The image at the top of this post is a digital version of my favorite painting. The painting is called “A Conversation with the Master” and was painted by Nathan Florence. I am not generally moved by paintings but this one got to me. I can see myself in place of the woman, explaining to Jesus something no doubt important to me, gesturing as I describe the intricacies of my topic or problem. I’m lucky this day, as I have the Master all to myself on a long walk in the countryside. This is my chance to share my intimate, important concerns and ask him pressing questions. I have his ear. He listens intently to me, hands clasped behind his back, waiting patiently for me to finish. He knows the answers to my questions but listens anyway. My concerns are his concerns, and the fact that he is willing to make time for me tells me I am important to him.
The painting depicts communion with God in a way that speaks to my soul – in a way the beautiful Renaissance paintings do not. My communion with God is deeply personal. He is my friend and confidant. He listens to me; is patient with me. I feel important to him. Jesus helps me understand him, and this painting encourages me to be a better disciple.
The thing is, the painting is not historical. It doesn’t depict a historical situation – not one we know of anyway. Scholars are largely in agreement that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person, but we have no idea if he walked alone with one of his disciples, listening as she regaled him with the concerns of her life. But the painting’s power is not contingent on its historicity (or lack thereof); it’s power comes from the message it speaks to the heart of the person who takes it in. The painter used a framework familiar to both him and some future viewer he had in mind.
Scripture serves a similar role for me. I have no idea of the precise wording of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount but the message is deeply moving. Some community, some years after his death, took the time to commit a shared understanding of his teachings to parchment. Whether their recollection of his words was precise isn’t as important to me as is their recollection of the substance of what he taught. Whether those words were spoken on a mount or by the sea, while perhaps being an interesting bit for historians to quibble over, does not change the fact that the teachings speak to my soul and have had a positive impact on my life.
My perspective on the Book of Mormon is similar. While arguments over the historicity of the Book of Mormon seem to have more at stake to members of the LDS Church than arguments surrounding the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew, I suppose our need for the book to be historical is in part due to our proximity in time to the event, our modern desire for precision, and the literalness of our religious heritage. Nevertheless, the book has several characteristics that, to me, indicate that it should be viewed in a non-literal way:
- It utilizes a framework commonly understood at the time of its publication, i.e., Native Americans as descendants of Hebrews who rightfully deserve God’s promised blessings.
- It tells the story of the United States that directly injects God into the nation’s birth.
- It directly addresses many common religious concerns of the era.
- It was written in a commonly understood religious parlance (what we’d call “KJV English”).
- It is riddled with anachronisms.
- The stories are almost mythical in nature, with largely caricatured versions of people – both villain and hero.
- It borrows heavily both verbiage and themes from the Bible.
- There is no archaeological, genetic, or scientifically verifiable evidence to support its narrative.
In many ways the Book of Mormon reminds me of the account of Jonah or the story of Job. Even more applicable might be the story of the Exodus, where incredible, but almost certainly false, stories depict the birth of a nation in a new promised land. The myth [I don’t use that term in a derogatory way but rather to imply an unbelievable story used to teach some moral lesson] of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt provided a cohesive story around which Israelites found a common heritage and built enduring communities. The Book of Mormon provided a similar foundation for 19th century Saints, who saw in its pages Joseph Smith’s prophetic gift and, just like Israel, built enduring communities in their own promised land. Neither story needed to be historically accurate to do so, and I would argue that our community’s dogmatism on historicity prevents us from making room in our community for those who do not view the book as historical but nevertheless embrace its message. The book need not be historically accurate to move the ball forward. Nephi need not be a real person in order for his example to encourage someone to greater communion with God.
A figurative Book of Mormon does, however, create some problems related to the book’s coming forth. Who wrote it? Was Joseph Smith perpetrating a fraud (even a “pious fraud”)? What about the Gold Plates and the witnesses? I admit I have no clean, satisfactory answers; however, I am persuaded by the arguments Ann Taves made in her paper titled “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates” and which she presented to the 2014 Mormon History Association. In the paper Ann takes up the challenge laid out by Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens: to account for the existence of something Joseph showed to others as the plates; accept Joseph’s sincerity in believing that the plates really were the Nephite record, i.e., he wasn’t trying to con people; accept Joseph as mentally healthy, i.e., not deluded; yet accept that the object he claimed was the plates were not, in fact, Nephite plates. She puts it this way:
The Mormon claim that Joseph Smith discovered ancient golden plates buried in a hillside in upstate New York provides an important test case, since two leading Latter-day Saints (LDS) scholars of early Mormonism, Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens, argue that secular or non-Mormon historians have not taken the historical evidence for the Mormon claim that Joseph Smith discovered actual golden plates in a hillside in upstate New York seriously and that, as a consequence, historical scholarship on early Mormonism has remained highly polarized. Bushman has argued that at bottom it is the question of the plates that have led Mormon and non-Mormon historians to offer divergent characterizations of Joseph Smith. Non-Mormon historians, assuming there were no plates, presume there was something “fishy” going on, as Bushman puts it, and this then colors their entire assessment of Smith…Givens was right, I think, to argue that we cannot just explain the gold plates in terms of “Joseph’s psyche or religious unconscious.” For those of us interested in naturalistic explanations, this offers an intriguing challenge.
Explanations of the gold plates to date tend to presuppose an either/or choice: ancient
golden plates either existed or they did not. If they existed, then Smith was who he claimed to
be. If they did not and Smith knew it, then he must have consciously deceived his followers in
order to convince them that they existed. Alternatively, if Smith believed there were plates when in fact there were not, then he was deluded.
She then goes on to make a case that Joseph believed that, by creating some physical object, he was materializing the golden plates, similar to the Masonic myth of Enoch, which has Enoch seeing in vision a hill full of records and then bringing that vision into reality by going and actually creating the physical objects that materialize what he saw in the vision. I can’t do Taves’ argument justice so I suggest you read her paper, but something important to keep in mind is that Joseph and his contemporaries, especially the Whitmers and Martin Harris, were steeped in folk magic. What we tend to look askance at they would have taken seriously, so their witness statements must take that into account.
I also highly recommend Taves’ book Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths, where she utilizes three case studies – Helen Schucman, Bill Wilson (founder of Alcoholics Anonymous), and Joseph Smith – to review events that provided for the emergence of new spiritual paths. For example, one of the common themes she explores is the need for the visionary/revelator to have a stimulus-free environment when creating their new spiritual text. In Joseph’s case, he placed a seer stone in a hat and then placed his face into the hat, closing out all visual stimulus. He also mentioned difficulty in “translating” when he was not in a spiritual frame of mind, such as having had a heated argument with Emma Smith prior to trying to translate. These circumstances seem to point to some sort of spiritual state of mind Joseph was utilizing when doing his work.
I don’t know if Ann Taves’ theory is actually what happened, or not. Personally, I see Joseph Smith’s religion as a reinterpretation of Christianity to include 19th century American, esoteric, Masonic, and millenarian themes, and Taves’ theory fits that context. Joseph seemed to genuinely believe his claims and, while certainly having problems with ego and a flair for bravado, he also doesn’t come across as deluded. I think he sincerely believed that angels had appeared to him, that he had a record of ancient people, etc. He spoke in his letters to Emma of walking among Nephite lands in Ohio, for example.
We are all products of our culture and sometimes adhere to beliefs that seem silly to outsiders but which, due to that cultural upbringing, seem perfectly reasonable to us. For example, when young I was taught that the earth was 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. As I grew up I operated under that assumption and saw the world through that lens. Only later did I begin to truly understand geology, the fossil record, and human history, all of which forced me to reassess my previous assumptions about the world. Was I deluded when I believed in a 6,000 year old earth? No, but an informed observer would not have agreed with my worldview. Similarly, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries saw the world through a lens unique to their culture and family life, which included magic, buried treasure, angel guardians, and other phenomena we find unbelievable. Perhaps that is the framework through which God spoke to Joseph, similar to how I would frame an unfamiliar concept to someone in a way that would help them comprehend it.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t need Joseph Smith to be an error-free conduit for the divine. His theology was shaped by how he understood the world – warts and all. He certainly made many mistakes and, in my opinion, erred theologically at times, but I don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t have to accept all that he claimed if the spark of the divine within me doubts the authenticity of those claims. A non-literal perspective allows the flexibility I need to approach God in a framework that makes sense to me, while allowing him the ability to communicate in a way that I can understand. I need not be hemmed in by the literalistic, folk magic views of Joseph Smith and those who followed him, just as I need not rigidly conform to a perspective of God handed down to me by an Iron Age society in the ancient Near East. We see the world differently and that is okay.
Recently I had an experience that perhaps can illustrate my thinking on this matter. On August 21, 2017 my family and several friends experienced a total eclipse of the Sun. For most of human existence such an event was terrifying and foreboding; however, for me that day, it was one of the most amazing and spiritual experiences of my life. I knew what was coming but the sight of it was truly awesome, and to experience it with those closest to me, all cheering and sharing our amazement, was moving. My experience was the polar opposite of my ancestors’ experience with such an event. Why? Science and human knowledge – I knew what was going to happen and why, freeing me to enjoy the show. My framework for understanding such an event is completely different than was their’s, so rather than being a sign of God’s disfavor it was instead an uplifting, spiritual event.
Artists frequently speak of being inspired by something beyond themselves when they create their art. That inspiration allows them, in turn, to inspire others through that art. The Book of Mormon can serve as Joseph’s canvas, inspiring us to greater communion with God. He saw the world through a magical, literal lens and that language was familiar to his soul. We need not be literalists like Joseph in order for the Book of Mormon’s message to move us closer to God or improve our life. This is why we must make room for those who don’t view the book as literal history. They have valuable contributions to make within our community. A non-literal faith can access saving grace as readily as one in which Nephi is a real person.
Ann Taves again:
Above, all, I am suggesting we cannot ignore the active role that Smith and those closest to him played in the process of materializing his visions. Viewing Smith in this way takes seriously his claim to have been a seer and allows us to consider the seer alongside the artist as the creator of things that, in Heidegger’s sense, open up new worlds.
While I am wholly inadequate to the task, I am not alone in my plea to please make room for those of us who see Joseph’s theology through a figurative lens. We’re not broken or lacking faith. The Book of Mormon need not be a literal history in order for us to learn of God’s grace from its pages. The artist has finished; now let us together enjoy the art.
Wheat & Tares 
A moving post, Cody. And the issue is an intensely relevant one, more and more.
A thought to start: Can we talk about what we mean by “true?” I see at least two options here:
1. “True” in a kind of postmodern or existentialist (Heidegerrian) sense: a “true” that is (the good) inspiring, accessible, and meaningful, but is also (the bad) subjective, emotive, and unfalsifiable; or
2. “True” in the representational sense: a “true” that is (the good) objective, describable, and falsifiable, but is also (the bad) elusive, circular, and less than meaningful.
Ideally for believers, the Book of Mormon is True (1) and True (2). If it is True (1) but not True (2), however, that might cause some theological problems, starting with the claims that both the book itself and authoritative interpretations of it have made regarding its Truth (2). I think those problems are exacerbated by (a) Mormonism’s naturalism and materialism, which invite Truth (2) to the table, and (b) Joseph Smiths’ Truth (2) claims regarding his authority.
Heidegger may be right about truth in art, but he does not address (is not interested in addressing) Truth (2). The Book of Mormon, and its interpreters, are interested in Truth (2), and they seem to hang the book by that thread. How do we take it of their hands and make it literature, without knocking the scripture out of it?
I really can’t follow this line of reasoning. There’s a big difference between an allegory or a painting which communicate beauty or hopefulness that you happen to find spiritual, and a witness of real events, which is what the Book of Mormon claims to be. It matters a great deal to me that Jesus Christ was resurrected in reality, not just metaphorically. There’s a big difference between some sort of metaphorical story to assure us everything will be alright and accounts of an eye-witnesses to something that really happened. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith’s personal experiences and worldview affected the way he presented any revelation from God, and I have no doubt he made mistakes and misinterpretations in his presentations of them. I’m not even hung up on the plates Joseph had holding the actual account. But I still can’t reduce the Book of Mormon to simply a work of art. If it’s not historical, or very historically based, then it’s not a witness of anything real. It’s just a feel-good for those who like it and a fraud for those who don’t.
The post argues that there should be room for those who accept the Book of Mormon as “true”, yet consider it artistic fiction. I’m really not sure what that means. Of course there’s room. I disagree with people over points of faith at church all the time. But this does seem like our faith would be based on different things. I mean, you could also say you don’t need to believe any religious claim to find beauty in religion, and you can still be a good person.
What a moving piece of writing!
I’m an artist. The creative act is an interesting one. I describe mine as not actually creating, but removing. Like I have a giant block of marble and I chip away at it removing all the bits (and chunks and slabs) that don’t belong so that the finished piece isn’t created, its’ revealed or unearthed (Stephen King thinks of himself as an archeologist removing dirt to discover skeletons). The creation already exists. It knows what it is supposed to be. I just have to find it.
I’ve thought a lot about this in terms of Joseph Smith. He didn’t use the plates for translation (or at least not much). The BofM didn’t come from the plates. JS had to find the BofM. So where did it come from? Well, this is totally fanciful, but I think it came from us. I read years and years ago about quantum physics and how each particle of an atom is connected to every other particle of every atom in existence. In this scenario (which no doubt I am explaining badly as this is SO far above my science abilities), time does not exist. So what if the power of our Mormon faith, our studies, and our lived lives created the BoM?
Fanciful, I know. And not provable of course, but I find it settles well on me.
“The post argues that there should be room for those who accept the Book of Mormon as “true”, yet consider it artistic fiction.”
Not artistic fiction. A teaching tool from God. A glimpse into Divinity. ‘Artistic’ and ‘Fiction’ are the methodologies, not the definitive definition.
Interesting post. I think Gadflown is right to center the question around the notion of what we mean by “true”. The disappointing part, as Cody’s penultimate sentence demonstrates, is how many Mormons see this as such a black and white issue that it becomes immediately divisive. I believe that the book is inspired fiction, meaning that we can find evidence of God’s love for us and his will concerning us in its pages. I don’t necessarily think that that makes Joseph Smith a charlatan, though it is obvious from early practice that he had a bit of the con artist in him. I don’t, however, believe that that automatically precludes him from being chosen by God to spread a certain message.
It’s too bad so many of us insist on the absolute, historical truth that many Mormons believe the Book of Mormon contains. To Martin’s post, Martin, I think just because something isn’t historical doesn’t mean it can’t be real. Maybe that sounds like a contradiction or double talk or whatever, but I believe Hamlet contains many truths about human behavior and the human condition, though I know it’s (mostly) not historically accurate. In the same way, I can believe the Book of Mormon is inspired without being historically accurate (and it’s demonstrably not, BTW, in part because of the anachronisms Cody mentions). However, I don’t have any problem with folks who believe in its literalness either. What I don’t like is when, as I mentioned above, this issue becomes a sharp dividing line, pitting one kind of believer against another.
“I can believe the Book of Mormon is inspired without being historically accurate (and it’s demonstrably not, BTW”
“What I don’t like is when, as I mentioned above, this issue becomes a sharp dividing line, pitting one kind of believer against another.”
Brother Sky, see what you did there?
Of course there is room for viewing the Book of Mormon as true without being historical. However, I don’t find this summary of the evidence to be particularly accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, aesthetically pleasing, or promising compared to what I know of the arguments in favor of historicity that I know about. And since those criteria happen to be those that Kuhn describes as providing the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I can at least feel confident that the discussion will continue.
I’ve also recently read Taves’s Revelatory Events, and I have to say the most remarkable thing about that book is how astonishingly little she does with Book of Mormon, which to her, can be explained by comparing it to other books that are similarly “large and complex” like The BIg Book of AA and A Course in Miracles. Not notably comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, or promising, I think. But it does what it was designed to do from the outset. It provides a secular, naturalistic approach to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It plays to an audience that won’t complain about what it does not notice or define or explain or account for.
“It directly addresses many common religious concerns of the era.” Would it have been more effective, do you think, if it was incomprehensible and irrelevant?” Plus, it turns out that contextualizing the book as ancient rather than 19th century American often changes the meaning of the text in surprising and enlightening ways. Close reading in context makes a huge difference. The same words (seeds) as Jesus explained, can yield radically different harvests, all depending on soil an nurture. (Hence, Taves does not nurture the Book of Mormon at all, and gets nothing from it beyond “large and complex.”)
“It was written in a commonly understood religious parlance.” Suppose it was left untranslated? Who would have been changed by it?
“The stories are almost mythical in nature, with largely caricatured versions of people – both villain and hero.” Some readers have found it so, but as Alan Goff points out, good readers often find things that poor readers overlook. Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon on the personalities of the main narrators ought to help more than, say, a “Book of Mormon Stories” essay in Dialogue a few years back. And there was the Thomasson Hawkins essay on “Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon” or various Goff things in Hebrew literary techniques, or my own essay on NDE accounts and the Book of Mormon, which taught me a new appreciation for Alma as an authentic personality changed by a very real and recurrent human experience. When I later heard Howard Storm speak about his experience, I was astonished to find how much he talked like Alma, though, he, no doubt, had never read the Book of Mormon. And there have been a number of authors who have compared Nephi’s story to Campbell’s Monomyth and Hero with a Thousand Faces. And I have personally noticed how much more I see in Laman and Lemuel after over a decade of attending 12 step meetings. They seem less caricature, more real.
“There is no archaeological, genetic, or scientifically verifiable evidence to support its narrative.” I can think of several LDS scientists and authors who dispute this at length in detail and with significant credentials. And of course, reading Alan Goff and Ian Barbour, I notice the positivism that emanates from that word “verifiable” particularly in comparison to a lot that I have read. As Hanson demonstrated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, “All data is theory-laden.” The statement itself is ideologically saturated.
And there are the stories we tell, the metaphors that shape and frame our narratives that both create and reveal our ideological positioning. In this case, the metaphor of the non-historical but spiritual painting, which, though non-historical, imaginative spiritual art, which gains its power because it points to real experience. And the naive 6000 year creation story. I heard lots of stories, not just one, and spent significant time and effort sorting through them. It makes a difference if you realize that Genesis 1 is basically a temple drama, based on the ritual of erecting the desert tabernacle described in Exodus. How do you build a world in six days? By building a model, that is, the tabernacle, a model temple, and the temple is a model of the world.
Martin: Apologies if my assertion came off as overbearing or unfair. It’s what I believe and I believe there’s proof in the text that demonstrates it. That doesn’t mean other people aren’t entitled to their own belief or that I’m unwilling to have a conversation with someone who believes differently. My intent was to make a point in a lively discussion and I apologize if it ended up shutting things down.
Gadflown: Great question and I’m not sure I have a satisfactory answer; however, I’m not convinced the “True (1) but not True (2)” scenario poses as much of a problem as you appear to. The narrative of the Book of Mormon certainly takes for granted its own historicity, but doesn’t nearly every text? As to authoritative pronouncements of past leaders on the topic, I don’t feel beholden to their perspectives. I’m fine with them seeing things literally and am glad that perspective works for them, but I don’t subscribe to their perspectives. I also do not think the Book of Mormon passes the tests of “True (2)” because its claims are not objective or falsifiable. Again, I’m totally cool with fellow saints seeing it as falsifiable and searching for tangible evidence of its historicity, and I wish them the best, but I don’t need it to be objectively “True (2)” in order for it to work for me.
Martin: I don’t view the book as artistic fiction. I think ReTx is close to my perspective in describing it as an educational device. I don’t, for example, believe in a literal Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis; however, there are plenty of useful nuggets contained within it. As I state in my OP, Exodus almost certainly does not contain the objective truth for how the Israelite nation came into being. Does it need to be literally true for it to be of value? Did the story of the manna actually occur as told? Probably not, but it served as a useful stepping stone for Jesus to teach his Bread of Life sermon, and wasn’t that a powerful sermon?
They had the same situation in the old days, while Christ’s original apostles and Paul and others were still alive. Some people wanted to treat the resurrection of Christ as a myth, or imagery, or something like that — to make it easier to believe and easier to share — to allow them to belong without believing. But Peter, John, and Paul resisted the sophistry and boldly emphasized the reality of the resurrection of a crucified Christ. I appreciate their efforts.
I’m not generally a believer in domino theories. But one might apply here. When you chuck the historicity and many of the doctrines of the OT, the PofGP becomes very suspect. When you question the veracity of the BofM, can the miracles of the NT be far behind. And we’ve chucked parts of the D&C and other parts need updating (WofW), Our scriptures slowly melt away. What are we left with? Don’t we lose much of the foundation for the Church?
Great post Cody. I appreciate efforts by those who, like John Hamer, find value in the Book of Mormon even if they believe it is non-historical.
I’m curious: For those who require the Book of Mormon to be historical, how do you handle God telling Joseph Smith the earth is only 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6)? Or the story of Noah? If you do not believe the earth is that age or that all of humanity came from Noah’s family only a few thousand years ago (not to mention all the animals), why are you okay with a non-literal view in those instances but not with the Book of Mormon?
And Kevin, your example of Genesis 1 demonstrates that one can gain spiritual insight from a de-historicized story.
Interesting side ot to this topic with the following news released this evening by Community of Christ President Stephen M. Veazey during a webcast address to the church:
“After a year of negotiations with several potential buyers, last week we accepted an
offer from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints (LDS) to buy the Printer’s
Manuscript of the Book of Mormon for $35 million. This is a record‐setting price for a
historic document. The net proceeds from this transaction will be used to help fund
retirement obligations.
“The Printer’s Manuscript is a written copy of the original manuscript of the Book of
Mormon. The church bought it in 1903 with some other items for $2,500.
Church leaders know that letting go of this document will sadden some members. We
feel sadness, too. However the church’s use of the Book of Mormon as scripture and our
appreciation for our history do not depend on owning the Printer’s Manuscript. Letting go of
this document does not affect the rights of Community of Christ to publish its editions of the
Book of Mormon. When a decision had to be made, we chose the well‐being of people and
upholding the current and future mission of the church over owning this document.
As I am speaking, a joint statement from Community of Christ and the LDS Church about
this transaction is being released publically. Additional details will be presented in upcoming
communications with the church.”
Apparently, the money for the purchase came from several LDS donors.
And as one of the CofC’s retirees who receives a pension from the church, I am grateful for the increased funding of the retirement fund.
One significant way of finding spiritual value in the BOM while believing it is not historical is to see it as the product of JS’ relationship with the divine. The doctrine and stories found on its pages can be seen as partly an idealization of JS’ sincere lived experiences with God. I believe all of his revelatory texts can be seen this way. The church he produced and the experiences and lives of his followers are an excellent gauge for how well that idealization effectively communicates spiritual truth. I have had a rich spiritual life and continue to based on the teachings found in JS texts despite my non-literal/historical belief.
I don’t want the printer’s manuscript sale news to hijack this excellent post by Cody, so I’ll be writing a separate post very soon on that topic and the larger picture.
It may be safe to assume at least the majority of Community of Christ leadership and much of the membership falls in the “true but not historical” camp regarding the Book of Mormon.
Great post, thank you for your insights. In my mind, the huge issue going forward will be is the LDS Church going to make space for people who hold this view? During the last 100 years, we’ve gone all in on the Book of Mormon being the lynch pin of the whole thing, the axle of the truth cart, to use Patrick Mason’s analogy. With more people reading things like the CES Letter, people are presented with the black in the black and white view, and many are disengaging from the Church because the evidence seems to go against what they had been taught growing up. Others have evaluated the evidence and want to stay and have adjusted their world view to accommodate the data, trying to maintain a position of faith. However, these nuanced views are seen as threatening to the general membership who have not been exposed to the data.
I think we are still awkwardly trying to navigate this uncharted territory. In many wards, you can hold this view as long as you keep it to yourself and keep your mouth shut. I’m hoping in the future, we can acknowledge the data and permit this as an acceptable faithful point of view.
Also, isn’t the Book of Mormon really just a tool to help people come unto Christ? There seems to be great evidence that it has worked well and continues to work on that level. I worry that in our missionary zeal, we may have overlooked it as a tool and turned it into a holy relic that to be worshiped.
Cody asks about D&C 77 and the age of the earth, saying ” how do you handle God telling Joseph Smith the earth is only 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6)?” The passage actually says “this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.” which shows that your paraphrase is more interpretation than direct quote. What does “its temporal existence” mean? And what does “this earth” mean? And if D&C 77 actually is a revelation (I have my doubts), is it offering the mind of God or a commentary on the mind of the author of Revelation? And can there be a difference, or not? I notice that in Joseph Smith’s one notable discourse on Revelation, he never refers to this revelation, and it seems to me, actually gives a very different approach.
And for that matter, why is is that other early LDS members who knew Joseph Smith were quite willing to talk about the earth being billions of years old. Note the following from David Bailey’s Science and Mormonism page:
“During the 19th century, LDS leaders and theologians tended to mostly avoid questions of the creation in general, and anything to do with evolution in particular. The few exceptions are remarkably “progressive,” particularly in comparison to the combative rhetoric that one finds in the discourse of many other Christian denominations at the time. For example, in 1844, W. W. Phelps published the following intriguing comment [Phelps1844]:
” Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years; — it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!”
“In other words, Phelps (or whomever he was quoting — some say Joseph Smith, Jr.) suggested that “eternity” has been going on “in this system” for 2,555,000,000 years. Note that one can obtain this figure by regarding the 7000 years traditionally assumed as the creation time to consist of “days” each of which has length 1000 years in our current reckoning: 7000 x 365 x 1000 = 2,555,000,000. However, the passage is muddied by the parenthetical “(not this world),” so it is not entirely clear what to make of it. At the least, it suggests that early leaders of the Church were thinking in rather expansive terms with regards to issues such as the age of the earth and of the universe.”
“One of the first explicit declarations that the earth may be many millions of years old was in this passage from an 1871 discourse given by church president Brigham Young [Young1871]:
“In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts–they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.”
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php
Cody says: “And Kevin, your example of Genesis 1 demonstrates that one can gain spiritual insight from a de-historicized story.”
Not quite. The insights come from reading Genesis the way and Ancient Israelite versed in the Temple tradition would have read it. (See Barker’s Temple Theology: An Introduction). That is a contextualized reading “after the manner of the Jews” rather than a presentist reading that assumes that the words emit meanings that are uninterpreted, and like the speed of light, can supposed to be the same to all observers.
I’ve both read and personally published things that demonstrate that one can gain spiritual insight from reading the Book of Mormon in the contexts in which is places itself. One even went through Oxford University Press. And I notice that makes for a very different reading that you might get from Alexander Campbell Jr. or Fawn Brodie or David Wright, often in looking at the very same words.
In Sophic Box and Mantic Vista, I quoted Madan Sarup:
“One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…”
“His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.”
What I see in your essay is that your metaphors, such as “the non-historical painting of Jesus” or a dramatic reading of Jesus do most of the map making, defining the frame in which to explain the territory. What I see outside of your essay is a great deal of information not accounted for, including a great many explorations in the territory not accounted for by your map.
But I’ve been saying for years that if you find a spiritual benefit in a non-historical Book of Mormon, fine. If that is the portion of the word you want to start with to nurture your particle of faith, fine. Alma 32 does not insist which portion of the word we start with. I find it best not to ignore the most fruitful parts of the gardens under cultivation.
Kevin, I am quite familiar with Barker’s work (I have read all of her books) and the theory of how ancient Israelites (or at least some of them) may have viewed Genesis 1. But I am not referring to that. Our Church’s legacy is one of a literal understanding that the earth was literally 6,000 years old. There are numerous accounts of this. Sure, there were some who didn’t accept that line of thinking but there have been numerous official statements from the First Presidency stating that Adam was literally the first human on earth, that there was no death on earth prior to his fall, that the earth is 6,000 years old, etc. The quotes you provide from Phelps and others are not talking about an earth millions of years in age with life evolving on it. They’re talking about the creation of the earth prior to Adam. They’re not discussing evolution over millions of years. You know that yet you choose to wave that all away and explain how it is figurative or the words don’t mean what they were interpreted to mean, or that we’ve always believed in a figurative Adam and Eve, Noah, etc. That’s fine.
Look, my OP wasn’t written to engage every edge case of a possibility where, if you squint just right, in just the right light, and turn the evidence over to a specific orientation, then maybe there is a possibility that it is evidence of historicity. I know people see historicity in the book and see evidence for its historicity. There are many of us who know the claims and are unpersuaded by them. Believe me, I’ve wrestled with this stuff for years. It’s not persuasive to me. If it is to you I think that’s great, but my faith isn’t somehow deficient because I am not persuaded by claimed evidence. When you say this:
you seem to be insinuating that my faith and that of others who do not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is somehow deficient. I hope I am misunderstanding your point because I feel that type of condescending attitude is precisely the problem. People like me don’t need to be merely tolerated in the hope that we’ll at some point have a strong enough faith to believe in a literal Book of Mormon. Our faith is fine.
Our church’s legacy on how to read Genesis is a bit more complex than just Man: His Origin and Destiny, however influential that kind of thought might have been. David Bailey has some very good material on that. And personally, I found Nibley’s 1980 talk on “Before Adam” an important eye opener 37 years ago. And not the last eye opener on the topic either. And the formal declaration of “mine authority and the authority of my servants” in D&C 1 bluntly allows for human error, and ongoing revelation from time to time, conditioned on inquiry rather than membership or office, which means, from my perspective, it’s not enough to cite some conveniently obtuse authority or tradition and then say “Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further.” Part of being a Mormon for me means its all about finding further light and knowledge, rather than nailing down “the orthodox religion” for a Big Book of What to Think.
The main theme of my personal study since 1974 has been to understand the underlying reasons behind the differences of opinion that we have. And the keys to that are in the parable of the sower, that different contextualization and nurture and soil for the same words will produce radically different yields. “Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?” Joseph Smith tapped into that early. “The different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.” So when you complain that “the words don’t mean what they were interpreted to mean”, I have to say, in many important cases, in my opinion, for what little that may be worth, the words really don’t mean what they were interpreted to mean. There was a good essay in the JBMS recently on “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon”, focusing on Alma 5:21-22, for instance, that makes that kind of case. Even Nephi observes that his people couldn’t understand the things of the Jews without being taught Jewish culture, which, incidentally, would not even be an issue if all that his people were, knew and had been, was Jewish culture.
I’m perfectly willing to tolerate diversity in interpretation and different approaches to the Book of Mormon and the Bible and everything else. But I also get to speak my mind with the full understanding that my freedom to speak does not entitle me to suppose other people must keep silent when they disagree with me. You might consider that one of the things I often get from reading arguments that the Book of Mormon is inspired or uninspired fiction and the Creation and Flood stories when read in a particular fashion provide an irrefutable index of the ignorance of the naive faithful. The condescension you describe is not a one way thing. I felt it reading Taves, for instance. And in The Atlantic essay on Mormons and skin.
And for that matter, according Eugene England in one of my favorite essays, the root meaning of the word condescend is to “descend with”, which, I think is a meaning much more likely to lead to mutual appreciation than the other.
Hi Cody,
I love hearing perspectives like this even thought I believe it to be a historical book.
The interesting thing about the BoM is that it’s always lived in a world that says that historically, it’s impossible. Consider the video online Howlers In the Book of Mormon by Matthew Roper where he goes through all the ludicrous things the book claimed that 100 years later were found to be true.
I do think that we take too literal some things that should be, like the book of Genesis. I could see how it could have been an allegorical version of God choosing, out of many, the man Adam and the Bible is story of his lineage.
I believe there was a flood and the man Noah who saw the world around him get flooded and everyone he knew die but does that mean it covered the whole earth or the land and killed everyone? Probably not.
I find it interesting that according to the documentary hypothesis, the creation story, Adam’s genealogy, part of the Flood story, the Table of Nations, and the genealogy of Shem are all Priestly Source which I always felt was more suspect.
Especially in light of Jeremiah’s comments.
Kevin, I appreciate the back-and forth. Thanks.
There have no doubt been great articles on the meaning of various terms within the scriptures. I’m okay with new understandings of texts, reorienting our understandings given new data, etc. I’m just arguing that, if we’re going to be okay with such redefining, then we have to make room (as valid and accepted) for those who apply the same logic to Book of Mormon historicity. We have a lot of people in our community who treat such belief as somehow deficient or dangerous. I’m arguing that it is not.
I in no way condone this line of thinking. Those who believe in an historical Book of Mormon are not naive. I admit I don’t fully understand their line of reasoning, but it works for them. I suppose I am somewhat of a laissez faire believer.
I’m going to disagree with you on Taves, though. I think she respectfully handles her study of religious experience and did an admirable job working with the material surrounding Joseph Smith.
Cody, there is room in the church for you and your viewpoints. I do not really concur with them. I am pretty much of a TBM , Heber J. Grant, type and believe that the Book of Mormon is historically true as well as spiritually true. As Kevin noted, LDS scholars have made observations and done research that provide a counterpoint to the objections that you have raised. I am not going to get into that at all, because my point is that we are all here to learn and to grow, and I believe that the best, complete path for the spiritual growth that we need is only available through Christ’s own Church. I believe in that also. And I believe that a spiritual affirmation of the Book of Mormon is the only real way we can learn of its spiritual truths and values.
Glenn
Thanks, Glenn.
V good post. I’ve been lied to a handful of times in my life, and it’s always helped me to focus on the fact that God put those people in my path to teach me something.
I spent a week on a sail boat in the Bahamas with a bunch of boy scouts. It was too hot to go below deck for very long even at night. The adults were not supposed to sleep in the same place as the scouts so it became an exercise in sleep deprivation- staying awake on deck all night every night. I learned many interesting things from the heat-baked and twisted minds of 14 -15 year old boys.
Late one night our troop clown, an obnoxious Jewish scout (anyone remember a young Jerry Lewis?) confessed to the beefy quartermaster who has a touch of an anger management issue (maybe Jackie Gleason) that he has been stealing ropes from the troop for years. The quarter master tried to throw him overboard immediately. I posed the question: If you are stealing ropes from the scout closet at age 14 what will you be stealing when you are 24? He thought for a moment and then said, you know those big seahausers about a foot in diameter that they use to tie up battle ships? That is what I will be stealing at age 24.
We held a mock trial. The senior patrol leader played the role of the judge, the quartermaster became the prosecutor and the Jewish thief his own defense attorney with the rest of us a rather rowdy peanut gallery-jury. We quickly concluded that if any of these scouts ever got arrested, to keep their mouths shut because anything they said would be extremely useful against them and the mouth of the Jewish thief is never quiet.
Then this young Jewish boy went through all 12 of the points of the scout law and explained in sardonic detail how you could be a thief and still follow each them. You know; a trustworthy thief, and a loyal thief, and a helpful thief and so forth. It was a masterpiece of adolescent twisted genius and a reminder of the dangers of negotiating with youth of this age.
*****
As I read through some of the comments above, I just cannot avoid seeing a clear similarity between them and the late-night elocution of my Jewish scout with a fetish for ropes. Except I do think he knows that what he says is absurd- but I am not so sure about the commentators above.
Joseph and other prophets taught the BOM was historical. One small example is him relating events to his family. If it is not historical, the Church is not true. It is a man made creation. It is either a pious fraud, a conman or some other other reason. If Joseph just conjured up some scriptures from a stone, then we have no claim on authority and are no more enlightened than anyone else.
A lot of books are already in this category. The Tao Te Ching, for example, is historically questionable but has always been valuable for its insight.
I think that someone who questions the historicity of the Book of Mormon but considers it useful and valuable should feel free to treasure it that way. The problem comes when you look at the past 150+ years of Mormon church messaging and realize that it’s all proclaiming the opposite. And not only saying the BoM is literally true, but saying that that’s what’s important about it. That all this stuff literally happened, and if it didn’t then Mormonism is a fraud.
I don’t think you’re going to have an ideological home inside that particular Restorationist church after this. You may want to consider the Community of Christ as an alternative.
BTW, I’d like to take this opportunity to prophesy that the LDS Church will eventually come to accept that the BoM is not historical. And that when they do, it will look a lot like their earlier backpedalling on race. One day you’re an apostate for pointing out the obvious, the next there’s an announcement of church policy that you’re not to be kicked out or mistreated.
There will be no apology or explanation. There will be a lot of members still teaching that the BoM is literal and historical, even if they don’t push an argument with you as far. Thirty years afterwards, people will still be teaching “discredited theories” about BoM historicity. No one will ever apologize for how you were treated, or to the people who got excommunicated. We will all be reminded of how important it is to follow the prophets, even when they contradict themselves.
I think the kind of all-or-nothing thinking that comes up when we talk about historicity really does is a disservice. When we close ourselves off to an idea that doesn’t seem to fit with what we heard before, we’re less likely to accept the new doctrines or practices that God promised to show us. When we say “If it is not historical, the Church is not true,” we fail to make room for continuing revelation about things we still don’t understand fully.
I find it very hard to believe the BoM as a historical text, given so little corroborating evidence. I find it very easy to believe the BoM as divinely inspired scripture that has brought me and many others closer to God.
Where did the all or nothing idea originate?
Joseph Smith…….Gordon B. Hinckley.. Almost everyone in between. Can you seriously expect me to forget all of that?
You can’t have both ways. You can’t say it is all or nothing. Then discover it is not all. Then say, oh, forget about the last 190 years of all or nothing..Forge ahead with some half horse-hockey hocus pockus that has to be adjusted perpetually. (Except for those who don’t want to change. Especially when they pay the bills)..
This is central to the whole Mormon message. It is not a side issue like polygamy or race. The very keystone.
Sans the historical Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith is nothing more than a village mystic and idiot, rambling with his head in a hat, who can’t keep his hands off the ladies. Who conned an unusually gullible and capable cabal of followers who built what have now.
But hey, God can work with imperfect humans and create a marvelous work and wonder. We see through the glass darkly. Very darkly indeed.If God can use a lying and fraudulent Joseph Smith to bring us closer to Him, He just as well use Balaam’s ass or the pine tree in my front yard.
Late to the game. Cody, you asked, “For those who require the Book of Mormon to be historical, how do you handle God telling Joseph Smith the earth is only 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6)? Or the story of Noah? If you do not believe the earth is that age or that all of humanity came from Noah’s family only a few thousand years ago (not to mention all the animals), why are you okay with a non-literal view in those instances but not with the Book of Mormon?” This view is also taking a black-and-white approach. It’s suggesting that a historical view of the Book of Mormon must also be a hyper-literal view. I think a guy named Abraham existed, but do I believe his story happened verbatim as appears in any translation of Genesis? Probably not. In the same way, I can believe there really was a guy named Nephi, and yet take his account with a grain of salt. If I look at Book of Mormon peoples as historical, then I *can’t* trust their record to be just like an objective 21st century history book. It’s just not how things work. Realistically, I think you can find a spectrum of belief among members concerning the Book of Mormon with hyper-literal word of God at one end and complete uninspired fiction at the other with a whole bunch of viewpoints in-between. People go to church for different reasons (social, intellectual, etc.) and I think people get similarly different benefits from the scriptures. There is certainly room in the *church* for different viewpoints. Where it gets tricky is the litmus test for temple recommends, and I think most bishops would see*that* currently requiring a historical view of the Book of Mormon.
Mary Ann, I don’t see the temple recommend questions as addressing a historical view of the Book of Mormon. What most bishops may think about that issue doesn’t seem relevant unless they feel entitled to ignore the last sentence of this part of Handbook 1: “3.3.3 General Guidelines for Issuing Recommends
Authorized Church officers conduct worthiness interviews for temple recommends as outlined in the temple recommend book. Church officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord. Temple recommend interviews must be private. They should not be rushed. Interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book.” But maybe 3.3.3 has been changed since the date of my source.
JR, I stand corrected. You’re right that they don’t address the scriptures directly. I wonder what a bishop would think if he knew the individual took a non-historical view of the Book of Mormon, but it doesn’t matter as long as that person claimed a testimony of those items in the questions. Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
Mary Ann –
I don’t choose to hold a TR, so it’s been a while since I’ve actually been through the process. However, I don’t think I’d have a problem passing. The BoM isn’t even in the questions. The one question that might be problematic for people is “Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?” I’d say yes without a problem, even believing the BoM is non-historical. I love church history. Sure seems like it all happened, regardless of whether or not JS and his associates always interpreted what was happening to them correctly.
It should be concerning that it has no resemblance to history or archaeology or science. It ties in to the fact that the Israelite/Egyptian connection and archaeology was a fruitless search for 100 years, when other refugee settlements of similar size of 40 years has left sizable evidence behind. I think the problem here is in the macro, and even Joseph smith taught many of those Old Testament things in his belief they existed. The problem is none of it happened. In the americas or the old world. The US is the last hold on to these fables in light of the non discovery. No sign of any of them gave me enough pause to walk away. There were other inconsistencies as well, and it was time to move on. Hard to do but I couldn’t defend it any more. How much more time has to be wasted on these things when reality is there for the real growth of society.
As a non-Mormon, this was a fascinating read. Consider that we have no physical evidence of the Ten Commandments, Jesus’ crown of thorns, and many other objects of faith. How is believing in the existence of these “proof points” of faith any different from believing in the golden plates? I have long struggled with understanding the history vs. archaeological record of ancient Saints. Your essay put how I feel into perspective. I admire the LDS faith because of the closeness with Heavenly Father. The notion that He knew our names before we were born. The idea of exaltation – we were made in the image of God, after all. It’s a beautiful religion that doesn’t need to be “true” to be followed.