DiscussMormonism.com

Browsing at a used bookstore tonight, I found an old ska CD I had owned in high school. It was $5, so I bought it. On the way home I popped it in and heard the line, "Dreams are so much nicer than real things." I thought how we live our lives fictionally in so many ways. Hayden White goes so far as to suggest that we use fictional tropes (tragedy, comedy, romance, etc.) to construct the narratives of our lives. Instinctively, most of us recognize the wide gulf that exists between the real and the perceived, though some people, whom we call fundamentalists, refuse to separate the two. As Terry Eagleton wrote, such people see the world literally, and to do so is a kind of insanity.

But even fundamentalists don't really experience some sort of cosmic reality; rather, they see life through the lens of Holy Writ, which they believe is reality itself. So, again paraphrasing Eagleton, even the most absurd parts of the scriptures, such as fishes swallowing men and a nonsensical Roman census, are taken as absolute truth because to suggest otherwise is to destroy what they see as the human link to reality: the literalness of the scriptures.

Mormons, I think, are far more aware of the relationship between the written scripture and notions of truth and reality. Most Mormons have no problem seeing the Book of Mormon as "the most correct book" while acknowledging its long history of revision and correction. They might be a little more startled by the wholesale rewrites of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, but not startingly so.

I've met many Mormons over the years who refuse to see Mormon scriptures and history as literal. Everything is figurative, they tell me. One poster on FAIR used to say that Mormonism is simply one set of stories that people use to give their lives meaning.

But such an approach seems to me untenable within a religion that claims the literalness of its own history and origins. Prophets have denounced as blasphemy the idea that there were no Nephites or golden plates. There simply isn't room for those New Order Mormon types who believe in the church as based on inspired fiction.

Ironically, the search for a plausible literalism in Mormon origins has led to novel reinterpretations of the text of the Book of Mormon. Thus is born the Limited Geography Theory, the notion that the Nephites entered a land that was already inhabited, and other notions that turn the teachings of the prophets and apostles on their heads.

This constant reinvention can be a positive thing, as it allows Mormons to jettison outdated notions that should be discarded, but again it creates a tension with the idea of a literal Book of Mormon: the attempt to ground the book and its story in historical and scientific fact transfers the proof of the book from the realm of faith to one of rationalism and science. Such an approach forces a more literal reading, which in turn forces constant rereading in light of increasing scientific evidence.

So, we find two competing theories of existence in current apologetics: a belief in the literal, the real; and a belief that the real is fluid and depends on the way in which one approaches it. Sometimes I think that the real value of the "spiritual witness" is that it conveniently papers over this chasm of reality: it suggests that there is something even more real than the literal, so the constant reinvention of the text is merely an effort toward aligning it with the deeper reality of the spiritual. And since the witness is by nature subjective, it dispenses with the need for reproduceability. So the spirit makes things both literal and subjective.

But then again, we run into more trouble because this approach only papers over the fundamental problem: Mormonism posits a real and knowable truth, not just one that can be approached through a subjective witness. To borrow a phrase, a cognitive distortion cannot occur unless there is some cognition to distort; cognition presupposes something that can be known, something that is real.

And that is the central tension between Mormonism and its apologists: it is by nature a fundamentalist religion in that it asserts that its scriptures and history are real and literal. Take away a literal Book of Mormon, for example, and Mormonism no longer has many truth claims. And yet, some of its most ardent apologists find themselves rejecting that very literalness. In saving the village, they have had to destroy it first.

I find it interesting that many Mormons that I come in contact with do not want to see the reality of what scholarship has wrought.

I usually attend sacrament meeting with my wife, who is a TBM, and I notice a group of people that seem to be in a dreamland. It's not that they are crazy or anything, it's just that it all seems to be so much rote and regurgitation.

They are really, really nice people. The kind that would give you the shirt off their back, but it almost seems like they are just mouthing the words they are expected to say.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they really believe the mumbo-jumbo. But, so many seem so intelligent. How could they fall for that stuff?

Anyway, you do bring up some things to think about.

Your post reminds me of when in the early days of the church, every time Joseph would reveal new information, people would leave.

The Book of Mormon is to be taken literally, and time will prove it out.

The foundation of the Church is revelation. That means that more information is continually revealed. Joseph revised revelations to make them more clear. he delivered it, and he knows what is meant by what he himself said.

It is intended that we all be prophets. There is no experience Joseph, or Moses, or Abraham had that we ourselves canot experience by doing the things they did. That is the whole point of the gospel.

Those who are members of the church, yet deny the revelations, damn themselves by way of their own ignorance and inability to follow the prophets.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:Your post reminds me of when in the early days of the church, every time Joseph would reveal new information, people would leave.

The Book of Mormon is to be taken literally, and time will prove it out.

The foundation of the Church is revelation. That means that more information is continually revealed. Joseph revised revelations to make them more clear. he delivered it, and he knows what is meant by what he himself said.

It is intended that we all be prophets. There is no experience Joseph, or Moses, or Abraham had that we ourselves canot experience by doing the things they did. That is the whole point of the gospel.

Those who are members of the church, yet deny the revelations, damn themselves by way of their own ignorance and inability to follow the prophets.

Gaz

Gaz,

I'm a little dismayed that you interpreted my thoughts that way. I don't have the least bit of problem with revision and change in the church. My problem apparently is with the same people you have a problem: those who try to rationalize a literal reading of Mormonism at the same time they deny the reality behind such a reading.

My remarks were not at all directed toward anyone who is unable to follow the prophets. If anything, I said that Mormonism's view of a fluid reality is probably a good thing, except that it clashes with the church's more fundamental claims.

My post wasn't directed at you, just the topic in general.

".....Mormonism's view of a fluid reality is probably a good thing, except that it clashes with the church's more fundamental claims." On this line however, what were you referring to?

Gazelam wrote:My post wasn't directed at you, just the topic in general.

".....Mormonism's view of a fluid reality is probably a good thing, except that it clashes with the church's more fundamental claims." On this line however, what were you referring to?

My point was this:

a. Mormonism posits a real, knowable reality.
b. Apologists of late deny that there is anything more than a subjective construction of reality, which is not necessarily real.
c. Point b clashes with point a.

Ok I think I see what your getting at.

Here is a excerpt from a book I have called "Sustaing and Defending the Faith" - by McConkie and Millet pg. 72-73

"Joseph the Prophet is frequently attacked for altering or adding to that which he had previously written or dictated. "if the original were given by inspiration of God." the critics ask. "then what further need is there for revisions or addenda?" The very question shows ignorance of the spirit of revelation. Such misunderstanding would make the Spirit a prisoner, confined withen the covers of a single book, and seal the Spirit in a set nyumber of words or expressions. On the other hand, those who are aquainted with the workings of the Spirit of the Lord know full well that in most cases the recipient of a divine directive is not simply a ventriloquist for God, not simply a recording device from which the perfect and inerrant word comes forth. Rather, the idea is conveyed through the Spirit to the receiver's mind, and then, with heavenly assistance, the concept is transformed into language. Joseph Smith made hundreds of revisions in the manuscripts of ther Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and his inspired translation of the King james Bible. With regard to revisions in his labors with the Bible, Robert J. Matthews has written:

"In the face of the evidence it can hardly be maintained that the exact words were given to the Prophet in the process of a revelatory experience. Exact words may have been given to the mind of the Prophet on occasion, but the manuscript evidence suggests that generally he was obliged to formulate the words himself to convey the message he diesired. Consequently he might later have observed that sometimes the words were not entirely satisfactory in the initial writings. They may have conveyed too much or too little. or they may have been too specific or too vague, or even ambiguous. or the words may have implied meanings not intended. Thus through (1) an error of recording, (2) an increase of knowledge, or (3) an inadequate selection of words, a passage of the New Translation might be subject to later revision."

What was true with regard to the Bible translation was equally true in other areas. For example, in April of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received a facinateing revelation concerning the status of John the Beloved. This revelation was published as chapter 6 of the 1833 Book of Commandments. When the Prophet prepared the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), he added several verses to the original revelation to complete what we now have as Doctrine and Covenants, section 7. Either through additional revelation (between 1829 and 1835) or incresed understanding, Jospeh was able to supply a number of details not present in the original document. This is a prophetic- editorial work rightly belonging to the Lord's legal administrators. It is, indeed, the prophetic prerogative to do such things, and those who are offended by such actions are generally those under the yoke of misunderstanding and incorrect ideas."

Gazelam wrote:Ok I think I see what your getting at.

Here is a excerpt from a book I have called "Sustaing and Defending the Faith" - by McConkie and Millet pg. 72-73

"Joseph the Prophet is frequently attacked for altering or adding to that which he had previously written or dictated. "if the original were given by inspiration of God." the critics ask. "then what further need is there for revisions or addenda?" The very question shows ignorance of the spirit of revelation. Such misunderstanding would make the Spirit a prisoner, confined withen the covers of a single book, and seal the Spirit in a set nyumber of words or expressions. On the other hand, those who are aquainted with the workings of the Spirit of the Lord know full well that in most cases the recipient of a divine directive is not simply a ventriloquist for God, not simply a recording device from which the perfect and inerrant word comes forth. Rather, the idea is conveyed through the Spirit to the receiver's mind, and then, with heavenly assistance, the concept is transformed into language. Joseph Smith made hundreds of revisions in the manuscripts of ther Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and his inspired translation of the King james Bible. With regard to revisions in his labors with the Bible, Robert J. Matthews has written:

"In the face of the evidence it can hardly be maintained that the exact words were given to the Prophet in the process of a revelatory experience. Exact words may have been given to the mind of the Prophet on occasion, but the manuscript evidence suggests that generally he was obliged to formulate the words himself to convey the message he diesired. Consequently he might later have observed that sometimes the words were not entirely satisfactory in the initial writings. They may have conveyed too much or too little. or they may have been too specific or too vague, or even ambiguous. or the words may have implied meanings not intended. Thus through (1) an error of recording, (2) an increase of knowledge, or (3) an inadequate selection of words, a passage of the New Translation might be subject to later revision."

What was true with regard to the Bible translation was equally true in other areas. For example, in April of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received a facinateing revelation concerning the status of John the Beloved. This revelation was published as chapter 6 of the 1833 Book of Commandments. When the Prophet prepared the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), he added several verses to the original revelation to complete what we now have as Doctrine and Covenants, section 7. Either through additional revelation (between 1829 and 1835) or incresed understanding, Jospeh was able to supply a number of details not present in the original document. This is a prophetic- editorial work rightly belonging to the Lord's legal administrators. It is, indeed, the prophetic prerogative to do such things, and those who are offended by such actions are generally those under the yoke of misunderstanding and incorrect ideas."

This quote illustrates quite nicely the tension I was speaking of: they seem to be saying that the text obscures the meaning God intends to convey, so one would expect revision and clarification (this of course, runs into more difficulty with the D&C revisions wherein Joseph rewrote passages to mean the opposite of what they had originally said, but I digress). But they still posit that fundamental truth lies behind the words, hence the effort to show that the revisions and the originals can differ but ultimately reflect that higher truth.

I think most Mormons would probably have a more literal reading of the changes, but it probably wouldn't trouble them much.

Gazelam wrote:Your post reminds me of when in the early days of the church, every time Joseph would reveal new information, people would leave.

Gee, you'd figure that since it was straight from god to joseph to man that it would be so awe inspiring pl would flock to the church...but instead they left...hmmm.

Actually it worked both ways, people would leave, and be attracted because of the revelations. Just look at these days every time the Presidency says something. Proclamation on Family? "How dare they speak out against Gays !! Jesus stands for love and acceptance..Boo..Hoo...Hooo !!!"

Get the Spirit, and you can accept revelation when it comes. The Spirit is best understood by the Spirit.

Gaz