Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
I think now you can see my interest. I consider Joseph a mythmaker extraordinaire and here Spencer is laying out a case that the Book of Mormon is mythological! Spencer might affirm ancient historicity where I affirm Joseph's authorship, but otherwise our thinking is not that far apart.A trickier question is that of historicity. Spencer openly affirms the ancient historicity of the Book of Mormon, not only in explicit avowal but in his every interpretive move, which depends for its coherence on the multiple ancient authorship of the scriptural books he analyzes. Yet
he does not wish to alienate readers who approach the Book of Mormon with other assumptions, indeed he wishes to invite them into the investigation, and thus he attempts to disarm the contentious question of the book’s historicity. He does so not by “bracketing” the question in a temporary time-out, but through more audacious attempt to deconstruct the very premise of the question.
The book’s primary analytical categories, typology and evental history, are, as I have shown above, preoccupied with questions of time and historical sequence—and above all with the possibility of breaking free of history’s closed syllogisms through the eruption of grace into histories both personal and collective. Most of the book applies these concepts to the theologies contained within the Book of Mormon, but Spencer briefly turns his lens on the larger historical meaning of the Book of Mormon itself. What can anachronism mean when the very fabric of history is subject to radical reordering? Characteristically, Spencer rejects the question as typically framed and turns it inside out. He writes:
On my argument, the Book of Mormon must be regarded as neither historical nor unhistorical, but as nonhistorical. This is not to suggest that the events it records did not happen. On the contrary, it is to claim that it must be subtracted from the dichotomy of the historical/unhistorical because the faithful reader testifies that the events—rather than the history—recorded in the book not only took place, but are of infinite typological importance. Any enclosure of the Book of Mormon within a totalized world history amounts to a denial of the book’s unique claim on the attention of the whole world. (p. 28)
In other words, because the happenings recorded in the Book of Mormon are not merely historical incidents but sacred events that reverberate through time and reorder spiritual reality, no single historical timeline— whether ancient or nineteenth century—can fully account for the book’s significance. For Spencer, this deconstruction of the question is a satisfactory resolution. “I believe,” he writes, “this analysis clarifies the problem of the Book of Mormon’s historicity” (p. 28).
Do you think Smith thought of the Book of Mormon as an “instructive story about the past” as contrasted with a record of literally true events that took place in the Americas? I’m perfectly comfortable with the concept of the Book of Mormon as myth and with the concept of historicity being irrelevant to myth. But I have trouble picturing Joseph Smith understanding the Book of Mormon as myth. I personally have given up on the idea of understanding what it was like to be Smith — how he thought about what he was doing. I have no idea.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 amYeah, like the Bible, essentially. I applaud what Spencer is doing because it is probably necessary and it doubtless takes a lot of talent and hard work to achieve, but he is basically saying that the Book of Mormon is like the Bible. The Bible is not history. Myth, symbol, and typological elements override any connection with the historical elements. Honestly, it is not enough to say there was a guy named Jesus. The guy named Jesus probably did not live the life that is constructed in four distinctive narratives in the New Testament.
If people were not so ignorant of the actual nature of the Bible, they would have a lot less trouble with the mythological nature of the Book of Mormon. And myth is a wonderful way of putting it. Unfortunately it no longer works for people who too easily equate myth with “lie” or “fiction.” Also, Spencer is looking for a way out of a stale debate about historicity that is going nowhere. Again, some literary knowledge would help (the members, not Spencer, who is already more than well enough informed). Joseph Smith called it a history, but he did not use the term in the technical sense, most likely because he had no real understanding of the technical sense of the word. For Smith, history evidently meant something like, “instructive story about the past” into which category one might place the myths of Genesis or stories about George Washington. So why not a history of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites?
Interesting. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and Philo’s on what the author has to say.tagriffy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:53 amHere is the relevant part of the review that makes me so interested in the book:
I think now you can see my interest. I consider Joseph a mythmaker extraordinaire and here Spencer is laying out a case that the Book of Mormon is mythological! Spencer might affirm ancient historicity where I affirm Joseph's authorship, but otherwise our thinking is not that far apart.A trickier question is that of historicity. Spencer openly affirms the ancient historicity of the Book of Mormon, not only in explicit avowal but in his every interpretive move, which depends for its coherence on the multiple ancient authorship of the scriptural books he analyzes. Yet
he does not wish to alienate readers who approach the Book of Mormon with other assumptions, indeed he wishes to invite them into the investigation, and thus he attempts to disarm the contentious question of the book’s historicity. He does so not by “bracketing” the question in a temporary time-out, but through more audacious attempt to deconstruct the very premise of the question.
The book’s primary analytical categories, typology and evental history, are, as I have shown above, preoccupied with questions of time and historical sequence—and above all with the possibility of breaking free of history’s closed syllogisms through the eruption of grace into histories both personal and collective. Most of the book applies these concepts to the theologies contained within the Book of Mormon, but Spencer briefly turns his lens on the larger historical meaning of the Book of Mormon itself. What can anachronism mean when the very fabric of history is subject to radical reordering? Characteristically, Spencer rejects the question as typically framed and turns it inside out. He writes:
On my argument, the Book of Mormon must be regarded as neither historical nor unhistorical, but as nonhistorical. This is not to suggest that the events it records did not happen. On the contrary, it is to claim that it must be subtracted from the dichotomy of the historical/unhistorical because the faithful reader testifies that the events—rather than the history—recorded in the book not only took place, but are of infinite typological importance. Any enclosure of the Book of Mormon within a totalized world history amounts to a denial of the book’s unique claim on the attention of the whole world. (p. 28)
In other words, because the happenings recorded in the Book of Mormon are not merely historical incidents but sacred events that reverberate through time and reorder spiritual reality, no single historical timeline— whether ancient or nineteenth century—can fully account for the book’s significance. For Spencer, this deconstruction of the question is a satisfactory resolution. “I believe,” he writes, “this analysis clarifies the problem of the Book of Mormon’s historicity” (p. 28).
Thanks! That's the word I needed to make getting the book a priority. That the Book of Mormon is like the Bible is basically what I've been saying for going on thirty years now. Once I gave up on biblical inerrancy and started becoming familiar with the actual nature of the Bible, the mythological nature of the Book of Mormon came much more naturally.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 amYeah, like the Bible, essentially. I applaud what Spencer is doing because it is probably necessary and it doubtless takes a lot of talent and hard work to achieve, but he is basically saying that the Book of Mormon is like the Bible. The Bible is not history. Myth, symbol, and typological elements override any connection with the historical elements. Honestly, it is not enough to say there was a guy named Jesus. The guy named Jesus probably did not live the life that is constructed in four distinctive narratives in the New Testament.
If people were not so ignorant of the actual nature of the Bible, they would have a lot less trouble with the mythological nature of the Book of Mormon. And myth is a wonderful way of putting it. Unfortunately it no longer works for people who too easily equate myth with “lie” or “fiction.” Also, Spencer is looking for a way out of a stale debate about historicity that is going nowhere. Again, some literary knowledge would help (the members, not Spencer, who is already more than well enough informed). Joseph Smith called it a history, but he did not use the term in the technical sense, most likely because he had no real understanding of the technical sense of the word. For Smith, history evidently meant something like, “instructive story about the past” into which category one might place the myths of Genesis or stories about George Washington. So why not a history of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites?
Personally, I don't think Joseph would have recognized there was a difference. History writing as we now know it was in its bare infancy in his time. Then there is his relative lack of education to deal with. I would say that he simply accepted it as literally true events, much as most common people of his time simply accepted the historicity of Adam or the Tower of Babel. Sure, these kinds of concepts were already being challenged, but mostly in the ivory towers. They hadn't yet filtered down to the common people. Notably, when Joseph did start learning a bit about Hebrew, he would quickly jettison doctrines like creatio ex nihilo. As Brigham Young said, if the Book of Mormon were written much later, it would look very different.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:15 amDo you think Smith thought of the Book of Mormon as an “instructive story about the past” as contrasted with a record of literally true events that took place in the Americas? I’m perfectly comfortable with the concept of the Book of Mormon as myth and with the concept of historicity being irrelevant to myth. But I have trouble picturing Joseph Smith understanding the Book of Mormon as myth. I personally have given up on the idea of understanding what it was like to be Smith — how he thought about what he was doing. I have no idea.
And now, we have the book "Method Infinite" which has demonstrated Joseph Smith was the same way in his approach to the Masonic ideas of their own legends and stories. There was a "literalization" of the history of the legends, yet there is not a history there at all. This is most interesting and an avenue I am pursuing... actually, if one wants to see what the "literal" history of ancient Israel in the Bible was, William G. Dever is really strong in that area, and yet, Israelite history, not as the Bible portrays, but as archaeology has discovered, an actual Israel, but the legendary stuff in the Bible tells us more about what it meant to people than the actual dirt and bone archaeology ever will. It is an interesting arena to be sure.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 amYeah, like the Bible, essentially. I applaud what Spencer is doing because it is probably necessary and it doubtless takes a lot of talent and hard work to achieve, but he is basically saying that the Book of Mormon is like the Bible. The Bible is not history. Myth, symbol, and typological elements override any connection with the historical elements. Honestly, it is not enough to say there was a guy named Jesus. The guy named Jesus probably did not live the life that is constructed in four distinctive narratives in the New Testament.
If people were not so ignorant of the actual nature of the Bible, they would have a lot less trouble with the mythological nature of the Book of Mormon. And myth is a wonderful way of putting it. Unfortunately it no longer works for people who too easily equate myth with “lie” or “fiction.” Also, Spencer is looking for a way out of a stale debate about historicity that is going nowhere. Again, some literary knowledge would help (the members, not Spencer, who is already more than well enough informed). Joseph Smith called it a history, but he did not use the term in the technical sense, most likely because he had no real understanding of the technical sense of the word. For Smith, history evidently meant something like, “instructive story about the past” into which category one might place the myths of Genesis or stories about George Washington. So why not a history of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites?