Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Equality]

In one way, I'd agree with you. But it requires seeing that the subject of investigation differs between most Mormon believers and most critics.

It's taken time for me to realize that in Mormonism orthopraxy is significantly more important than orthodoxy. The pews in any given ward on any given Sunday include people whose beliefs span an incredible spectrum from complete apathy towards the teachings of correlated Mormonism to the ultra-conservative/fundamentalist. And there is a lot of tolerance for someone holding unconventional beliefs...so long as they perform in accordance with the expected behaviors. From birth, (where this last year we saw unorthoprax attempts at a baby blessing lead to troubles for a poster) through youth, one's choice of a spouse, how and where one marries, what one watches for entertainment, etc., etc., to what one is buried in, the religion of Mormonism is particularly concerned with what one does.

I think, then, that when critics and believers engage in discussion they often are seeking the truth of two different things. Because, frankly, it is immaterial to the critic HOW to be Mormon, while to the believer how to be Mormon is the essence of seeking truth. Over my time on this board this was made clear to me best in watching never-mo's engage with Mormonism, often initially respectfully, expecting discussion and debate that might be mutually edifying and philosophically rewarding only to be met with frustration. It is a clash of different cultures, not different beliefs or understandings.

I speculate that what is often described as the breaking of one's shelf of suspended disbelief is the moment when the former Mormon ceases to feel obligated to engage in Mormon orthopraxy. At that moment, the truth of Mormon history ceases to be compelling reason to dress, eat, and act in accordance with Mormon teachings. It's not that the understanding of Mormon history changed itself, it's that it's relation to how one lives their life changes.

I say all of that because at a very real level I think believers are engaged in pursuing truth of a kind that is meaningless to critics and non-Mormons except as an exercise in anthropology. Unless one is seeking to understand what it means to BE Mormon, truth seeking as Mormon believers engage in it is simply uninteresting or even inaccessible to the non-orthoprax. While the Mormon can engage Mormon history til the sun goes down seeking motive and method for more edifying and involved participation and understanding of LDS orthopraxy. That doesn't mean the believer isn't engaged in seeking truth, it's just a unique kind of truth that requires a certain perspective to value.

Where I disagree with Water Dog's statement is in devaluing the type of truth the critic is engaged in seeking, and which probably seems dismissive of the types of truth a believer values. If a critic seeks and finds sufficient reason to place the Book of Mormon fully in a 19th century context and discusses the reasons for this being the case, it's just as valid a form of truth seeking. It just happens to be of a kind that appears contradictory to the truth seeking process of the Mormon seeking to better understand how to be Mormon.

in short, it's not a case of answering the same question differently or one side engaging it more earnestly than the other. Both sides are asking different underlying questions that are not explicitly understood by both sides when engaging in discussing a particular topic.

Very insightful post.

[_Kishkumen]

Very insightful post.

Indeed it is.

[_Uncle Ed]

@honorentheos: Thanks for the new word, "orthopraxy". I've been using "orthodox" my entire life, and here I am a bona fide "orthoprax" and didn't ever think of myself that way, never mind the word itself. (kind of annoying, that word, actually)

Yes, the "way of the Mormons" is my way, because I have not seen a good reason to depart from it, or look for another "way", despite my friends being almost entirely non Mormon since I first started having friends. My first "best friend" was Lutheran, and his parents were staunchly so. They took me to Lutheran Bible school, which was so like Mormon Primary that I instantly lost interest. Church meetings were always all boring to me until I arrived at the verge of adulthood. By then my "way" was fixed, and it has kept me out of trouble ever since.

I would be one of those sitting on the pews each week with "strange or weird" ideas. But I am about as "orthoprax" as we come. Not entirely, all the time, mind you: I have not believed that all of the "outside world" is bad or evil, in fact quite the opposite, I take most of it as benign or neutral, deeming that how someone approaches what the world is determines how anything gets turned into "good and evil". Recently, a friend of my mother's lost her son at the age of 66. He was not "orthoprax" and therefore not associated with the LDS culture or church anymore. And his siblings were highly critical of him. But at his funeral, he had arranged very specifically two groups at the funeral home: on one side of it his "drinking buddies" and the like were gathered, while on the other side his Mormon family and friends were congregated. The invited musical number performed for both groups separately. It all worked out swimmingly and my mother was very impressed. The departed's own mother was astonished at the turnout of friends from "the world". She had had no idea that her "unorthoprax" son had been so well known and liked. Even though she knew him to be entirely devoted to the welfare of human beings, just like herself, and knew him to be always involved with people in a helpful, friendly manner, she had been obscured in her judgment of her "wayward" son to the extent that the Mormon opinion of his behavior was seen as irreligious if not outright apostate: when in fact it was simply not "orthoprax" enough to make his family and Mormon associates comfortable around him. Otherwise, his life was exemplary of a Christlike love of his fellow travelers.

When we think of ourselves and others in the light of "orthoprax or unorthoprax", it changes almost all of these discussions into non topics, at least to me. The core of my personal religion allows ALL others to practice whatever beliefs they will, and it is the almost universal agreement in resulting behavior that shows me how irrelevant any "orthopraxy" is to "God". It is the fruit of belief that matters, not the methodology by which belief is inculcated. If the "way" produces the right behavior, which is a charitable desire for the welfare of others, then it is a good "way", but it might be quite jarring to live around on a daily basis: that is why we have so many subcultures within our overarching one of language and nationalism, etc....

[_Kishkumen]

This orthopraxy issue as honorentheos has formulated it is so interesting that it deserves its own thread.

Believe me when I say I am not complaining about a thread jack. I actually would like to see this in its own thread.

[_Nevo]

I speculate that what is often described as the breaking of one's shelf of suspended disbelief is the moment when the former Mormon ceases to feel obligated to engage in Mormon orthopraxy. At that moment, the truth of Mormon history ceases to be compelling reason to dress, eat, and act in accordance with Mormon teachings. It's not that the understanding of Mormon history changed itself, it's that it's relation to how one lives their life changes.

I think you're probably right but I wonder if you'll get any pushback on this from other disaffected/ex-Mormons since it is an "exit story" cliché that the person is always an exceptionally diligent, fully committed Mormon when disillusionment strikes.

[_Kishkumen]

I think you're probably right but I wonder if you'll get any pushback on this from other disaffected/ex-Mormons since it is an "exit story" cliché that the person is always an exceptionally diligent, fully committed Mormon when disillusionment strikes.

Sounds like Mr. Grumpypants is oversimplifying in his interpretation of honorentheos' post.

[_Nevo]

By the way, it looks like I was too modest in suggesting that critics of Book of Mormon historicity read the works of Gardner and Sorenson before dismissing it.

On the Interpreter blog, Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot have posted a list of 73 or so "canonical" works supporting Book of Mormon historicity, 45 of which are thick books.

Rappleye (who I like a lot) concludes: "It is my genuine view that any honest treatment of this issue by critics needs to take into account all, or at the very least most of the above, along with several additional works relevant to the subject."

So get reading folks!


P.S.

Kishkumen, you could be right. If so, I trust someone will set me straight.

[_Kishkumen]

By the way, it looks like I was too modest in suggesting that critics of Book of Mormon historicity read the works of Gardner and Sorenson before dismissing it.

On the Interpreter blog, Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot have posted a list of 73 or so "canonical" works supporting Book of Mormon historicity, 45 of which are thick books.

Rappleye (who I like a lot) concludes: "It is my genuine view that any honest treatment of this issue by critics needs to take into account all, or at the very least most of the above, along with several additional works relevant to the subject."

So get reading folks!

I wonder whether we would be able to top this list by compiling a bibliography of all of the works written in support of the existence of Big Foot or aliens.

You did make me chuckle with the scare-quoted descriptor canonical.

[_Darth J]

On the Interpreter blog, Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot have posted a list of 73 or so "canonical" works supporting Book of Mormon historicity, 45 of which are thick books.

Rappleye (who I like a lot) concludes: "It is my genuine view that any honest treatment of this issue by critics needs to take into account all, or at the very least most of the above, along with several additional works relevant to the subject."

Holy [deleted], 8 year-old children are going to have a lot of homework to do before they can say they have a basis to believe in the Book of Mormon and get baptized.

[_Kishkumen]

I was always taken with the clear-headed hypothesis of Professor Robert M. Price:

Did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon?.... Here I want to call attention to the obvious. [W]e may dismiss any theory of the that ascribes to it a non-Mormon, pre-Mormon origin; the Mormon origin of the scripture is clear from the straightforward fact that Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints movement, even the Book of Mormon itself, are repeatedly mentioned in its pages in an unmistakable fashion. While this observation does not preclude the possibility that some apostolic confederate of the Prophet may have written the book at his direction, the references to Joseph Smith and his church in the Book of Mormon make it fully evident that the text was not borrowed from some non-Mormon work. It is impossible that someone outside of the movement wrote the book as a Bible pastiche and that Joseph Smith subsequently decided to build a religion about it.

So, as I have said, the Late War is not the Book of Mormon. It was a clear influence on the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon is obviously the product of Joseph Smith's immediate environment, whether by divine revelation or otherwise.