Quote:
Originally Posted by ghardy
Archaea:
"History" is a wide-ranging and sometimes loaded term. Would you consider Eusebius or the Deuteronomist to have written histories? I agree that Mormon's primary motivation is theological rather than historical in the modern academic sense (the Book of Mormon's lack of attention to political, economic, social, and even cultural factors can be frustrating for historically-minded readers), but I don't think that the Nephite record is simply a theological treatise illustrated with a few historical anecdotes. Mormon really seems to be trying to piece together a coherent account of past events based on primary sources, though of course his writing is thoroughly influenced by his own (theological) interests and biases.
ChinoCoug:
Thanks for the invite, but I'm not really "right there." Asheville is about an eight-hour drive from Duck Beach (NC is a really long state, and we're talking about opposite ends). But you'll be in good hands with Terryl Givens. Have a great time.
|
The reason I could never consider the BoM as a history is that I don't see enough of the necessary elements of a history, even an ancient one. Neither of us arguing that Eusebius or Mormon was Tacitus, Thucydides or Herodotus.
In answer to your question, no I do NOT consider Eusebius a historian, but rather I consider him a theologian with a very heavy agenda, to prop up the basis for the orthodox position in terms of its authority clinging to orthodox claims to historical authority.
No, I most certainly do NOT consider the Deutoronomist a historian.
Mormon, assuming the character is what he claims to be, was a leader, a compiler of theological records, in a sequential method.
I also don't consider the Bible a history but a compilation of theological records which make reference to their perceptions of historical events, real and sometimes fictional (Job or Jonah).
Mormon's "historical" references are to political events which affected the spiritual welfare of the people about which he testified. It explained the benefit of the fall, the individuality of dialogical revelation, and the nature of God. Although Mormon ascribes spiritual cause and effect, and many ancient historians tried to describe causes and effects, it is not written in the true historical manner.
However, any work which follows a traditional sequential timeline could be called a history, but that's not how I view it. Somebody such as in the tradition of Ibn Khaldun is a historian.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/klf.htm
I don't mean to be disagreeable, but it seems to be a disservice of treating or discussing the BoM as if it were a history. It's not that in any classical sense. So when we as members throw that around, it devalues the testament for what it really is. It's another testament of Christ, that he has interacted with men, that he died and resurrected.
What people are asking is, did any of the events set forth therein really happen? That's a different question to couching in terms is the BoM historical. And I know traditional members do not wish to consider this possibility because it lessens their fervor, but so long as the BoM brings people to Christ, whether the events really happened is less important. If the Spirit of the Book convinces people of Christ, then it has achieved its stated purpose.
So in my mind, the BoM is a theological testament of Jesus Christ. It should not be considered a history despite Mormon's labeling it as such. He was no trained historian and really wasn't familiar with classical histories.