The official, faithful fiction Book of Mormon Watchdog thread

[Guest]

(note from the dept. of Fictional Studies: this is still work in progress and page 1 OP will be edited many times.)

What remains of the old-guard Maxwell Institute that now hails from the blog Mormon Interpreter, condemns the new Maxwell Institute for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously "as history". They charge that the new MI walks a fine line between "bracketing" the Book of Mormon as real history, and embracing what the old-guard contemptuously calls "The Inspired Fiction Theory" -- the idea that the Book of Mormon, like Moby Dick, is merely fiction.

If there is any truth to the saying "whoever smelt it dealt it", then it should come as no surprise that ironically, it is the FARMS apologists themselves who have laid more tar on the road that leads to a fictional Book of Mormon than anyone. But let's be clear: we Fictional Studies students don't accept the false dichotomy that FARMS and many critics alike assume, that a fictional Book of Mormon undermines the foundational claims of the Restoration. It is clear to us, that old-school FARMS Mopologetics forges its way to fiction in order to vindicate an angelic and miraculous production of the Book of Mormon. We do understand that some fiction theories feel more like hollow attempts to "secularize" Mormonism, but not all fiction theories do so, and the holy grail of fiction that the apologists may one day claim for themselves will not be a resignation to the secular, but a triumph of fundamentalism.

Expert Hint: If you don't want the Book of Mormon to be fiction, then steer clear of any attempt to understand it as history.

...

The Fork of Symmachus

The most direct route to a faith-promoting, fictional Book of Mormon follows from a quandary known to some as the Fork of Symmachus. Apologists haplessly stumble into the fork as they conflate an "ancient" text with a "historical" one:

I’ve been watching a small handful of overeager critics of the Church with amusement. They’ve been peering desperately at the distant horizon, hoping for a sign, any sign, that the Church is abandoning its longstanding claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentically ancient record...they devoutly hope, to its eventually abandoning the historicity of the Book of Mormon altogether

Peterson's response itself leaves some ambiguity, whether he intends it or not, as a result of the dichotomy between "ancient" and "historical." He says that it is an "authentically ancient document" (so are the Testament of Abraham and the Sibylline Oracles and Gospel of Peter, but they're not primary documents from Abraham, the Sibyll, and Peter).

The clearest case study of the Fork comes from John Gee's work on the Book of Abraham. Gee insists the Book of Abraham came from a now-missing long scroll lost in the Chicago Fire:

if all the missing sections of the papyri were to suddenly be found, somewhere on them would be a hieratic text containing the Book of Abraham we have today plus a bunch more. Whether or not that text actually represented an exact copy of something Abraham himself wrote or was simply a reproduction of a pseudepigraphal Ptolemaic scroll is not part of his [Gee's] argument as far as I can tell.

Since a "historically accurate" autobiography from Abraham himself would be utterly anachronistic, as no reputable scholar asserts Abraham ever even existed, if Joseph Smith really did get the Book of Abraham from a longer scroll now missing, then like the extant Joseph Smith papyri, it is of a class of manuscript the real world actually knows about. If the Book of Abraham really is ancient, then it is almost certainly "fiction". The upshot is that although the rook is lost, the queen is preserved: if such a pseudepigraphal text were uncovered one day and proved to contain the story found in the Book of Abraham, then Joseph Smith is vindicated as translator and as the apologists say: "how could he have known!" Fictional Studies students such as myself believe that the old-school FARMS Mopologists are confused when they erupt in anger over suggestions that the Book of Mormon is fiction. We do not believe they really care if the Book of Mormon is fiction, they care if the foundational events of the Restoration happened. It does not logically follow, as the apologists demand, that if the Book of Mormon is fiction, that the Angel Moroni didn't appear to Joseph Smith. The Angel Moroni very well may have appeared to Joseph with a stack of Gold Plates and the Book of Mormon may very well be a work of fiction. Also non-negotiable for the FARMS apologist: the production of the Book of Mormon must be miraculous. While FARMS itself blazes the trail to a fictional Book of Mormon, the concessions in terms of historicity are always, unequivocally, made to preserve the miracle of the text's production.

While it is possible to say that a "pseudepigraphal Ptolemaic scroll" might one day be proven to be substantially historical by a discovered authentic Abraham Autograph, that is such a fanciful and anachronistic hope as such a thing has never happened, that one might as well just believe the text burned in the fire was the preserved Abraham Autograph itself. Look at it this way: All of the "bringing forth of ancient texts" is really a way to establish Joseph Smith as prophet. if a pseudepigraphal manuscript were uncovered that matched the Book of Abraham, the discovery would be so earth-shaking that further discoveries of an original Abraham Autograph with links to the pseudepigraphal manuscript would end up as footnotes.

[_churchistrue]

I don't like the word fiction. And I don't like the way you're making fun of the non-historical view. But I am trying to define it as well as possible and pushing for my seat at the table.

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/02/21/st ... storicity/

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't like the word fiction. And I don't like the way you're making fun of the non-historical view. But I am trying to define it as well as possible and pushing for my seat at the table.

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/02/21/st ... storicity/

I think if there is any sarcasm or "making fun of the non-historical view," that is because the church and apologists are so over the top and illogical with their proclamations of the historical view, so unwilling to look at the lack of evidence, that one has to be a little strident. They cause more to leave than anyone because people look for answers from them and their so-called "answers" are so incredibly lacking that one has to conclude that the critics are correct.

[_tapirrider]

I cannot even entertain the idea that a God would use a hoax to restore his church. I'm one of those who cannot accept the idea that the Book of Mormon can stand on its own as inspired fiction.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks Churchistrue for your input. In my trusty set of notes on this topic, I have some information from your website (the curchistrue site) that came up in a google search a while back that I found quite helpful. Your recent article also has some interesting material.

Ostler's theory, as you suggest, is one way in which "fictional" content crops up in a faithful context. Certainly, these kinds of thoughts stake out some territory, but when invoking the word "fiction" in a loose translation context, it comes across as sarcastic, because we're saying Joseph Smith wittingly or not, interjected his own ideas -- because they aren't real history they are "fiction" in a tongue-in-cheek sense.

Now, get ready to have your mind blown (and thank you, as I see I need to edit the OP already for clarity) because the faithful fiction Book of Mormon that I'm speaking of, is most likely a tight translation fiction-as-fiction theory. AND, it's Smoot's own cohorts at Interpreter leading the way with plenty of thanks to FARMS.

Stay tuned. I'll be looking forward to your thoughts.

(oh, and thanks for putting in another piece to the Wayment puzzle)

[_moksha]

There is nothing wrong with embracing the beneficial and nurturing parts of a faith tradition, while limiting or removing its falsehoods and needless superstitions. Doing so makes things easier for both thinking followers and apologists.

However, there is more at work here than revamping religious beliefs. There is a grudge match between the Interpreter and the Maxwell Institute.

In order to hold the upper hand, the Interpreter needs the support of the Brethren in order to either regain control of the Maxwell Institute or be given a higher position as official defenders of the faith. This requires that they paint themselves as being ultraorthodox in their approach, while at the same time portraying the Maxwellians as secular academicians who are uninterested in defending the core peculiarities of the LDS Church.

The term sacred allegory sounds better than faithful fiction.

I'm one of those who cannot accept the idea that the Book of Mormon can stand on its own as inspired fiction.

No need to let it stand alone. Put it on the shelf between the Book of Kells and the Book of Mulling.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Excellent observations, Dean Robbers. Yes: the Mopologists, dealing as of late with topics like science fiction and LDS theology have certainly opened the door, haven't they? Of course we all remember Grant Hardy's epic remarks at the FAIR Conference a couple of years ago. So why not a "fictional" Book of Mormon? (Maybe "metaphorical" or "allegorical" is a term that churchistrue can more readily accept?) You are right: there's no reason why Heavenly Father couldn't have produced a text that's meant to sketch out theology and inspire faith, but which isn't necessarily historical. (I think that most Mopologists feel this way about the Bible, don't they?)

The lynchpin seems to be connected to Joseph Smith: if it's "fictional" (or "metaphorical" or "allegorical," or whatever), then doesn't that mean Joseph Smith was lying? What about the Gold Plates? Or the angel Moroni? The thing is, I don't see how they have a way out of this. Moroni could still have appeared to Joseph, and he could have sort of lied or exaggerated, no? ("Some truths aren't very useful," eh?) There still could have been Gold Plates. All of these things could be real, and the book could still *not* be historical.

[Guest]

The problem I see with accepting a fictional or metaphorical Book of Mormon is authority. Historicity is the basis of their belief that they have authority and a fictional Book of Mormon takes that away. They aren't ready to be ordinary. How can they sell a fictional Book of Mormon that was inspired? It means that god misled or that Joseph misled or both. The evidence demands fiction, but the leaders are too married to the status quo to change, in my opinion.

[_moksha]

Moroni could still have appeared to Joseph, and he could have sort of lied or exaggerated, no? ("Some truths aren't very useful," eh?) There still could have been Gold Plates. All of these things could be real, and the book could still *not* be historical.

None of those items follow from an allegorical account. They are just part of the foundational story.

The important point is that a Church arose from that story and it currently has millions of adherents. Best to concentrate efforts on making the existing Church something beneficial to humankind.

[Guest]

No need to let it stand alone. Put it on the shelf between the Book of Kells and the Book of Mulling.

Sorry, for me there is no place for it on a shelf between those two books. Neither of them have an origin story involving an angel, God bringing those books forth to restore His church, etc. Apologists unwittingly helped me to see all of the holes in the church, my only recourse was to discard the Book of Mormon and leave the church. But that is me. Others might be able to cling to an inspired fiction theory but like Dr. Scratch said, it means Joseph Smith was lying. I came to the conclusion that it was all a hoax, painful and devastating as that was for me to face.