Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[Archaea]

On CB, a discussion that was buried and ignored generated an interesting boardmail, which I will post but not identify. I thought his response was cogent, even though I'm not in complete agreement.

"I certainly agree that the Book of Mormon's primary purpose is religious. As it says on Moroni's title page, it is written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations." Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni, the primary writers/editors, have a religious agenda and they aren't shy about saying it.

This is no way disqualifies it as a historical text. As the title page ALSO says, it is an abridgement of a record of the people of Nephi, and also an abridgement of the record of the people of Jared. As the only extant record of those people, it has immense historical value. Further, the abridgements are taken from writers (with the exception of the first half of Ether) who are contemporary to the events described, even eyewitnesses. Historicity refers to historical accuracy, not whether the author has (or pretends to have) an objective, unbiased approach to his subject.

Compare, for example, the Book of Acts to Plutarch's Lives. Luke has a definite religious objective in his account. Plutarch does not have a religious objective, but he does have an agenda -- to illustrate the role of character in the lives of the men he chronicles. Luke is recording incidents in the book of Acts that are contemporary to him, and a part of which he was a personal witness to. Plutarch is writing of people he is not known to have direct contact with, the bulk of which died before he was born, sometimes LONG before he was born. It is Plutarch who is reliant on oral traditions, and Luke who is position to write an outstanding, accurate history.

You are certainly correct that the Book of Mormon (or Bible)'s primary value is apart from its history. You can ignore the history and the book would still be of sublime worth. If you ignore the history in a strictly historical work, there's really not much left to consider (the quality of the prose? Random editorials that slip in?). However, IF you ignore the religious content of scripture to look at the historical value, the value of the history compares well to straight historical documents. For some historical aspects (the life of Christ, much of Jewish history, all of Nephite/Jaredite history) it is the best and pretty much the ONLY historical documents of any value. Ignoring the straight historical value of scripture, just because it has much more important value in the religious sense, is like claiming that a passover dinner has no nutritional value, simply because its religious purpose is so much more important.

I would also argue that understanding the religious content of any scripture is easier when you understand the historical context in which it is given. At least I find the history helpful to me when reading, whether in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine & Covenants. In fact, in terms of third-party commentaries and supplements to the scriptures, it is precisely those that present historical information (whether from written records, archeological/anthropological research, or questions of translation) that I find the most useful. Commentaries telling me what the scriptures MEAN religiously I find fairly useless -- I can read the scriptures for myself, and compared to non-LDS commentators I also have the advantage of a large additional body of scritpure and inspired teachings to draw upon. But additional information to give me a better idea of the context, or a better idea of the usual meaning of the words themselves are something I can use directly in forming my own conclusions."

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

"...This is no way disqualifies it as a historical text. As the title page ALSO says, it is an abridgement of a record of the people of Nephi, and also an abridgement of the record of the people of Jared. As the only extant record of those people, it has immense historical value. Further, the abridgements are taken from writers (with the exception of the first half of Ether) who are contemporary to the events described, even eyewitnesses. Historicity refers to historical accuracy, not whether the author has (or pretends to have) an objective, unbiased approach to his subject.

Compare, for example, the Book of Acts to Plutarch's Lives. Luke has a definite religious objective in his account. Plutarch does not have a religious objective, but he does have an agenda -- to illustrate the role of character in the lives of the men he chronicles. Luke is recording incidents in the book of Acts that are contemporary to him, and a part of which he was a personal witness to. Plutarch is writing of people he is not known to have direct contact with, the bulk of which died before he was born, sometimes LONG before he was born. It is Plutarch who is reliant on oral traditions, and Luke who is position to write an outstanding, accurate history.

You are certainly correct that the Book of Mormon (or Bible)'s primary value is apart from its history. You can ignore the history and the book would still be of sublime worth. If you ignore the history in a strictly historical work, there's really not much left to consider (the quality of the prose? Random editorials that slip in?). However, IF you ignore the religious content of scripture to look at the historical value, the value of the history compares well to straight historical documents. For some historical aspects (the life of Christ, much of Jewish history, all of Nephite/Jaredite history) it is the best and pretty much the ONLY historical documents of any value. Ignoring the straight historical value of scripture, just because it has much more important value in the religious sense, is like claiming that a passover dinner has no nutritional value, simply because its religious purpose is so much more important.

Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is limited as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work. I can't tell whether your correspondent understands this or not.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is more as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work. I can't tell whether your correspondent understands this or not.

This is just begging SU to opine . . .

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is just begging SU to opine . . .

I think you got the post before I corrected my typo. It sort of, um, changes the meaning.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is limited as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work. I can't tell whether your correspondent understands this or not.

That was one of my points, but I thought he might come here where a more intelligent discussion could ensue.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That was one of my points, but I thought he might come here where a more intelligent discussion could ensue.

oh. do you have a link to the original post?

[MikeWaters]

I wish I could answer, but I have to take a pretty big dump. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Archaea]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2646452

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is limited as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work. I can't tell whether your correspondent understands this or not.

Well stated.

[pelagius]

Arch, I honestly don't think I understand the author's point. Is he/she arguing that it is important that the Book of Mormon in some sense accurately reflects the history of the Lehite colony? For example, is he arguing the it is not only important that the Lehite's ran into the Mulekites, but that the Mulekites actually were descended from Mulek? Is it okay if in reality that was total BS to impress the Nephites? Would the Book of Mormon lose value as scripture if that claim was a lie? Is it important that the Lehite exodus is somehow an accurate reflection of what happened? Is it okay if it is embellished or largely rewritten to make a theological point?

I guess I really don't understand the letter. Someone, please explain it to me

My confusion persists throughout. For example consider his/her thoughts on Luke.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Luke is recording incidents in the book of Acts that are contemporary to him, and a part of which he was a personal witness to. Plutarch is writing of people he is not known to have direct contact with, the bulk of which died before he was born, sometimes LONG before he was born. It is Plutarch who is reliant on oral traditions, and Luke who is position to write an outstanding, accurate history.

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph? The author seems to be arguing that an important criteria of a scriptural text is the it is written by a contemporary or a near contemporary of the events. The author of scripture needs to be relative close to the "action." Or is the author of the letter arguing that sometimes scripture is good history and Luke is a good example of that fact? I suppose many Mormons and Conservative Christians in general would agree with the paragraph but very few scholars would and don't think it is internal consistent with the preface of Luke (1:1-4):

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Thus the anonymous author of the gospel that come to be known as Luke never makes a claim of direct contact with the main actors of the gospel. Should we privilege Irenaeus's late second century identification? That strike me as slightly ironic given the contrast with Plutarch's reliance on oral history. So I am just not sure we can conclude that the author of Luke was anymore a contemporary eyewitness than Plutarch (no I don't find the "we" sections of Acts compelling), and I don't think this is an important criteria for scripture in general.