Books of Mormon, Abraham, Moses as Inspired Fiction

[Kishkumen]

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

No. What a juvenile comment!

[Kishkumen]

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?

Well, none of these things is a Platonic Form. They are categories with their own history that have long been contested and re-conceptualized. What I resist is the reductive and inaccurate way of dismissing complex issues by waving the hand and say, "It does not matter because it is fiction," or, "It does not matter because it isn't real history." As far as what scripture is, well, that is its own debate. There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of the term and its applicability outside of Christianity. For too long Westerners have assumed there is "scripture" in every tradition, thus imprinting on the literature of other cultures and civilizations their own mold that more or less equals "Bible."

[Symmachus]

I would add that "fiction" is a rather shaky concept as well, itself a relatively recent invention.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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".

Imma disagree with this. Not that I recommend anyone do this, because ultimately it’s kind of a waste of time, but if the reader of scripture does a deep dive on its philosophical underpinnings written as metaphor, its historical evolution, its foundational roots in pagan religious beliefs and rites, and its context within the history of the regions it takes place, scripture can be deeply and profoundly revelatory for the curious reader.

Now. Mormon scripture, because it was a con and poor facsimile of the Bible suffers from the vacuity of its creators and subsequent corporate handlers, can’t really approximate the complex and layered meanings found within Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian, et al sacred texts.

For example, back on the other board I had an epiphany with regard to Jesus, the Christian belief system, and social systems (hierarchies). I wrote a thing, that for me, unpacked the idea behind a Christ figure and Christ worship, and it was what I believed to be revealing the mystery behind the story. Jersey Girl liked it, so it must’ve had something to it. Regardless, that kind of revelation couldn’t have happened without the Bible. The profundity of the idea for me was facilitated through Christian scripture.

So. My two cents.

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

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

Imma disagree with this. Not that I recommend anyone do this, because ultimately it’s kind of a waste of time, but if the reader of scripture does a deep dive on its philosophical underpinnings written as metaphor, its historical evolution, its foundational roots in pagan religious beliefs and rites, and its context within the history of the regions it takes place, scripture can be deeply and profoundly revelatory for the curious reader.

Now. Mormon scripture, because it was a con and poor facsimile of the Bible suffers from the vacuity of its creators and subsequent corporate handlers, can’t really approximate the complex and layered meanings found within Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian, et al sacred texts.

For example, back on the other board I had an epiphany with regard to Jesus, the Christian belief system, and social systems (hierarchies). I wrote a thing, that for me, unpacked the idea behind a Christ figure and Christ worship, and it was what I believed to be revealing the mystery behind the story. Jersey Girl liked it, so it must’ve had something to it. Regardless, that kind of revelation couldn’t have happened without the Bible. The profundity of the idea for me was facilitated through Christian scripture.

So. My two cents.

- Doc

Yeah well, Kish is correct. My comment was meant to be a little juvenile. And not all that serious.

But, thinking about it, maybe it was so profound and meaningful it shall overturn the world's understanding. But to be clear I didn't say scripture is insignificant. Surely there's significance for many and that likely means something. Even if some others out there read what is significant scripture to some and walk away thinking that it was an insignificant waste of time, doesn't mean there's nothing to it for others.

I wonder if we need a separated category called scripture (then again I wonder whether we need religion anymore either). I'd wonder what life would be like if we just cut it out from our world, this odd category. As I see it, anyone can read any book and feel inspired, in the same way a devotee might be inspired by the Old Testament or Koran. In a pretty real sense whatever one might call scripture happens to be words written down, stories told, lessons given...and whether someone calls it scripture or not, the same level of inspiration and meaning could be had.

The added problem with calling something scripture, perhaps moreso in the western world then elsewhere, is there's an assumption that God was sitting with pen in hand or took over the mind of some writers from thousands or centuries ago and told everyone to murder others or something. "God has every right to murder women and children if he wants to", an apologetic might conclude, "they are guilty, after all, and are deserving of his judgment anyway".

[Kishkumen]

I would add that "fiction" is a rather shaky concept as well, itself a relatively recent invention.

Indeed. Thank you, dear consul.

[Symmachus]

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?

I have said quite often in this forum that the historical stuff is a catalyst, not a motivation, for leaving the Church. Life as a Mormon is just pretty unpleasant for many people, and when the main foundation for maintaining that unpleasant lifestyle evaporates, there is no reason for people to keep being Mormon.

So, tell me, after such a proclamation is given, how would you convince others to become Mormon? What would your missionary discussions look like?

[Dr Exiled]

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?

Well, none of these things is a Platonic Form. They are categories with their own history that have long been contested and re-conceptualized. What I resist is the reductive and inaccurate way of dismissing complex issues by waving the hand and say, "It does not matter because it is fiction," or, "It does not matter because it isn't real history." As far as what scripture is, well, that is its own debate. There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of the term and its applicability outside of Christianity. For too long Westerners have assumed there is "scripture" in every tradition, thus imprinting on the literature of other cultures and civilizations their own mold that more or less equals "Bible."

So, what is scripture in your opinion? Is it scripture if a given group defines it as such? Could the writings on this site be considered scripture if we decided to call it that? Does the writing or writings in question need to be seasoned with time in order to become scripture? Does there need to be some sort of mythology attached to it?

[Kishkumen]

Yeah well, Kish is correct. My comment was meant to be a little juvenile. And not all that serious.

But, thinking about it, maybe it was so profound and meaningful it shall overturn the world's understanding. But to be clear I didn't say scripture is insignificant. Surely there's significance for many and that likely means something. Even if some others out there read what is significant scripture to some and walk away thinking that it was an insignificant waste of time, doesn't mean there's nothing to it for others.

I wonder if we need a separated category called scripture (then again I wonder whether we need religion anymore either). I'd wonder what life would be like if we just cut it out from our world, this odd category. As I see it, anyone can read any book and feel inspired, in the same way a devotee might be inspired by the Old Testament or Koran. In a pretty real sense whatever one might call scripture happens to be words written down, stories told, lessons given...and whether someone calls it scripture or not, the same level of inspiration and meaning could be had.

The added problem with calling something scripture, perhaps moreso in the western world then elsewhere, is there's an assumption that God was sitting with pen in hand or took over the mind of some writers from thousands or centuries ago and told everyone to murder others or something. "God has every right to murder women and children if he wants to", an apologetic might conclude, "they are guilty, after all, and are deserving of his judgment anyway".

Yeah, I don't know that scripture is a good category or whether something else would be better. It is an ongoing conversation and I would be interested to know more about it. I am suspicious of the idea of scripture, but, then, I am uncomfortable with dismissing the internal special status of certain literature in different religious groups as being insignificant. I have always liked the idea of people wrestling with certain texts as being of special applicability but also a kind of inscrutability or at least a challenge that would keep them coming back to think more, to evolve in their views, and come out better off for the exercise, intellectually, spiritually, or otherwise.

All kinds of literature could conceivably perform a similar function, but it is nice to be part of a community that holds certain literature in special regard so that you can all engage in a discussion of that literature fruitfully to some degree. It gives one a shared point of reference with others.

But then I am a Classicist, and we have our body of texts that have been arranged in a kind of hierarchy traditionally. Homer and Plato rank very highly in this canon, and all of us know at least a little bit about these things. It helps provide a common language and a common conversation. One of the reasons I am opposed to the more extreme elements on the political left is that they have set as a desideratum the eradication of such things in favor of an incoherent global humanities. Being unenlightened as to the knowledge of that rarefied level of sophistication, I think it is more practical to learn about the things around you before you cast out further with your reach. It is not that our things are inherently superior; it's a matter of learning to speak our own language as a starting point before we become conversant in a second language. I use language here merely as a metaphor.

There is nothing wrong with setting some kind of priority and/or orientation. There is nothing that demands we discount, dismiss, or ridicule other knowledge or other people because we want to prioritize knowing our own.

There is nothing wrong with calling something scripture and wrestling with it as a way to think about important questions. It is when we set that literature-scripture up as the sole idol to be worshiped or consulted. It is when we think of it as the only thing worthy of our attention, the only source of truth, that we are in trouble. We yearn to identify home, and we yearn to explore beyond its boundaries. We also ache to return home on occasion. It is not necessary to burn the house to the ground because something bad happened there, or termites ate some of the boards. We don't have to become rootless in order to absolve ourselves of the sins of humanity.

[Kishkumen]

So, what is scripture in your opinion? Is it scripture if a given group defines it as such? Could the writings on this site be considered scripture if we decided to call it that? Does the writing or writings in question need to be seasoned with time in order to become scripture? Does there need to be some sort of mythology attached to it?

Scripture in the Christian tradition is a collection of officially canonized literature that is normative for those belonging to the in-group of the orthodox faithful. It is the Word of God and thus contains layers of truth and revelation that surpass the surface meaning of the text on the page. What is canon to a particular Christian group is determined by the founders and leaders of that group, and the Bible provides a general model for constructing a canon.

I don't identify any canonical literature outside of the broad category of Christian civilization as scripture for purposes of accuracy. I view it to be deeply problematic to use a Christian concept as a normative category that can be uncritically applied to other literature in other traditions.