The Book of Mormon as a historical text and why it does matter.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im hearing more and more about my fellow saints who are disbelieving the Book of Mormon as being historical. They say it doesnt matter and that its the inspirational message of its content that matters. Heres why I believe they are wrong where it matters the most. The paramount claim of the Book of Mormon is that it states it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". To be a Christian means one believes that Jesus Christ is our savior, that he was born of the virgin Mary, that he lived and resided in his journey of mortality in and around Jerusalem as the Bible states, that he was crucified and was resurrected. It means that one has to believe literally in Jesus Christ and his ministry to his people in real historical context that the events really happened. Mormons must believe in all of that too plus that same conviction that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be- another testament of Jesus Christ as he visited a civilization, a real historical people who had prophets, seers, missionaries, etc, who kept an actual physical set of records that they wrote or inscribed upon the actual events as was testified to them. Why does this matter?

Because just as its impossible to claim to be Christian if you disbelieve the New Testament account of Jesus Christ and his ministry as a literal event, so too is it the same to claim to be Mormon and disbelieve the Book of Mormons account of Jesus Christ and his ministry to the Americas after his resurrection as literal. To claim to be Christian is to claim the New Testament is true in testifying of the literal historical Jesus Christ that ministered in real history to a real people. To claim to be Mormon is the same as being Christian plus also that same conviction that the Book of Mormon is another testament of the literal historical Jesus Christ that ministered yet again in real history to a real people.

So, to hear a fellow LDS claim to believe and yet disbelieve the Book of Mormon as historical is sad. Despite what may appear to be a lack of evidence, despite what modern secularism has to say we must stand up as saints and proclaim loudly that the Book of Mormon is real, it is a true history of a real fallen people, that Jesus Christ really did minister somewhere in the Americas after his resurrection just as the Book of Mormon claims. If we cant testify of that, believe in that, we arent to be, nor can be, called LDS.

I find it very difficult to judge others’ standing in the Church, especially on a point that is not covered in the baptismal or temple recommend questions prepared by our presiding officers.

The Book of Mormon’s historicity is indeed a matter of belief. Academics can argue the many evidences pro and con about its historicity, but neither have the primary source to prove it, and no one can argue over a spiritual witness and the fruits thereof, which among the faithful is what really counts.

I don’t understand why anyone would make a point of having a spiritual witness of its truthfulness while also making a point that they think it is a parable or inspired fiction; that seems like a tangent to me. If they have a witness, and the witness is what is real, it doesn’t matter.

[JoCa]

19 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's not that God rejects them for their heresy--He'll keep them as long as they stay.  It's just that they've planted an anchor that isn't going to hold them and their children through the storms that are inevitably coming; and unless they find a better anchor they're going to drift away.

Bingo.  They can stay . . .but their children won't.  Vibrant faith gets passed down from generation to generation.  If it ain't vibrant (or if it doesn't burn within you) your children will see it and more likely than not they will not stay.

[JoCa]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I find it very difficult to judge others’ standing in the Church, especially on a point that is not covered in the baptismal or temple recommend questions prepared by our presiding officers.

There may come a time when it needs to be on the baptismal or temple recommend question.

It was/is pretty much a given that if you don't believe Mormon was a real person, that Nephi was a real person then the logical conclusion is that JS was just making it all up.  So then you are left with the conclusion did JS make it all up to defraud people or was he a crackpot, or was he really inspired by God to make-up a "spiritual story".

If he was inspired by God to make-up a spiritual story and if God could inspire people to make up "spiritual stories" present them as fact then could he not have inspired some man call Lehi to take his family across the sea? So this idea the JS could write down a "spiritual story" present it as history and people could be members of the Church still . . .is totally a logical fallacy.

What they are really saying (through very cunning means inspired by Satan-and they may not know they are being inspired by him), is that the LDS Church is false as in God did not really call JS to be a prophet.

For now, there are not enough of those individuals for it to really make a difference . . .but if it becomes a problem they will eventually end up leading a whole lot of people astray and if that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be a question . ..otherwise it would destroy the Church as it exists.  

[JoCa]

Also if someone is a member b/c they believe the book has "good" messages.  Well what determines good?  With no overarching believe that the entire thing is a Work of God, then good becomes subjective; well this part that I like is good, this part that I don't like is bad.  And then this eventually devolves into . . .. moral relativism . . tada!!!

Exactly what is being taught and pushed in every angle in our culture.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I find it very difficult to judge others’ standing in the Church, especially on a point that is not covered in the baptismal or temple recommend questions prepared by our presiding officers.

The Book of Mormon’s historicity is indeed a matter of belief. Academics can argue the many evidences pro and con about its historicity, but neither have the primary source to prove it, and no one can argue over a spiritual witness and the fruits thereof, which among the faithful is what really counts.

I don’t understand why anyone would make a point of having a spiritual witness of its truthfulness while also making a point that they think it is a parable or inspired fiction; that seems like a tangent to me. If they have a witness, and the witness is what is real, it doesn’t matter.

Would you question a person who claimed to be a "Christian", a follower of Jesus Christ but yet denied the account of his birth, death and resurrection as reality?

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Would you question a person who claimed to be a "Christian", a follower of Jesus Christ but yet denied the account of his birth, death and resurrection as reality?

No, I would still take him to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but not having the knowledge that I possess.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

No, I would still take him to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but not having the knowledge that I possess.

Humm....kind of hard to be a Christian if you dont fit the description. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Also if someone is a member b/c they believe the book has "good" messages.  Well what determines good?  With no overarching believe that the entire thing is a Work of God, then good becomes subjective; well this part that I like is good, this part that I don't like is bad.  And then this eventually devolves into . . .. moral relativism . . tada!!!

Exactly what is being taught and pushed in every angle in our culture.

But it is true that the book has good messages. I wouldn't tell someone to get lost over that. But if he wanted to dwell on the book not being historical over the messages, I would let him know when I've had enough of a fruitless conversation.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Humm....kind of hard to be a Christian if you dont fit the description. 

It's hard to be a Christian when you do!

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The professional part of your belief bothers me. You are speaking of secular history which in truth is the fraud. But you seem to conflate it with reality and accept that reality but then in the next breath build up the scriptures in a fantasy land as an alternate reality. Thats confusing!

I'm a historian.  In the art of history, there are things that can be accepted and things that cannot be accepted.  Right now, as far as historical evidences go, the Book of Mormon has none.  Much of the Bible really does not have evidence for it.  We cannot simply say the earth is flat because we read it in a book of scripture like they used to, that's NOT what history (or science, or other academic pursuits) are about.  My personal beliefs and faith are not valid enough for the professional field.  Anyone who tried to do so professionally would not be taken seriously (basically, laughed out of the field and called a quack). 

The secular history is NOT a fraud, it is based upon many written accounts.  History is WRITTEN, archaeology is not.  History NEEDS to have WRITTEN history which corresponds with the flow of events to define whether it is fictional, or actual history. 

For example, we have written journals and other items from the Revolutionary war that correlate with one another.  They back each other up and verify that the events actually occurred.  It Is not just in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but HUNDREDS of witnesses.  If someone came up with some sort of weird history that had nothing to do with what we know from hundreds of accounts of the Revolutionary war...and stated something quite the opposite...they would have the preponderance of witnesses against their story...and likely, without anything to back it up, would be considered fictional, or a false history if nothing else.  One or two voices that say something different than hundreds (or thousands in some instances) cannot rewrite history by itself normally.  Obviously the further back you get, the less writings you get...and once you get to a point where there is no writing...that becomes pre-history...and the realm purely of archaeology or other sciences that try to piece together what happened without anyone writing about it.

The preferred source for a Historian is what we call a primary source.  That means someone who actually was there and experienced the event wrote about it.  Someone who relates something that someone else experienced or heard is relating it second hand, hence is a secondary source.  Someone who writes about someone who knew someone who experienced it (or quotes another source) is normally a tertiary source, and is the LEAST preferred.

With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.

Since none of it is a primary source at all, we then have to rely on something else, some sort of evidence (and almost any RELIABLY STRONG evidence would count, and unfortunately for many who may claim there is...in reality, there is NOT any other evidence out there) to back it up.  Feelings, emotions, etc. do not count.

Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.

My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

Edited September 22, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

The forum logs me out but posts, and then double posts...weird...so editing this out.

Edited September 22, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

Weird forum actions causing the post to show up more than once.

Edited September 22, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.

My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

I don't think the Lord cares whether it passes the academic tests or not. I believe He cares that we have a testimony of its truthfulness. I think most saints would say that their testimony attests that the events it accounts for actually happened in just as real a sense as any current event. I think it is good to discern between spiritual and academic evidence, and to place the spiritual witness above the academic evidence in matters of faith.

Edited September 22, 2017 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm a historian.  In the art of history, there are things that can be accepted and things that cannot be accepted.  Right now, as far as historical evidences go, the Book of Mormon has none.  Much of the Bible really does not have evidence for it.  We cannot simply say the earth is flat because we read it in a book of scripture like they used to, that's NOT what history (or science, or other academic pursuits) are about.  My personal beliefs and faith are not valid enough for the professional field.  Anyone who tried to do so professionally would not be taken seriously (basically, laughed out of the field and called a quack). 

The secular history is NOT a fraud, it is based upon many written accounts.  History is WRITTEN, archaeology is not.  History NEEDS to have WRITTEN history which corresponds with the flow of events to define whether it is fictional, or actual history. 

For example, we have written journals and other items from the Revolutionary war that correlate with one another.  They back each other up and verify that the events actually occurred.  It Is not just in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but HUNDREDS of witnesses.  If someone came up with some sort of weird history that had nothing to do with what we know from hundreds of accounts of the Revolutionary war...and stated something quite the opposite...they would have the preponderance of witnesses against their story...and likely, without anything to back it up, would be considered fictional, or a false history if nothing else.  One or two voices that say something different than hundreds (or thousands in some instances) cannot rewrite history by itself normally.  Obviously the further back you get, the less writings you get...and once you get to a point where there is no writing...that becomes pre-history...and the realm purely of archaeology or other sciences that try to piece together what happened without anyone writing about it.

The preferred source for a Historian is what we call a primary source.  That means someone who actually was there and experienced the event wrote about it.  Someone who relates something that someone else experienced or heard is relating it second hand, hence is a secondary source.  Someone who writes about someone who knew someone who experienced it (or quotes another source) is normally a tertiary source, and is the LEAST preferred.

With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.

Since none of it is a primary source at all, we then have to rely on something else, some sort of evidence (and almost any RELIABLY STRONG evidence would count, and unfortunately for many who may claim there is...in reality, there is NOT any other evidence out there) to back it up.  Feelings, emotions, etc. do not count.

Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.

My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

Well, thats a very professional and secular answer. I would expect as much. For me, I dont have to use a set of secular understandings to interpret evidence. So, lucky for me, I see tons of evidence for the Book of Mormon. Because I dont have to gauge my results with  secular professionalism, I come to far better results. 

From a logical standpoint we can paint it black and white- supposing secular history and archaeology is true according to their claims of who peopled the Americas then the Book of Mormon must indeed be a work of fiction. But, if we suppose the Book of Mormon contains the real history of peopling the Americas then not only is secular history wrong, its so far wrong its not even funny. And thats where it matters most, I dont care about being laughed at, I want to be on the side of truth no matter how incredible it may appear on the surface. 

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think the Lord cares whether it passes the academic tests or not. I believe He cares that we have a testimony of its truthfulness. I think most saints would say that their testimony attests that the events it accounts for actually happened in just as real a sense as any current event. I think it is good to discern between spiritual and academic evidence, and to place the spiritual witness above the academic evidence in matters of faith.

I think the Lord cares. My best guess is that He very much worked things over time so it would NOT pass the academic/historical test.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.

Is a translator considered a source? If you consider Joseph Smith merely a translator then can it be viewed as a secondary source? Not that it matters. Just curious.

[SpiritDragon]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is a translator considered a source? If you consider Joseph Smith merely a translator then can it be viewed as a secondary source? Not that it matters. Just curious.

I second this curiosity! Wouldn't the books of 1st and 2nd Nephi, Words of Mormon, Mormon and Moroni rise to the level of primary sources if Joseph Smith was not considered a middle man. If the records were in Russian and translated to English would that make the Russian source automatically secondary because it had to be translated? Can primary sources only exist within the language they are being studied?

[JohnsonJones]

It depends on the translation and the translator.  Normally, the preferred method (as the Book of Mormon states about Anton), you have to see the source of the material.  This allows for various translations so that you have differences of opinion.  You cannot translate something that cannot be seen and handled (or a sealed book).  A great example is the New Testament of the Bible.  The books there are not the primary sources of the documents, and most of the earliest ones we have are not the originals.  It can be a source for the time period as we have multiple sources of it, but there are other primary sources which many historians probably would consider first before those. 

Joseph Smith, unfortunately, at the time had no certifying things to show that he was actually able to translate, nothing certified that he was actually translating something.  In this instance, we need to see the source document that he was translating from so we know it is a valid source.  A second opinion on it, or translation to verify his accuracy would also be preferable, at least in part so that we could acknowledge that he was translating it accurately.

Another example that may be familiar to Mormons, it is lot like some of the early recordings of the speeches and talks of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith stated something in a talk, and we have someone who wrote it down...supposedly word for word.  However, at times, another person who recorded the same talk will have it written differently.  Which one then is accurate?  What did Joseph Smith actually say at that talk?  Although Joseph Smith himself is the primary source, those who transcribed it apparently didn't get it as his original talk was written or perhaps delivered.  At least one is inaccurate, possibly both...

Primary sources CAN be a translation, but the sources should be verified to be authentic.  Unfortunately, for the Book of Mormon, the source cannot be verified by scientific means.  Hence, as we cannot compare, we cannot accept that the translation is actually a word for word, or even pure translation.  It may be a translation with the own translator's own ideas and writings tossed in, or other items.

A basic thing to ask yourself, if you were a historian and could not take in personal testimony or the faith of someone as evidence, what would differentiate a book of fiction that someone claimed they translated, but could not provide any source documents or anything else, from any other piece of fiction?

After that, ask yourself, if you accepted a book someone stated they translated as evidence, how do you verify it is an accurate translation rather than an interpretation of the book.  In fact, from what some sources stated, the Book of Mormon at times is more an interpretation of what it states instead of direct translation (for example, the passages that reflect the King James Bible, as they were more familiar to Joseph Smith at the time and hence are written in that form).  Others state that some parts are direct translation to joseph Smith spelling out words.  It's impossible to tell, and hence, it has to be accepted that it is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon wrote.  In this instance, the stuff directly relating to Mormon's own history would be a secondary source, while the stuff he wrote about from others (his abridgement) is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon said in his words what someone else wrote.

This is NOT to disparage anyone's testimony.  What happens in history has to be verified and vetted.  With the Book of Mormon, that is basically impossible.  That does NOT mean it is not true, it means that as far as historical records and evidence goes, without the source document, or other historical records to back it up, accepting it as a history is not going to really go over that well.  Even if there were two or three other records it would go over better (and by that, I mean records that back up the history told in the book of Mormon).  Unfortunately we lack even that.  Once again that does not mean it is NOT true or historical, just right now, we don't have anything to validate it...hence, as such it is as good as a work of fiction in regards to actual history.

Now, Ancient American history is NOT my field of specialty, and I think most of those who do study it are more into archaeology, as written records as far as I know (again, not a specialist in this arena) are scarce if any at all for some cultures and civilizations.

Also, this is a case where you have to separate what is the art of history from one's religion.  Our faith is NOT history, and history should not be what we base our faith off of.  The interpretation of history is constantly changing and in flux with revision, retakes, and varied opinion.  If you base your faith or testimony on history, be prepared to lose that testimony right off as what is accurate today, may change tomorrow.  You can never tell in history when some new theory will throw off an old one, or challenge one that's been held for a while.  (for example, leprosy.  It was thought that in the Middle Age lepers were outcasts, but some new research suggests that up until the renaissance, they were actually held as more religious than others and incorporated into society.  They were seen as suffering more due to their faith in the Lord, and blessed to go to heaven...or at least that's one suggestion from some new research.  Very different than some of the understanding from just a few years ago in many ways.  It's not completely accepted, and there are various opinions, but that is an example of how things can change).

History is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS TRUTH.  I think it is in Indiana Jones where he states something like this, though in regards to archaeology.  He is a fictional creation, but I think that holds true.  History is based on what we can establish as facts from what we currently know in our perspective, but it is NOT necessarily true, or truth.  For that, the Holy Ghost is probably a much better guide.

Fact...not truth

[JohnsonJones]

Now something to add...in regards to MY PERSONAL belief.

I am a literalist.  That means I take the Book of Mormon to have literally happened as it is written.  I believe the Book of Mormon to truly be a historical record and accurately accounts what happened with peoples on the American Continent.

No, this is not integrated into my professional ideas, one has to know where to separate how the art of history works vs. the things of the Lord.

However, personally, I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible...as literal and accurate. 

It's funny that as a Historian, with a perspective of what history says, I believe this...and yet there are many who have no study of history at all and have no idea what they are talking about that think it is figurative or otherwise (and admittedly, there are historians out there that have a great amount of faith and feel that way as well in regards to these things being figuratively).

However, I, feel the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both literal and accurate in what they say about the creation, the history of the peoples, and the things they tell. 

Just one of those interesting observations.

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Now something to add...in regards to MY PERSONAL belief.

I am a literalist.  That means I take the Book of Mormon to have literally happened as it is written.  I believe the Book of Mormon to truly be a historical record and accurately accounts what happened with peoples on the American Continent.

No, this is not integrated into my professional ideas, one has to know where to separate how the art of history works vs. the things of the Lord.

However, personally, I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible...as literal and accurate. 

It's funny that as a Historian, with a perspective of what history says, I believe this...and yet there are many who have no study of history at all and have no idea what they are talking about that think it is figurative or otherwise (and admittedly, there are historians out there that have a great amount of faith and feel that way as well in regards to these things being figuratively).

However, I, feel the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both literal and accurate in what they say about the creation, the history of the peoples, and the things they tell. 

Just one of those interesting observations.

I would add that its the "art of secular history". They have painted a nice and neat narrative of history for us. Its like a play, they set the stage, they play the music, the actors tell the tale from one scene to the next with applause coming from the crowd. But in the end, thats all it is- an escape momentarily into a fantasy place that for a moment teases the senses, captures the imagination and gives a rise for a small applause. Then we exit, into a real world where real history is made, where spiritual experience haa shaped the past, shapes the present and shapes the future, where morality is tied in with our natures, a sense and spirit of godliness envelops our souls and drives invention, exploration and purpose of existance. This reality though is far removed from the secular stage and art they crafted, wanted us to believe. Its fading fast now, many havent left the theatre still in the trance of the play now convinced the play is real and to exit would be to face the fantasy.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the Lord cares. My best guess is that He very much worked things over time so it would NOT pass the academic/historical test.

I've thought this too, but I don't think it's by His intention or design that it not pass the academic test, but in consequence of the laws of a telestial world. As we see with the brother of Jared, these laws can be broken with "exceeding faith" and the Lord will accommodate. But I think He will neither frustrate nor facilitate us on the point of seeing the primary source and understanding the writings.

Edited September 24, 2017 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

I think its Satan that has worked things over time so that the scriptures wouldnt pass the academic and historical text. To me it tells us how much influence Satan has in secular academics and history. The evidence for the BoM is there, right in front of our faces if we but just take off the secular blinds from our eyes.

[Critchjc]

I see the statement being made here that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. I was reading a talk given by President Nelson to Mission presidents in 2016 and he said something that I found troubling. I always believed that all the pages in the Book of Mormon were historical. Here is what he said.

“There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” 

This is not how the book was presented to me while growing up. Can someone please show me what pages are and are not? 

[Midwest LDS]

@Critchjc There's nothing to be troubled over. President Nelson isn't saying the Book of Mormon isn't historically acurate. He's saying it's primary purpose isn't to present a blow by blow account of every event that occured in the Ancient Americas. The purpose of The Book of Mormon is to lead people to Christ, not help them understand ancient governing systems, cultural movements, and historical events like a textbook does. Trust me, President Nelson believes The Book of Mormon is literally true☺.

[Critchjc]

3 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

@Critchjc There's nothing to be troubled over. President Nelson isn't saying the Book of Mormon isn't historically acurate. He's saying it's primary purpose isn't to present a blow by blow account of every event that occured in the Ancient Americas. The purpose of The Book of Mormon is to lead people to Christ, not help them understand ancient governing systems, cultural movements, and historical events like a textbook does. Trust me, President Nelson believes The Book of Mormon is literally true☺.

Thank you for your response.