Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1

78 comments for “Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1”

1. I’m happy for people to receive the Book of Mormon for the best reason they can come up with.

   That said, I must confess that I hope the day will come when you’ll turn another corner and find yourself interpreting that bit of personal revelation differently than you do now.

2. My own path was both different and the same. I am definitely a non-academic and my starting place was Prop 22 and then Prop 8 (in spades). I spent a lot of time terrified of praying about the role of LGBTQ because I was so terrified of the answer either way. Then after talking to a friend, I finally forced myself to do so and received the strongest revelation of my entire life, a ‘be kind to your neighbors’ revelation rather than a ‘correct side/position of this issue is ____’ revelation.

   Other then next 15ish years, I’ve gotten the exact same answer for all of my questions to God when it comes to the church, doctrine, is-it-True, authority, exact obedience, my role in my ward/church, BOM historicity. When it comes to me at least, God doesn’t seem to care what I believe or what is True. He cares what I do and I how I treat people.

   So I focus on that (imperfectly, I’ll be the first to admit) and have given up on things like True and Historicity.

3. I appreciate your openness about this. We need more out-of-the-closet non-historicists in the Church.

4. If the historicity of the Book of Mormon takes a serious hit, does that not change our perceptions of revelation itself? This is a huge step beyond Ostler’s expansion theory. Can there be a post-historical Book of Mormon Mormonism that survives? I’m not so sure such a creature can survive and that schism already awaits. On one hand we have the Neo-fundamentalist heartland theorists who abuse scholarly methods and go so far as to (IMO) reject objective reality. In the middle we have traditionalists who value scholarship while maintaining BoM historicity. Then we have outside scholarship (Vogel and others) which rejects historicity completely. Will Fleming’s work rub out the middle and leave us with only two extreme options?

5. I suppose my question for Fleming is the same I ask for every other proponent of the inspired fiction theory:

   Did Joseph Smith know he was lying when he said an angel gave him gold plates or was he just insane?

6. We worry too much about what we believe, probably as a way to avoid thinking about what we do, which is more important. If you love God and your neighbor, make and keep covenants, and try to come closer to Christ every day, whether you believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon or not won’t matter so much.
   Having said that, it’s a lot easier to make and keep priesthood covenants if you believe the Book of Mormon is a historical document. Not believing that is an unstable condition. Like a coin balanced on its rim, you’re likely to eventually fall on one side or the other, either to deciding the BoM is historical after all, or leaving the Church.
   After acknowledging that the BoM authors were more interested in presenting a message than in what we today would consider strict historical accuracy, and that some “interesting” things may have happened during transmission and even translation, I remain convinced that Lehi and Nephi and Alma and Mormon and company were real people, and that their narratives are based on things that really happened.

7. Stephen Smoot – Have you looked at the Brian Williams effect? That’s my personal feeling of what happened. Yes, he had a revelation in the grove. Yes, he had non-corporeal visions/dreams about golden plates. But in a very human way, he twisted these things into actual events in order to convince others, use them.

   I’m not stuck on that though and am open to additional ideas. I just think that if we take Joseph at 100% face value, we have to take all other claims of divine revelation from other prophets at face value as well.

8. “But in a very human way, he twisted these things into actual events in order to convince others, use them.”

   So he was insane (and possibly malicious). Got it. Thanks for the straightforward answer.

9. In starting my responses, I want to make clear that I’m trying to be careful about my tone. As I said in the OP, BoM historicity is often at the center of debates over Mormonism’s validity and I certainly don’t want to come across as snarky when discussing people’s faith (I’m a practicing Mormon after all). However, debates happen, sometimes the tone isn’t so great, so I just want to apologize in advance.

   Jack, since that experience my conviction that the BoM is not historical has only solidified. Kept being a Mormon anyway.

   Thanks for sharing that experience ReTx. A few years before that BoM experience, I felt very strongly spiritually “commanded” to vote no on prop 8 (but perhaps a story for another time).

   Thanks Mo Po.

   Anon, I’ll respond to that in a separate comment.

   Stephen, I hope my answer isn’t overly curt. I do believe that JS did engage in a lot of fudging for what he saw as the greater good. A useful parallel, I think, is Nephi deceiving Zoram to get the brass plates. Nephi deliberately tricks Zoram by putting on Laban’s clothes and speaking in Laban’s voice. Deception to get plates for the greater good.

   So yes, I think that JS (and Oliver Cowdery) engaged in such behaviors. Yet, like Nephi, they were certainly believers. Yes, I know that may sound convoluted, but I do think the Nephi example is useful. This is a big topic that I’ve given several papers on particularly at Sunstone and am addressing it again this year.

   Curtis, yes, not believing BoM historicity can be a challenge, but I’ve been in that state for 13 years including 4.5 as bishop. Of the many challenges I had as bishop, I’m not sure I’d rank not believing in BoM historicity in the top 10. But I’ll talk more about this in my response to Anon.

10. Regarding historicity, I rather enjoy reading the BOM stories and find meaning in them, but among many other things, the use of the name “Christ” 600 years prior to Jesus’ actual birth seems to be historically and linguistically a huge problem. The name “Christ” is not used in the Old Testament, yet we see it used by contemporaries of Isaiah, using a name that seems far more indicative of a 19th century text than one from 600 “BC”.

11. “I do believe that JS did engage in a lot of fudging for what he saw as the greater good. . . . Deception to get plates for the greater good. . . . So yes, I think that JS (and Oliver Cowdery) engaged in such behaviors.”

    So he was a pious fraud like Dan Vogel and Fawn Brodie have argued. Thanks for the straightforward answer. Good to know where you’re coming from.

12. “So he was insane (and possibly malicious). Got it. Thanks for the straightforward answer.”

    The Brian Williams effect is universal. It’s how memories are created/stored/revised-with-use. Nothing to do with mental illness at all. It’s about being human. We all do it. Not sure what reducing such a thing down to insanity and maliciousness adds to the conversation.

13. Anon, that is a very big question and no doubt losing belief in BoM historicity does cause a lot of such people to leave the church.

    I don’t know if you saw any of my previous posts, but I talked about how I’ve worked to try to help people stay in the church. I’ve recently had conversations with people who felt discombobulated by coming to the conclusion that the BoM could not be historical, but felt pretty convince that the church was a good thing, so wanted to stick around.

    Having worked on my own approach to those issues, those people found it helpful what I shared and have stuck around.

    Someone shared a video in a comment on a previous post (that I’m having trouble finding) where someone pointed out that it was quite damaging to faith to only provide critique and not a faithful structure as a replacement. I very much agree. I suppose that in some following posts I’ll list our reasons I’ve stuck around.

    At the same time, the video presentation I linked to give some explanation for that (though it’s only partial. It’s a very big topic).

    But in sum, you are completely justified in feeling that questions over BoM historicity suggest a bumpy road ahead for the church. My concern is that to me it looks clear that the evidence is against BoM historicity and people can figure that out without too much trouble. So I think we need to address that issue one way or another, and I’m trying to make my own attempts.

14. I have some similarities and differences with Vogel and Brodie, Stephen. You seem to want to oversimplify arguments you do not like, which, as we all know, isn’t the best intellectual approach.

    Oh, and one additional item Anon mentioned that I forgot to respond to. Does this call into question revelation? Perhaps, but as I listed out in the OP, I felt that I came to the position as a result of spiritual prompting, and such promptings are why I’ve stayed in the church ever since.

15. “I have some similarities and differences with Vogel and Brodie, Stephen.”

    The only real difference I see that you have with them is that you’re trying to put a nice, faith-positive face on what boils down to essentially the exact same image of who Joseph Smith was: a pious fraud.

    “You seem to want to oversimplify arguments you do not like, which, as we all know, isn’t the best intellectual approach.”

    On the contrary, I am bringing your argument to it’s only logical outcome: JS was either sincerely insane or consciously lying (or somehow sincerely lying??). If you wanna believe God calls prophets who are sincere but insane liars, I guess you’re free to do so, but you’ll forgive me when I say it doesn’t inspired much confidence.

    I’ve given the inspired fiction theory for the BoM in most of its major permutations detailed examination in my article “Et Incarnatus Est: The Imperative for Book of Mormon Historicity,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30 (2018): 125-162. I thought maybe you’d have something new, but alas.

16. You seem to have very little interesting in my points of view, Stephen. This all sounds a bit more like name calling.

    In terms of God calling prophets who use deception, again, what about when Nephi deceived Zoram?

17. “The Brian Williams effect is universal. It’s how memories are created/stored/revised-with-use. Nothing to do with mental illness at all. It’s about being human. We all do it. Not sure what reducing such a thing down to insanity and maliciousness adds to the conversation.”

    Tell me, ReTx, what would you call it if somebody misremembered and retold an event so badly that it went from “I was reading Lord of the Rings one afternoon and thought it had some nice elements” to “Frodo Baggins appeared to me that afternoon and gave me an elvish manuscript that I translated by the gift and power of God and I showed that manuscript to others who can vouch for it being real and I’m so committed to this being reality that I’m prepared to die for it”?

    Would you call that a little whoopsie Brian Williams “ah shucks we all have fuzzy memories” Effect or would you call it something else?

18. I am also an active member who does not believe the BoM is historical. I think the aggregate of all the issues, including New Testament (or later) phrases, theology, Bible-borrowed narrative elements (interpreting writing on the temple wall; dancing to please the king and asking for someone’s head), anachronistic objects, and absence of any plausible archaeologic evidence, together constitute overwhelming evidence of 19th century origin. But I also think it is a magnificent book of scripture that is full of goodness and spiritual energy.

    Was JS insane or lying? I don’t know. I find it easier to evaluate the book in front of us than to get into JS’s head.

19. “In terms of God calling prophets who use deception, again, what about when Nephi deceived Zoram?”

    Your comparison would have legs if Nephi continued to pretend to be Laban for the rest of his life and sincerely came to believe he was Laban after the initial deception and then tried to make sure everyone else believed he was Laban to the point of manufacturing fake objects that he said came from Laban.

20. Stephen Smoot –

    I would be cautious not to judge it at all without getting more information, seeing what I think of the person speaking, understanding the psychology of the situation, making sure I actually have all the facts. If the internet (and all it’s endless ‘stories’) have taught me anything, it is this.

    Even more… Most of the above is very hard to actually find out. So personally, I really try to not to make hard judgements about people and go for keeping an open mind and focusing on what I do know. And what I do know is that God wants me to go through life loving my neighbors.

21. So … deception by prophets is okay if it’s only a little bit?

    I’m arguing in my Sunstone presentation that JS did indeed believe in real Nephites (that were not actually real). No, this did not make him crazy. Again, it’s pretty clear you are claiming expertise in topics that you don’t have.

    It looks to me like he viewed the plates as something of a replica of a real Nephite records. For the greater good. Like Nephi.

22. Food allergy, I do get the sense that such views will grow more common. Again, I’d say the data (and there’s lots of it) points in the non-historical direction (hope that doesn’t sound snarky, that’s just my observation), and I very much agree that staying in the faith is highly worthwhile.

    So I agree with ReTx that it’s best to be welcoming to different points of view.

23. I am an older guy who grew up in the church in SLC. I always struggled with believing the Book of Mormon being historically accurate. I recall sitting in Junior Sunday school on Sunday morning (Alas, yes I am that old!) while the teachers was talking about prophets and used Nephi and Peter as two examples. How old was I? I can’t be sure, but young enough to sit in Junior Primary, so before the “Priesthood” years. I remember contrasting Peter, who I understood was a prophet, an apostle, and a historical figure to Nephi who was a prophet. But was he historical? I remember that I sorted them into different categories, even then. I grew up in a family where my father was a full-time employee in the CES. We were super-orthodox. I didn’t get my heretical ideas from home!

    I remember, distinctly, a sacrament meeting in my youth when I had my first spiritual experience. I was sitting in the pews, next to my mother. I think that she was playing with my hair. The speaker was talking about the BoM. Suddenly I was struck with such a strong feeling. I suddenly felt that I was being told by God that it was all true. The room was beginning to spin. I was so happy! I didn’t tell anyone about it then. When my mother tucked me in and kissed me that night I knew that she would be so happy if I told her about my experience. But I didn’t. I still am not sure why.

    Despite that experience I always harbored some doubt about the historicity of the BoM. I assumed that my mission would sort that out. On my mission I become more dedicated to God, to Jesus and to the church. But I had stubborn doubts about whether the BoM was historically “true.” I accepted that it was doctrinally “true” and believed that I must measure my life against what it taught. But it didn’t mean that I believed that Captain Moroni was as real as, say, Nero.

    As I continued active in the church I still had such doubts about the BoM. So many anachronisms! What to do with them? Any one or two of them I could so easily explain away. But all of them? I felt what I would call anxiety about this, but I soldiered on. I read my scriptures, paid my tithing, held many callings, bore witness regularly. I read the Ensign every month. I also read Dialogue and Sunstone, among other things, and felt that, in general, they built-up, rather than broke, my faith.

    I remember the exact place I was standing when it struck me hard that the Book of Mormon just wasn’t historically “true.” It was a whirlwind moment, so important to me. And it was such a relief! It was so nice to no longer press my beliefs into contorted pretzels to make everything add up. My sense was relief, not sadness, and importantly not a loss of faith. I continued on in the church, keeping my “discovery” secret. (Eventually I told my wife.) Like the author of the OP, I served in many positions including Stake High Council, and Bishop.

    I have never felt that I should not live my life according to the teachings of the BoM. I can take courage from the examples. But like Job, like Noah, like Frodo, and like Jane Eyre, I don’t have to believe that they were real for me to learn from them. To aspire to be like them. I have also never really allowed myself to specifically identify what I believe about Joseph Smith. I see so much to be inspired by, but also much to be troubled about. When I was the Institute Instructor for our Stake, I was asked to teach a course on Modern Day Prophets. I gladly did so, but I never got to the lesson on Joseph Smith. I had several prophets yet to study when the semester came to an end.

    I remain active today, and I am still relieved that I don’t have to contort my beliefs to explain how parts of Isaiah that were clearly written after Lehi’s time got onto the Brass Plates. Such things just don’t pester me. I am not irked about talk about horses in the BoM. I am a much happier member just believing that the Book of Mormon is “The Word of God.” That is enough.

    I want to state that it isn’t my belief that there was not a Nephi. I have never had an experience that tells me that. I may come to learn that the BoM is historically accurate. What a happy moment that would be for me! But it doesn’t matter to me whether Nephi was an actual figure. I still believe I should study and live by his words.

24. This is an interesting post and a thought provoking one at that. It has been a few years since heard a conversation on the radio before podcasts became a thing. I cannot remember the gentleman’s name, but he was talking about the Old Testament and it’s historicity. The person commented that much of the history in the Old Testament cannot be corroborated but the most important history in the OT is the history of the relationship of a people and their god. I immediately thought of the Book of Mormon I saw the same idea represented in the Book of Mormon. There are those members whose self identity is in part tied the the historicity of the BoM and I am fine with that. As for me there are many things in the BoM that hold value for me and I don’t tend to get caught up in those debates about the BoM’s historicity.

25. I know it’s stupid, but let me restate my last paragraph:

    I don’t have a “testimony” that Nephi did not exist. I just don’t have one that he did. It has become unimportant to me

26. I left the church for seven years and returned four years ago. I spent the first year doubting the historicity yet believing the fundamental truth claims.

    Then, it dawned on me that, like the major miracles of other dispensations, the physical proof does not come until the chance to believe the claims without the proof has passed. That’s where we are right now.

    All arguments against historicity rely on assumptions about the unlikely probability of things and presume today’s knowledge of how things really were to be more comprehensive than it really is. God is perfectly proficient in low-probability spaces, so I’ll let Him reveal the physical proof on His timetable. It does me more good to take Joseph Smith, Jun. at his word than to lean into doubt, especially when I know the fruit of his restorative work to be so sweet.

27. My story is kind of like “ anonymous please” above and I too am “that old”. With a couple of differences. 1. Except I’m female. 2. Except my problem included Joseph himself right along with the BoM. 3. I also am no longer attending, but that has more to do with how the church treats anyone not Cis/straight/white/male. It has nothing to do with my feelings about the BoM.

    The thing that is the same is my doubts starting as a doubt that I just could not shake way back in Junior Sunday school. I tried studying and the more I studied on the issue the bigger the doubts became. I prayed and all I was told was that I should stay in the church, “for now.” Thirty or so years of that, as I became more sure the BoM was not historical. I finally got quite demanding with God and demanded a straight answer to the question of “Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?” I hoped maybe I would just be told that he was insane or a con man as S. Smoot seems to want it to be black and white. I wanted black or white, not some smeary vague grayish, brownish, blob. Either tell me it’s all fake so I can leave the church, or tell me it is lovely white and Joseph the jerk was really the best God could do for a prophet. Well, I got the loudest voice saying very calmly, “It doesn’t matter.” Not what I wanted. Not at all what I wanted. How can it possibly “not matter” when it is the one foundation of the church?

    So, next temple recommend interview my bishops asks about my testimony of J.S. and I just laughed, and quoted my revelation. Then I explained my demanding temper tantrum before God, and told my bishop what my answer was, and just how can this question “not matter”? If my bishop had been S. Smoot, I would have left the church that day. But, lucky me, I had a guy like S. Fleming, He was wise enough to know the world is not black and white. I then told my bishop a bit more about the question, because if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, not a con man or insane or fallen prophet, and he was STILL a prophet when he was lying to Emma about his other “wives”/concubines/affairs, then God does not really love his daughter as people, just sees them as baby incubators. My bishop got awfully quiet, paced the room a bit, but would not let me leave. Then finally he turns around looking like he just found the winning lottery ticket (yeah, I live in a state with lottery tickets) and he says, “that’s right, it doesn’t matter. What *Does* matter is loving God and knowing God loves you. So, if Joseph being a “real prophet” means you feel that God does not love you, then it really doesn’t matter. Joseph Smith matters a lot less than Jesus Christ.” Then I got really brave and asked him if the BoM was history, he smiles and says, “Probably not, but that doesn’t matter either.”

    Last I knew that bishop was still in the church, in spite of his thinking the BoM is “probably not historical.” Me, I quit going because I have too many ways that most Mormons just cannot understand or accept me and I got tired of being labeled “unworthy” when I was doing the best I could and besides, I have too many people that I love who are LGBT and some other letters. But it was not the lack of historicity of the BoM that made me quit going. I stayed active a good 15 years after that conversation with that bishop.

28. Writing as a sympathetic non-Saint whose biggest stumbling block, by a mile, is BoM (etc) historical claims, I’m attracted to the (probably unintended?) implication in Grant Hardy’s most recent Reader’s BoM with Oxford that the fundamental question is whether it’s divine revelation–if it is, the historical questions don’t disappear but they do fade in importance. I can easily see a divinely inspired scripture, drawing on a lot of existing sources…like the historical and poetic books of the Hebrew Bible.

    Other Christian churches (such as Catholicism in my experience) tolerate a range of opinions on biblical historical accuracy within a shared assumption that the canon is divinely revealed. That seems like a reasonable approach. Not every question comes down to “what will cause fewer faith crises and departures” but visible tolerance on this question, even just at the grassroots, would blunt one prominent problem.

    I’m not a non-Mormon trying to dictate policy, but this is some of how I sometimes try to internally square a pull towards theology I find attractive with a desire to not assent to claims about Precolumbian America I find…what I’ll call implausible on an LDS blog

29. I am not a scholar, but have found a sort of middle way that works for me. I offer it here in case another finds value too.

    For years I struggled to choose between the loose and tight BoM translation theories. Both seemed to have merit and limitations. Eventually I realized I could choose both – ie, there were two translations. My view is that Jospeh simply dictated text that appeared to him. The actual translation happened by some individual (or group) a few centuries before. That’s why the English better fits 17th century phrasing than 19th.

    This view also can offer a resolution for whether the BoM is historical. I believe the book reflects a deep meta story based on a lost history, but which has been filtered through the 17th century translation process which introduced factual errors (eg horses), post-NT terminology and views (eg Christ), and attempts to answer reformation era questions (eg infant baptisms). The view is similar to how many modern historians approach whether Troy or Atlantis are historical.

    Again, I’m not particularly studied. But I am convinced Joseph could not have written the text. It’s far above his abilities at the end of his life, much less as a struggling newlywed. And I am convinced the book brings people closer to Christ. For me, to maintain faith I’ve needed to find a workable theory for how the text came to be. This one works for me.

30. Anon, always feel free to clarify.

    John, I’m glad you’re at peace with all this.

    Anna, I’m glad you had a good experience with the bishop you described. Those are interesting responses both from your bishop and the Spirit. I do hope that there’s greater space for people like you and the people you love. Something I’ve worked at.

    ST, I do like the way you frame the question in terms of divine revelation. I do see the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as inspired. I do think it’s wise to take tolerant attitudes toward different ideas on the Book of Mormon, but I don’t expect the leaders giving conference talks saying “It’s no problem if you don’t think the BoM is historical” anytime soon. The church (leaders and members) have invested quite a bit in the notions that a historical Book of Mormon is quite central to the church’s truth claims. That may change slowly, but not easily.

31. IMO, the Lord is more interested in our efforts to live up to the teachings of the BoM than he is in where we stand on its historicity. Even so — aside from the fact that the BoM’s claims about itself being the best explanation for what it is — there are serious theological problems with its claims if they are not grounded in real history, IMO. Much like trying to “spiritualize” the resurrection of Jesus–if we reduce the witnesses contained in the BoM to mere stories then we lose the concreteness of the reality of God’s actions. The book loses its power if there is no Living God keeping the promises he makes to real historical individuals. The power of its witness of Christ resides in the reality of the testators’ experience with him–the fact that real people saw him and conversed with him and then bore witness of their encounter with him.

32. I think the Book of Mormon might be equally equipped to speak to those who see it as ancient history, modern history, or postmodern history. Nephi said “the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). This could mean that God adapts his communication to us, considering the language that has shaped each of our worldviews, so that we will understand His message in a way that makes sense to us.

    For instance, there are scholars who can read the same passage in the Book of Mormon and see either evidence of Hebrew literary patterns or Mesoamerican culture and society, depending on their training. Impressively both sets of scholars share these findings in the belief that it will help nurture faith in the Book of Mormon and its message. I don’t say this to be dismissive, but instead to suggest how multivalent the Book of Mormon might be.

    I think there is a good chance that the namesake of the book was trying to tell us that he had taken multiple perspectives into account when he prepared his manuscript: “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing” (Mormon 8:35). To me that raises the possibility that he included elements that would appeal to people who approach as either ancient, modern, or postmodern history.

    Adherents of the ancient history paradigm likely appreciate the how the book resonates with the stories of God’s dealings with his covenant people in the Bible. They might also be inclined to find meaning in apologetics that seek to tie the text to an ancient landscape, such as archeological work done for proposed sites at Nahom and Bountiful.

    Those drawn to the modern history paradigm might find inspiration in how amenable the text is to academic analysis. For instance, historians have a knack for finding context in which the emergence of the Book of Mormon in nineteenth-century America might be plausibly understood. And literary criticism has uncovered how the text seems to be in conversation with other texts from the same time period.

    Proponents of the Book of Mormon as postmodern history can point to the narrative’s fragmentation and complexity (flashbacks within flashbacks), self-referentiality (considerable commentary on record compilation), interpretative flexibility (shift in Lamanite curse from physical to spiritual), subversion of grand historical narratives (counternarrative to Biblical and Eurocentric history), moral and ethical complexity (such as the shifting moral allegiance of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies), and critique of colonialism and empire (Samuel the Lamanite exemplifies empowerment of the marginalized).

    Each of these three historical perspectives on the Book of Mormon involves a different set of epistemological commitments and interpretive lenses. An individual who embraces any one of them could feel discomfort with the other two. Fortunately, the book offers a few clues for handling these differences.

    Charity, the pure love of Christ, exhorts us to be patient, kind, and understanding towards others, even those with differing views (Moroni 7:45-48). If we find our disagreements becoming disagreeable, we might do well to remember what Alma the Elder told his people, that “there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another” (Mosiah 18:21). And in its climax, the book offers a model of achieving unity through diversity (Lamanites and Nephites forging a common society in 4 Nephi 1), which suggests that individuals can seek to find common ground and maintain respectful relationships despite differing interpretations.

33. I agree that we should be patient, kind, and understanding towards one another. Even so, there are some things that cannot be compromised. Either the Book of Mormon is what it says it is or it isn’t. And if it isn’t then it has serious credibility issues.

    There may be a few who are able to receive the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction–and I’m all for folks accepting it as an inspired document for any reason that works for them. Even so, that paradigm simply does not work for most people. If we were to learn by some credible means that the Book of Mormon were indeed pure fiction it would destroy the church, IMO.

    Now one might argue that such might be the case because the saints aren’t ready to accept such a counterintuitive revelation. But my response is: how far are we willing to go with that kind of thinking? Are we prepared to accept the idea the Jesus did not rise from the dead? Or that God is not the Creator? Or that absolutely nothing that we’ve been taught has any validity at all–except as it might motivate us to do good in the present?

    I can’t go for that. The gospel is a living reality. We are transformed as we exercise faith in a Living God. And if that God bears no resemblance to the witnesses that we’ve received of him–then whence our faith? Whence our hope? We believe in his living reality because of what he has manifested (to us) about himself through his chosen vessels. And I don’t think he would set us up with a certain continuity of belief only to lead us to something completely different. It would be like his teaching us something about love by allowing us to care for our loved ones only to have all of them turn out be temporary constructs.

34. ST perfect comment. Is the Book of Mormon inspired or a revelation is the primary question. When Parley P Pratt read the book cover to cover he said he had a witness the book was a revelation. I’ve had this witness too. I get the skepticism, and feel kind of neutral on the historicity debate, fun to study but I wouldn’t want to argue either side. I think engaging with the text is worth more time, and historic questions is a part but not the whole deal. Sorting through the book to find the divine and then engaging with the divine is the utility of the book.

35. While I disagree with the theory that the Book of Mormon is “inspired fiction,” arguing against it seems more likely to convince people to drop the “inspired” than the “fiction.” I do not want to be responsible for weakening anyone’s faith. I can see why it works for some people–and more importantly that it does work for some people–and I agree that what the Book of Mormon says about Christ is far more important than what it says about Nephi.

    I will say that I read a lot of fiction and a lot of history, and the Book of Mormon feels more like the latter than the former. It’s striking to me what Mormon doesn’t talk about. For example, he never mentions that Zeniff’s expedition was going against the Lord’s command to leave the land of Nephi, even though it explains both why things went so poorly for them and why Mosiah was so opposed to sending an expedition to check up on them. (Perhaps it was in the lost pages.) When Mosiah is finally pressured to do so (pressure which is described as the end of a period of “continual peace,” and it’s probably no coincidence that it’s shortly after Benjamin’s death) he very cleverly chooses as the expedition’s leader a native of Zarahemla, someone who feels no attachment to the land of Nephi and will have no desire but to accomplish his mission and return as quickly as possible. I can’t imagine a fiction author who would come up with this bit of cleverness for their story and then say nothing about it. But a historian could easily miss why Mosiah chose the person he did or just feel it’s not important enough to mention in a one-volume history of a civilization that lasted a thousand years.

    Or the creation of the office of “chief captain.” One just appears in Alma 15 for the second war of the reign of the judges with absolutely no comment from Mormon. In the first war of the reign of the judges (against the Amlicites and their Lamanite allies) the Nephites assumed the chief judge (Alma) would lead them into battle just like the kings had. But after Alma attacked the Amlicites in their prepared positions on top of a hill (a bad idea with an ancient army and presumably why the Nephites took heavy casualties) and then walked into an ambush while most of his force was on the other side of a significant river (a bad idea in any era) the Nephites seem to have decided that in wartime they needed to be led by someone chosen for their military abilities. Again, I can’t imagine a fiction author coming up with this and then saying nothing. But Mormon says nothing, despite holding the office of chief captain himself, perhaps to avoid embarrassing Alma.

    I don’t offer this as proof, or even really as an argument. If it resonates with you, fine, if it doesn’t fine. It’s fascinating to me what people find persuasive: for me, Stephen’s argument that Joseph Smith could possibly have gotten many of his ideas from other sources generates a “so what?” while the complete lack of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is genuinely troubling and only to be overcome by gaining a testimony by revelation.

    What matters is faith in Christ, living his gospel, and trying to become like him. Joseph Smith restored important truths about Christ’s gospel and many of them are found in the Book of Mormon, but I agree with RL that the important question is whether the book is inspired or not, not whether it’s history or not.

36. “Are we prepared to accept the idea the Jesus did not rise from the dead? Or that God is not the Creator? Or that absolutely nothing that we’ve been taught has any validity at all–except as it might motivate us to do good in the present?”

    I think what we are running into is our different ways of viewing faith. (Stages of Faith…? I don’t know enough about it to really go there beyond throwing out the words.) All these things that are so important to some members, are completely irrelevant to me. It just doesn’t matter if Jesus rose from the dead or if Genesis happened just like the OT says or if BOM is historical or not. My faith is a relationship with Diety in the same way I have relationship with my spouse and my kids. Faith is building that relationship, not believing such and such or not. Where the church helps me build that relationship, I apply its precepts. Where it doesn’t, I don’t.

37. I agree with the notion that faith is something that lives in relationships more than ideas. Even so, I think we have to admit that our faith in God has something to do with what he says he can do for us. He reaches out to us first and tells us that there’s a better existence than what the natural world has to offer. And then, if we are willing, he offers to enter a covenantal relationship with us whereby we are given access to gifts and powers that enable us to ascend to a better world.

    That said, what does our relationship with God matter if none of what he says is true? What if this life is it–and there’s no existence beyond the grave? What if our relationships with our loved ones end at death? What if he really doesn’t have the power to transform us into better human beings than we are as fallen creatures?

    Having faith in God leads to a hope in the fulfillment of his words. Like the apostle Peter we believe in God because he has the words of eternal life. And his words are actionable; they’re motivating. They get us moving toward a better life–even eternal life. And his words come to us via the Holy Spirit, the scriptures, and by the voice of his anointed servants. And if his words are not true then wherewith shall we build a relationship of trust with Deity?

38. Interesting conversation. Here’s how I view things. I’m not arguing I’m right though or that anyone else should see Diety this way.

    “…our faith in God has something to do with what he says he can do for us. He reaches out to us first and tells us that there’s a better existence…” 100% in agreement. This is everything. And it’s personal, not institutional. Although it can occur with the assistance of an institution. I’d argue the community around the institution is more important than the institution itself.

    “he offers to enter a covenantal relationship with us whereby we are given access to gifts and powers that enable us to ascend to a better world.” This is where you lose me. I have yet to see anything the covenants provide that deeply spiritual people without covenants don’t also have. However, I accept that the covenants absolutely do provide something that is meaningful in connecting to God. I just haven’t found that this connection is unique to just them.

    “what does our relationship with God matter if none of what he says is true?” I believe that everything that God says to me is true. I mean, that’s the heart of the relationship. I don’t see everything said/written by other people about God as being relevant to me or ‘True.’ I absolutely do see that some of it is. Part of the relationship with God is learning to recognize what is meant for me and what is not, while at the same time understanding that just because something isn’t right for me doesn’t mean it is wrong either. It’s a form of parenting. I parent each of my kids very differently with different expectations, support, goals, etc – because they are different.

    “What if this life is it–and there’s no existence beyond the grave? What if our relationships with our loved ones end at death? What if he really doesn’t have the power to transform us into better human beings than we are as fallen creatures?” Well… We already are just taking all of that on Faith. Nothing of it is provable one way or another. It’s all just belief and trust. I don’t understand the argument.

    “Having faith in God leads to a hope in the fulfillment of his words.” That seems to be deeply important to you. It isn’t to me. For me, having faith in God leads to a change of heart, a development of a relationship, a communion, a growth of my character, of more than anything, me fulfilling the measure of my creation. All of which sounds very self-centric, but in actuality all of this is about loving other people.

39. ReTx has it right. Putting our faith in whether or not the BoM is real history or if Genesis is exactly how God created the earth is putting your faith in the arm of flesh. It is putting your faith in something besides God. Putting your faith in a book, or even “The Church” instead of putting your faith into a relationship with a living God is putting your faith in the wrong thing. There is an old oriental proverb about the finger pointing to the moon. The finger is not the moon, only something pointing to it. That is what my bishop meant when he said that faith in Joseph Smith really doesn’t matter. Joseph Smith should be a finger pointing to the moon. And if you look, and from your perspective Joseph’s finger points to a pig, well, maybe your perspective is wrong, OR, maybe Joseph Smith really is pointing to a pig. So, shift your perspective, do some research, look for other fingers pointing to the moon. The point is not *who* is pointing correctly. The point is finding the moon in the sky. You can find it all by yourself if you try. But it is easier to have some guidance. So, find guidance that works for you. But find the moon in the sky. It really is beautiful when you find it. So, to me, I could have an angel appear in glory and tell me that the man Jesus never existed, and you know what. It doesn’t matter because I believe in the *principle* of the atonement and it doesn’t matter if God sent Jesus, or if God just up and decided that he would forgive our sins if we just trust him. It doesn’t matter to me HOW God does things. It matters why. And God does things because *she* loves us. Yeah, “he” does too. They both love us, and to me it doesn’t matter is the Holy Ghost is male or female, or even a misconception from talking about God’s spirit. The spirit as in the feeling that God is with us emotionally. Maybe that is all the Holy Ghost is, is a misunderstanding. Doesn’t matter. Trinity? Doesn’t matter- not what I think and confusing as mud, but it still doesn’t matter. Is R.M. Nelson a “true prophet”? Doesn’t matter. I can pray about what he says and know what God wants for me, and if God agrees with Rusty, then I guess he is a prophet. If God doesn’t agree with Rusty, then I find a different finger that points to God. Once you know God, none of the rest of it matters. It is all various fingers claiming to point to God.

    The BoM has some good stuff in it. It points to Jesus. So, if it helps you find God, and trust God, then good. But if your faith in God is going to fall apart because more and more evidence piles up that the book is not historically true, then you put your faith in a book, not in God.

40. “For me, having faith in God leads to a change of heart, a development of a relationship, a communion, a growth of my character, of more than anything, me fulfilling the measure of my creation. All of which sounds very self-centric, but in actuality all of this is about loving other people.”

    Yes, and he has promised that if we come to him we will be transformed. And so, what if you *didn’t* experience a change of heart? And become a more loving person? Then his word would be void.

    Now it may seem like I’m placing the cart before the horse by supposing that you’re placing your faith in God because of his promises rather than the fruit of your relationship with him. Even so, the fact that there is consistency between what you experience and what he says he can do for us ought to signal (to us) that his words are not trivial. They are calculated to bring about the transformation that you speak of.

    That said, the question that follows is: would you be experiencing the positive effects of God’s presence in your life if he hadn’t reached out to you? That is, if he hadn’t provided us with some understanding of our situation and our relation to him? As Paul says:

    “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

    “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

41. Anna,

    God wants us to come to know him intimately. But as Joseph smith said (in so many words) this is a station that no man ever arrived at in a day. It is a slow incremental process–for most of us at least. And so the Lord has blessed with the guidance of living prophets, the holy canon, and the spirit of revelation to help us grow in our knowledge of him. It therefore behooves us (IMO) to lay hold on these gifts–as the prophet Mormon would say–because they are the very things that God has provided to help us in our endeavor to come to know him.

42. I think this conversation has taken quite a rewarding turn. I’d say that ReTx’s comment about faith in God ultimately being about a personal relationship with Him is very much how I feel. For me, what is important for me is to do my best to trust God in my life.

    A bit more about the scholarship I do. The Book of Mormon wasn’t the primary focus of my research, but a larger focus on Mormon theology as a whole and where it came from. The Book of Mormon lines up with more conventional Arminian theology and doesn’t have as much of the more distinct Nauvoo theology that I was more focussed on.

    However, I’ve been at this a while, so more and more Book of Mormon stuff just keeps coming up. My intent was not focussing on “debunking” the BoM, but I just kept finding things along the way. Discomfort led to the prayer I mentioned in the OP, but I found massively more since then. But I’ve been fine with that.

    But, yes, this is a tricky topic, and I think lots of conversations like these will be necessary.

43. ~That said, the question that follows is: would you be experiencing the positive effects of God’s presence in your life if he hadn’t reached out to you? That is, if he hadn’t provided us with some understanding of our situation and our relation to him?~

    Interesting question. I may need to ponder on it a bit. I have several immediate thoughts though.

    The first is that I can never truly know, since I only have my own lived experience to make the judgment and it is pretty limited.

    However, I don’t see that those in history (or currently) with zero relationship or understanding of Christianity and all of the writings/prophets/books/covenants that seem to define ‘God Reaching out’ for you actually have less of God’s presence in their lives. So it can’t be those specific things only that can be defined as God reaching out.

    I’d argue that this is because God reaching out to humanity is really defined as Grace. Grace is continuous. It’s ever present. It’s not lacking in availability for anyone at anytime for any reason. (Which isn’t to say we can’t block ourselves from it.)

44. “They are calculated to bring about the transformation that you speak of.”

    This assumes that the transformation happened because of all the traditional LDS things in my life. And it’s true a little bit. I was raised LDS and that is a part of who I am today (still active even).

    But my personal true transformation didn’t happen until my mid 30s. And it happened because the church became a thorn in my side (see my very first comment above about Prop 8) and I either had to figure out what God wanted or I had to let go of the idea of Faith and the church entirely. Over the next ten years, the church became the rock crushing me that I had to find God to strengthen myself. Ultimately, what happened is that I let go of the dichotomy and found that God was way bigger than the binary choices I thought I had. (And…err…that’s enough about me.)

45. There are probably millions of LDS who, like me, when challenging Moroni’s promise included the historical veracity of the BoM when we humbly asked if “these things” are not true. Historical veracity was central to “these things” when I humbly asked for confirmation. To accept that the BoM is not historical, for me and potentially millions of other LDS, means I have to either accept that God is a deceiver or that spiritual confirmation through the spirit is highly flawed and not a reliable way of learning truth. If I, and millions of other LDS, received confirmation of the historicity of the BoM when challenging Moroni’s promise how can we as rational beings conclude anything other than God deceived us or the spirit is incapable of revealing the truth of all things?

46. Perhaps we don’t always get to set the parameters of the information we request from God. “If these things are not true” may refer to doctrinal, rather than historical, truth.

    I’m also thinking of how Nephi got the plates: “And I also spake unto [Zoram] that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls. And I also bade him that he should follow me. And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me.” (1 Nephi 4:24-26).

    Zoram thought he was taking the plates to totally different people than Nephi wanted him to take the plates to.

    “And it came to pass that when the servant of Laban beheld my brethren he began to tremble, and was about to flee from before me and return to the city of Jerusalem. And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much strength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee … And I also spake unto him, saying: Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord?” (1 Nephi 4:30-31, 34).

47. > Your comparison would have legs if Nephi continued to pretend to be Laban for the rest of his life and sincerely came to believe he was Laban after the initial deception

    If the length of pretense is key, we could look at the way Nephi pretended for the rest of his life that God told him to kill a man when on balance it’s more likely that he was lying or insane than it is that an all-powerful God actually willed Laban’s death but needed Nephi to do it.

    Some of the long-running stories Nephi and his posterity told themselves about why they had conflicts with Laman, Lemuel, and their descendants hold up poorly to evidence in the text too.

    Or it might be that “lying or insane” isn’t adequate enough to encompass the range of ways people engage with their own experience and imagination and distill that into stories they share with others. “You callin’ Revered Saint Prophet Joseph a crazy or a liar?” *does* function pretty well as simplifying boundary maintenance by totalizing the accusation and breezing past what we mean by “insane” which makes it easy to ignore the many of minor forms of insanity which entirely common to the human experience, not to mention reasons for fabrications most of us not only buy into at one point or another but even admire some forms of. Anyone who’s actually practiced a gospel of repentance has had ample opportunity to observe this in themselves, as well as having the usual opportunity to see it in others that’s available to all (the ninety-nine that need no repentance may take longer to grasp these points).

    The entire Christian cannon is packed dense with texts whose origin stories have holes in them. Some were chosen and attributed for manipulative reasons by curators because of mix of pure and impure motivations, some were *authored* under manipulative pretenses stemming from a similar mix. Naturally like other traditions Latter-day Saints love telling ourselves stories about our distinctive reliability and authority which set us apart from the rest of humanity engaging and reengaging Christian teachings and tradition, but it would hardly be a surprise if beloved figures from our tradition turned out to be subject to usual similar shortcomings. In fact, we claim we believe that, we just avoid reckoning with what it could actually means, much like we avoid reckoning with the fact that the title page of the BoM and closing words from one of its speakers disclaim the idea that the text is faultless.

    Of course, that also requires a reorientation of faith around something other than ultimate reliable human authority figures and institutions. As far as I can tell this is required at some point anyway, but who knows. Maybe there’s some other way.

48. Sorry if I missed this in previous comments. I would like to ask what the author would make of the claimed visitations of the presumed historical figure Moroni who would have had to exist to deliver the plates into Joseph Smith’s hands. A tangible object like the plates that are claimed to have been written by this man Joseph only “thought” he saw?

49. Yes, I think that story developed over time, like many of JS’s and Cowdery’s stories.

50. Thanks, Stephen. Assuming that last reply was to me, you’re saying a story was gradually fabricated to include a fake set of plates (because those couldn’t have been created or bestowed by a non-historical figure)?

51. Developed over time? When did Joseph have the time to pull this off? After all, we are talking about getting familiar enough with Arianism and other beliefs to create the Book of Mormon by 1828, right? And then somehow tap into those theological and philosophical sources Fleming’s research points at? How much down time would Smith have needed to access the sources, create a new complex belief system with multiple pieces of sacred literature while surrounded by family (Emma) and friends who never really caught on to what he was doing? I just can’t fathom how this all happened in a relatively short lifespan.

52. I’m happy for you to believe whatever you like, Anonymous.

    However, my argument is that JS’s essentially implemented the visions of Jane Lead and felt that he was called to do so. Much of the concepts originated with his father (who seemed influenced by Lead) when JS was quite young. JS didn’t just think the whole thing up in 1828.

53. Travis, like I said in an earlier comment, yes, I do believe that JS created the plates using copper printer plates. I think he viewed the plates it as being a replica of a real Nephite gold book, and that he believed that the Book of Mormon story was a real history. I’ll go over this at Sunstone.

54. Stephen,

    I’m sure you’ve already considered this–but the three witnesses claimed that an angel showed them the plates. And so we have to either discount their witness of the angel or explain why it was necessary for an angel to show them the copper plates that were put together by Joseph.

55. @Stephen Smoot, nothing says pseudo-intellectual like reducing your opponent’s arguments to a silly dichotomous outcome like you have done. Then you raised the stakes by this ‘So what you are saying…’ business twisting the argument, then you really hit the home-run by misusing Latin in your ‘article’ title.

    Now that we’re out, we don’t have to pretend like we know everything anymore. Maybe consider fully deconstructing by dropping the Mormon facade of arrogance. The only thing your post lack is “I don’t know this with every fiber of my being.”

56. In her history, Lucy said that JS essentially told the 3 witnesses that if they did not see the angel and the plates it essentially meant they were sinners. Seems like a lot of pressure.

    Jane Lead said that three witnesses were necessary to protect the forthcoming church she prophesied of. Lead was handed a gold book in her second vision, and John Dee saw books in visions, so I argue that JS likely hoped the 3 would see the book also. Again, JS seemed to have applied some pressure.

    But no angel for the 8 witnesses.

57. I’m worked the tone of this thread is turning into sceptic fan fic.

58. Several of you are right—that love for God and people and how we treat people are most important. And doubts are fine, part of the learning process, etc. Yet keeping them at the doubt stage seems preferable in this case, thinking: Not all the evidence is in yet, so ‘I don’t know’ for sure one way or the other. That is understandable, but concluding that the evidence is against the Book of Mormon? True, some apologetics are stretching exercises, but increasing amounts are aligning, if not confirming. (1) The discovery of Nahom, written in stone, no less, and located so convenient to the narrative is very compelling. (2) Chiasmus so copious is difficult to attribute to Joseph or any of his time and place. (3) As Nibley explains well, the idea of records on gold plates was thought hilarious, but later several archeological finds of records written on metal plates of gold, copper, and such in the Near East align. (4) Another item that I have not heard mentioned yet, is that the Syrian serto script is from the root srt, meaning ‘to scratch’. Painting on papyrus is not where that term came from, but scratching or engraving on metal plates seems the origin of that term and must have been a common and widespread form of writing to name a script after it. (5) The name Alma was mocked (it’s Latin, feminine, etc), but more than a century after Joseph Smith, a man’s name Alma is discovered in ancient Jewish records. (6) The 12 witnesses who saw and handled the plates, four of whom also saw the angel—did all of those men have faulty memories or conspire to a hoax? (7) I personally find the Hebraisms impressive, though a PhD(ABD) in Semitic linguistics (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic) may have biased my perceptions. Admittedly, many answers are yet lacking, like American geography, yet I see hundreds of evidences coming to light and one by one knocking over the supposed objections. So I would not conclude against, but at most, be neutral while watching ‘the wisdom of the wise perish’ (Isaiah 29:14) as time is methodically removing the stumbling blocks one by one. In fact, the whole chapter of Isaiah 29 is about the Book of Mormon, explained by Nephi in 2 Nephi 26 and 27.

    The oft-mentioned anachronisms such as the New Testament precepts and the name of Christ—I can see those as raising some questions, but not unanswerable questions, and whose relative weight does not come close to outweighing the hundreds of evidences in favor. One of the reasons behind the scholarly theory of multiple authors for Isaiah, is Isaiah’s naming a far future individual (Cyrus) and what he will do. They do not believe in prophecy, so someone later must of written it. Of course, God knows all things and can share with mortals what info He’d like to, such as letting Book of Mormon prophets know that the Messiah will also be called ‘Christ’. Even little old me has received info from Above on occasion of future happenings that appear impossible, but then they happen years later, so it seems unwise to me to see the BC mentions of Christ in the Book of Mormon as problematic. The New Testament precepts (e.g., faith, hope, charity) raise a good question, but both Paul and Nephi getting certain things from a more ancient record preceding both seems very possible, though not known yet. Again, I’m only watching the wisdom of the wise perish a piece at a time, and that piece’s time has not come yet.

    Most discoveries of truth begin with a hypothesis that needs to be tested. I served a two-year effort to learn Navajo. Afterwards, I wanted to find out if language evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian remained in any Native American languages, so I took Egyptian from Nibley, many other languages, then an MA in linguistics, and a PhD(ABD) in Semitic languages. A few days of studying East Asian languages convinced me that Navajo and its Athapaskan language family came from across the Bering Strait, which was later verified by other linguists. So did I conclude that the Book of Mormon is false? No, that only meant that the search was still on. After looking at dozens of different language families, I learned two things: (1) that Lehi is a small minority in the Americas; but also (2) Lehi language leftovers are very prominent in one language family (Uto-Aztecan, 70% of Semitic and Egyptian) with much smaller diffusions into a few other entirely unrelated language families. A free PDF is available online of the half-million-word book Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan. A dozen-plus linguists have called it good / solid case, most remain silent, and only two tried to take it down, addressed in “Answering the Critics in 44 Rebuttal Points” also free online. Many details of that ongoing study are turning into good evidence of Lehi in the Americas.

    Northern Israel was taken captive by Assyria and then later lost in various travels and directions. Many books have been written, supposing to trace some of those dispersions. I find some of them interesting, but such are not my specialty, and I do not know that any have been wholeheartedly accepted by academia. Yet does a lack of evidence with academia’s stamp of approval mean that Northern Israel’s posterity in various places has ceased to exist? And Northern Israel’s population was 1,000 times larger than Lehi’s little band entering America, and no evidence of Northern Israel’s existence is a sure thing. So should a “temporary” (and it is temporary) lack of evidence for Lehi be reason to doubt the Lord’s words and his scriptures? Staying neutral while watching is understandable, but I personally see much more in favor than against.

59. Stephen, I’m glad you’ve found an approach to church membership while seeing the Book of Mormon as ahistorical that works for you, but as you’ve fleshed out your position some more, to me it looks more like a highly individual approach rather than a generaliable pattern. I’ve mentioned some of my skepticism about ahistorical approaches before so I won’t repeat them, but a few other things stick out to me here.

    It seems like you’re tossing out nearly everything in church history and doctrine, leaving a doctrinal stub consisting of a God who answers prayers and a general sense that we should love and serve people. All good things, and if it’s enough for you that’s great, but I don’t think it’s nearly enough to create and structure the thick community where you find opportunities to love and serve others. And again, that’s perfectly fine in exceptional cases, but it isn’t generalizable.

    I have some familiarity with church history and early modern prophesying and apocalypticism in Europe, and it seems to me that you’re pushing the evidence pretty far. The motifs of heavenly books, or heavenly metallic books, or one or two or three divinely appointed church leaders, go back at least to the medieval prophetic tradition and seem too widespread to me to draw a straight, thick line to Lead.

    At the same time (and as a few others have mentioned), it seems like you haven’t pushed your own spiritual experiences very far towards their logical conclusions. You feel that God has told you to be part of a church that was founded by Joseph Smith and that sees the Book of Mormon as scripture – and that’s great! – but what are the implications? So it doesn’t prove that every word in the Book of Mormon is unblemished historical truth. But what does it tell you?

60. Brian S., thanks for checking in. I was hoping to see someone lay out the case for the historical Book of Mormon. For me, it’s not specifically chiasmus, but all the other forms of internal complexity in the Book of Mormon and the many indications that it’s a text with a long history. I don’t know if its account of history is precisely what happened, but the best explanation for the state of the text would seem to involve at least some centuries of development and multiple editors, which is just fundamentally hard to explain naturalistically.

    So back to Stephen: It seems like you think Joseph Smith was at least sincere, but so far you’ve only mentioned the parts of his prophetic ministry that you don’t believe in. You’ve mentioned your own spiritual experiences; which parts of Joseph Smith’s spiritual experience do you accept? If God can answer your prayers, it doesn’t seem a priori necessary to require a naturalistic explanation for what Joseph Smith did in every case.

61. Lots of scientific and linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon. Check out BMSLR.ORG

62. BYU once upon a time had a semester program in Nauvoo. Not nearly as prestigious as the one in Jerusalem, obviously, but it was generally a good, faith promoting experience for all who attended. Did it myself in the mid-2000s. Turned out I was one of the last cohort to attend before the old former-Catholic nunnery they’d been using as facilities was completely torn down, cause President Hinckley apparently preferred a clear green field there.

    I revisited Nauvoo roughly a decade later when I moved back to the Midwest for grad school. I walked around the green field in front of the Temple, trying and failing to remember what the school even looked like. There wasn’t even a stray pipe or stone of foundation to indicate a building had ever been there before. I reflected on how appropriate that this school had so completely disappeared, because Nauvoo is a city of disappearances. It is on record as having briefly rivaled Chicago as largest city in Illinois at its height, but you would never even suspect that based on how few homes from the era remained, all now carefully maintained as museum pieces. If it weren’t for LDS tourism, the town likely would’ve disappeared back into the prairie grass decades ago.

    And this in a city that rose and fell within the brief history of the United States! What of nations that rose and fell, well, 1,600 years ago?

    We tend to forget that the reason why ruins of Egypt, or Rome, or Athens, or China, or the Mayans, all impress us, is because the vast majority of the ancients left behind nothing. As the 18th-century writer Joseph Addison once wrote, “look into the Bulk of our Species, they are such as are not likely to be remembered a Moment after their Disappearance. They leave behind them no Traces of Their Existence, but are forgotten as tho’ they had never been.” Nauvoo, the Nephites, etc., have been no exception.

    I guess all I’m getting at is that the demand for hard archeological evidence for the Nephites, or the Jaredites, one way or the other, is frankly odd, because kinda the whole point of the Nephites is that they disappeared so completely, they needed a carefully preserved record to remind anyone that they ever actually existed. I mean, isn’t that the whole thesis of the Book of Mormon? That we also face complete and utter annihilation unless we repent as well?

63. Jonathan, these are all very big topics, and this is just my first post. I do want to make the topic of working to manage church membership without a belief in the BoM the focus of this series. I do have lot of reasons for by belief in Mormonism without a historical Book of Mormon, but that will need to be another post.

    And you may be right that what I present isn’t clean and succinct at this point in order to make it easily transferable to others. The whole message to others is very much a work in progress at this point, but that is important to me. Again, that’s one of the things I’m hoping to work on in these posts.

    And, no, the Jane Lead’s gold book isn’t the only evidence for influence. Lots more. Lots.

64. @JB

    To build on your point, the Nephites seem to have built predominantly with wood. Workmanship in wood is associated with buildings twice in the small plates, in 2 Nephi 5 and Jarom 1:8. King Noah’s building projects were primarily of wood (Mosiah 11:8-10). Notably, the Book of Mormon mentions cement buildings only in the land northward, and even then only in the context of a dearth of timber. Helaman 3:9 is explicit that the Nephites considered timber to be the principal building material and cement was only a stopgap – they even shipped timber north to make up the deficit (Helaman 3:10). The very next verse (Helaman 3:11) reveals that they built cities of timber where possible. Mormon makes a curious reference to “fine and exceedingly dry wood” when describing the three day’s darkness – apparently not all firewood is created equal in Zarahemla.

    There’s only one place in the Book of Mormon (not counting Isaianic quotations) where stone buildings are mentioned in the land southward – Alma 48:8, where walls of stone are thrown up by Captain Moroni to protect Nephite cities and forts. That does not indicate a particularly high view of masonry. Though the Nephites list workmanship in wood and metals and machinery many times as representative of wealth, stonecutting or masonry is not mentioned anywhere at all. Mention is made of only one stone monument – Coriantumr’s engraved stone, which represents not a monumental tradition but rather a last desperate attempt by Coriantumr to leave a witness of the destruction of his people.

    So honestly, Hugh Nibley was right when he said that we should not expect the Nephites to leave behind monuments or inscriptions. They built in wood which burns and perishes easily where not explicitly preserved. Their ruins would be more subject than most to the ravages of time.

65. I take no stance on where the Book of Mormon took place, but I find those who argue “there is no evidence of large scale civilizations in [X] area” as not quite intellectually aware despite their claims to learning and study.

    Setting aside that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, plenty of secular, scientific sources are showing that in Central and South America, what we have is a post-collapse society that likely rivaled Rome at times, but where the jungle quickly overtakes anything left behind.

    For example:
    “Covering an area of 300-square-kilometers (115-square-miles), LIDAR mapped platforms, plazas, and streets arranged in a geometric pattern, interwoven with agricultural drainage, terraces, and incredibly long, straight roads that connected a number of urban sites. . .
    Using the ‘echoes’ of laser pulses consisting of various wavelengths of light, LIDAR can measure the distance between an aircraft and ground objects, crafting a 3D map that can reveal hidden features of the terrain beneath dense vegetation.”
    https://www.sciencealert.com/cluster-of-ancient-lost-cities-in-the-amazon-is-the-largest-ever-found

66. Alma 32 talks about selecting even a portion of the word with a desire to believe, and then carrying out experiments on that word and finding growth, expansion of the mind, enlargement of the soul, fruitfulness, future promise. So if a person wants to experiment with the notion of inspired fiction, fine. That is a portion of the word. I would like to see the results of such experiments in terms of fruitfulness, the expansion of the mind, deliciousness, and future promise.

    For instance, William Blake wrote some notable marginalia in his copy of a book that purported to defend the Bible against the arguments of Thomas Paine. It is notable that the devout, though unconventional Blake, thought little of the defense offered, and he wrote:
    “I cannot concieve of the Divinity of the books in the Bible to consist either in who they were written by, or at what time, or in the historical evidence, which may be all false in the eyes of one man and true in the eyes of another, but in the Sentiments & Examples, which whether true of Parabolic, are Equally useful as Examples given to us of the perverseness of some & its consequent evil & and the honesty of others & its consequent good. This sense of the Bible is equally true to all & equally plain to all. None can doubt the impression which he recieves from a book of Examples. If he is good, he will abhor wickedness in David or Abraham; if he is wicked he will make their wickedness as excuse for his & and so he would to by any other book.” (Blake’s Poetry and Designs, Norton, New York, 1979) 436.

    I have read several attempts to argue for the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, but in most cases, (Mark Thomas, Ann Taves, William D. Russell, Elizabeth Fenton, for example), I see a lot more emphasis on justifying their view of the text as fictional rather than as inspiring. On the other hand, I have seen several literary approaches to the Book of Mormon that I find notably inspiring, even though the readings are primarily focused on literary features, whether type scene and allusion (Alan Goff, Ben McGuire, Joe Spencer) Onomastic word play (Matthew Bowen) or even the Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces as a lens to look at Nephi’s story, (Tod Harris in JBMS 6:2), or even Nibley’s comparison of the Book of Ether with the patterns and themes of Epic Literature (There Were Jaredites.)

    Personally, when I closely considered cases such as Russell’s arguments for a fictional Book of Mormon, what I noticed is that he, writing in 1982, turned out to be wrong about everything. (See my essay in FARMS Review 22/2.) Indeed, one of my favorite experiences was watching John Clark’s presentation at the Library of Congress in 2005 showing that the overall trend for criticisms of the historicity of the Book of Mormon over time is towards resolution, rather than towards debunking. I can contrast that with Coe and Dehlin talking about how a lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads being a devastating consideration for the Book of Mormon, neither one of them noticing or caring that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things. And thirteen years later, I watched the National Geographic Special on LiDar surveys that radically changed our views of Mesoamerican civilization over night. It could have radically undercut the Book of Mormon picture, but rather, cast important light. While I do not claim that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is proven, I do find that the overall case is magnitudes better than it was when I was young, in regards to the Old World and New World portions of the text, and I find ongoing developments and discoveries to be promising and encouraging. Back in the 70s when the skeptics gathered round Brodie, and the Roberts Study and Coe’s Dialogue essay, none of them predicted the details of Lehi’s Journey, or 1st Temple Judaism, or the kinds of details that show up in Larry Poulson, John Sorenson, and Brant Gardner’s work, let alone the literally hundreds of approaches by a wide range of specialties that came through FARMS, FAIR, and Interpreter.

    One of my favorite observations from Thomas Kuhn is that “[T]he decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” (Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 59).

    That is, as Hofstadter later explained, “The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions” and that “Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.” (Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid 18, 19)

    So the question for paradigm choice, as Kuhn explains, has to do with which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved? And is your approach self-critical and comparative, or ideological and self-referential? (I have published a lot on that over the past several decades.)

    And with regard to the implications of Platonism and the Book of Mormon… In Margaret Barker’s The Great High Priest, published in 2003, she includes an essay “Temple and Timaeus” making a detailed case regarding Jewish claims that their traditions and scriptures influenced the Greeks. Specifically, she suggested that Pythagoras learned something of First Temple thought from Ezekiel. She also discusses that in a chapter in her book, Temple Mysticism.

    Interesting things happen for those who nourish the seed over time.

67. My sincere compliments, Stephen. I loved your narrative and (what I perceive) the manner in which you’ve spoken “from the heart”. I’ve enjoyed most of the subsequent commentary and opinion; with a few exceptions – which I found to be just a wee bit too fundamentalist for me.

    In equal candor – and I to, trying to speak from the heart – I must admit that as the years roll on and I inevitably grow older, I’m finding that (while I love, admire and desire to be more like Christ each day) I no longer want to hear about Joseph Smith and his “adventures”, I’m now finding the topic and the quasi LDS history associated with it to be convoluted, wearisome and honestly, just boring.

    Additionally, I won’t waste any more time on what (I consider to be) “consolidated allegory of the time” found within the pages of the Book of Mormon. Instead, I’ve discovered so much greater spiritual fulfillment from reading many of the works of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries – who undoubtedly fueled young Joseph’s mind and imagination.

    Personally, I don’t think “the Church”, as it’s currently constituted – will survive the coming schism between what has been stated as historical fact and what is now being shown (via science, research, and actual scholarship) as being a more correct version of what really happened. Oh sure, the organization will remain; if not only through it’s financial prowess. But culturally and through the membership – there are already big changes afoot; in behavior, in commitment and in belief.

    Just look around during any Sacrament Meeting and you see (and feel) the malaise.

68. Mine seems pretty alive lol, seems like projection to me.

69. Like I said in my response to Jonathan, I’m planning to talk about the idea of continuing to practice Mormonism while not believing in BoM historicity in these posts rather than fighting over BoM historicity.

    That said I may do a post over at the JI giving a little summation on why it appears to me that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there was no civilization in the Americas that the BoM describes.

    But just one point to Kevin. I have read Barker’s “Temple and Timaeus” and it cannot be described as even remotely scholarly. I’ve heard a number of people claim that Barker’s scholarship is nonsense, I’m not a biblical scholar but I can say that “Temple and Timaeus” is pretty silly (again didn’t want to start fights but, yeah, not good).

70. Thank you for this Stephen. I look forward to further posts.

71. Please forgive my ignorance…..but, what is the JI?

72. Juvenile Instructor. Another Mormon blog I’m on.

    https://juvenileinstructor.org/

73. Thank you, Stephen.

    Hoosier: Good for you, Mate. Enjoy.

74. Hi Stephen, thanks for your thoughtful posts. One thing that has struck me is how little my local leaders have cared about the contours of my testimony so long as I’m committed to Team Jesus (however vaguely we want to define that). But I suspect as one gets bigger and bigger callings, those specifics matter more generally.

    Has your SP or other leaders (or others in your own congregation) ever had a problem with your rejection of fairly standard doctrines? I’m guessing you don’t make a habit of preaching them, but has it ever come up? Have they cared?

75. I may post more about this, but I have a long history of saying very little about these sorts of things are church. I can’t remember if I mentioned this on another post, but I did have a member report me to the SP at one point while bishop (long story). She was kind of vague, but concerned about my ideological edginess. I talked to the SP about it and he made it very clear he didn’t care at all as long as I kept it to myself.

    With the book getting closer, I’ve started chatting with my new bishop. We’ll see how it goes.

76. If this was true then what would it mean for the valiant tapirs?

77. I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I also testify that it is historically accurate. The events in it are actual events. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will declare this in the near future. Jake is correct to say that if the Book of Mormon isn’t historically correct but inspired by God, then God would be a deceiver. God is not a deceiver. The book is both historically and doctrinally accurate. If it isn’t, then The church and Joseph Smith fall with it. But it is true. Joe Smith was a prophet, and the church of Jesus Christ or latter-day Saints is true. I don’t have all the answers. But we need to have more faith in the Book of Mormon and less faith in our own reasoning. One day, we will all know the book of Mormon is a real history just as we will know that Jesus Christ is God.

78. Since nobody has mentioned it yet, let me quote Russell M. Nelson from a seminar for new mission presidents in 2016:

    “There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.”

    Interpret that as you will, but to me it is clear that many members of the Church try too hard to turn the Book of Mormon into something it isn’t rather than focusing on what it is which, according to Nelson, is a testament of Jesus Christ and “a clarifier of doctrine.”

Comments are closed.