Disavowing the Book of Mormon as history

[SeattleUte]

Disavowing the Book of Mormon as history is monstrously self-delusional or disingenuous. I'll try not to repeat the excellent things that have been said on this forum about how the LDS Church has for 99% of its history represented the Book of Mormon to be a history in the same sense the Bible is history, only more so, and indeed still does in the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon.

Is the Bible history? In his supurb single volume history of the world, J.M. Roberts writes:

"For many people during many centuries, mankind’s history before the coming of Christianity was the history of the Jews and what they recounted of the history of others. Both were written down in the books called the Old Testament [the Torah], the sacred writings of the Jewish people... They were the first to arrive at an abstract notion of God and to forbid his representation by images. No other people has produced a greater historical impact from such comparatively insignificant origins and resources..." J.M. Roberts, History Of The World

Roberts goes on to say (and I wish I could find this part of it quoted on the Internet so I could copy and paste it like the above but I can't so I must paraphrase) that while the Bible is not a history book per se, it is the best history--indeed the only history really--that we have of this critically important aspect of the world's history (it must necessarily be of critical importance to any atheist, Buddhist, Islamist, Mormonist, whatever, whether he or she knows it or not). Roberts notes that while there is much in the Bible that objectively cannot be swallowed, that is no reason to reject it wholesale as history. In fact, scholars regularly accept as the only available evidence of events chronicles that are as fraught as the Bible with credibility problems. There is much linguistic and archeological and DNA evidence (if you will) to corroborate the Bible as history in terms of the kingdoms and peoples and their rulers and conflicts that set the stage for the world as we know it. There are many things I love and admire deeply about the Bible. I love it as literature, to the extent it is history, to the extent it is mythology, and most of all that it is a genuine historical artifact--for better or worse, these are representations of words spoken by my authentic cultural forebears.

The Book of Mormon is manifestly fashioned on the biblical model. If it fails wholly as history--if whoever brought it forth didn't give us something that discloses information and abstract truths about real flesh and blooded people--indeed cultural forebears of real modern peoples--corroborated somewhere in the physical evidence, well . . . I rest my case. And I'll add that dismissing all history as "fiction" is lame; lame, lame, lame.

Really, the LDS Church needs to belly up and emphatically defend the Book of Mormon as history, or go into receivership. FARMS engages in a form of science fiction (in my opinion), even showing impressive originality inventing an entire lexicon to support its alleged reasoning and conclusions. This is quite reprehensible in a sense. But I'll give them credit for one thing--they understand the importance of maintaining and defending the representation of the Book of Mormon as history.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Disavowing the Book of Mormon as history is monstrously self-delusional or disingenuous. I'll try not to repeat the excellent things that have been said on this forum about how the LDS Church has for 99% of its history represented the Book of Mormon to be a history in the same sense the Bible is history, only more so, and indeed still does in the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon.

Is the Bible history? In his supurb single volume history of the world, J.M. Roberts writes:

"For many people during many centuries, mankind’s history before the coming of Christianity was the history of the Jews and what they recounted of the history of others. Both were written down in the books called the Old Testament [the Torah], the sacred writings of the Jewish people... They were the first to arrive at an abstract notion of God and to forbid his representation by images. No other people has produced a greater historical impact from such comparatively insignificant origins and resources..." J.M. Roberts, History Of The World

Roberts goes on to say (and I wish I could find this part of it quoted on the Internet so I could copy and paste it like the above but I can't so I must paraphrase) that while the Bible is not a history book per se, it is the best history--indeed the only history really--that we have of this critically important aspect of the world's history (it must necessarily be of critical importance to any atheist, Buddhist, Islamist, Mormonist, whatever, whether he or she knows it or not). Roberts notes that while there is much in the Bible that objectively cannot be swallowed, that is no reason to reject it wholesale as history. In fact, scholars regularly accept as the only available evidence of events chronicles that are as fraught as the Bible with credibility problems. There is much linguistic and archeological and DNA evidence (if you will) to corroborate the Bible as history in terms of the kingdoms and peoples and their rulers and conflicts that set the stage for the world as we know it. There are many things I love and admire deeply about the Bible. I love it as literature, to the extent it is history, to the extent it is mythology, and most of all that it is a genuine historical artifact--for better or worse, these are representations of words spoken by my authentic cultural forebears.

The Book of Mormon is manifestly fashioned on the biblical model. If it fails wholly as history--if whoever brought it forth didn't give us something that discloses information and abstract truths about real flesh and blooded people--indeed cultural forebears of real modern peoples--corroborated somewhere in the physical evidence, well . . . I rest my case. And I'll add that dismissing all history as "fiction" is lame; lame, lame, lame.

Really, the LDS Church needs to belly up and emphatically defend the Book of Mormon as history, or go into receivership. FARMS engages in a form of science fiction (in my opinion), even showing impressive originality inventing an entire lexicon to support its alleged reasoning and conclusions. This is quite reprehensible in a sense. But I'll give them credit for one thing--they understand the importance of maintaining and defending the representation of the Book of Mormon as history.

I am in the category of those who believe it to be history. That said, I think the church's position is based on very limited information. Do we know what we have? Not really. I think it is easy to assume that it is a historical record, and many apostles and prophets have made that assumption. Could they be wrong? Sure. If in the end the book leads people to Christ, and assuming that actually is the purpose of the book, I can see how God would not care one way or another what we call it so long as we adhere to the message.

The church does not claim that its apostles and prophets are infallible. As a result, anything they have said could be wrong/incomplete.

Take the priesthood and the blacks issue. Clearly, I believe, God intended for blacks to hold the priesthood. I think the withholding of the priesthood was very wrong, and I believe it was based on poor policy and/or prejudice of the church's leaders and members. That said, many have claimed that it wasn't reversed until the 1970's because nobody seriously thought to ask God if it should be. The belief that blacks shouldn't hold the priesthood was articulated by many apostles and prophets. They were wrong, because they were working off of faulty assumptions.

Couldn't it be true that the Book of Mormon is the same in terms of not actually being a historical record?

Again, I believe it is. But if they said it wasn't, I would accept it and move on. Either way, I find the teachings in the book to be inspired and helpful to me in my search for God and truth.

[Indy Coug]

My 10 second synopsis:

The historical events recorded in the BOM are not figurative; they occurred. The BOM is not a complete historical record of the BOM peoples, nor a comprehensive historical record of all Western Hemisphere peoples, nor the complete relating of the interaction the peoples of the BOM may have had with them.

Contending the BOM is essentially a very long allegory is an intellectually disingenuous and untenable position.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Contending the BOM is essentially a very long allegory is an intellectually disingenuous and untenable position.

Why?

I believe it is a religious instrument first, coupled with historical artifacts, as it were, a veritable modern enhancement of ancient records. I might be wrong, but it is first created to bring people to Christ, not first created to report on the happenings in a part of the Americas.

[MikeWaters]

This reminds me of the AP who admitted that he would make up faith-promoting stories about his life. He said that his lies served a higher purpose.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This reminds me of the AP who admitted that he would make up faith-promoting stories about his life. He said that his lies served a higher purpose.

His last name wasn't "Dunn", was it?

[MikeWaters]

He was a 20 year old Dunn.

He also married the sister missionary that lived in the same apt. complex, two months after he returned home.

Nothing wrong with that, except that he denied to his closest missionary friends, that he had any feelings for her.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why?

I believe it is a religious instrument first, coupled with religious artifacts, as it were, a veritable modern enhancement of ancient records. I might be wrong, but it is first created to bring people to Christ, not first created to report on the happenings in a part of the Americas.

Just because the PRIMARY purpose of the BOM is spiritual doesn't mean it has to fabricate historical events to be able to fulfill its primary purpose.

Are you honestly saying you think the BOM is purely an allegory with nary a word of historical truth in it?

[MikeWaters]

Here's the connundrum:

1) most people have a hard time arguing that JS was a knowing fraud, based on the information we have.

2) one could imagine that JS, being a mystical person, could have convinced himself that God was revealing things to him. This was a different age, and belief in magic and such were not uncommon.

3) the part that really does not fit is the Gold Plates. It's hard to imagine that he imagined that he had the Gold Plates. And that others also imagined that he had the Gold Plates. If JS and the witnesses lied about the Gold Plates, then JS is a knowing fraud.

But then we go back to #1: it's hard to see how JS was a knowing fraud.

If you feel like you have received a spiritual witness to the truth of the BoM, I think it would be unwise to consider it nothing more than allegory.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My 10 second synopsis:

The historical events recorded in the BOM are not figurative; they occurred. The BOM is not a complete historical record of the BOM peoples, nor a comprehensive historical record of all Western Hemisphere peoples, nor the complete relating of the interaction the peoples of the BOM may have had with them.

Contending the BOM is essentially a very long allegory is an intellectually disingenuous and untenable position.

VERY, VERY well stated. I wish in past discussions I could have been this succinct, and am sure I came across as one who does not believe it is history -at least in the traditional sense.

The truth is I do not believe there is such a thing as a true history of any people -I am certain I made that clear.