Again I make no pretenses to “resolving” this complicated topic and expect plenty of pushback, but, like I said in my last post, I see these conversations as important. It does appear to me that the evidence is contrary to the BoM being historical (I’ll post about that more), and yet I see Mormon practice as highly valuable (though often frustrating!)
I’ve seen related conversations over the years on the Bloggernacle and people often point to the value of literature and even the parables of Jesus. And yet those examples aren’t REALLY presented as historical the way Smith and the Book of Mormon present the Book of Mormon. I saw on Paul Dunn’s Wikipedia page that Dunn pointed to Jesus’s parables as defense of his fabrications. I think a lot would find that distasteful, as, again, Dunn presented his stories as real (and seemingly working for Dunn’s own aggrandizement). The Book of Mormon is different than bragging about oneself, but it did found a religion that gave Smith a very prominent position.
At the same time, the founding of the religion did a lot more than Dunn’s stories (I’d argue), and in previous posts I’ve listed out many of the aspects that of a great value to me. I see such aspects as vastly more important than debates over ancient history of the Americas. I do love history, and do consider it important, but, again, I see the aspects I listed as much more important.
No doubt lots of readers will find such a statement distasteful as though I’m saying that Smith (or someone) felt the need to trick people for “the greater good,” which sounds like something totalitarian regimes do. But as I mentioned in the comments in my last posts, Nephi tricks Zoram to get the plates “for the greater good,” and even convinces Zoram to come with them. “Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord? Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us.” (1 Nephi 4:34). And Zoram goes.
Again, I understand that many will find the “tricked for your own good” really distasteful, but Plato talked a lot about that idea. Like I said in the video I linked to in my last post, I see Plato as a major influence on Joseph Smith, and I’ll post more about that. But I guess I could present my own experience as Zoram-like: I was happy to stick around after coming to believe the Book of Mormon was not historical. And I really like being in a faith with so much Platonic teachings (again, see the video I posted).
More to come.
Stephen, one thing I’m still not clear on: For you, what’s the difference between not believing in a historical Book of Mormon, and plain old not believing in the Book of Mormon? I can imagine a number of different positions, but I don’t know how you see it.
I have forgotten what you said in part 1. But this? I don’t think I will ever forget this part of your post: “tricked for your own good.” Tricking someone “for the greater good.”
This is horrifying.
This attitude lacks empathy. Certain groups of people experience an incredible amount of pain because they believe in the church. From children trying to pray the gay away, to women having no representation in leadership, to public shaming for minor sexual sins, to everyone trying to fit extreme gender roles, to parents’ pain over wayward children who are by any other measure responsible, good adults, as well as racial teachings that dehumanizes people.
I could live with “tricked for your own good” if there wasn’t insistence that everything taught in conference or the handbook (everything now and most things from previous leaders) is coming from God, so you need to follow it or you are barred from the celestial kingdom.
I’m generally sympathetic to the broad position here (adherence to Mormonism or even belief in the Book of Mormon, but without belief in its literal historicity), though the “tricked for your own good” line of thought also strikes me as cavalier (as Jks says).
The Laban example is intriguing, but also slightly odd since it’s in the book whose authenticity is in dispute here. I’m wondering: are there other examples in scripture or LDS thought that would further bolster this line of thinking (and ideally not in a sketchy way, like the lying around polygamy)? For instance, Jacob’s deceiving of Isaac for the birthright? Or the strange language of D&C 19 where God seems to say that the language of eternal damnation is a righteous exaggeration to scare people?
Jonathan, a whole lot of people on my last post thought there was indeed a big difference, that seems to be a general opinion. I’m guessing that if anyone here were to ask their gospel doctrine classes what the difference is between a historical and non-historical Book of Mormon, we’d all get very strong answers that the difference is indeed important.
My views are a little different than the majority opinion would be. I remember teaching Book of Mormon in gospel doctrine 8 years ago, not believing in the a historical BoM, and thinking, “I really think that having a gospel topic discussion on these passages while not believing the BoM is historical could work.” Who knows? So no doubt opinions very, but there are many very strong opinions.
In terms of my own beliefs, I think I might have said (or thought of saying) that I don’t have a religious dog in the fight over BoM historicity. If evidence of Nephites appears, that wouldn’t change my religious practice much, but I’d find that very surprising from a historical standpoint.
Jks, as I made clear in the OP, I was anticipating readers feeling the way you do. And I agree that frustrations with the church add to those concerns. This is a big topic. I think Plato says some very interesting things about it that I’ll post more about in the future.
Doesn’t seem so strange to accept teachings and orient one’s life from a text that’s not strictly historical. I don’t need a historical Nephi or Mormon any more than I need a historical Job or Abraham. YMMV.
Explain to me how this is functionally different to the Brodie/Vogel/Taves pious fraud?
CamPete, I apologize for sounding cavalier. Just keep in mind that this is a big topic and it’s hard to cover every aspects all at once. I want to do a post just on the topic of “tricked for your own good” later on. A big topic in itself. I do think you have a pretty good list of possible scriptural examples. I do particularly like what Plato says about the topic and will post about that later.
MoPo, yes, like I said, I’m okay with a non-historical Book of Mormon.
Will, as I said on the previous post, I have some similarities and differences with those authors (pretty common in scholarship). i titled the paper I gave at Sunstone a week ago “Why I don’t think the Book of Mormon is historical, but think the Joseph Smith did.” Having worked on this question for a long time, I do think that Smith thought the Book of Mormon was historical even though I think he (and maybe his dad) constructed the plates “for the greater good.” A very complicated topic that I’ll say more about.
I have had inklings of how in certain ways, Joseph’s view of God might be compatible with Platonism, yet I struggle with how our immanent, embodied, “Heavenly Father” is compatible with Plato’s view that God is the Form of the Good, and fully “transcendent” as we use that term.
I don’t think the important question here is whether Joseph Smith “tricked people for the greater good.” The question is whether God tricks us “for the greater good.”
I’ve prayed and asked if the Book of Mormon is true, and the answer was yes. Stephen, reading between the lines in your last post, I’m guessing you had the same experience. I presume God later telling you “I never told you it was historical” was a reference to that earlier experience. I agree that the God telling us the Book of Mormon is “true” and letting us believe that means it’s “historical” (since that’s what it claims to be) is similar to Nephi telling Zoram he was taking the plates to his “brethren” and letting Zoram believe he meant “the brethren of the church.” And I agree with you that what Nephi did was trickery.
Are you saying God tricks us, Stephen?
If God is willing to trick us so that we’ll take the Book of Mormon seriously, that suggests it’s very important indeed. If you believe God tricks us for our own good, Stephen, why are you trying to undo what God has done?
Setting rhetoric aside, I’m trying to understand your motives here. If you’re arguing “There should be room in the Church for people who don’t believe the Book of Mormon is historical” I’m with you. But it sure looks like you’re arguing “The Book of Mormon is not historical” and not in a way that leaves much room for “But the Church is true anyway!” I’m afraid you’re just going to end up providing more evidence to those who assume anyone who doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is historical will try to weaken the testimonies of others and doesn’t belong in the Church.
Stephen, I’m not asking about other people – I’m trying to figure out what you believe about the book of Mormon. I understand that you don’t think it’s historical, and that you think Joseph Smith thought it was historical, and that’s all fine, but it’s still not what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t think I’m digging into a big topic. Would you say the Book of Mormon is scripture (as revelation given to Joseph Smith in an interesting way), or an interesting commentary on scripture (but not scripture itself), or as an odd nineteenth century curiosity?
I can respect your perspective if you’re saying that you simply value the teachings, but admit that if the BoM isn’t historical, then the Church being “true” goes out the window along with it. Because would God really send an angel to tell Joseph about a historical record… that is historically bogus? How did the plates get there? How could there even be any plates if it wasn’t historical? Was God tricking Joseph? And if Joseph is seeing and revealing all this stuff about people… who weren’t real… how could anyone ever have any confidence in any of his revelations and claims to authority? Honestly man, I don’t know you and you don’t know me, but it really seems like you’re just living the biggest apologetic of all: none of this is true, but that doesn’t matter, the Church is still true even if isn’t true. I think is time to face the music, man. All the best to you.
So if God is actually willing to trick us, would this trickster God need Joseph or someone in Joseph’s circle to manufacture the plates? Is this trickster God’s power limited to the human imagination?
Mark, immanence and transcendence were not the ways that scholars/writers framed the central issues of Platonism v orthodox Christianity in the centuries leading up to JS’s time. The central issues were uncreated souls and uncreated matter (both of which were called Platonic heresy by orthodox Protestants) and both of which JS embraced in his Nauvoo speeches. And yes, it looks to me that JS interpreted Plato as saying that God had a body.
RLD: “why are you trying to undo what God has done?” I’ve never thought about it like that, but with you posing the question, I’ll again go back to the Zoram story I quoted in 1 Nephi 4. Eventually Zoram figures out that Nephi led him to a place that Zoram was not expecting: Nephi’s elder brethren, not “the brethren of the church.” At that point, Zoram tried to “flee” and Nephi grabs Zoram and gives the explanation I quoted above: “Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord?”
I think that suggests that JS/God knew/know that many people will have the Zoram experience that “something is up,” and I’d argue that a whole lot are doing so currently. Yet, Nephi hoped to be able to make the “greater good” argument to Zoram so that Zoram would still go with them.
Okay, sorry I misunderstood, Jonathan. I still see the answer as a little complicated, but yes I see JS as inspired in producing the Book of Mormon. I’ll talk about this more, but I also see it fulfilling some of Plato’s instructions in the Republic of creating of group narrative to bind a people together. Some scholars have argued that the OT itself was created to follow that injunction (not a widely accepted idea, but I still find it interesting). So I see if having that aspect as well: a foundational, shared narrative that’s religiously essential to the religious community. And I’d argue that’s an okay definition for scripture.
Getting into every nuance of just how important I take the Book of Mormon personally, I’d say that’s shifted a bit and continues to shift since I stopped believing it was historical. Yes, I view it as important and inspired, but, again, some shifting going on.
Brian, it sounds like you missed my first post on this topic where we discussed such topics at length. Again, I stopped believing the BoM was historical c. 2011 and served as bishop from 2018 to 2023. https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/being-a-mormon-without-believing-in-a-historical-book-of-mormon-part-1/
Anon, I see God working within human understanding.
I wonder about things like continuity and consistency if the events aren’t real. God intervenes in our lives as a result of our faith. To me, there’s a lot more power in the story of Christ visiting the Nephites as a result of their faith if a really appeared to them rather than the event being nothing more than a fable. Yes, fables can teach valuable precepts–but a story that says, “this really happened,” can have greater power to call us to repentance (IMO) by sheer dint of being a testimonial rather than a myth. If God revealed himself to them then may be he’ll reveal himself to me: therein lies the power of the Book of Mormon.
Jack, the other side of the coin is that it’s a great relief if horrific things in the BoM didn’t actually happen.
For example, we love to read about Christ visiting the Nephites in 3 Nephi 11. But the chapter before describes Christ sending earthquakes and fire to indiscriminately consume entire cities.
The oft-quoted example of Nephi beheading a defenseless Laban because the spirit compelled him to also comes to mind.
I prefer a reality where the Lord and Savior of the world doesn’t commit mass murder or tell his prophets to kill either
What a relief that I can read these stories as parables and not history!
I grew up in what’s now called a part-member family (that word didn’t exist when I was a kid) with a Lutheran mother (ELCA in case you care about the varieties of Lutheranism). It wasn’t until I was well into adulthood that I realized how much my heterodox stances were direct outputs of being essentially raised in two religions.
That all being said, I’ve noticed how historicity is something that LDS people really think about, whereas if I was to ask something like “do you think Noah’s ark was historical?” to my Lutheran family or thier pastor they would look at me like I’m crazy for even asking such a question. I think they would say that the purpose of the scriptures isn’t history lessons, but to try to understand how and what God has tried to communicate to us through time and how we’ve attempted to understand God’s love for us.
I don’t know, the historicity of the BoM just isn’t something I think is relevant. Saying Nephi is as “historical” as Noah or Moses (which can either mean entirely based on a “real” person or completely a literary/mythic invention) is fine with me.
It seems to me that your proposal goes a bit in the direction of the Catholic miracle. I think you consider what given that Joseph Smith’s experiences have a Neoplatonic and popular Christianity substratum, which, again, refers us to Catholic miracles and sanctity.
Such a path would lead to seeing the apparition and miracles associated with the Book of Mormon as that of Juan Diego and the Virgin of Guadalupe.
There are apparitions on a hill, a restorative message to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, a rejection of the same, doubts, a healing miracle for the father. A call to build a sacred place accompanied by the miraculous appearance of roses and a miraculous image.
However, history tells us that Juan Diego probably did not exist and that the painting of the Virgin of Guadalupe was painted by Marcos. What history tells us was a construct developed by the Franciscans to convert the indigenous people to Christianity.
The image of the Virgin of Guadalupe still remains in her basilica and is associated with miracles and religious fervor.
Is this what Stephen is proposing for the Book of Mormon, which is similar to the Catholic miracles to convert the indigenous people?
Davek,
I think the scriptures are very clear as to why certain people were destroyed (in 3 Nephi 9) and why others weren’t. And one of the reasons for that clarity (IMO) is so that the reader would know that the Lord’s judgments are just.
That said, when I consider the incalculable degree of suffering and death that humanity has endured simply because of the fallen conditions we find ourselves in–I take much more comfort in a literal Jesus who rose from the dead than a fictional one.
Aaron,
I think one of the reasons for our focus on history is because our faith is built more on the testimony of events than principles. When we speak of the restoration there is typically an innate sense of things having a occurred–more than the unfolding of a creed. We think of the first vision and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in terms of events that require affirmation by the spirit of prophecy to our souls–and not just the lessons that we might learn from such occurrences in the abstract.
Stephen, thanks for your reply, I can also see how Joseph’s belief that “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine and pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 131:7) can be a clue to how, pragmatically, Joseph did not acknowledge the distinction between immanence and transcendence, and that the distinction itself may be seen not as a “category mistake” but simply a scale between two extremes. Ontology vs Categories. Hmmm. Joseph didn’t need that distinction anyway!
Stephen, thanks for answering my question. I can work with that.
I’ve done some thinking on Rosalynde F. Welch’s commentary on Ether and her allegations that Moroni Christianized the Jaredite record. I can’t help but notice that Ether’s record was itself translated by Mosiah via the same intermediaries that Joseph Smith used for the Book of Mormon. This is the Book of Mormon talking about itself – what does it mean?
Let’s go back to Nephi and Zoram. If I understand your reading of the story correctly, Nephi tricking Zoram was justified by the importance of obtaining the Brass Plates. If that’s actually an allegory of God tricking us for the greater good, what do the Brass Plates represent? What is the greater good that God accomplished by tricking us? Is creating a group narrative really it? Is there really such a shortage of churches influenced by Plato that God decided tricking us into believing the Book of Mormon is historical was worth it to make one more? Forgive me, but that seems like pretty weak sauce.
I’m getting the sense that you’re in the odd position of having started out suggesting that the Restoration required that God trick us for our own good, but now no longer find enough good (or enough unique good) in the Restoration to justify trickery. If I’m wrong about that, help us understand what you think is the point of all this.
(To be clear, I’m of the opinion that faith in God is really about trusting him–tricking us would defeat his entire purpose. And that the Restoration is incredibly valuable.)
RLD:
Latter-day Saint canon in a couple of places has God allowing, shall we say, productive misunderstandings to exist. D&C 19 is the paradigm example: it’s very much like Obi-Wan going “what I told you was true, from a certain point of view” because the misunderstanding would ultimately produce better outcomes than a knowledge of the truth. And I can get it. Honestly at times I’ve thought that the game-theoretic approach to Christianity would be to choose one of the traditional denominations because that gets me out of danger of hell, and if the Church is true anyway I just end up in the terrestrial which is still basically creedal-Christian heaven. I can see Christianity struggling to establish itself without the stark imagery of eternal damnation, which troubles we of more gentle times.
But the idea that God allows us to get the wrong idea from time to time is kind of baked into the D&C cake. The same is true of the Old Testament. The Noachian Flood in Genesis was a good way to establish facts about God’s nature and give Israelites a narrative concerning the ancestral flood traditions of their day. But God would know that we would come to misunderstand it in time and that would cause people problems. It’s still in there.
I don’t know what to make of this necessarily but the precedent is there and in fairness…revelation is a communicative act and depends not merely on the seed but on the ground. Parable of the sower. Might it be that the primary purpose of some revelation is to prepare the ground for other seeds? Just spitballing.
I think the different opinions shared here suggest both that claims to a non-historical BoM can be jarring, but also something than others felt they could reconcile.
Juan, perhaps some similarities.
Mark, yeah not an important distinction for JS, but also not really discussed in the sources that I think influenced him. I think that topic because popular with later thinkers.
Hoosier, I do think the BoM narrative did get some some aspects of JS’s own experience.
RLD, “Is there really such a shortage of churches influenced by Plato?” The stuff we have, I’d say yes. The Mormon plan of salvation is in Plato (especially Timaeus, and Phaedrus) and as all missionaries know, such beliefs are hardly common among other Christians. I really do think that Plato had a tremendous understanding of the essential theological topics (this is a big topic).
My point about Zoram is “what happens when people figure it out?” ie when Zoram realized Nephi tricked him. It looks to me like a little study can reveal the BoM not being historical (there’s plenty out there besides me), so can there be a Zoram-like experience of people choosing to stick around when the happens?
I’ll talk more about possible ways to view trickery in later posts.
For clarity:
I think the “other seeds” I referenced might be what is popularly termed “Nauvoo theology.” If God wants something like Nauvoo theology on the table, it’s not clear that any traditional branch of Christianity could make that jump. Their authority derives too much from Tradition. Nor is it clear that any Protestant or restorationist denominations could do it – they derive their authority too much from their interpretations of the Bible. The Book of Mormon kind of straddled both camps and gave ground for dramatically expanding the covenant people of God through time via proxy ordinances. Honestly, this is the most fruitful way I view the Restoration: the early Christians expanded the Israelite covenant to the Gentiles, but the strict baptismal requirements and social necessities meant that the expansion could only be offered to contemporary Gentiles. Call it a “horizontal expansion.” The Restoration and the power of the temples allows for that expansion to occur “vertically” backwards through time. But in order to create a community capable of receiving that, you need something like the Book of Mormon.
In the recent blog post about miracles, I articulated an argument to the effect that God couldn’t realistically do an Elijah-esque pillar of fire in the modern era because it would constitute an apocalypse before the whole world. Well, given the nature of its coming forth, confirmation of the Book of Mormon would function very similarly. Which means (presuming that archaeology is a discipline which fairly reliably produces truth) that God either has to interfere with the process of archaeology to render the Nephites unrecognizable, or alter the narrative of the Book of Mormon to make it unrecognizable in the ground data. I don’t see a way around that dichotomy.
Hmm…neither The Republic nor Symposium made me a Plato fan, but I may have to read Timaeus. I’m dubious, but if it turns out that C.S. Lewis’s response to learning the true Plan of Salvation was “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!” I’ll laugh pretty hard.
Not sure of the C.S. Lewis reference, but I go over in my dissertation that it looks pretty clear to me that Abraham 3 clearly draws on the Timaeus. A divine pre-mortal council, explaining that pre-existent souls would be sent to earth to be tested.
A little different in Phaedrus. There souls “fall” to earth and are seeking their way back to where they came from through philosophical behavior (self control) and philosophical love. Lovers who do so will have union with each other in the next life (eternal marriage).
With this in mind, Plato’s cave allegory in the Republic is clearly a reference to the plan of salvation. Here on earth we do not have memory of the pre-existence (ie like prisoners in a cave) but through enlightenment (ascent out of the cave) we can gain the knowledge.
Plato’s Phaedo describes 4 afterlife states quite similar to DC 76
and so on.
While I come down on the side of the Book of Mormon as a historical record, and Stephen’s formulation that has God tricking us for our benefit isn’t working for me, that still leaves the challenge of dealing with human frailty and subjectivity and textual problems throughout every book of scripture we have. The Book of Mormon is quite open about it, and the issues with the OT/NT are numerous and well known. Unless we want to treat the scriptures as strictly inerrant, we have to acknowledge that scriptural texts have undergone change over time, we canonize real flawed texts and not imagined perfect texts, and God doesn’t seem intent on doing our textual criticism for us. I get something different out of Zoram and Laban than Stephen does, but even so the issues don’t go away.
Re: Tricking Zoram: Nephi comes clean about the situation to Zoram. And I suppose that if the Lord were to do the same and reveal the “trickery” of the Book of Mormon through some sort of reliable mechanism–then what could I do but be convinced. But then again, I might find myself wondering at some point if the new understanding of things is just a another trick. And so it might go, theoretically, until doomsday.
But that’s not the message I get from the canon nor the living prophets. Yes, we are told that there’s a lot more that we might understand about the Kingdom if we were prepared (collectively) to receive it. But even so, much of what has been revealed (IMO) is to help us get a foothold in “things as they really are” — indeed, to help us “know who and what we worship.”
Stephen, I’d be interested to see how you ground your theory in Greek philosophy. Even so, my sense is that the Book of Mormon will resist–to its death–any attempt to “platonize” its claims. I don’t know much about these things–so what I’m saying may sound uniformed or facile. But I can’t imagine how the reader can get around the “matter of a fact” claims the BoM makes about itself without it losing its central meaning and purpose.
First thing I want to say after reading the first 2 installment posts is that I find it very strange that someone can discount the Book of Mormon as a historical record and still be an upstanding member. I think Christ himself would take offense at that. After all, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be another testimony of Christ’s dealings with mankind on earth. Think how Christ must feel if there are supposed members of his church who are going around saying his testimony is a fake!
The second thing is that these guys who promote these scriptures to be fake offer no credulous evidence besides secular means and we know all too well how crafty the devil is in tricking mankind. Look at Korihor! I see this as more of the same jargon. Human reasoning is weak, always will be weak.
The book of Mormon is a very complex theology that no man could just write or make up. The soteriology alone is mind baffling sound logic. Sure, they didnt have a knowledge of the afterlife or millennium very well but the heaven and hell phraseology is astounding revelatory work. Its absolutely profound how their phraseology evolved and yet never wavered from the true principles of Christs gospel.
Take off your secular lens and listen to the actual spirit. The book of Mormon is exactly what it testifies to be- the actual dealings of ancient inhabitants in the Americas and Christ ministering to them.
I’ll post more, Jack, but I don’t expect you or Kibs to like the upcoming posts. Still a conversation worth having, I think.
But, yes, as I discuss in the video, Joseph Smith’s teachings are quite thoroughly founded on Plato’s. A good thing!
Kibs:
There are probably more of us than you realize. I have served in bishoprics, high council, eq presidencies, etc. and am able to make it work.
On my other post (not on this topic) Kibs said, “Stephen, lets be clear, the “data” you suggest is conjecture and supposition at best. Its not hard facts like you wish to think. For instance-
Have you seen, handled and felt the golden plates yourself? Thus you cannot prove what they are or not. Thats supposition and conjecture and at best heresay. Have you seen the angel Moroni? How can you say he is or is not who he claims to be if you havent seen him?”
I’d be skeptical if you claimed that you had done these things, KIbs, so I’m not sure what you’re point is. God commands us to “study it out” (DC 9:8) and to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” (88:118) so that’s what I’m doing, following God’s command.
Stephen,
I may be mistaken and you can correct me if Im wrong but as far as I can tell from reading your works is that you dont belive the golden plates that Joseph Smith had in his possession were neither a true account of ancient inhabitants nor was the angel Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith who he purports to be. Am I correct or not in how I understand your belief on these 2 topics?
Bart,
I think the group of true believers and worshipers in our church who regularly attend church, hold callings and frequent the temple who otherwise believe the Book of Mormon to be fictional are extremely rare. Making it work, in my opinion, only can last so long from my witness and experience of observing others. At some point they always fall away. The faith and belief system of the mind cant continuously serve opposing faith structures and be reconciled. One side will always win over the other.
Yes, I don’t believe in Nephites and thus no Nephite record. The fact that I’ve not seen the plates or angel, I’m not sure provides proof that I’m wrong.
I’d say that the data indicated there were no Nephites. So I’m pointing to those facts (I’ll put up a post). Again, the fact I’ve not seen the plates doesn’t provide any proof that there WERE Nephites.
“Will only last so long.” How long do you think, Kibs? I’m at 13 years and a term as bishop. Now, I’m not making any guarantees of my continued practice (things can be bumpy) but thus far, I’ve felt like this is where God wanted me to be and that I needed to obey that.
Stephen,
So basically you reject the very premise upon which our church stands. Without the Book of Mormon, we have no church. Our religion is founded upon the entire belief that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon which includes the very testimony of Jesus Christ.
This “data” you keep speaking of is mere conjecture. You do realize this dont you? Its not facts.
Stephen,
Im trying to be honest, at some point you willnot be able to continue to maintain the Book of Mormon as fiction and still find satisfaction being a member amongst people who are of a different belief. The gathering of Israel is about molding our beliefs into one in the truth in God. Your beliefs, once you publish them (make them known) creates factions, doubt, disbelief and lack of faith. Im just not seeing how any “data” you could present on this matter could bring together the gatheting of beliefs in truth. You are not entitled, over the prophets, to declare or teach the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be. Once you go there you are teachig doctrines that are contrary to official doctrine. We can all have questions, even doubts over certain aspects of history or doctrine and remain in good standing. But to deny the events as they actually happened and premise of events that led to our religion is an entirely different thing. Thats a very serious issue.
Im just not convinced that the work you are doing has Gods backing.
I do appreciate your concern for me, Kibs, but I’ve been at this a while too. I don’t consider my faith and religious practice to demand a historical Book of Mormon, but understand that others feel differently. What I said in this post about the Old Testament, I think I could apply to the Book of Mormon as well.
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/what-historical-claims-does-god-insist-that-we-believe/
Okay, I put up my post on how the evidence on Book of Mormon historicity appears to me at the Juvenile Instructor. I’ll refer to that if people ask me for evidence.
https://juvenileinstructor.org/study-and-faith-5-book-of-mormon-historicity/
Stephen,
We reject scholarly consensus when it does not agree with major points of God’s word and his holy prophets. Plain and simply, thats the standard whereby we place our good “faith” in. Its preposterous to think that true scholars belive Moses was mythical. Thats not scholarly work. One instantly loses their credibility with me who believes Moses was mythical. Heres something to think about-
We belive in resurrection and immortality through the atoning blood of Christ regardless that the scholarly and secular sciences has no proof of such a thing. Now of course you embrace that on faith alone even though no “data” exists from the scholars that this event will happen.
The point is that our first standard is to believe in God, his works and words in the face of secularism. People get all learned and think they are experts but reality is that almost entirely, human reasoning and the sciences we use for it is deeply flawed and eroded at its very foundation.
Who are the “we” who are doing the rejecting, Kibs? You’ve made it very clear that data doesn’t matter to you at all, but only trying to verify your previously held notions. That’s the exact opposite of scholarship, the violation of “study and faith” that the scriptures command.
Your definition of a “true scholar” seems to be one who rejects data in favor of preconceived notions, the exact opposite of scholarship.
I very much believe in God as well as his command of “study and faith” which includes the study part.
If one’s response to being shown an overview of the data is to simply reject all human learning, that’s not a very good scholarly argument. The complete opposite. Again, God commands study, so how about dropping the claim that doing so is somehow an rejection of God?
Stephen, I guess what I’m getting at is that most scholarly attempts first pass through that typical secular lens which I have a hard time with. I use both study and faith to find truth. But I don’t use any secular lens which greatly enhances my field of study and produces more options. With scripture I like the belief system and methodology of first believing it’s true then looking for both evidence that proves or disproves it. For instance, the flood in Noah’s day sent me on a 20 year journey in seeking evidences both for and against it as a global catastrophe. My conclusions after 20 years of study and faith led me to sustain the account as truly believable and thus most likely true. Along the way I was able to use a lot of the things I learned that enabled me to open my eyes for Book of Mormon evidences into places I hadn’t thought of and methodology that sustains my belief of the validity of the book as very plausible and true.
Do my views align with mainstream accepted secularism? No. But I also know that mans ways and reasoning are highly flawed.
Whoa there, Kibs! You reconciled the evidence with a historical Noah and a global flood?
How do you explain kangaroos only being in Australia with no trail of fossils from Mount Ararat? Did the kangaroos pick up all the bones of their dead family members along the way and destroy them?
Why isn’t there a fossil record that shows all terrestrial life dying at the same time in a catastrophic event?
Why wouldn’t the carnivorous animals eat their prey the moment they stepped off the ark, if not on the ark itself?
Just a shout out to Mormon apologists who I’m sure view Kibs as a total anathema to the work they do. I do want to acknowledge that fact while at the same time not believing the BoM is historical.
Dave,
Took me 20 years to figure it out (yeah, I’m slow) and it may take that long in dialogue to show you.
Mormon apologetics is definitely a mixed bag for me. Some I really like, others I don’t. Generally with apologetics is that they all are learned through the typical secular academia that hinders their overall view and thus makes them pretty narrow minded.
I’m glad that Josrph Smith wasn’t one of those secularly trained scholars that could of possibly tainted the precious Book of Mormon in the translation process in its magnificent and miraculous form.
Truth is almost always stranger than fiction on its surface. History is the same. Take the Jaredites for example, they construct sea going ships that are submersible and take upon them many different animals snd of all things- bees. No secularly trained historian would ever pass off on that as true history.
Kibs… Have you ever taken a few moments to pause and ponder WHY as you put it “No secularly trained historian would ever pass off on that as true history.”?
Have you considered that it is utterly ridiculous that ancient people built submarines with a big cork in the top and bottom with livestock and bees?
Where does the dung go and how do you keep it separate from the food supply? How do you keep the animals alive and calm while your vessel is flipping over in the waves? How do you store enough food and fresh water for the people and animals to last 344 days in a vessel that is the size of a tree?
I think if you think about it for a few minutes, you can see why the “BoM isn’t historical” argument has legs.
Dave,
Your answer is the perfect reason why secular historians fail. Rather than seeing the logic of things and trying understand they use their own shallow carnal minds that will fail them everytime.
The “god doesn’t trick” and “evil god would not kill” views are all embedded in the lower form of intelligence called humans. God can do what He wants and to Him taking out a city, race, or 1 person is part of whatever plan He has. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. Why do we think we should ever know/understand/agree with why God does or does not do something? And to the members who think prophets are always speaking for God. Just not happening. Bless your hearts.
Please correct me if I am wrong (like I need to tell this group that) but isn’t “trickery” the churches official stance on the translation of the BofA? They call it the “catalyst theory” or something like that? JS thought he was actually translating but it was not actually what was written on the scrolls, God just allowed him to think it was? Sounds like trickery to me.
Wasn’t Joseph told to lie about Mary being his sister in the scriptures? Been a while since I have read that story, I could be wrong.
Been a member all my life and have read the BoM many times and have prayed and have never gotten anything either way. Maybe I was not sincere enough because I am one to not care about books being true for me to know God wants me in this church, warts and all. To me a testimony based on the BoM would be sandy. Now I get holding a real book with a real story behind its origins can help bring/keep people to/in the church. I am also sure millions have received a witness that the BoM is “true” so therefor it must be historical to be “true”. But I have also studied maybe 10% of the things Brother Fleming has and with that small portion of study I can see where he is coming from.
Love that you are all sharing your views. I wish I could do this every sunday in a church setting.
@REC911, you’re thinking of Abraham and Sarah.
Thanks, REC. There’s also the story of God sending the “lying spirit” to the prophets in 2 Chronicles 18:22, and 1 Kings 22:23. I’m not sure I see these passages as historical or theologically sound, but just a few more examples.