The Book of Mormon as a historical text and why it does matter.


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Im hearing more and more about my fellow saints who are disbelieving the Book of Mormon as being historical. They say it doesnt matter and that its the inspirational message of its content that matters. Heres why I believe they are wrong where it matters the most. The paramount claim of the Book of Mormon is that it states it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". To be a Christian means one believes that Jesus Christ is our savior, that he was born of the virgin Mary, that he lived and resided in his journey of mortality in and around Jerusalem as the Bible states, that he was crucified and was resurrected. It means that one has to believe literally in Jesus Christ and his ministry to his people in real historical context that the events really happened. Mormons must believe in all of that too plus that same conviction that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be- another testament of Jesus Christ as he visited a civilization, a real historical people who had prophets, seers, missionaries, etc, who kept an actual physical set of records that they wrote or inscribed upon the actual events as was testified to them. Why does this matter?

Because just as its impossible to claim to be Christian if you disbelieve the New Testament account of Jesus Christ and his ministry as a literal event, so too is it the same to claim to be Mormon and disbelieve the Book of Mormons account of Jesus Christ and his ministry to the Americas after his resurrection as literal. To claim to be Christian is to claim the New Testament is true in testifying of the literal historical Jesus Christ that ministered in real history to a real people. To claim to be Mormon is the same as being Christian plus also that same conviction that the Book of Mormon is another testament of the literal historical Jesus Christ that ministered yet again in real history to a real people.

So, to hear a fellow LDS claim to believe and yet disbelieve the Book of Mormon as historical is sad. Despite what may appear to be a lack of evidence, despite what modern secularism has to say we must stand up as saints and proclaim loudly that the Book of Mormon is real, it is a true history of a real fallen people, that Jesus Christ really did minister somewhere in the Americas after his resurrection just as the Book of Mormon claims. If we cant testify of that, believe in that, we arent to be, nor can be, called LDS.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, denying that the events in the Book of Mormon occured would be tantamount to claiming to be a Christian but denying the miracles of Christ. While I'm sure there are some misguided souls out there who believe that, maybe some of them are just making a statement that the Book of Mormon is primarily a record of spiritual events rather than a historical record. Mormon always spends more time discussing spiritual issues than historical events, as directed by God, so maybe that's what some of them mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rob Osborn, while there is much I disagree with you about, I stand with you 100% on this issue. Saying that the Book of Mormon is spiritually but not literally true is as nonsensical as saying that about the Bible. Moreso, in fact, since the Book of Mormon itself makes many claims about itself.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not incidental to its value. It is central.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting question then:

If one were to believe that the Book of Mormon was not historically true but spiritually so, and accordingly lived their lives according to its principles, keeping covenants, serving, sacrificing, etc., throughout their lives, would their souls be in jeopardy for that misunderstanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can truly believe the Book of Mormon if you don't believe it's literally a record of Christ's dealings with the people in the Americas. To me that sounds like Thomas Jefferson cutting out the miracles in the Bible and trying just to live by the moral teachings alone. I feel like you wouldn't get enough out of it, or gain a testimony of modern revelation, if you don't believe its a record of actual events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

An interesting question then:

If one were to believe that the Book of Mormon was not historically true but spiritually so, and accordingly lived their lives according to its principles, keeping covenants, serving, sacrificing, etc., throughout their lives, would their souls be in jeopardy for that misunderstanding?

Well, if one were not Mormon then yeah I could see that. But to be a member of the LDS church requires one to believe it is true to begin with. So, either they have always questioned their LDS belief or have fallen away into a dark path. Either way, a person who is a member of this church living up to all their covenants, the commandments, etc wont come to the conclusion of questioning the validity of its historicity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

 I think the events described in the Book of Mormon really did happen. 

Though even having a marginal belief that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture and maybe not literal is better than having no belief at all in it. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

An interesting question then:

If one were to believe that the Book of Mormon was not historically true but spiritually so, and accordingly lived their lives according to its principles, keeping covenants, serving, sacrificing, etc., throughout their lives, would their souls be in jeopardy for that misunderstanding?

I'm starting to consider the possibility that it isn't God, but reality, that imposes ideological litmus tests and ties them to our salvation.

Someone who believes the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" is very likely to take a "nuanced" (i.e. squishy) approach to things like revelation and modern prophets and obedience and sin, that's going to make them a very easy mark for deception going forward and that makes it very, very difficult for them to convey any serious devotion to the Gospel on to the next generation.

It's not that God rejects them for their heresy--He'll keep them as long as they stay.  It's just that they've planted an anchor that isn't going to hold them and their children through the storms that are inevitably coming; and unless they find a better anchor they're going to drift away.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

An interesting question then:

If one were to believe that the Book of Mormon was not historically true but spiritually so, and accordingly lived their lives according to its principles, keeping covenants, serving, sacrificing, etc., throughout their lives, would their souls be in jeopardy for that misunderstanding?

I pretty much see things the same as @Just_A_Guy in this. I can't see that someone's soul would be in jeopardy for holding a wrong belief, even about something like the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But inasmuch as wrong beliefs can lead to wrong acts and a misunderstanding of the mind of God, it could indeed lead to an evil end.

All of us, without exception, have incomplete and even wrong beliefs. If we are to be condemned for misunderstandings and false beliefs, literally no one will be saved. I'm concerned about disbelief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon not so much because it's factually wrong, but because it's a pernicious falsehood that leads to evil ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

An interesting question then:

If one were to believe that the Book of Mormon was not historically true but spiritually so, and accordingly lived their lives according to its principles, keeping covenants, serving, sacrificing, etc., throughout their lives, would their souls be in jeopardy for that misunderstanding?

I don't know. But I wonder how a "faithful member" could live the gospel to its fullness and deny that it is all true without rationalizing it was nothing more than "good and moral teachings".

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Someone who believes the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" is very likely to take a "nuanced" (i.e. squishy) approach to things like revelation and modern prophets and obedience and sin, that's going to make them a very easy mark for deception going forward and that makes it very, very difficult for them to convey any serious devotion to the Gospel on to the next generation.

It's not that God rejects them for their heresy--He'll keep them as long as they stay.  It's just that they've planted an anchor that isn't going to hold them and their children through the storms that are inevitably coming; and unless they find a better anchor they're going to drift away.

How far does this go though. While I am currently inclined to see the BoM as a historical document, there are some scriptural accounts that I don't think are historical. There seems to be good evidence that Job is a work of inspired fiction. I am not sold on Jonah's story as an actual occurrence. I can accept Noah's flood as a local flood, but cannot buy it as a global flood. At the risk of raising Rob's hackles, I have a hard time believing that the creation accounts are historical writings. Which of these beliefs (if not all) are leading me towards "easy deception"?

If interested, I am reminded of this thread: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59399-what-parts-of-scripture-must-be-historical/

When all is said and done, I think I am depending that God will not reject me for considering some scripture "historical fiction".

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

How far does this go though. While I am currently inclined to see the BoM as a historical document, there are some scriptural accounts that I don't think are historical. There seems to be good evidence that Job is a work of inspired fiction. I am not sold on Jonah's story as an actual occurrence. I can accept Noah's flood as a local flood, but cannot buy it as a global flood. At the risk of raising Rob's hackles, I have a hard time believing that the creation accounts are historical writings. Which of these beliefs (if not all) are leading me towards "easy deception"?

If interested, I am reminded of this thread: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59399-what-parts-of-scripture-must-be-historical/

When all is said and done, I think I am depending that God will not reject me for considering some scripture "historical fiction".

There is no denying a lot of scripture has gone under a lot of editing, but the Book of Mormon has not. Mormon Abridged it and the church has made minor adjustments. 

I think the point to be discussed is not whether one views a few stories in the scripture as being parables with moral lessons, but rather viewing all of scripture as being nothing more than a giant parable to teach us how to live. 

I don't see how someone could truely have faith in God if they don't believe the very records that testify of him are not real accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
46 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don't see how someone could truely have faith in God if they don't believe the very records that testify of him are not real accounts.

Faith isn't as linear and black and white as we'd like to think it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Faith isn't as linear and black and white as we'd like to think it is. 

Black and white...true. Linear....depends on what one means. I tend to think of it as pretty linear based on simple choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How far does this go though. While I am currently inclined to see the BoM as a historical document, there are some scriptural accounts that I don't think are historical. There seems to be good evidence that Job is a work of inspired fiction. I am not sold on Jonah's story as an actual occurrence. I can accept Noah's flood as a local flood, but cannot buy it as a global flood. At the risk of raising Rob's hackles, I have a hard time believing that the creation accounts are historical writings. Which of these beliefs (if not all) are leading me towards "easy deception"?

If interested, I am reminded of this thread: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59399-what-parts-of-scripture-must-be-historical/

When all is said and done, I think I am depending that God will not reject me for considering some scripture "historical fiction".

The main points of doctrine in all scripture must be true. As for the Book of Mormon we must accept its claims as truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How far does this go though. While I am currently inclined to see the BoM as a historical document, there are some scriptural accounts that I don't think are historical. There seems to be good evidence that Job is a work of inspired fiction. I am not sold on Jonah's story as an actual occurrence. I can accept Noah's flood as a local flood, but cannot buy it as a global flood. At the risk of raising Rob's hackles, I have a hard time believing that the creation accounts are historical writings. Which of these beliefs (if not all) are leading me towards "easy deception"?

If interested, I am reminded of this thread: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59399-what-parts-of-scripture-must-be-historical/

When all is said and done, I think I am depending that God will not reject me for considering some scripture "historical fiction".

Amen. Agree 100%.

We get so caught up in arguing "Oh this part is metaphorical" or "You must believe it all happened verbatim and literally or you will be condemned!" and we can forget that it's all about Christ. Not anything else. In the end, He is what matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Amen. Agree 100%.

We get so caught up in arguing "Oh this part is metaphorical" or "You must believe it all happened verbatim and literally or you will be condemned!" and we can forget that it's all about Christ. Not anything else. In the end, He is what matters. 

I believe what I believe.  If that reconciles your doctrine and my faith I don't see an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but the OP appears to be conflating "secular history" with "spiritual history" (which can only be accepted by faith as historical). The Bible has aspects that would count as secular history (e.g. Jerusalem, we know where it is and that it existed without faith).

LDS members who recognize this difference, and make this difference known, is not sad. Maybe I am misunderstanding the OP. Often people who say the Book of Mormon is not a historical record, is usually when they are confronted with geography and many other elements that would make a book historical (to all). I mean LDS members can't even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place (even which part of America, North, South, or all of it). So, no, it is not sad when a LDS member recognizes this simple fact that gives evidence to something being historical. The Book of Mormon's primary purpose was not historical, it is/was spiritual. Nothing sad about this statement either, it is true. And no, people do not need to know that it is "historical" to receive a witness from God that it is true. I 100% disagree with the following, "If we cant testify of that, believe in that, we arent to be, nor can be, called LDS." What of people who have received a witness that the Book is true, but only accept the teachings, not that it really is history of a fallen people (yes there are LDS who view this way, especially new converts who have a different understanding of what is historical)? They aren't LDS because they are still learning line upon line precept upon precept? You mean the sister I baptized on my mission, who believed the Book of Mormon had the teachings of Jesus Christ, and thus believed its teaching true, but wasn't sure about its historical correctness -- wasn't LDS? FALSE!

I definitely agree that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of God's dealings with the Nephites and Lamanites; although, there is no secular evidence to back this claim -- unless I see through the lens of faith -- which I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thing in History is where a scholar has to balance out what science and evidence tells him verses his own religious views.  It can be a tough balancing act, and though some have tried to meld the two, more often than not, this does not work.  With that in mind...

Professionally - I don't believe the Bible or Book of Mormon as historical texts as a Historian in the way we are discussing them.  They can be enlightening in regards to history, but much of what they say have to be taken with a great deal of skepticism.  Other accounts have to be taken into view, and with those, a LOT of the Bible cannot be counted as being historically reliable, and almost all of the Book of Mormon, though useful to understanding an 19th century thought process, is not considered a reliable document of any recorded history.

Personally - That said, as an LDS member...aka a Mormon...I absolutely view the Bible and Book of Mormon as really having occurred.  That what they say happened, DID HAPPEN.  They are literal recordings and writings of people and events that occurred where they say they occurred and how they say they happened.  I am one of those that believe in the literal Bible (as long as it is translated correctly) and the Book of Mormon.

And yes, even if you consider it cheesy, I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God.  I also believe in the Bible, and know that the words of Christ are in it and can be read there.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A thing in History is where a scholar has to balance out what science and evidence tells him verses his own religious views.  It can be a tough balancing act, and though some have tried to meld the two, more often than not, this does not work.  With that in mind...

Professionally - I don't believe the Bible or Book of Mormon as historical texts as a Historian in the way we are discussing them.  They can be enlightening in regards to history, but much of what they say have to be taken with a great deal of skepticism.  Other accounts have to be taken into view, and with those, a LOT of the Bible cannot be counted as being historically reliable, and almost all of the Book of Mormon, though useful to understanding an 19th century thought process, is not considered a reliable document of any recorded history.

In this, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Can you name a more reliable history for the ancient Near East -- any culture therein -- than the Bible? The Babylonian Chronicles of royal dynasties, perhaps? The ancient Hittite texts? (Ha, ha. Right.) Sumerian literature, primarily laudatory poems, myth recounting, and the Gilgamesh epics? Seriously, please point out the histories of the early Iron Age in the Middle East that are better histories than the Bible.

I do not believe you will find a single example of a more thorough, more reliable, more sober-eyed account of a people and their dealings than the Hebrew literature, of which the Bible is the prize jewel. Any historian of the period worth his salt will be making a lot of use of the Bible, if for nothing else than as a check for other sources. Saying that the Bible is not a reliable historical source is simply ignorant.

The Bible is exceptionally reliable history. The fact that it points out the weaknesses of the kings of Israel sets it apart as much more than a simple hagiography that would be typical of the time. Please name another internal history from the ancient Near East that has anything approaching the Bible's willingness to point out warts.

The very existence of the Bible is a miracle.

I believe all of the above apply to the Book of Mormon, except I think the Book of Mormon is more accurate and reliable than our surviving version of the Bible, not less.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I could be wrong, but the OP appears to be conflating "secular history" with "spiritual history" (which can only be accepted by faith as historical). The Bible has aspects that would count as secular history (e.g. Jerusalem, we know where it is and that it existed without faith).

LDS members who recognize this difference, and make this difference known, is not sad. Maybe I am misunderstanding the OP. Often people who say the Book of Mormon is not a historical record, is usually when they are confronted with geography and many other elements that would make a book historical (to all). I mean LDS members can't even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place (even which part of America, North, South, or all of it). So, no, it is not sad when a LDS member recognizes this simple fact that gives evidence to something being historical. The Book of Mormon's primary purpose was not historical, it is/was spiritual. Nothing sad about this statement either, it is true. And no, people do not need to know that it is "historical" to receive a witness from God that it is true. I 100% disagree with the following, "If we cant testify of that, believe in that, we arent to be, nor can be, called LDS." What of people who have received a witness that the Book is true, but only accept the teachings, not that it really is history of a fallen people (yes there are LDS who view this way, especially new converts who have a different understanding of what is historical)? They aren't LDS because they are still learning line upon line precept upon precept? You mean the sister I baptized on my mission, who believed the Book of Mormon had the teachings of Jesus Christ, and thus believed its teaching true, but wasn't sure about its historical correctness -- wasn't LDS? FALSE!

I definitely agree that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of God's dealings with the Nephites and Lamanites; although, there is no secular evidence to back this claim -- unless I see through the lens of faith -- which I do.

A few talking points here. We must look at the Book of Mormon first and foremost as a literal historical record. It is upon that framework that makes the validity of the spiritual content possible. If the Book of Mormon is not a literal historical record then all of Mormonism- the entire foundatiin and premise of our religion is a fraud and it wouldnt matter what spiritual content the Book of Mormon contained because it too would just be based on an entire foundation of lies and deception. Its within the content of the text of mixing the historical narrative with the spiritual prophecies that gives our religion relevence. The conversion of the Native Americans to the gospel in our latter day as literal descendents of those historical figures of Nephi, Laman and Lemual, and others makes the fulfillment of the prophecy valid. Its through those connections that validate the Book of Mormon as a literal historic record and upon that premise alone validates the spiritual content.

I guess the hard part for me is that some LDS do not understand that principle. The charge in Moroni chapter 10 is to read the Book of Mormon and then ask if it is true. If it is not a true record then whats the point? It would be an entire fraud, an entire fabrication built upon cunning lies and deception. Thats the crux of the matter. Our religion is true because of our literal belief that the Book of Mormon is true, that it has to be a record of actual ancient peoples.

It doesnt matter so much that we cant decide or agree on where exactly those events took place just as long as we agree that they really did take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A thing in History is where a scholar has to balance out what science and evidence tells him verses his own religious views.  It can be a tough balancing act, and though some have tried to meld the two, more often than not, this does not work.  With that in mind...

Professionally - I don't believe the Bible or Book of Mormon as historical texts as a Historian in the way we are discussing them.  They can be enlightening in regards to history, but much of what they say have to be taken with a great deal of skepticism.  Other accounts have to be taken into view, and with those, a LOT of the Bible cannot be counted as being historically reliable, and almost all of the Book of Mormon, though useful to understanding an 19th century thought process, is not considered a reliable document of any recorded history.

Personally - That said, as an LDS member...aka a Mormon...I absolutely view the Bible and Book of Mormon as really having occurred.  That what they say happened, DID HAPPEN.  They are literal recordings and writings of people and events that occurred where they say they occurred and how they say they happened.  I am one of those that believe in the literal Bible (as long as it is translated correctly) and the Book of Mormon.

And yes, even if you consider it cheesy, I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God.  I also believe in the Bible, and know that the words of Christ are in it and can be read there.

The professional part of your belief bothers me. You are speaking of secular history which in truth is the fraud. But you seem to conflate it with reality and accept that reality but then in the next breath build up the scriptures in a fantasy land as an alternate reality. Thats confusing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A few talking points here. We must look at the Book of Mormon first and foremost as a literal historical record. It is upon that framework that makes the validity of the spiritual content possible. If the Book of Mormon is not a literal historical record then all of Mormonism- the entire foundatiin and premise of our religion is a fraud and it wouldnt matter what spiritual content the Book of Mormon contained because it too would just be based on an entire foundation of lies and deception. Its within the content of the text of mixing the historical narrative with the spiritual prophecies that gives our religion relevence. The conversion of the Native Americans to the gospel in our latter day as literal descendents of those historical figures of Nephi, Laman and Lemual, and others makes the fulfillment of the prophecy valid. Its through those connections that validate the Book of Mormon as a literal historic record and upon that premise alone validates the spiritual content.

I guess the hard part for me is that some LDS do not understand that principle. The charge in Moroni chapter 10 is to read the Book of Mormon and then ask if it is true. If it is not a true record then whats the point? It would be an entire fraud, an entire fabrication built upon cunning lies and deception. Thats the crux of the matter. Our religion is true because of our literal belief that the Book of Mormon is true, that it has to be a record of actual ancient peoples.

It doesnt matter so much that we cant decide or agree on where exactly those events took place just as long as we agree that they really did take place.

To be clear, I have no disagreement with the Book of Mormon being a literal historical record. This is true. I have no disagreement, myself, that if not the premise of our religion would be a fraud. The last paragraph is what I am referring to regarding "secular history" in contrast to "spiritual history." In order to accept the Book of Mormon as a historical document it must be first accepted by faith via spiritual witness. It is the only way, at this moment, to accept its historical record, again, which I do. The Book of Mormon is exactly what it testifies to be, and I fully agree with the following sentiment, "Its within the content of the text of mixing the historical narrative with the spiritual prophecies that gives our religion revelence."

Secular history, on the other hand, does not need a spiritual witness, nor does it need to be accepted by faith to be real. We are able to read books about the history of the United States, and all who read area able to visit where these histories took place. The only record we have of the Nephites and Lamanites is from the Book of Mormon, which no one else can read its original copy, which secular historians would say -- "that's convenient." We have witness of the man who said that the characters were good and authentic, and we also have record from this same individual saying otherwise.

What I am saying is that we should use caution when saying someone who is not yet convinced of the Book of Mormon being a historical record -- that they aren't LDS. I can see why you say this would be hard, because I (like you) once receiving witness it automatically became a true historical record. The events spoken of, the cities spoken of, the missionary work, and all its prophecies did in fact occur, as shared. On a secular level though, I could not provide anyone evidence that these were true places. Thus, I don't have a hard time with people saying, in a secular context, "The Book of Mormon wouldn't be in the "history" section at the library." This is a true statement, and not a reflection of them not being LDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How far does this go though. While I am currently inclined to see the BoM as a historical document, there are some scriptural accounts that I don't think are historical. There seems to be good evidence that Job is a work of inspired fiction. I am not sold on Jonah's story as an actual occurrence. I can accept Noah's flood as a local flood, but cannot buy it as a global flood. At the risk of raising Rob's hackles, I have a hard time believing that the creation accounts are historical writings. Which of these beliefs (if not all) are leading me towards "easy deception"?

If interested, I am reminded of this thread: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59399-what-parts-of-scripture-must-be-historical/

When all is said and done, I think I am depending that God will not reject me for considering some scripture "historical fiction".

I'm actually sympathetic to all of the Biblical issues you cite.  But I think we have some insights into the compilation of the Book of Mormon that we don't necessarily have with the Bible.  The Book of Mormon in its entirety is vouched for by Moroni, who is a real person (as seen and interacted with by Joseph Smith) and who (with Mormon) repeatedly represents within the text itself that the corpus of the book they have assembled is (by their definition of the term) a true history.  We tend to ascribe a very high degree of inspiration to that assembly/compilation process.  

That doesn't mean the Book of Mormon may not have problems under modern historiographical standards, like--say--the lack of a balanced political perspective from the Lamanites, for example; or the possibility that many of the great sermons weren't recorded contemporaneously and are therefore later reconstructions.  But fundamentally, the Book of Mormon represents itself as a history. 

By contrast, we know very little about who assembled the Bible (particularly the Old Testament); and the various books of the Bible have not been carefully selected and harmonized and synthesized into a greater whole, the way most of the BoM has.  We have no overarching editor assuring us of the historicity of each and every book and anecdote therein--that Satan and God really placed a wager over Job's faithfulness; or that some of the details of Jonah were not merely intended as near-eastern satire; or that the creation accounts are primarily supposed to explain the "how" and "when" rather than the "who", the "what" and the "why".  We have no real editorial assurance that any particular one of the books in the Bible is even, in fact, supposed to be there; or that the modern version of any particular book perfectly mirrors its original autograph.  In fact, quite the opposite is the case on both scores--we know some books are in there that shouldn't be; we know some books that should be in there are gone; and we know that some of the text has been tampered with to a greater or lesser degree.

The books within the Bible are, moreover, hard to lump together and approach in the same way.  They are of very different genres--Kings and Chronicles being fairly reliably as history; Isaiah being a pretty decent descriptor of God's words to a specific culture at a specific time; Proverbs being an example of near-eastern "wisdom literature" of a piece with comparable works from Assyria and Babylon; and Song of Solomon being more-or-less a glorified dime-store romance novel.  You can't approach any two Bible books in exactly the same way, any more than you can approach a "Harry Potter" book as a scientific treatise--every time you move on from one book to the next, you have to re-evaluate your paradigm and reconsider what that particular book is and isn't supposed to be.

We are used to giving the Bible and the Book of Mormon rough equivalency.  And so they are, in spiritual value; but that doesn't mean you read them through identical lenses.  They are in fact very, very different works.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
39 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

To be clear, I have no disagreement with the Book of Mormon being a literal historical record. This is true. I have no disagreement, myself, that if not the premise of our religion would be a fraud. The last paragraph is what I am referring to regarding "secular history" in contrast to "spiritual history." In order to accept the Book of Mormon as a historical document it must be first accepted by faith via spiritual witness. It is the only way, at this moment, to accept its historical record, again, which I do. The Book of Mormon is exactly what it testifies to be, and I fully agree with the following sentiment, "Its within the content of the text of mixing the historical narrative with the spiritual prophecies that gives our religion revelence."

Secular history, on the other hand, does not need a spiritual witness, nor does it need to be accepted by faith to be real. We are able to read books about the history of the United States, and all who read area able to visit where these histories took place. The only record we have of the Nephites and Lamanites is from the Book of Mormon, which no one else can read its original copy, which secular historians would say -- "that's convenient." We have witness of the man who said that the characters were good and authentic, and we also have record from this same individual saying otherwise.

What I am saying is that we should use caution when saying someone who is not yet convinced of the Book of Mormon being a historical record -- that they aren't LDS. I can see why you say this would be hard, because I (like you) once receiving witness it automatically became a true historical record. The events spoken of, the cities spoken of, the missionary work, and all its prophecies did in fact occur, as shared. On a secular level though, I could not provide anyone evidence that these were true places. Thus, I don't have a hard time with people saying, in a secular context, "The Book of Mormon wouldn't be in the "history" section at the library." This is a true statement, and not a reflection of them not being LDS.

I can agree with you. I dont believe in secular history very much. Mostly they get it wrong and its always changing. One of the big issues I have with secular historians is they remove the spiritual and religious motivations that shaped true history and put in place secular motivations. As one travels further into secular history it all becomes a fabrication. When you look at the secular understanding of how the Americas were populated its completely opposite of what the Book of Mormon states. So either secular historians are completely wrong or the entire Book of Mormon is a fraud. Im inclined to believe, from my own research of the evidence that secular historians have fabricated most of ancient history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share