Books of Mormon, Abraham, Moses as Inspired Fiction

[dastardly stem]

Link to Ben's Interpreter article:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... t-reading/

[Kishkumen]

Link to Ben's Interpreter article:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... t-reading/

Thanks, Stem!

[Symmachus]

I think that I have been pretty clear that my views are not mainstream. But they are not entirely alien. People bring different views to the table in terms of how they experience the religion. This is especially true given the high percentage of converts that the Church has. And any Church which adopts ongoing revelation with more than lip service can change a great deal (can does not mean that it will). My views are certainly not widely adopted. Before I published it in Interpreter, I was working to get my postmodernist piece published with the MI. At some point I switched simply because it was taking too long. After a couple of different editors and a series of reviews, I was told that it was without a doubt the most read submission in the history of the MI, and the problem was that it was either loved or hated by its readers. I had this to some extent with Interpreter too. My perception of the difference between the two groups? Those that read it who came out of the religion department at BYU disliked it. Those who read it who came from a field of literature of some sort or other thought it was fantastic. The mileage people get out of it reflects more where they start than anything else. But having introduced these ideas, perhaps it will help at some point in the future. I don't think it will take a special intellectual framework or vocabulary to make such a change happen. This is only helpful in justifying such an approach. If some of our theologians (and I say that with a mild degree of sarcasm since there isn't a real space yet within the LDS community for a strong theological presence apart from the authoritative leadership - who are not really theologians but administrators) were to actually engage in this kind of interpretation, the examples would do a lot. As opposed to the sort of interpretations that I am critical of in this context.

I take your view, and I'm sure will enjoy reading Midrashic approaches to the Book of Mormon, but I'm just trying to see how it works on a broader scale. My question is about how that reading works on the social level, so it's a sociological and theological question I'm getting at. Is it safe to say that that is not your concern?

One of the reasons this question interests me is because I think the Book of Mormon-as-genuine-history a large part of some background assumptions that keeps a lot of Mormons going in what is not a very pleasant lifestyle (I'm not saying all, but a lot). Cue Google, and someone who never read the Book of Mormon seriously but were still practicing, active Mormons finds out X, Y, and Z. They spend three days on this, and before you know it they're posting a selfie on Reddit displaying their new tattoo while taking a break from an orgy at Days Inn off I-15 in Provo (so I'm told...). Would a more literary reading have made any difference? Maybe that's not your interest, but that's what's behind my question.

I think it's relatively easy to relate things like Nephite coinage to our experience. In fact, your choice of labeling it as 'coinage' is an indication that you are already doing this - since the word "coin" is notably absent from the Book of Mormon. You wouldn't be the only to do this, of course. The term 'coins' appears in a chapter summary added in 1920 and then removed in later editions. I think that we can reframe the political debates, and so on. Whether we will or not, I think its unlikely to see significant change in my lifetime. But, Mormonism is a young religion. I think that if it survives to be as old as say Catholicism is now, there will at some point be a much larger spectrum of belief in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Well, on a coinage, a distinction without a difference in this instance. It's a monetary system. How does one liken senines (or whatever they were) without getting allegorical and indulging into private readings that could conflict with other private readings? Certainly the Book of Mormon has explicit allegory, so surely it invites that, but again, I just wonder how viable it as an alternative to the historicist reading for the Church more broadly. The historicist reading serves a social and even ecclesial function that helps create theological cohesion and identity. That's kind of what scripture is. But again, maybe that is just not your concern or interest.

[Benjamin McGuire]

My question is about how that reading works on the social level, so it's a sociological and theological question I'm getting at. Is it safe to say that that is not your concern?

Yes, it's not really my concern. Part of the reason why I engaged this discussion is that I wanted to show how someone (using myself as an example) could read the text outside of the more traditional believer/critic models. I am not approaching the question as an apologist. I sincerely believe the things that I write about texts, knowledge and all of that.

I will add in passing that the LDS Church is still, in many ways, a very young organization. If it survives a couple more hundred years, it will have (perhaps of necessity) moved beyond the rapid growth and expansion that we saw in the past several decades. But it is that explosive past growth that leaves the Church more susceptible to some of these shifts. Coherent theology will become more important. I think that the history of the beginning of the movement will become less so. This is especially true given that the Church is facing issues that were not even on the horizon for the early LDS Church in the 19th century. Things like same-sex marriage and the place of transgendered persons or issues of social justice (and questions about its own racist beliefs of the past, and sexist beliefs of the present). The LDS Church is still trying to rely on what we might call correlated sources to resolve these questions, and failing to do so (see what I did with the Proclamation on the Family as an example). It was at a similar stage in Catholicism (to draw what may be a poor comparison), that these sorts of issues necessitated the ecumenical councils (starting with Nicea in 325). Just as importantly, the explosive growth of the LDS Church has lead to a less homogeneous membership, which eventually has the potential to lead to a less homogeneous leadership.

They spend three days on this, and before you know it they're posting a selfie on Reddit displaying their new tattoo while taking a break from an orgy at Days Inn off I-15 in Provo (so I'm told...). Would a more literary reading have made any difference? Maybe that's not your interest, but that's what's behind my question.

I am not sure Paul (Shulem) remembers this, but many, many years ago we had a bit of an argument in one of these on-line forums. And to paraphrase what he told me (as far as my memory goes) he told me that if he could ever be convinced that Joseph Smith used the seer stone in a hat to translate the gold plates, he would leave the Church. And we all have (I think) some sense of what happened subsequent to that (but not necessarily for that reason). With that as a background, I hope that you humor me for a moment while I stand on my soapbox.

I think that the Church's obsession with controlling the historical narrative is unhealthy, and will continue to be a problem. I have some fascination with the seer stones and the Urim and Thummim discussion. I have probably done as much reading and working on that issue as anyone, because it is so rich with examples of how history changes to myth as it goes from memory and oral telling to a written history with formal interpretations (all of which can change significantly over time). This sort of thing makes me think that we can see evidence of how early Christianity reshapes its own early history in the same way. When Martin Harris in a late first-hand account reintroduces people to the seer stone as a tool used to translate, that narrative gets attacked. A few decades later, Joseph Fielding Smith completely denies that the seer stones were ever used in the process. He probably believed it himself. It is still an attempt to control the historical narrative by building on an idealistic (and incorrect) portrayal. And this newly formed (and to some extent fictional) historical narrative shapes belief, much like you suggest. When people find out that it is wrong, it leads to cognitive dissonance, and perhaps an unpredictable response in resolving that dissonance. I think that it is a shift to the personal experience that would be helpful. Would a more literary reading help? Only in that it would encourage people to develop their own understanding - which means engaging doctrine and theology in a way that, I think, members are not really taught to do. This would be helpful because it allows people to choose to believe and to develop and understand their own rationale for that belief. Instead, if they rely on the narratives constructed by others, their belief is shallow and dependent on those narratives.

How does one liken senines (or whatever they were) without getting allegorical and indulging into private readings that could conflict with other private readings?

But, see, this is something I embrace. I think that conflicting readings are inevitable, and on some level, even desirable. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some sort of demarcation that separates orthodoxy from unorthodoxy, but, there would certainly be more room for a range of beliefs and expectations (of necessity). There is a problem, in my view, with the idea that there should be only a single valid reading. Interestingly enough, the LDS Church has built in mechanisms to help conceal (instead of to help express) these different views. One of these is to hide or mask disagreements among the leadership (things that in the past were often quite public). One of my pet peeves in this vein is the traditional testimony given in the monthly meeting at church. Someone gets up and says "I know the church is true". Well, church's aren't really true. That sort of sentence doesn't make much grammatical sense. Propositions can be true or false, but not churches. And so when someone says "I know the Church is true", what they really mean is that they hold a series of propositions that they believe about the church which they believe are true. And when the members of the congregation says "Amen" they too are asserting that individually they believe a series of propositions about the church that they believe are true. And in fact, they can all be quite different propositions (even contradictory in some cases). By concealing those propositions in such a statement, they create the illusion that not only are they all connected by belief, but also that they all believe the same truths (the same propositions). The Church offers very little space for people to engage with each other in ways that allow these differences to appear and to become the foundation for personal growth and development.

And of course, maybe I am just the odd duck. I will admit that I know of no other Mormons who consistently considers themselves to be postmodernist in any real sense. Gadianton pointed out a couple of days ago that "New MI types see the deficiency and the opportunity with a proper engagement with the Book of Mormon. And so, go out and read Of Grammatology cover to cover, and then recast the Book of Mormon as a Rube-Goldberg mental exercise." I would never recommend to anyone that they start with Of Grammatology. Its Writing and Difference all the way baby.

[Shulem]

I will add in passing that the LDS Church is still, in many ways, a very young organization. If it survives a couple more hundred years

*IF*?!



Well, honestly, I think we can agree that the LDS Church as it is today will not be what it is *200* or *300* years from now in the Latter-latter-days "if" it survives. The "latter-days" will simply become the Days of our Lives for whoever is living them. Religion evolves to meet the needs of the people in any given age. That's just how it's always been. It seems to be the way it should be.

[Shulem]

I am not sure Paul (Shulem) remembers this, but many, many years ago we had a bit of an argument in one of these on-line forums. And to paraphrase what he told me (as far as my memory goes) he told me that if he could ever be convinced that Joseph Smith used the seer stone in a hat to translate the gold plates, he would leave the Church. And we all have (I think) some sense of what happened subsequent to that (but not necessarily for that reason). With that as a background, I hope that you humor me for a moment while I stand on my soapbox.

I think for most part you're a reasonable and kind soul. I hold no grudges concerning the limited conversations we shared during those many years ago. Both of us were searching for answers! I do remember you telling me, in no uncertain terms, that my apologetic Book of Abraham website was for the most part, "rubbish." That remark stuck with me and in my craw and I remember it to this day, vividly. But you know what, Benjamin? You were right. You were right! It was rubbish. But it was the best I could do under the circumstances. I knew the missing roll theory couldn't work. I knew the other theories expressed by faithful Book of Abraham apologists couldn't work either. There really was only one hope, The Catalyst Theory. And guess what? That is the direction the Church is going at this time. It's the best option in order to maintain a viable faith.

Anyway, I don't mean to get involved here. You carry on. I wish you well in your life's pursuit and studies.

[hauslern]

If as been shown that Smith falsly restored facsmile 2 and falsly said Anubis was a slave whh should we believe anything he said?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewn ... qSXCI/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit

I often wonder if Nehebkau "dove" had not lost part of his bodyhow Smith would have interpreted.
In another piece of the papyri where the snake has legs Oliver Cowdery wrote "Oliver Cowdery wrote "The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure ..." On a judgment scene he wrote "the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning"

Smith inserted another piece where figure 2 is. He tool it from this papyri.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87 ... Dge0E/edit
Look down bottom right.
In all examples of the hypocephalus I have seen so far the figures 22 23 have multiple heads not two.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... t/Y_EA8445

For an Egyptologists take on the various "registers" in a hypocephalus see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7 ... t3DDc/edit

[Themis]

I think that the Church's obsession with controlling the historical narrative is unhealthy, and will continue to be a problem.

Church leaders have always understood things like Book of Mormon history are vital to any future of Mormonism. In our discussions you wanted to focus on inspiration from text to reader, but it ignores the real problem of inspiration from God to author. No real history no real inspiration from God to Joseph Smith, and no prophet-hood, authority, etc. It puts the Book of Mormon on the same footing as harry potter or Lord of the Rings. The difference being those authors never claimed God inspiration and were better written.