A new poster to the board, "Noah", who had previously made some very strong and supportive comments about the Book of Mormon, entered the thread:
I believe the Nephites and Lamanites really existed. However, I also believe the Book of Mormon was written, abridged, and translated to be understood by men and women in the 19th, 20th, and 21th centuries (and perhaps so on). Nevertheless, I also believe its historicity is irrelevant. I've never read it as a historical document, nor do I read any other scripture that way, and frankly, I don't know why anybody would. I would certainly classify such futility as "missing the mark".
People just don't know how to read scripture anymore (because I don't believe it was ever the author's intent that we take it so literally). Is it not painfully obvious that most parts that bear any resemblance to history have also been revised and transplanted into a religious context? Is it not even more obvious that symbolic license is frequently taken to elucidate a point? We take it for granted that apocalyptic literature adopts a highly symbolic nature; why don't we apply the same logic to testamentary literature?
The line between myth (in the old sense) and scripture is a fine one indeed. Some stuff is just meant to be grasped on a deeper level, and the literalness is compromised as an acceptable trade-off...at least if we can think rationally and acknowledge the unspoken rules of the game. Meanwhile, people waste their time trying to prove what animals or tools may or may not have existed on the American continent in prior millenia. Orson Scott Card (who knows a thing or two about the art of writing) has already settled the question: Given that the Book of Mormon was written for a modern-day audience; names have been changed to enhance its accessibility to the intended readership.
The Book of Mormon wasn't written for historians and archaeologists; it was written to bring people to a knowledge of Christ. In that regard it excels above and beyond any other book. Let the hard-hearted and stiff-necked criticize its historicity. It's a beautiful book. It's stands on its own merits. It's truth is irrefutable.(emphasis added)
This is an unintended backhander to FARMS.
Then hordak, also relatively new:
You make a good point. How many stories do we tell our children to teach a value that have no historical basis at all.
LoaP, probably still recovering from the shock of Noah's post, chips in:
I think reading scripture as though it were written by modern historians or archeologists misses the point of scripture. However, I also believe the real interaction with God, as explained in terms of real people in real places, is pretty fundamental to the faith. I recommend Faulconer's "Scripture as Incarnation," and Hoskisson's "The Need for Historicity: Why Banishing God from History Removes Historical Obligation."
Yes, Blair, you're well on the way Literal Apologetic Stardom. Soon you won't know what is or is not "real history". It happens. Pull out now before it's too late. Note how Blair has adopted the standard apologetic "asked and answered" style. When the MI speaks, the thinking has been done!
Then sethpayne, another newbie, with another shocker:
Robert's work does read as though he does have doubts about Book of Mormon authenticity. I've read the arguments that he was simply playing "devil's advocate" and maybe he was, but his "Studies" doesn't read this way to me. Of course, you can't ignore the fact that he publicly bore his testimony of the Book of Mormon to the end of his life.
Let me run through that again:
Robert's work does read as though he does have doubts about Book of Mormon authenticity. I've read the arguments that he was simply playing "devil's advocate" and maybe he was, but his "Studies" doesn't read this way to me.
How many apologists does it take to realise this? How many Irishmen does it take to change a lightbulb? I've never even seen a HINT of an admission like this from the the die-hards.
Of course, no "anti-Mormon" barbs thrown at them here, young Rom still isn't to be seen. And what have I been saying, oh, for about 14 years now? In fact, what did I say on Runtu's blog just a few days ago? Fear not, the TBMs will soon get to work on this one. This kind of heresy cannot be allowed to pass on MAD unchallenged.