Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1

[brownbear]

This is one of the sunstone presentations that I think will be very popular/controversial: Why I Don’t Believe the Book of Mormon Is Historical, But I Think that Joseph Smith Did by Stephen Fleming

Here is a write up on a similar topic, by him.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/being-a-mormon-without-believing-in-a-historical-book-of-mormon-part-1/

“You had to have known this was coming, Steve,” was what I heard. “Are you okay with it?” I took that to mean that God was telling me that the BoM was indeed not historical.

My response was, “Yeah, I guess I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to be the messenger,” and that’s where it ended that day.

But in the following days, as I was trying to make sense of my view point of view, “I remember asking, “Hey, what about all those spiritual experiences I’d had with the Book of Mormon that I took as indications of its historicity?”

And the response I got was, “I never told you it was historical.” Indeed.”

[rpn]

It's tough for me to see how it is not historical (at least that Mormon thought it was and the original writers tried to make it so consistent with their own understandings and limitations) because of his vision that told him what was important for us to know this day.   It would be a form of intentional deception to promote it as such if it weren't so and that was never Joseph Smith.   OTOH, there is a modern history of trying to undermine people's believe in it, which supports that it is real ---why else would Satan be pushing this claim?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, brownbear said:

This is one of the sunstone presentations that I think will be very popular/controversial: Why I Don’t Believe the Book of Mormon Is Historical, But I Think that Joseph Smith Did by Stephen Fleming

Here is a write up on a similar topic, by him.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/being-a-mormon-without-believing-in-a-historical-book-of-mormon-part-1/

 

“You had to have known this was coming, Steve,” was what I heard. “Are you okay with it?” I took that to mean that God was telling me that the BoM was indeed not historical.

My response was, “Yeah, I guess I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to be the messenger,” and that’s where it ended that day.

But in the following days, as I was trying to make sense of my view point of view, “I remember asking, “Hey, what about all those spiritual experiences I’d had with the Book of Mormon that I took as indications of its historicity?”

And the response I got was, “I never told you it was historical.” Indeed.”

Remind me who Steven Fleming is please.  Too lazy at the moment to look; the name is familiar, but can’t place it.

Maybe this thread will have Mfb popping back in.     He appears to be on a vacation from the board.

Edited July 30 by Calm

[blackstrap]

IIRC there was a survey done some years back among pastors . A significant fraction admitted they did not believe that Christ resurrected. Strange outcome, no ? 

Personally , I believe in the BoM historicity  and that Christ resurrected. The ideas are connected. 

Edited July 31 by blackstrap

[brownbear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Remind me who Steven Fleming is please.  Too lazy at the moment to look; the name is familiar, but can’t place it.

Long time contributor to the bloggernacle. PhD from UCSB under Anne Taves. 

[Kenngo1969]

Certainly, to what extent the Book of Mormon is historical, and what it means to say that the book, in some sense, is historical, may be debated.  But an ahistorical Book of Mormon would be a lot easier to defend if no one who played a part in the [alleged?] Restoration reported interacting with actual people from the [alleged?] Book of Mormon.  But because people who played a part in the Restoration did indeed report interacting with actual people from the book, an ahistorical Book of Mormon becomes much, much harder to explain.  In that case, an ahistorical Book of Mormon raises more questions than it answers.

Edited July 31 by Kenngo1969

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, brownbear said:

Why I Don’t Believe the Book of Mormon Is Historical, But I Think that Joseph Smith Did by Stephen Fleming

If Joseph believed it was historical, but it wasn't then he was being deceived because he believed actual characters from the Book of Mormon ministered to him. So the logical end of the perspective is that beings posing as people they were not appeared to him and deceived him, and Galatians 1:8 does indeed apply to the Restoration.

But it doesn't...

Because Joseph knew what he was talking about. The story is true history and the people of the Book are actual people that actually lived, and actually did appear to and instruct Joseph- and all the devils in hell cannot change that truth.

 

Edited July 31 by ZealouslyStriving

[OGHoosier]

From what I've seen of Fleming he thinks that Joseph had a revelation in the Sacred Grove and believed the Nephites were real, and that in making a set of plates he was creating a replica of something that actually existed. 

I can't say I buy it but in fairness it's one of those things that you either believe or you don't. There's no way to test it or apply anything more than literary Bayesianism to it. I doubt Joseph Smith could have made a sufficiently convincing replica. The only available metals would require gold leafing to appropriately color and in a time where he struggled to find paper I doubt he could find enough leafing to make plates sufficiently convincing to survive being handled and turned over. 

I suppose one could reply that the probability of him doing that is higher than the probability of the Book of Mormon being true given present archaeology but then you get into all sorts of hermeneutics regarding what constitutes a divine translation, etc. etc. and soon you're invoking Deity which throws insane wrenches into the application of probabilistic reasoning...at a certain point you either have the experience with Deity that gives you cause to believe or you don't.

I'm sympathetic to his view but ultimately I think we don't need to resort to it and it would probably obliterate a critical Schelling Point of the church population, so I can't say I'm on board.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

From what I've seen of Fleming he thinks that Joseph had a revelation in the Sacred Grove and believed the Nephites were real, and that in making a set of plates he was creating a replica of something that actually existed. 

I can't say I buy it but in fairness it's one of those things that you either believe or you don't. There's no way to test it or apply anything more than literary Bayesianism to it. I doubt Joseph Smith could have made a sufficiently convincing replica. The only available metals would require gold leafing to appropriately color and in a time where he struggled to find paper I doubt he could find enough leafing to make plates sufficiently convincing to survive being handled and turned over. 

I suppose one could reply that the probability of him doing that is higher than the probability of the Book of Mormon being true given present archaeology but then you get into all sorts of hermeneutics regarding what constitutes a divine translation, etc. etc. and soon you're invoking Deity which throws insane wrenches into the application of probabilistic reasoning...at a certain point you either have the experience with Deity that gives you cause to believe or you don't.

I'm sympathetic to his view but ultimately I think we don't need to resort to it and it would probably obliterate a critical Schelling Point of the church population, so I can't say I'm on board.

I have seen people make pretty realistic replicas of what the BoM was supposed to look like. Why do you think Joseph Smith could not have done something similar?

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, brownbear said:

This is one of the sunstone presentations that I think will be very popular/controversial: Why I Don’t Believe the Book of Mormon Is Historical, But I Think that Joseph Smith Did by Stephen Fleming

Here is a write up on a similar topic, by him.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/being-a-mormon-without-believing-in-a-historical-book-of-mormon-part-1/

 

“You had to have known this was coming, Steve,” was what I heard. “Are you okay with it?” I took that to mean that God was telling me that the BoM was indeed not historical.

My response was, “Yeah, I guess I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to be the messenger,” and that’s where it ended that day.

But in the following days, as I was trying to make sense of my view point of view, “I remember asking, “Hey, what about all those spiritual experiences I’d had with the Book of Mormon that I took as indications of its historicity?”

And the response I got was, “I never told you it was historical.” Indeed.”

What does it matter if somebody who is a Mormon doesn't believe in the book of Mormon or believe that it is an historical storie? I find that everyone should believe whatever they wanna believe. Mormon or not.

It gotta admit that i myself also don't believe everything that the Book of Mormon pressents to us. I don't believe that i'm not allowed to drink coffee or tea for example. For me that feels like nonsens. It makes no sense because we do may drink cola or energy drinks, but then we may not drink green tea or black tea. I mean...what's wrong with drinking tea anyway? I've never understood that. 

Edited July 31 by Dario_M

[Kevin Christensen]

I responded to the Times and Seasons essay with this comment over there.

Quote

Alma 32 talks about selecting even a portion of the word with a desire to believe, and then carrying out experiments on that word and finding growth, expansion of the mind, enlargement of the soul, fruitfulness, future promise. So if a person wants to experiment with the notion of inspired fiction, fine. That is a portion of the word. I would like to see the results of such experiments in terms of fruitfulness, the expansion of the mind, deliciousness, and future promise.

For instance, William Blake wrote some notable marginalia in his copy of a book that purported to defend the Bible against the arguments of Thomas Paine. It is notable that the devout, though unconventional Blake, thought little of the defense offered, and he wrote:
“I cannot concieve of the Divinity of the books in the Bible to consist either in who they were written by, or at what time, or in the historical evidence, which may be all false in the eyes of one man and true in the eyes of another, but in the Sentiments & Examples, which whether true of Parabolic, are Equally useful as Examples given to us of the perverseness of some & its consequent evil & and the honesty of others & its consequent good. This sense of the Bible is equally true to all & equally plain to all. None can doubt the impression which he recieves from a book of Examples. If he is good, he will abhor wickedness in David or Abraham; if he is wicked he will make their wickedness as excuse for his & and so he would to by any other book.” (Blake’s Poetry and Designs, Norton, New York, 1979) 436.

I have read several attempts to argue for the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, but in most cases, (Mark Thomas, Ann Taves, William D. Russell, Elizabeth Fenton, for example), I see a lot more emphasis on justifying their view of the text as fictional rather than as inspiring. On the other hand, I have seen several literary approaches to the Book of Mormon that I find notably inspiring, even though the readings are primarily focused on literary features, whether type scene and allusion (Alan Goff, Ben McGuire, Joe Spencer) Onomastic word play (Matthew Bowen) or even the Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces as a lens to look at Nephi’s story, (Tod Harris in JBMS 6:2), or even Nibley’s comparison of the Book of Ether with the patterns and themes of Epic Literature (There Were Jaredites.)

Personally, when I closely considered cases such as Russell’s arguments for a fictional Book of Mormon, what I noticed is that he, writing in 1982, turned out to be wrong about everything. (See my essay in FARMS Review 22/2.) Indeed, one of my favorite experiences was watching John Clark’s presentation at the Library of Congress in 2005 showing that the overall trend for criticisms of the historicity of the Book of Mormon over time is towards resolution, rather than towards debunking. I can contrast that with Coe and Dehlin talking about how a lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads being a devastating consideration for the Book of Mormon, neither one of them noticing or caring that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things. And thirteen years later, I watched the National Geographic Special on LiDar surveys that radically changed our views of Mesoamerican civilization over night. It could have radically undercut the Book of Mormon picture, but rather, cast important light. While I do not claim that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is proven, I do find that the overall case is magnitudes better than it was when I was young, in regards to the Old World and New World portions of the text, and I find ongoing developments and discoveries to be promising and encouraging. Back in the 70s when the skeptics gathered round Brodie, and the Roberts Study and Coe’s Dialogue essay, none of them predicted the details of Lehi’s Journey, or 1st Temple Judaism, or the kinds of details that show up in Larry Poulson, John Sorenson, and Brant Gardner’s work, let alone the literally hundreds of approaches by a wide range of specialties that came through FARMS, FAIR, and Interpreter.

One of my favorite observations from Thomas Kuhn is that “[T]he decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” (Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 59).

That is, as Hofstadter later explained, “The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions” and that “Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.” (Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid 18, 19)

So the question for paradigm choice, as Kuhn explains, has to do with which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved? And is your approach self-critical and comparative, or ideological and self-referential? (I have published a lot on that over the past several decades.)

And with regard to the implications of Platonism and the Book of Mormon… In Margaret Barker’s The Great High Priest, published in 2003, she includes an essay “Temple and Timaeus” making a detailed case regarding Jewish claims that their traditions and scriptures influenced the Greeks. Specifically, she suggested that Pythagoras learned something of First Temple thought from Ezekiel. She also discusses that in a chapter in her book, Temple Mysticism.

Interesting things happen for those who nourish the seed over time.

In response, Fleming offered a dismissal of Barker's "Temple and Timaeus" and mentioned that he has heard a number of people say that "Barker's scholarship is nonsense."  Speaking with the voice so much authority that supporting details would be a waste of effort.  I mentioned Barker's essay since Fleming links a presentation of his that looks to parallels between the Book of Mormon and its 19th Century environment focused on Platonic notions in circulation, a natural offshoot of nearly all higher education in those days reverencing Greek and Latin thought.  His presentation reminded me of Nibley's "The Grab Bag" essay, showing how Book of Mormon critics over the years (up to the early sixties) confidently accounted for the Book of Mormon in light of their own training, none taking notice that their hypotheses and evidences were all mutually contradictory.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mbh26]

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I suppose one could reply that the probability of him doing that is higher than the probability of the Book of Mormon being true given present archaeology

Perhaps the archaeologists are looking in the wrong place.  The promised land was always in North America, not central or South America.  There is no two Adam Ondi Ahman theory, why do we need a two Cumorah theory?  

[CV75]

21 hours ago, brownbear said:

This is one of the sunstone presentations that I think will be very popular/controversial: Why I Don’t Believe the Book of Mormon Is Historical, But I Think that Joseph Smith Did by Stephen Fleming

Here is a write up on a similar topic, by him.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/being-a-mormon-without-believing-in-a-historical-book-of-mormon-part-1/

 

“You had to have known this was coming, Steve,” was what I heard. “Are you okay with it?” I took that to mean that God was telling me that the BoM was indeed not historical.

My response was, “Yeah, I guess I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to be the messenger,” and that’s where it ended that day.

But in the following days, as I was trying to make sense of my view point of view, “I remember asking, “Hey, what about all those spiritual experiences I’d had with the Book of Mormon that I took as indications of its historicity?”

And the response I got was, “I never told you it was historical.” Indeed.”

Taking his prayerful approach as face value, it looks to me like Dr. Fleming knows what he thinks history is and that God knows what Dr. Fleming thinks history is. Dr. Fleming seems to trust God enough to pray to Him, but hasn't found out what God thinks history is. The answer, “I never told you it was historical,” from my experience, has to do with Dr. Fleming's concept of history, not God's. God answers us according to our understanding, even concerning Moroni's Promise. 

I don't think we'll get a D&C Section on what God thinks history is (or reveals His description of history), but no revelation would be gotten or perceived without it. Where else can we possibly be?.

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, mbh26 said:

Perhaps the archaeologists are looking in the wrong place.  The promised land was always in North America, not central or South America.  There is no two Adam Ondi Ahman theory, why do we need a two Cumorah theory?  

The Two Cumorah theory arose because of the problem of fitting the description of the New York Hill to the demands of the text, which contains over 500 passages with geographic information. 

See for instance this survey of the passages and their implications for a consistent internal map to be compared with external maps.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol23/iss1/4/

And Sidney Sperry of BYU directly addressing the question.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol4/iss1/30/

Other scholars have extended the question and included further details to account for.   For instance, Larry Poulson here, in one of my favorite essays.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Or this book by geologist Jerry Grover.

https://bmslr.org/geology-of-the-book-of-mormon/

My question is why do we need need to be scandalized over multiple uses of a name for a hill when we have Joseph of Egypt, Joseph Smith Sr., Joseph Smith Jr., Joseph Smith 3, Joseph brother of Jacob, Joseph Knights senior and Junior, let alone different Almas, Helamans, Bountifuls, and much much more.  Names do not emanate from things or beings, the same to all observers and unique to each thing or being doing the emanating, but are social conventions and can be used at will. 

A good tradition will bear examination.  A weakly founded tradition, even one revered without question for a long time by many learned people. may have to be discarded or revised in light of further light and knowledge.  For instance, 

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest. (Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85)

It is one thing to cite traditional views uncritically, and quite another to consider just how much authority such traditions have.  In matters of LDS faith, our own scriptures do not encourage us to assume that we have all the answers on the shelf and have nothing further to learn.  D&C 1, not hidden in an archive vault, but published for all to see, has this:

Quote

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, ...

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

This formal statement of "the authority of my servants", in the case of the New York hill, those who assumed without closely reading the text itself, which does not specify where Moroni buried the records that Mormon (Mormon 1:6) removed from the Book of Mormon hill Shim and then hid at Cumorah (Mormon 5:6) "save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni."  So Moroni survived the battle with the plates of Nephi he could carry, not all of the records left at the Nephite Cumorah, and for many years wandered to preserve his life and the records.  Why would he remain in hostile territory where all his kin had been killed and his life was in danger?  The hill near Palmyra where Joseph found the record is in no way unquestionably and demonstrably the same hill where the Nephite culture came to an end.  One thing I have noticed about Joseph Fielding Smith's oft reprinted 50s essay on the topic, defending the traditional view of the New York hill as the Nephite hill, is that the only evidence that he presents is that it was the traditional view.  No examination of the scriptural requirements.  No revelation cited.  Just that within a few years, some LDS, not Joseph himself, began referring to the New York hill as Cumorah.  No addressing the questions that arose from the scriptures, such as those addressed in Sperry's essay.  Claiming that they "must have known!" is not the same thing as demonstrating that they did know.  If they did know, it seem likely to me that comparison with the scriptural details would lead to conformation and consistencies, more than to raising questions and inconsistencies.

Regarding the tendency of the LDS to unquestioningly adhere to tradition, when confronted by new information, he memorably lamented:

Quote

But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. (Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 331.)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 31 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Nevo]

16 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I doubt Joseph Smith could have made a sufficiently convincing replica.

I have doubts about that too, but I find it easier to believe that Joseph found or constructed metal plates than that Nephi and his brothers constructed a transoceanic vessel and sailed it to the Americas. One voyage to the Americas from the Middle East would have been a remarkable feat, but the Book of Mormon has three (including one accomplished with submarines in the 3rd millennium BCE).

A couple of years ago I came across an interesting book called Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times by George F. Hourani (brother of Albert).

Two statements early in the book caught my eye:

• "Arabia does not and never did produce wood suitable for building strong seagoing ships. Neither does it contain iron for nailing them, nor is it near to any iron-producing country." (p. 5)
• "The monsoons could not be used to cross the open sea between Arabia and India and East Africa until ships could be constructed strong enough to endure their powerful blasts." (p. 6)

The east coast of Arabia was not an auspicious location for building and launching a homemade boat to sail to Guatemala.

But Nephi's faith was apparently so great that having no suitable timber or nails or shipbuilding expertise didn't phase him: "If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done" (1 Nephi 17:50; compare Ether 12:30). 

Perhaps it is true, as one T&S commenter noted, that "God is perfectly proficient in low-probability spaces." But, for me, the Book of Mormon's tales of transoceanic crossings are as fantastical as the story of Jonah spending three days and three nights in the belly of a fish or the existence of moon Quakers. Maybe it's a failure of the heart on my part, but I just can't summon that much faith. I'm more Laman and Lemuel than Nephi.

That said, I have no wish to see the general membership of the Church go down the "inspired fiction" road. I agree that it would probably do more harm than good.

Edited July 31 by Nevo

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, blackstrap said:

IIRC there was a survey done some years back among pastors . A significant fraction admitted they did not believe that Christ resurrected. Strange outcome, no ? 

Personally , I believe in the BoM historicity  and that Christ resurrected. The ideas are connected. 

This reminded me of a scene in the British comedy "Yes, Prime Minister". In this scene, Sir Humphrey who is a civil service functionary, and Mr. Hacker is the Prime Minister. They are discussing an appointment in the Church of England.

 

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, brownbear said:

PhD from UCSB under Anne Taves. 

That would explain it, then. 

I looked up Prof. Ann Taves. She's a Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 

Inevitably, one is reminded of 2 Nephi 9:28,29...

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I have seen people make pretty realistic replicas of what the BoM was supposed to look like.

Yes, you've seen people in this modern era who could do it with modern tools, knowledge, and easy access to materials. 

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Why do you think Joseph Smith could not have done something similar?

Because he was a young, inexperienced farm boy who was not known for doing anything of the like. And where was he going to get the materials he needed, and how could he afford it? The American frontier was not exactly replete with what he needed to accomplish this task, and he had no money to speak of. 

I suppose you could posit that someone else made it and Joseph came into possession of it somehow, but as it turns out, that's part of the story, isn't it? 

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Dario_M said:

What does it matter if somebody who is a Mormon doesn't believe in the book of Mormon or believe that it is an historical storie? I find that everyone should believe whatever they wanna believe. Mormon or not.

It gotta admit that i myself also don't believe everything that the Book of Mormon pressents to us. I don't believe that i'm not allowed to drink coffee or tea for example. For me that feels like nonsens. It makes no sense because we do may drink cola or energy drinks, but then we may not drink green tea or black tea. I mean...what's wrong with drinking tea anyway? I've never understood that. 

There's nothing morally wrong with drinking coffee, tea, beer, whiskey, or smoking/chewing tobacco. I'm allowed to do all of that. But I don't. Why? Because I have covenanted with the Lord to refrain from consuming those things. For one thing, it's wise to refrain from consuming those things. They are all unhealthy. That's why section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants if called "The Word of Wisdom." If you would like to re-read it, here's a link to it: D&C 89. It's up to you to decide if you believe God revealed it to Joseph Smith, or not, and it's up to you to decide if you want to follow it. But if God gives you advice, shouldn't you follow it? It happens that the Church decided many years ago to set the Word of Wisdom to be a standard for full fellowship in the Church. But if you choose to ignore it, your membership is not at stake -- you cannot be kicked out if you ignore the Word of Wisdom. It's entirely voluntary, although if you're not a member already, the missionaries will not baptize you unless you commit to follow it. If you are a member already, if you wish to enter the House of the Lord, keeping the Word of Wisdom is one of the prerequisites. 

Why is drinking cola or energy drinks not breaking the Word of Wisdom? Because unless the drinks contain coffee or tea, drinking them is not breaking the WoW. Some members (and I may get pushback on this) feel that caffeine is the thing. And if they want to avoid caffeine as if it were against the WoW, then that's their right. But the Prophet's brother, Hyrum, said that by "hot drinks" the Lord meant coffee and tea. And there's some confusion about "tea" in some peoples' minds. "Tea" means the plant camellia sinensis, which has various degrees of processing that result in white tea, yellow tea, green tea, oolong, dark tea, and black tea. 

I hope this helps.

 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

"Arabia does not and never did produce wood suitable for building strong seagoing ships. Neither does it contain iron for nailing them, nor is it near to any iron-producing country." (p. 5)

I mean, this isn't true for all of it: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/nephis-bountiful-contrasting-both-candidates/. Inspiring Nephi on maritime construction is honestly one of the more believable things God could do imo. 

But in a wider sense I grasp your point. I've sampled anthropological research from Mesoamerica, New York, Baja peninsula, and the Atrato River valley. There's nowhere that's really satisfying - if the Book of Mormon happened anywhere, the text that Joseph Smith produced was definitely a "creative and cultural translation" as Royal Skousen puts it. Taking Nephite experiences and translating them into frontier American expectations. I think the Pentateuch works in a similar way. 

I don't know how to explain spiritual experiences in my own family associated with the Church without God. Or my own, or the many reported by Saints across the ages including the Witnesses. Also I really do believe Joseph Smith was sincere. Naturalistic explanations for all of the above are unsatisfying and reductive, I've never found one worth believing. But the Book of Mormon is a hard sell and, in my more sober moments, I don't really know how to handle all of it. God's here, I think, and I sure love the theology of the book, but I don't know what to do with it. Then again, I don't know what I expected. The book presents itself as a series of miracles. Since when were miracles probable? If probability fails anywhere, it fails in the presence of God, who defines the constraints by which probability even works.

Edited July 31 by OGHoosier

[brownbear]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

That said, I have no wish to see the general membership of the Church go down the "inspired fiction" road. I agree that it would probably do more harm than good.

Do you think it would be harmful in the long term if space were made for a metaphorical view now? Do you think the church will eventually consider this view ‘acceptable’?

We’ve seen some acceptance within the broader church, with quotes from Grant Hardy and organizations like Faith Matters.

[OGHoosier]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I have seen people make pretty realistic replicas of what the BoM was supposed to look like. Why do you think Joseph Smith could not have done something similar?

Honestly my big hangup is in the gilding. Plates made out of copper or tin could possible make the weight conditions reported by witnesses but that doesn't get you to gold coloration. Joseph wasn't enough of a metallurgist to alloy it (and that would screw with the weight) and the witnesses didn't report anything resembling paint, so that leaves gold leafing. No idea where he finds that on the frontier, but admittedly my research is incomplete.

Edited July 31 by OGHoosier

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, you've seen people in this modern era who could do it with modern tools, knowledge, and easy access to materials. 

Because he was a young, inexperienced farm boy who was not known for doing anything of the like. And where was he going to get the materials he needed, and how could he afford it? The American frontier was not exactly replete with what he needed to accomplish this task, and he had no money to speak of. 

I suppose you could posit that someone else made it and Joseph came into possession of it somehow, but as it turns out, that's part of the story, isn't it? 

I would not underestimate Joseph Smith's abilities. He will certainly have had metalworking skills and tools if he worked in the cooper shop. -> https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=117629

 Since the plates were always wrapped in cloth anyway, they could also have been made of tin.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Two statements early in the book caught my eye:

• "Arabia does not and never did produce wood suitable for building strong seagoing ships. Neither does it contain iron for nailing them, nor is it near to any iron-producing country." (p. 5)
• "The monsoons could not be used to cross the open sea between Arabia and India and East Africa until ships could be constructed strong enough to endure their powerful blasts." (p. 6)

The east coast of Arabia was not an auspicious location for building and launching a homemade boat to sail to Guatemala.

I have my doubts about the lack of iron. Iron ore is pretty prevalent almost everywhere and usually can be quarried instead of mined. I do question how Nephi knew what to do with the ore. The ability to make iron tools is not something you can realistically learn by trial and error in a reasonable timeframe and it was a professional job. Another big question is where did they get the labor to fell the trees, charcoal the wood, and then do all the iron processing? Producing a small amount of iron requires a lot of fuel..

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I have doubts about that too, but I find it easier to believe that Joseph found or constructed metal plates than that Nephi and his brothers constructed a transoceanic vessel and sailed it to the Americas. One voyage to the Americas from the Middle East would have been a remarkable feat, but the Book of Mormon has three (including one accomplished with submarines in the 3rd millennium BCE).

Was the submarine voyage accomplished in the 3rd millennium BCE? Or was it accomplished much, much earlier. I myself don't buy Archbishop Ussher's chronology that says that Adam and Eve left the GoE in October 4004 BC.

We sophisticated moderns sometimes have overwhelming feelings of superiority over our ancient forebears. Yet those forebears have consistently surprised us. Ever hear of the Antikythera mechanism? Roman concrete? Greek fire?

• The Antikythera mechanism was apparently designed and built by the ancient Greeks using wood and bronze. The instrument is very complex and was believed to have been designed and constructed by Hellenistic scientists and been variously dated to about 87 BC, between 150 and 100 BC, or 205 BC. It's the earliest example of an analogue computer, and was designed to incorporate rather detailed knowledge about the movement of the celestial bodies then known to exist, and was capable of predicting their positions years in advance. Machines with similar complexity did not appear again until the 14th century in western Europe.
• The Romans built structures using concrete that have survived thousands of years, when modern concrete deteriorates seriously in just a century or so, at best. The formula for making such concrete was lost until fairly recently, when researchers finally came up with a formula that seems to work similarly.
• Greek fire was an incendiary weapon developed in and used by the Byzantine Empire. It was such a potent weapon that it was a closely guarded state secret -- so secret that the secret of its manufacture was lost. We still don't know how to make it.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

A couple of years ago I came across an interesting book called Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times by George F. Hourani (brother of Albert).

Two statements early in the book caught my eye:

• "Arabia does not and never did produce wood suitable for building strong seagoing ships. Neither does it contain iron for nailing them, nor is it near to any iron-producing country." (p. 5)
• "The monsoons could not be used to cross the open sea between Arabia and India and East Africa until ships could be constructed strong enough to endure their powerful blasts." (p. 6)

The east coast of Arabia was not an auspicious location for building and launching a homemade boat to sail to Guatemala.

If you find it easier to believe in the Book of Mormon as an ahistorical document, that's fine. Don't read anything that contradicts that idea. You'll be better off.

I find it charming that Prof. Hourani thinks Arabia "never did produce" the things that Nephi needed to build a ship. Never? That's a long, long time. The Lehite voyage to the Americas took place not long after 600 BC. Is it possible that there was never a source of iron ore or wood in some parts of the peninsula? 

I live in England. Just a few hours drive southwestwards from my home is a place called Cornwall. The place was known in antiquity as an important source of the metal called tin, which is essential for making bronze. Cornwall still has lots of tin, but thousands of years of extraction has made further extraction of tin largely uneconomic. But it's still there. My great-grandfather was a prolific prospector and miner in California during the latter stages of the Gold Rush. His last home contained a gold mine that he prospected himself; the mine is still there, though it's not owned by our family any longer. I visited it when I was a child, when my great grandaunt still lived there. The mine still has extractable gold in it, but taking it out now costs more than the gold is worth. Or at least it did then, when the price of gold in the US was set at $35 per ounce. Things may have changed since then, given the current price of gold.

There is a huge difference between profitable extraction of metal for industry and trade, and limited extraction according to need that doesn't require merchantability. Before humans figured out how to extract iron from ore, iron was most often acquired from iron meteorites. How many nails did Nephi need to make? Maybe God knew where there were a couple of iron meteorites that Nephi could dig up and use to build the ship.

I think you trust too much in the arm of flesh. Learned men have confidently reported all kinds of things that later turned out to be completely false, especially when it comes to things in deep history. If, according to Hourani, suitable wood does not grow anywhere in Arabia now, did none ever grow anywhere there? It's been 2,624 years since Lehi set forth from Jerusalem. Climate changes and so do environments. Northern Africa used to have abundant forests, but does no longer. Trees of the cedar family have grown in many unexpected places, including in harsh dry conditions -- for example, the Lebanese cedar. Why is so impossible for trees suitable for boatmaking to have grown for a time on the Arabian peninsula, especially on the coast where the weather is milder? 

Personally, I'm willing to believe that God created the universe, and if He's that capable of providing for us at such a scale, it's perfectly reasonable for Him to have set aside a place with abundant materials for Nephi to find materials to build a ship, and perfectly within His capability to instruct Nephi how to build a ship capable of sailing halfway around the world. After all the ancient Greeks could make an advanced analog astronomical computer out of bronze and wood, Nephi could build a ship with God's help.