Historicity

Post by **_cosmo junction** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:46 pm

I was perusing the MADB board and came across this post, as part of a thread titled "Hypothetical Question For Those Who Believe That You Have Believe In The Historicity Of The Book of Mormon To Be A Faithful Member Of The Church," which, by the way, is the longest thread title I think I have ever seen, though I don't know where they'd keep a record of such things.

What puzzled me, and I guess my question, as a neverMo, is why would - and perhaps more to the point for this board, does - the lack of evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon automatically cancel the historicity of Jesus?

I don't really have "faith" in the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Historicity is part and parcel of what The Book of Mormon is. One may as well say "I have a testimony of The Book of Mormon, but only through Alma 17. Everything after that is hogwash."

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. That testimony is that He is the Son of God. But can you really claim to have faith in him if you reject the notion that he ever lived?

Or is the reality of His mortal ministry - the historicity of the story of Jesus - part and parcel of having faith in Him?

-Smac

What shoots out at me is the comment "but can you really claim to have faith in him if you reject the notion that he ever lived." Why would the lack of historicity of the Book of Mormon automatically cancel out the historicity of Jesus? Or does it?

I don't know if smac posts here, but I'm curious as to your answer as well, though mostly I'm interested in a post-Mo viewpoint on this concept. I'm even interested in how Porter and Merc will answer, in spite of having lurked here for so long that I could probably guess, haha!

If the Book of Mormon is not historical, does that automatically mean that the Bible is not historical as well, and that there is no such thing as a historical Jesus?

By the way, you guys are my heros, just so's you know.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:54 pm

It’s probably because LDS tend to view the Book of Mormon and the Bible in the same way. By acknowledging the problems with the Book of Mormon, it naturally follows to realize the ridiculous aspects of the Bible as well. I think this is why many LDS can overlook the issues with the Book of Mormon, and yet maintain belief (it is because they see the issues with the Bible as well, and hold the Book of Mormon somewhat on par with the Bible). And, I thinks this is why so many ex-LDS become agnostic or atheist. By realizing that the Book of Mormon’s issues should sway belief, they also realize that the Bible’s issues should sway belief too.

by the way, acknowledging there was a “historical Jesus’ doesn’t necessitate He was anything beyond a regular Joe.

Post by **_bcspace** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:56 pm

What puzzled me, and I guess my question, as a neverMo, is why would - and perhaps more to the point for this board, does - the lack of evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon automatically cancel the historicity of Jesus?

If one is a scientist, lack of evidence doesn't cancel anything. Actual proof of the nonhistoricity of the Book of Mormon would cancel the historicity of all things Jesus did and said in the Book of Mormon. You would also have to have proof against the historicity of the Bible to cancel the complete historicity of Jesus.

What shoots out at me is the comment "but can you really claim to have faith in him if you reject the notion that he ever lived." Why would the lack of historicity of the Book of Mormon automatically cancel out the historicity of Jesus? Or does it?

Same as above. If Jesus is a fictional character, then how can he have atoned for our sins, etc.?

If the Book of Mormon is not historical, does that automatically mean that the Bible is not historical as well, and that there is no such thing as a historical Jesus?

No. But I think there will always be lack of historical evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins and rose again on the third day. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:03 pm

The problem is the current paradigm of the LDS truth claims requires a literal, historical Book of Mormon. If the Brethren ever get together in a strategy session and decide to announce the Book of Mormon is not literal history, and can be considered inspired fiction or whatever, they will have to provide a new paradigm for the members. I personally don't think it would be that difficult. The members will believe anything the Brethren say. Sure, they'll have a few of the "rebellious" fall away, but who cares?

Post by **_bcspace** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:09 pm

The problem is the current paradigm of the LDS truth claims requires a literal, historical Book of Mormon.

The truth (which transcends any paradigm) is that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims that are critical to doctrine. Therefore, it will always be that one cannot be a believing LDS and not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

If the Brethren ever get together in a strategy session and decide to announce the Book of Mormon is not literal history, and can be considered inspired fiction or whatever, they will have to provide a new paradigm for the members. I personally don't think it would be that difficult.

I would renounce them if they did that. Of course I am quite certain they will be doing no such thing.

The members will believe anything the Brethren say. Sure, they'll have a few of the "rebellious" fall away, but who cares?[

So am I rebellious?

Post by **_cosmo junction** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:10 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote:I think this is why many LDS can overlook the issues with the Book of Mormon, and yet maintain belief (it is because they see the issues with the Bible as well, and hold the Book of Mormon somewhat on par with the Bible).

Interesting. So, if I may so bold as to interpret what you are saying, would I be correct in saying that for integrity's sake, acknowledging that there are historical problems with the Book of Mormon holds you to the same standard when faced with historical difficulties found in the Bible?

by the way, acknowledging there was a “historical Jesus’ doesn’t necessitate He was anything beyond a regular Joe.

This is why, were I LDS, I'd be a Steussite. You're a clever dude, Dr. Steuss.

Post by **_cosmo junction** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:16 pm

bcspace wrote:Actual proof of the nonhistoricity of the Book of Mormon would cancel the historicity of all things Jesus did and said in the Book of Mormon.

BC, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to help me out with this one.

What is "actual proof of nonhistoricity," of either the Book of Mormon or the Bible? How does a person provide proof that something never happened?

Post by **_cosmo junction** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:20 pm

bcspace wrote:The truth (which transcends any paradigm) is that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims that are critical to doctrine. Therefore, it will always be that one cannot be a believing LDS and not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

So then no matter what happens, no matter what evidence is brought to light, if it is contrary to the truth of the historicity, and further, the account of the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon, then it must be rejected?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:30 pm

cosmo junction wrote:Interesting. So, if I may so bold as to interpret what you are saying, would I be correct in saying that for integrity's sake, acknowledging that there are historical problems with the Book of Mormon holds you to the same standard when faced with historical difficulties found in the Bible?

To an extent. in my opinion, if the Book of Mormon is akin to the Bible, the chances are rather high that much of it is fable/allegory/etc. The problem arises in what people have claimed the Book of Mormon to be and the pedestal upon which it has been placed by some (again, in my opinion). If it is what it claims to be, the Book of Mormon didn’t just go through an editing process in ancient times (which, if it was done in a similar way as the Pentateuch, who knows what was altered), but potentially again in modern times. This should/would have a substantial influence on the reliability of the historical aspects. If the Book of Mormon is “historical” in the same way the Bible is, then many of the themes would probably be mythoi developed to support the supremacy of the local deity over surrounding deities as well as bolster political and/or societal claims… and this is combined with any other influences the modern editor may have slipped in.

I hope that makes sense… maybe not.

This is why, were I LDS, I'd be a Steussite. You're a clever dude, Dr. Steuss.

‘Tis a hard road to travel. Doubt one day, believe the next, doubt one day, believe the next… all the while getting down on yourself because you recognize the inconsistencies within your beliefs and your lack of intellectual honesty. But, back to the “historical Jesus” thing; I just think that many people get too caught up in thinking that if they acknowledge that there was an actual person named “Jesus” that had followers in Israel that they must acknowledge that He was a Savior, or the Son of G-d. Acknowledging His existence doesn’t necessitate this any more than acknowledging the existence of Joseph Smith necessitates acknowledgment of his prophetic role.

Post by **_cosmo junction** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:54 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote: If it is what it claims to be, the Book of Mormon didn’t just go through an editing process in ancient times (which, if it was done in a similar way as the Pentateuch, who knows what was altered), but potentially again in modern times. This should/would have a substantial influence on the reliability of the historical aspects. If the Book of Mormon is “historical” in the same way the Bible is, then many of the themes would probably be mythoi developed to support the supremacy of the local deity over surrounding deities as well as bolster political and/or societal claims… and this is combined with any other influences the modern editor may have slipped in.

I hope that makes sense… maybe not.

Actually, yes, this does make sense - I think you're alluding to much of the reforms of Josiah and acknowledging that the Bible, possibly beginning with Josiah, professes one God in Deuteronomy, but may allow for lesser deities, a al Margret Barker and references to Wisdom, etc.

Jeremiah has a bit to say about this topic as well, though would you say that Jeremiah simply followed what was written before him?

‘Tis a hard road to travel. Doubt one day, believe the next, doubt one day, believe the next… all the while getting down on yourself because you recognize the inconsistencies within your beliefs and your lack of intellectual honesty.

I can totally relate to this, my friend. But hey, when it comes to who we are and the idea of "cleaning the inside of the cup" then it's hard to reject the whole thing, wouldn'cha say? I mean, that's what keeps me from rejecting the whole thing outright - I guess I'm always drawn back to sort of "knowing who I am," in a sense.

But, back to the “historical Jesus” thing; I just think that many people get too caught up in thinking that if they acknowledge that there was an actual person named “Jesus” that had followers in Israel that they must acknowledge that He was a Savior, or the Son of G-d. Acknowledging His existence doesn’t necessitate this any more than acknowledging the existence of Joseph Smith necessitates acknowledgment of his prophetic role.

I think the things they both said are important and ought to be considered, at the very least. It's certainly worth that, to me.

Though determining what they actually said can be difficult at times, I'd have to agree.