Books of Mormon, Abraham, Moses as Inspired Fiction

[malkie]

...
That is the question. Call me skeptical, but how does one determine "parts of the Bible are not historical" compared to other parts that may be historical? Or perhaps more to the point, how does one decide which parts are inspired, as in describing God's real interactions with humans, vs parts that are man inspired? For instance, it seems to be the case, to me anyway, that most believers completely ignore Jesus' teaching concluding the sermon on the mount wherein Jesus suggests many believers get ignored by God and himself, during their lives which includes their prayers and such, by suggesting things like "God loves you" and "God hears prayers". Apparently He doesn't love many believers and ignores many prayers. But, as it happens, that sounds bad, I guess, so to believers, it seems, it must not be true.

One could pick at Jesus' teaching and suggest something about how he didn't really mean what is said. Or one could try to pull in other ideas like He really only meant that many believers are kind of bad people and he can tell who they are from the start and since he knows that, He doesn't really consider Himself covenanted or tied to them. But of course, that is not what is said.

The odd thing about trying to really dig into what might something really mean, as opposed to what it says, is believers are left to try and use reason and intellect to determine what is good, as opposed to revelation, scripture or God. I mean it's encouraging most believers tend to reject most of scripture, on that basis of people embracing enlightenment ideals and replacing them with scripture. But it's a problem that such a thing never seems to get acknowledged. And, of course, doing so, again, only shows the uselessness of scripture.
...

As it is, even amongst those who believe that "scriptures" are the word of god, and possibly inerrant, believers are left to try and use reason and intellect to determine what any of it means. The multiple "versions" of Christianity testify to the utter failure of people to agree on what god meant by any of "his" words.

Now add the complication that nobody is claiming that all of the "scriptures" are even intended to be gods words.

[dastardly stem]

...
That is the question. Call me skeptical, but how does one determine "parts of the Bible are not historical" compared to other parts that may be historical? Or perhaps more to the point, how does one decide which parts are inspired, as in describing God's real interactions with humans, vs parts that are man inspired? For instance, it seems to be the case, to me anyway, that most believers completely ignore Jesus' teaching concluding the sermon on the mount wherein Jesus suggests many believers get ignored by God and himself, during their lives which includes their prayers and such, by suggesting things like "God loves you" and "God hears prayers". Apparently He doesn't love many believers and ignores many prayers. But, as it happens, that sounds bad, I guess, so to believers, it seems, it must not be true.

One could pick at Jesus' teaching and suggest something about how he didn't really mean what is said. Or one could try to pull in other ideas like He really only meant that many believers are kind of bad people and he can tell who they are from the start and since he knows that, He doesn't really consider Himself covenanted or tied to them. But of course, that is not what is said.

The odd thing about trying to really dig into what might something really mean, as opposed to what it says, is believers are left to try and use reason and intellect to determine what is good, as opposed to revelation, scripture or God. I mean it's encouraging most believers tend to reject most of scripture, on that basis of people embracing enlightenment ideals and replacing them with scripture. But it's a problem that such a thing never seems to get acknowledged. And, of course, doing so, again, only shows the uselessness of scripture.
...

As it is, even amongst those who believe that "scriptures" are the word of god, and possibly inerrant, believers are left to try and use reason and intellect to determine what any of it means. The multiple "versions" of Christianity testify to the utter failure of people to agree on what god meant by any of "his" words.

Now add the complication that nobody is claiming that all of the "scriptures" are even intended to be gods words.

I think the disagreements between different sects or versions of christianity depend on tradition or historic declarations. More and more, though, it seems various version of Christianity are trying to use reason and intellect to arrive at what was meant in different scriptures, often as it plays out, reading into the text something that was likely part of the context. ANd in time the better arguments win out. It seems, for instance, in Joseph Smith's day the various sects disagreed more than they do today.

[Fence Sitter]

The authority falls if historicity isn't maintained and this is why the apologists make fools of themselves trying to keep hope alive.

So Sludge asked two questions.

Does that solve all y'all's problems?

and

See you in church on Sunday?

Declaring the books of Abraham and Moses as fictional would remove their purported link to actual priesthood authority claimed by the church and relegate them to the same level as all other Christian churches in that regard, a position they are already in without knowing it. So it solves nothing for me because that is already where I think they are.

and

I'll go back to church when openly discussing its claims is acceptable within a church environment, in other words, never.

[Lem]

In a nod in your direction, I also recognize that much of what grounds the way that traditional LDS members view the Book of Mormon is the narrative of its production, which comes with an angel Moroni, claiming to be the final writer of the gold plates. It is harder to separate that narrative (of its production) from the historical claims of the text. Perhaps such a separation is even impossible within the LDS Church to the extent that might be necessary to discuss the text separate from such a historical narrative. But, until that happens, it seems to me that few will ever see the text as more than an artifact demonstrating evidence for the prophetic call of Joseph Smith. And the Book of Mormon can hold this role without anyone ever really needing to read the text, let alone to read it in a more than superficial way....

Maybe for some believers, yes, but in reality, it is also considered by most to be a sort of artifact where the author, Joseph Smith, writes in evidence for his own prophetic call. It's difficult to take that seriously once you see how circular the argument is.

This does bring up an additional point to this idea of considering the Book of Mormon as fiction, however. If this was written as fiction by Smith, then in addition to looking for deep meaning, it should be acknowledged that the deep meaning found may be no more valid or meaningful than what fan fiction finds when looking for deep meaning in Lord of the Rings, or Dune, or any other fictional world. Some interesting philosophical positions, maybe, but something to be elevated to the level of profundity? Unlikely. The historicity that the book pronounces will always bring its Book of Mormon 'world' to the forefront, making it difficult to look for deep meaning while also ignoring the 'history.' Additionally, assuming the Book of Mormon history doesn't really exist requires that the author's statements be disregarded, as well as most statements made by the religion's leaders, which is an exceedingly difficult position to take within a religion, in my opinion.

[honorentheos]

Let us suppose that, hypothetically, the church publishes a new proclamation that states the Books of Mormon, Abraham and Moses are all inspired, prophetic, and true--but they're fiction. Included in this proclamation is also a statement that the Old Testament is inspired fiction.

Does that solve all y'all's problems? See you in church on Sunday?

The better question is if this would create a problem for you? Or is their historicity irrelevant?

[Moksha]

I'm wondering whether publishing an edition of the Book of Mormon in High Valyrian might help?


A Lamanite servant and Nephite Princess in happier times

[Kishkumen]

History and fiction are terms that fail to capture the significance of the category of scripture.

[Physics Guy]

History and fiction are terms that fail to capture the significance of the category of scripture.

I guess they do fail to capture it fully, but it seems to me that they overlap significantly.

All the scriptures I know have at least some element that reads like fiction, in that they're talking about metaphysical or future stuff that isn't even supposed to be part of the ordinarily observable world. Much if not all of the authority of scripture seems to me to be like the authority of a work of fiction to establish what is canonically true within its own world. Nobody can contradict the Bible about what will or will not happen in the Final Judgement, for example, any more than anyone can contradict The Lord of the Rings about the nature of orcs. I don't mean to say that it's not important whether or not the Bible (or any other Scripture) is describing reality. I'm just saying that wherever we have no way of assessing the accuracy of these descriptions outside of the Scripture itself, there in practice the Scripture has a fiction-like authority to define its own world.

On the other hand the notion that Scripture is at least partly history is a big part of what Scripture means, I think. History matters to people, because if some event really happened once, then anything like that event has made the cut to be considered really possible and not just hypothetical. I may just have read too much Carlyle, but if I were a disgruntled citizen of Paris in 1792, I really think it would have made a big difference to me to know that a monarchy had been overthrown successfully a few years before. I could in principle have been motivated by purely abstract considerations, but knowing that the Americans had actually pulled it off would have eliminated an otherwise large doubt that successful revolution was anything but a fantasy. Similarly, I think, "Obey and you will be blessed" can just be preached in the abstract, but if I somehow believe that Nephi obeyed and really was blessed, then I'm just going to take the principle a lot more seriously as something that might really apply to me as well.

Scripture gains one kind of authority from the ways in which it is fiction-like, it seems to me, and another kind from the ways in which it is history-like. I don't see how Scripture can enjoy those authorities, though, without also paying the appropriate dues. I don't think it can just flash its "I'm Scripture!" card and get the authorities for free as the automatic benefits of membership in a special third category. Insofar as Scripture enjoys a fiction-like authority to define the picture it's offering of things unseen, it can't escape the complete uncertainty about whether or not that picture is real. Insofar as Scripture wants to enjoy any kind of historical authority, it has to admit and survive some historical scrutiny.

So I reckon that in a Venn diagram the circle of Scripture overlaps, in some ways, with both fiction and history. What aspects of Scripture do you see as lying outside both of those?

[Tator]

Sledge is just another MenTallGeneNest without all the //////////s.

[dastardly stem]

History and fiction are terms that fail to capture the significance of the category of scripture.

I think you meant "the insignificance of the category of scripture".