Joseph Smith description of the Book of Mormon - what is left?

[_Tchild]

3. You’re holding the Book of Mormon up as something it never claims to be, i.e. an accurate portrayal of ancient history and then criticizing the work when it fails to live up the faulty premise you’ve superimposed. More significantly, you’re assuming that God’s primary purpose in inspiring Joseph to bring forth such a work was to present the world with an accurate retelling of the distant past. In terms of scripture, neither the Bible, nor the Book of Mormon adhere to the fundamentalist assumptions you hold.

Then shall we assume that the Book of Mormon is also neither an "accurate portrayel of ancient" Christian theology, of proper baptism, rites of Christ's restored religion in the America's and all the other theological teachings of the Book of Mormon that the church has incorporated into its "restored church"?

That is the problem of reducing or distancing the necessity of the literal teachings of the Book of Mormon; you risk the same arguments bring applied to its theology and teachings (which are held as sacrosanct and infallable) as you do its "history".

[Guest]

Whoa! Back up the horse here. Are you saying the Brethren don't testify to the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Indeed! Remember that there exists an important distinction between believing that the Book of Mormon is an ancient, historical account versus claiming that the Book of Mormon possesses historicity.

For fundamentalists thinkers like Themis, a lack of historicity provides evidence that the book is not truly inspired; that for some reason, a God-inspired work should present a correct scientific retelling of the past. In contrast, for students of the Book of Mormon who take its claims seriously, the book's lack of historicity simply reflects a typical ancient approach to the creation of narratives that recount a past.

In the words of historian M.I. Finley, "the ability of the ancients to invent and their capacity to believe are persistently underestimated" in Ancient History: Evidence and Models (New York: Viking, 1986), 9. This is especially true for those who fail to recognize that if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we would expect that as an ancient religious text, the book would lack historicity.

[_harmony]

Whoa! Back up the horse here. Are you saying the Brethren don't testify to the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Indeed! Remember that there exists an important distinction between believing that the Book of Mormon is an ancient, historical account versus claiming that the Book of Mormon possesses historicity.

For fundamentalists thinkers like Themis, a lack of historicity provides evidence that the book is not truly inspired; that for some reason, a God-inspired work should present a correct scientific retelling of the past. In contrast, for students of the Book of Mormon who take its claims seriously, the book's lack of historicity simply reflects a typical ancient approach to the creation of narratives that recount a past.

In the words of historian M.I. Finley, "the ability of the ancients to invent and their capacity to believe are persistently underestimated" in Ancient History: Evidence and Models (New York: Viking, 1986), 9. This is especially true by those who fail to recognize that if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we would expect that as an ancient religious text, the book would lack historicity.

How are you defining historicity?

[_Joseph]

Joseph Smith could have not used 'words he knew' or he would not have come up with Cureloms and Cumems. He is supposed to have had the words appear to him, dictated them and had them read back to him and only then did the next set of words appear.

If this is correct there is no wiggle room for interpretation or personal changes. Direct from Heaven to Joseph and checked out or the next passages would not appear.

If this is true then all the explanations and weaseling by BYU 'intellectuals' is BS and Boyd Packer is right in dismissing them as so much spit on dog droppings.

[_Enuma Elish]

Then shall we assume that the Book of Mormon is also neither an "accurate portrayel of ancient" Christian theology, of proper baptism, rites of Christ's restored religion in the America's and all the other theological teachings of the Book of Mormon that the church has incorporated into its "restored church"?

That is the problem of reducing or distancing the necessity of the literal teachings of the Book of Mormon; you risk the same arguments bring applied to its theology and teachings (which are held as sacrosanct and infallable) as you do its "history".

There's no reason for a believer to assume that the doctrinal teachings in the Book of Mormon always reflect a correct view regarding God, man, and the universe. Remember that the Book of Mormon claims to possess the fulness of the Gospel, meaning a correct presentation of those things that a person needs to draw closer to God and move into the bottom tier of the Celestial Kingdom.

Latter-day Saints recognize that not all of its doctrinal teachings are complete or perfect. Much was added onto and/or corrected later on through the Restoration. This evolutionary process reflects that fact that via modern revelation, the Lord referred to this dispensation as the time in which he would reveal knowledge "that has not been revealed since the world was until now" (D&C 121:26).

[_Enuma Elish]

How are you defining historicity?

The term "historicity" refers to a critical/scientific retelling of the past. It is a philosophy that is foreign to ancient texts.

Hence, if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then "it is not important whether, from our modern point of view, the events actually occurred as reported... Writers of history intended to document, reflect on, and organize the past in order to understand, legitimate, or define in some way the institutional and social reality of their own time." Burke O. Long, 1 Kings, FOTL IX (Grand Rapids, MI: Eermans, 1984), 250-251.

[_Nimrod]

How are you defining historicity?

The term "historicity" refers to a critical/scientific retelling of the past. It is a philosophy that is foreign to ancient texts.

If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then "it is not important whether, from our modern point of view, the events actually occurred as reported... Writers of history intended to document, reflect on, and organize the past in order to understand, legitimate, or define in some way the institutional and social reality of their own time." Burke O. Long, 1 Kings, FOTL IX (Grand Rapids, MI: Eermans, 1984), 250-251.

The past would only need to be organized with events that did not actually occur to explain institutional and social 'reality' of the time if that 'reality' had been distorted. If the institutional and social 'reality' had honestly evolved in response to actual events as they occurred, there would be no need to make up events that did not occur in order to explain those institutional and social 'realities'. So if Nephi and the other Book of Mormon 'authors' were not living institutional and social lies themselves, the events they wrote about had to have occurred. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be--God's word--the events written down in fact occurred.

That is, the Book of Mormon only needed to include event lies if Nephi was trying to organize the past to explain institutional and social lies.

[_Enuma Elish]

Kevin has given a good answer to some of your questions, but I would add a few as well.

Clearly much like beauty, "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

You are incorrect here. We have a good understanding of how Joseph did it through his rock in a hat seeing the words appear. The text itself support this, assuming the Book of Mormon is true. Joseph could not understand any of the words, so someone or something would have to give them to him, which is what the historical evidence supports, so yes I would be correct in calling God, spirit or whatever you want to call it as translator.

I don't deny the possibility that some of the book was produced by means of Joseph looking into his seer stone and hat. In my mind, however, the textual evidence clearly indicates that the Prophet made use of the King James version of the Bible in the process.

You should consider the work done by David P. Wright on the use of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon which presents challenges to your assumptions:

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

LOL there's that fundy word you guys like so much, but again incorrect.

It's a correct description of your mindset and it's not consistent with the way Latter-day Saints view scripture and the revelatory process.

[Guest]

Wow !!

It's interesting that you recommend a study of the analyses of Dr. David Wright concerning the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon. If I remember right, John Tvedtnes provided a short critical review of Dr. Wright?s article in a 2004 Maxwell Institute publication. Mr. Tvedtnes didn't think much of Dr. Wright's conclusions that Joseph Smith copied the Isaiah verses from the KJV, making erroneous additions along the way.

I certainly don't see much support for views of Dr. Wright by the posters at the Mormon Apologetic and Discussion board!

It is rare that we hear from a pro-LDS proponent that accepts Dr. Wright's very insightful, in-depth study in place of a Maxwell Institute author. I appreciate your candor.

[_harmony]

How are you defining historicity?

The term "historicity" refers to a critical/scientific retelling of the past. It is a philosophy that is foreign to ancient texts.

Hence, if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then "it is not important whether, from our modern point of view, the events actually occurred as reported... Writers of history intended to document, reflect on, and organize the past in order to understand, legitimate, or define in some way the institutional and social reality of their own time." Burke O. Long, 1 Kings, FOTL IX (Grand Rapids, MI: Eermans, 1984), 250-251.

But it's not history?