I mean civilize as in integrate and that isn’t culture of the tribes to integrate. And now there are many upset at me for reported drug cartels and I won’t be back at JCRB because they made me look bad to my dad yelling at him over the phone saying I’m wrong about the cartels doing missionary endeavors to Africa and Native America. And I know they don’t believe me or do and don’t care one or the other but that is the peers of my dad and they don’t like that about me and I know I’m not in this and it upset them because it’s a ploy to use me and a criminal enterprise as accomplice to harm the tribes and Jews and Africans and that is my point is I cannot afford this in life I don’t want to go to jail so I reported as whistleblower I had a dream I was supposed to teach masses in heaven and hell. So my ministry doesn’t need silenced I just won’t be led to speak any time soon to those people til they have no ability to do anything but be captive audience if they don’t respect the authority or get over the drugs or desire the Kingdom way of life in harmony relations with fellows humanity. But I never said they didn’t."

[the narrator]

23 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So... Schizophrenic?

No

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I could say that Joseph never believed that they existed only spiritually and that they were very real to him. I could also say that he sincerely remembered wanting to sell them when he later gave that account. I could further say that Joseph believed he could make them visible and tangible to sell but believed he was prohibited by God from doing so.

You definitely could, but none of that has any evidence behind it.  And that's the point that I'm making.  When we stick to the evidence, our options are fairly small. 

That doesn't mean that we have to stick to the evidence when forming our own beliefs of course, but when making an argument of why our beliefs have merit and should be considered as viable options by others, evidence is important.  

Because I could say that JS actually died that day on the Hill, saw the plates in the afterlife, and was brought back to life by the Angel Moroni, and that is as plausible and supported as all of the theories that you've put forth above.

Possibilities are not probabilities, and evidence is one way that we sort through both in regards to history.

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So he was schizophrenic?

Are you imagining that someone has suggested that?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you imagining that someone has suggested that?  

I always feel like somebody's watching me AND I have no privacy. 😶‍🌫️

Edited July 10, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[blackstrap]

inspired fiction? Ah yes Joseph Smith ... the J.R.R. Tolkien of his era. 

[brownbear]

16 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

inspired fiction? Ah yes Joseph Smith ... the J.R.R. Tolkien of his era. 

I know you're being sarcastic  

To paraphrase a friend: I must admit that the Book of Mormon still baffles me. I struggle to understand it as a historical document, though I noticed that Richard Bushman recently mentioned it reads like history to him. Despite this, I can't shake the feeling that there's something miraculous about how it came to be and its continued spiritual influence on people globally. Yes, it contains many anachronisms, yet I also find it to be doctrinally rich, complex, and full of wisdom.

Edited July 10, 2024 by brownbear

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You definitely could, but none of that has any evidence behind it.  And that's the point that I'm making.  When we stick to the evidence, our options are fairly small. 

 

Well, as far as evidence goes, we have zero evidence that Joseph had anything or had physically seen anything resembling gold plates until 1829. After that we only have very limited evidence of witnesses, including 1 who early on purported to claim that he saw them with spiritual, or his mind's eye, rather than his natural eyes.

So going back to what someone could say:

1. "I could say that Joseph never believed that they existed only spiritually and that they were very real to him." I'm actually surprised you are dismissing this, as this seems to be the standard Mormon narrative.

2. "I could also say that he sincerely remembered wanting to sell them when he later gave that account." That is precisely what he is doing in his History, so the evidence is quite clear that he at least claims to be remembering this.

3. " I could further say that Joseph believed he could make them visible and tangible to sell but believed he was prohibited by God from doing so." Again, this is precisely what Joseph claimed: that others were prohibited from seeing them (IIRC, with a penalty of death).

So I'm baffled by what you are claiming there is a lack of evidence of. Now a skeptic, of course, would say that we really don't have evidence that there were any golden plates in the first place and that Joseph was lying about it, but I'm here giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Well, as far as evidence goes, we have zero evidence that Joseph had anything or had physically seen anything resembling gold plates until 1829. After that we only have very limited evidence of witnesses, including 1 who early on purported to claim that he saw them with spiritual, or his mind's eye, rather than his natural eyes.

So going back to what someone could say:

1. "I could say that Joseph never believed that they existed only spiritually and that they were very real to him." I'm actually surprised you are dismissing this, as this seems to be the standard Mormon narrative.

2. "I could also say that he sincerely remembered wanting to sell them when he later gave that account." That is precisely what he is doing in his History, so the evidence is quite clear that he at least claims to be remembering this.

3. " I could further say that Joseph believed he could make them visible and tangible to sell but believed he was prohibited by God from doing so." Again, this is precisely what Joseph claimed: that others were prohibited from seeing them (IIRC, with a penalty of death).

So I'm baffled by what you are claiming there is a lack of evidence of. Now a skeptic, of course, would say that we really don't have evidence that there were any golden plates in the first place and that Joseph was lying about it, but I'm here giving him the benefit of the doubt.

We actually have a lot of evidence, just not proof.  But, evidence does not have to be provable.  First hand accounts (or primary sources) and secondhand accounts (secondary sources) are still considered evidence even when they cannot be corroborated.  

We have both primary sources as well as secondary sources describing the events, thoughts, feelings, occurrences, etc. of JS's receiving and interacting with the plates which support their being tangible objects.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So... Schizophrenic?

In his culture, that could have been seen as a very rational, valid belief just as once turning lead to gold was seen as scientific and spiritual at once.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 7/8/2024 at 4:21 PM, brownbear said:

I am curious where everyone falls? Do you believe Joseph Smith thought his translation projects were literal translations of real people?

Yes. 

 

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, brownbear said:

I think it does cause problems, but not ones that can't be overcome.

If one believes that Joseph thought the record was a genuine historical account, even if he had to fabricate the plates (see Taves), it can be seen as an example of God having someone create something holy. For instance, in Exodus 31-34, after Moses smashed the tablets given to him by God, he had to create two new tablets which the Lord then "wrote on". Similarly, perhaps Joseph had to build something which the Lord then consecrated.

If someone loses faith or doubts the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon but remains fully committed to the Church, what should they do?

I’m interested to understand how it’s possible to overcome the problems associated with a book that’s filled with a multitude of preposterous lies, from the first page to the last, in which its purported authors claim, in the most solemn language, that it’s historicity is most real and verily true. For example, how does one successfully process the following 2 verses if what’s written is historically untrue?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

[CV75]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

We actually have a lot of evidence, just not proof.  But, evidence does not have to be provable.  First hand accounts (or primary sources) and secondhand accounts (secondary sources) are still considered evidence even when they cannot be corroborated.  

We have both primary sources as well as secondary sources describing the events, thoughts, feelings, occurrences, etc. of JS's receiving and interacting with the plates which support their being tangible objects.  

I think this is an important point; these sources must all eventually serve as substrates for faith in Christ and the Restoration of His Church, which can only be proven by the one whose faith is thus activated. Otherwise, the evidence is limited to a reasoned belief in one point or technicality or another. The Title Page of the Book of Mormon demonstrates this wonderfully: all the things it lists (and of which we find evidence in the history of the Church) are to convince "the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations--"

Some have found these evidences insufficient to believe and/or for inducing faith in Christ and the Restoration and simply adopt other evidences and explanations that come by way of scholarship and science. As to whether these beliefs lead to faith in Christ and the Restoration is a separate matter; that depends on the individual and of what and how they witness and testify of Christ and the Restoration.

I've seen a lot of posts over the years about how people no longer believe in the Restoration (for a myriad of reasons), but keep their membership and attendance because of family commitments, faith in Christ, or other reasons. I've seen instances where they seem to seek participation, unity, affirmation, recognition, permission, validation, etc. (very normal, human needs) of these beliefs (which are specific to their exposure to the Church) just as they once might have done by bearing testimony of Christ and the Restoration. I am not suggesting that is what is going on in this thread!

[champatsch]

Counting these as sentence markers (.!?), the nonbiblical parts of the Book of Mormon (about 252,300 words) have an average sentence length of 26.5 words (as punctuated by Skousen for the 2nd edition of the critical text). The King James NT is about 24.1 and the OT is about 27.3. An oral pseudo-archaic text, Pearl Curran's Sorry Tale (1917) is about 14.2. Richard Grant White's 1863 written text is about 28.4 (Shakespearean scholar).

Another thing to consider is the frequency of the, and, of – the three most frequent words in most texts. In the early modern period, this is the order of frequency for most texts. In the late modern period, the order for most texts shifts to the, of, and. Four known longer written pseudo-archaic texts correlate very closely with the King James values of 8.1%, 6.5%, 4.4%; published in 1740, 1751, 1811, 1863. The Book of Mormon (1829) is close as well; among these five, it is the second closest (0.9990); RGW's is the closest (0.9998). The Sorry Tale isn't close (0.657); the conjunction is used much more than the definite article: 6.8%, 9.2%, 3.3%. So heavy and use is another possible marker of an oral text.

[champatsch]

The Lord has provided many pieces of evidence in the English usage of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith didn't author the text. One of these is "it supposeth me <object.clause>". This occurs 4 times in the text (Alma 54:11 [2×], Jacob 2:8, Words of Mormon 1:2), and the syntactic expression is unique to the Book of Mormon. Outside of the Book of Mormon the syntax occurs once! The OED currently mentions it under the verb suppose, definition I.i.2.a, a1393. This impersonal, simple dative syntax occurs in a late Middle English poem by John Gower: "But all too little him supposeth".

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/suppose_v?tab=meaning_and_use#19727882:

Bot al to lytel him supposeth, Thogh he mihte al the world pourchace.
J. Gower, Confessio Amantis (Fairfax MS.) v. l. 22.

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by champatsch
Adding OED link and original spelling.

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

We actually have a lot of evidence, just not proof.  But, evidence does not have to be provable.  First hand accounts (or primary sources) and secondhand accounts (secondary sources) are still considered evidence even when they cannot be corroborated.  

We have both primary sources as well as secondary sources describing the events, thoughts, feelings, occurrences, etc. of JS's receiving and interacting with the plates which support their being tangible objects.  

I'll be honest. I've lost track of what we are even discussing now. You earlier said that there was no evidence of a few possibilities that I proposed, for which there very much is, and now you are saying that is lots of evidence for something for which there was only one witness. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, brownbear said:

I know you're being sarcastic  

To paraphrase a friend: I must admit that the Book of Mormon still baffles me. I struggle to understand it as a historical document, though I noticed that Richard Bushman recently mentioned it reads like history to him. Despite this, I can't shake the feeling that there's something miraculous about how it came to be and its continued spiritual influence on people globally. Yes, it contains many anachronisms, yet I also find it to be doctrinally rich, complex, and full of wisdom.

As a matter of practical application, would you mind describing how you live the Book of Mormon's doctrine and wisdom in the context of Church participation? I think this is where some who believe the Book of Mormon's historicity might have trouble envisioning how belief that it is a fiction, even when considered inspired fiction, translates into covenant-keeping with God. On the surface, its seems that accepting it as inspired indicates a recognition that God's personal hand is in it.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I'll be honest. I've lost track of what we are even discussing now. You earlier said that there was no evidence of a few possibilities that I proposed, for which there very much is, and now you are saying that is lots of evidence for something for which there was only one witness. 

To me, this conundrum reflects the differences in the kinds of evidence people find acceptable as a first step in cultivating faith in Christ and the Restoration. I think this is where some who believe the Book of Mormon's historicity might have trouble envisioning how belief that it is a fiction, even an inspired fiction, translates into covenant-keeping with God (assuming the use of the qualifier  "inspired" means belief in God and that He stands behind it). 

[brownbear]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As a matter of practical application, would you mind describing how you live the Book of Mormon's doctrine and wisdom in the context of Church participation? I think this is where some who believe the Book of Mormon's historicity might have trouble envisioning how belief that it is a fiction, even when considered inspired fiction, translates into covenant-keeping with God. On the surface, its seems that accepting it as inspired indicates a recognition that God's personal hand is in it.

Thank you for this question, I think it is at the core of the "inspired fiction" view. Personally, I have not ruled out historicity. However, when I look at the evidence, there are things that point to a 19th-century origin. The coming forth of the plates, the translation, and the content in the book all fit in too well with Joseph Smith's environment and milieu. I am not in expert in all things, @Kevin Christensen has given some amazing evidence in this thread alone. That being said, the coming forth of the plates, the translation, and the content in the book seem to go beyond Joseph Smith's environment and milieu (and I am not alluding to a Spaulding theory). Can we do an Ostler or Ash Expansion or Co-Participation model? Yes, but what constitutes a modern expansion and an ancient core? The book is a puzzle. As Richard Bushman said in his Faith Matters interview, (paraphrasing) "there is evidence for and against", you cannot decide if it is true by scientific methods.

For me, the question is not settled. However, I personally know Bishop's and other very faithful members who believe that the Book is non-historical, but nonetheless inspired of God. What does that mean? It could mean a few things. 1) It could mean that in God's own mysterious way, he influenced the content in the book. But does that make God a liar? 2) It could mean that any work that helps someone draw closer to God, is "inspired". These present issues. That gets to the core of my OP. 3) If Joseph Smith thought that the Nephites were real, that means that he is sincere (even if that means he had to exaggerate or "lie for the Lord" in certain instances". We see him clarify and strengthen his narrative of his early life as he gets older (i.e. first vision & priesthood restoration). It is possible that this was not viewed as "lying". If Joseph Smith was sincere, and thought that it was in fact a Nephite record, than it is possible that he was able to channel his knowledge of the Bible, his knowledge of myths that existed in the environment (mound builder and such), feeling the spirit as a "burning in the bosom", as well as a general magic worldview that makes it possible to believe in such a scenario. If we take this view, it means that Joseph was NOT a pious fraud, rather it means that he sincerely believed and was a "divine syncretist". If we take a broad view of Biblical Criticism, didn't many of the biblical writers take the myths of their day, combine it with their spiritual experiences, and produce text describing their experiences with God?

What are the conclusions of this view (that I am not 100% committed to). Here are a few examples:

• The church is a "good" place, even if not entirely "true". This could be for secular and/or spiritual reasons (i.e. family, community, tradition, spiritual experiences, etc)
• The church is "true", and God works in some mysterious way.
• The Book of Mormon is historical, even though it is ridiculed with anachronisms and others (but this could be alleviated with a modern expansion or a "prophets saw our day" approach).

Overall, this is a working theory. I have multiple "working hypotheses". I am committed to the gospel. I serve in my Branch Presidency. I hope the Book of Mormon is historical but can see a path forward if I can no longer hold that position. I love the church and think it is true.

• Another view could be seen in David Bokovoy's 2016 Sunstone presentation (see below)

Quote

The Book of Mormon as Inspired Scripture, by David Bokovoy

Context changes everything. Consider, for example, the statement, “I just love this course.” Well, what does it mean? What if the statement was spoken by a college student to her friend as she walked out of class? The statement would mean that she was enjoying the material she was studying and the stimulating lectures given by her professor. But what if that same statement was instead spoken by a man to his friend as they drove along the highway with golf clubs in the backseat? Or what if the statement, “I just love this course” was spoken by a woman dining at a fancy five star restaurant? What would it mean?  

Context, you see, changes everything, and to be quite frank, this is one of my concerns with some of the recent developments we have seen in the field of Mormon Studies that bracket questions concerning the Book of Mormon’s historical origins and simply focus on its intrinsic literary qualities or its magnificent theological debt. I, myself, have been guilty of this problematic endeavor. It makes a difference whether we read the book as 19th century religious literature or as an ancient history of Mesoamerica. I would like to take this opportunity, therefore, to publicly praise the efforts of my good friend and colleague Brant Gardner whose work (even when I disagree when portions of it) seeks to address this matter by historically contextualizing the Book of Mormon.  

To demonstrate the way context makes a difference in analysis, we might consider the Book of Mormon image of the iron rod, which leads the faithful to the tree of life. How does the author wish his readers to visualize that rod? If the original cultural milieu is the ancient Near East, then the rod is precisely what it is in the Bible, a shepherd's staff belonging to the good shepherd that leads believers to green pastures with desirable fruit, as it guides beside the not so still waters along the path of righteousness for his name’s sake. And though we may, like both Lehi and the psalmist, walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we need not fear the evil represented by the great and spacious building, for the good’s shepherd's iron rod, his staff, will comfort us throughout our journey. Well, that’s one way of looking at the rod.  

But what if the author intended something else entirely. What if the image was not directly influenced by Hebraic symbolism, but instead, as my friend Loyd Erickson has suggested online, was a diving rod or witching stick similar to the one used by Oliver Cowdery, and 

which was declared in one of Smith’s revelations as a sacred tool that allowed him to do many marvelous works? Which image does the text itself depict? Reading the Book of Mormon as 19th century religious literature or as an ancient document produced by people whose ancestral and cultural origins stem from the ancient Near East changes the way we interpret the work. 

This is why one of the most important goals the historian faces is that of proper contextualization. And when the Book of Mormon is contextualized in accordance with the historian’s craft it can only be read as 19th century American religious literature. Hence, the intrinsic problem with apologetics that attempt to use the historian’s tools to defend the book’s claims for ancient authenticity— apologists are using the wrong tools in a fundamentally incorrect manner to assess the book’s religious merits.Religious claims that reflect supernatural events cannot be validated as  history. Whether we’re talking about the exodus story as told in the Hebrew Bible, the resurrections narratives in the New Testament, or Joseph Smith’s account of golden plates, the tools of scholarship employed by the historian do not allow scholars to explain miracles and supernatural phenomena as “history.” This is not an example of an intellectual, antisupernatural bias. It’s simply reflects the fact concerning the limitations of historical inquiry. Because of the academic nature of the historical disciplines, historians cannot show whether or not miracles happened in the past. By definition, a miracle is the least likely thing to have transpired, and historians are always trying to uncover the most likely thing that occurred in the past.  

Miracles are events that we deem virtually impossible. A miracle is an event that violates the way nature always, or almost always works so as to make the event virtually, if not actually, impossible. The chances that a miracle has taken place, that someone walked on water, or that a 19th century treasure seeking farm boy from upstate New York translated an ancient record written on golden plates by means of a rock are pretty small. If that were not the case these things would not constitute a miracle. Now, these things may or may not be true, after all, miracles do happen, but historians can only establish what probably transpired, and miracles by their definition are the least probable occurrences.  

Hence, from my perspective, contextualizing the Book of Mormon as ancient history constitutes a fundamentally flawed approach. Moreover, when we engage the text as historians, it’s easy to see that the author uses anachronistic scriptural texts such as Deutero-Isaiah or Malachi to construct the work.  

As a believer and an academic, I would argue that the book actually comes alive when contextualized as part of Joseph Smith’s mystical treasure seeking activities. And yet I would also argue that this contextualization does not preclude the possibility that the work is in fact inspired. But that is an assessment for a theologian, not a historian.  If the book is a reflection of Joseph Smith’s creative imagination then the Prophet may very well have been what my friend Dan Vogel has characterized as a pious fraud. After all, Smith’s revelations present God himself as a pious fraud who uses the image of eternal damnation and endless punishment to work upon the hearts of the children of men and help them live better lives. It’s undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon has had a significant spiritual influence in the lives of millions of readers, mine included. If the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith’s amalgamation of biblical sources, revivalist sermons, and American myths concerning Indian origins, then the book simply reflects Smith’s understanding of the way God himself creates through organizing chaotic matter. Smith’s work can be seen as a type of divine creation within his own theological framework.  

I recognize that what I am suggesting will no doubt cause some believers to experience a slight bit of discomfort—though it need not. I recognize that seeing the Book of Mormon as inspired nineteen century religious literature calls into question Smith’s other claims, including, but not limited to the restoration of priesthood keys and saving ordinances. But seeing these constructs as inspired religious impressions rather than literal events can empower the religious believer, transforming her into an independent Mormon who is able to use the inspired constructs and religious community to access divine love, while respecting the religious or even secular journeys that others experience. It also means that the believer is free to critique and reject those aspects of Mormonism that she find contrary to her own spiritual convictions, even when such policies are presented by those holding positions of authority as revelations. From this vantage point, Mormonism does not provide believers with a manual that defines divinity, but rather a springboard by which each individual can follow Joseph Smith’s lead and come to know God for him or herself by using Smith’s inspired constructs and identifying when either he or our contemporary leaders have gone astray.  By reformulating biblical material into words once literally written down by ancient prophets, the Book of Mormon follows a venerable literary pattern for revelatory text. This same type of genre is seen in later Jewish pseudepigraha and Rabbinic midrash, as well as within the Bible itself. Later Jewish theologians continued this biblical tradition through the production of scriptural texts that adapted and added onto preexisting “biblical” sources. The Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran produced a type of biblical commentary known as Pesharim that interpreted earlier material in light of the community’s history. This is the same process that we encounter in the New Testament as well, particularly the book of Mathew which adopts and recontextualizes scriptural material from the Hebrew Bible as messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus. We find this process at work in the writings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus as well. In his twenty volumes of history titled, Jewish Antiquities, Josephus created a new rewritten Bible of sorts by quoting portions of the Septuagint verbatim and then adding both new material and his own commentary directly to the narrative. From this same time period, the Hellenized Jew, Philo of Alexandria, combined Jewish texts with concepts of Platonic philosophy, thus creating new religious material based upon the Bible. The Book of Mormon, therefore, follows a long history of reformulating and adding onto biblical material in the creation of a new religious text. And of course, although this material has inspired religious readers throughout the centuries, none of it contains historicity.  

But what does the Book of Mormon offer in terms of an inspired religious construct not found in the Bible? I’ll conclude by pointing out what I deem one of it’s most significant religious contributions. The Book of Mormon teaches Christians how to adopt this religious approach I am advocating. From start to finish, the Book of Mormon presents readers with a fascinating paradox. On the one hand, the book presents itself is a miracle and is defined by Joseph Smith as “the most correct” book ever written, since a person can get closer to divinity by abiding by its precepts more so than any other work. And yet, the Book of Mormon constantly refer to its inherent flaws and imperfections. It is as if the Book of Mormon personifies the Gospel of John’s depiction of the Word of God, which is both divine and flesh.  

The Book of Mormon, therefore, presents a profound theological construct concerning scripture and the nature of revelatory text. Human beings have always had an influence on the development of sacred literature. Hence, allowing for human agency in the production of scripture creates an analogy with Jesus Christ himself—i.e. the “Word of God”:  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1,14)  

Like Jesus in John’s Gospel, the Book of Mormon seems to teach that scripture is a divine word made flesh among us.  

As Joseph Smith once explained, Mormons “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (A of F 8). Implicit with the belief that the Bible contains errors introduced by humans is the belief that there are portions of the Bible that are fully human and cannot be said to be divine. There is error; there is weakness; there is flesh. Historical Criticism allows Latter-day Saint readers to identify both attributes in the written word. Sacred words must pass through a human filter; there is therefore no such thing as the pure, unadulterated word of God. It is always both human and divine, and this point seems to be one that the Book of Mormon itself practically begs its readers to recognize.  

Book of Mormon narrators constantly attest to the fact that they struggled to put into words their spiritual feelings. Moroni, for example, refers to this matter through the expression “my weakness in writing” (Ether 12:23, 25, 40). Moreover, fully aware that revelatory insights must always pass through imperfect human vessels, Nephi informs his readers,  

“I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.” (1 Ne. 19:6)  

At the conclusion of his record, Nephi returned to this same theme, testifying that despite the weakness of his written record, Christ approved his words:  

“And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal. . . And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.” (2 Ne. 33:4, 11).  

Revelatory insights, no matter how inspired, must always pass through weak human vessels. In this process, mistakes are inevitably made, notwithstanding the sacred nature of religious texts. For this reason, in the title page of the Book of Mormon, Moroni explicitly recognized the possibility of error:  “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”  Latter-day Saints must allow room for such error as we seek to expand our understanding through revelatory and scholarly insights. I can see no reason, therefore, that a Latter-day Saint should ever adopt an anti-intellectual approach to the topic of “historicity” and the Book of Mormon. In fact, from my perspective, the Book of Mormon literally begs us not to.  We must read scripture critically, evaluating questions of historicity and context with the tools of academic inquiry. And in the process, as we use this material to access divinity, we should learn to separate the wheat from the chaff as part of that religious quest. In fact, according to the Book of Mormon, that may very well constitute the key to true spiritual growth.   

 

[the narrator]

34 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The Lord has provided many pieces of evidence in the English usage of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith didn't author the text. One of these is "it supposeth me <object.clause>". This occurs 4 times in the text (Alma 54:11 [2×], Jacob 2:8, Words of Mormon 1:2), and the syntactic expression is unique to the Book of Mormon. Outside of the Book of Mormon the syntax occurs once! The OED currently mentions it under the verb suppose, definition I.i.2.a, a1393. This impersonal, simple dative syntax occurs in a late Middle English poem by John Gower: "But all too little him supposeth".

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/suppose_v?tab=meaning_and_use#19727882:

Bot al to lytel him supposeth, Thogh he mihte al the world pourchace.
J. Gower, Confessio Amantis (Fairfax MS.) v. l. 22.

 

I'm sorry, but the Early Modern English is perhaps the worst apologetic "scholarly" argument for the BofM offered in the 21st century for these simple reasons:

1. It fails to take into account how EME was retained in local New England dialects well into the late 19th century, how poor English (such as mismatching plural/singular nouns and verbs) can resemble EME, and how earlier writings--especially theological--were being widely printed and disseminated in the 19th century, especially with the explosion of small printing presses and increased interest due to revivalism. (I find it rather funny how a quick google books search contradicts nearly every claim made about EME in the BofM).
2. It fails to explain why the vast majority of the BofM is modern English.
3. It fails to explain why there are so many phrases in the BofM found in late-18th and early-19th sermons and theological writings. 
4. And in light of these failures, it also fails to make any sort of rational/theologica explanation for why EME would appear in the BofM.

The silly EME apologetic exists purely to distance Joseph Smith from the text of the BofM, and it fails spectacularly at doing so. The wealth of late 18th and early 19th century theological phrases and ideas makes it absolutely and unequivocally certain that the English language of the BofM comes from someone steeped in the theological discourse of that time. Given that Joseph Smith's own religious narrative begins with him seeking to know which church he should join, then it is likely that in the years before dictating the BofM (as author or translator), he would have attended and paid attention to hundreds of sermons--most of which would have pulled language from the popular sermons of persons like John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and others. 

[the narrator]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

would you mind describing how you live the Book of Mormon's doctrine and wisdom in the context of Church participation?

For about a decade I participated as an agnostic after stepping away for a year or so as an atheist. A big influence on me were the writings of the philosopher DZ Phillips (who I had met a number of times and intended to study with art CGU before he passed away). This is all a bit too much and complex (requiring a whole lecture on Wittgenstein and Wittgensteinian philosophy of religion) to go into detail here, but in short, he helped me recognize that ultimately my religious faith and practice had always been and should be centered in community and self-reflection--that service to god was in service to my neighbors, and that prayer and study were to center my self in that service. LIkewise, it further established the biggest lesson I had learned on my mission--that the covenants we make with God are simultaneously and in practice covenants we make with our community and to others--and that the rituals of covenant are those that we always do with others; that is, covenants do not exist outside of community.

(A somewhat funny (to me) anecdote: about 6 months after my marriage in the Draper Temple, I told my wife that I did not believe in an afterlife, hadn't for a number of years, and was horrified at the idea of existing forever. "What?!? Why would you marry me in the temple for eternity of you didn't want to live for eternity with me?!?" "Babe, because I was committing myself to spend a life with you that I would want to last forever . . . if I was forced to live in that nightmarish hell of unending existence." It took maybe a day, but she decided she liked this perspective even more.)

On top of this, I also discovered liberation theology, which spoke to my soul more deeply than almost any GA talk and fanned a fire within to learn more about Jesus and his ministry and a renewed/increased interest in the BofM--an approach that I had already engendered after reading Nibley's Approaching Zion on my mission.

In the end, though, it became clear that my local church community did not want me around, and so it felt like a good time to part ways.

[the narrator]

38 minutes ago, brownbear said:

• Another view could be seen in David Bokovoy's 2016 Sunstone presentation (see below)

David is a good dude. Had lots of wonderful discussions on this topic with him; still hurt that he can't spell my name right, though.