Does It Matter if The Book of Mormon is “True”?

No, I don’t think (1) and (2) are knowable. (Can anyone define what that really means? There are a whole lot of people who are utterly convinced that they “know” those answers . . . and they disagree with each other. Which of these are right? Or are they all wrong together?)

Are they relevant to (3)? Absolutely. And everyone I know uses their personal answers to (1) and (2) to inform how they approach the BoM on an individual level. The distinction of the BoM being a creation of JS, or a literal record of real people that is factually correct in every way (or any of the somewheres in between those two positions) will color how every passage in the book is read. But we don’t generally bring any of this up in our collective religious spaces (church) because I don’t know how we would handle it. If we have to start every discussion of King Benjamin with a debate over whether King Benjamin was a real guy, or whether this is a JS sermon what a ruler should be, we’ll never get around to discussing King Benjamin. And every lesson on the BoM will be the exact same debate, which will largely not change many minds. I suppose separating into two or more separate classes to have very different discussions based on different premises is an option, but would be a pretty wild reimagining of our church experience. (Will there be a third class for those open to the BoM being a real book by flawed people because Nephi is a self-centered egotist?) For better or worse, we (the church) have opted to discuss the BoM from a limited subset of the possible validity interpretations, and leave those with different ideas to work through things on their own, or skip classes, or suffer through discussions that don’t make much sense based on their opinions.

As to whether the focus on the BoM is a waste of time, is there a set of scripture that is not self-contradictory and is free from problematic morals that you could point me to? There is an opportunity cost to everything we chose to read or do in our lives, and whether my stake president asks us to read the BoM once or 10 times this year, I’m going to do what I find the most profitable to me, and leave everyone else to make the same choice for themselves. Let them read how, where, and what they may.

“Does it matter if the Book of Mormon is true?” is a question that makes sense given how it is framed by missionaries in their approach to teaching investigators, which is to pray and ask if the book is true. Yet that is not what the book, and specifically Moroni, asks of those reading the book to do. The exact quote is “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true…”

The key to understanding this challenge is in the last phrase, “…if these things are not true…” What Moroni is asking the reader to do is to ask if the book isn’t true, not if it is true. And this alternative question leads the reader in a different direction than the traditional question does.

By asking if the book isn’t true you end up with a much more open ended approach to learning and this then allows for all sorts of investigation that the alternative question doesn’t. But to your three points that the book needs to be “historical”, that Joseph Smith needs to be a faithful narrator, and the the book itself needs to contain “truths”, if one approaches from the perspective that the book might not be true, in any sense of the word, then your argument is moot.

But that’s not to say that there is no value in making your argument, because it did point out the problem with the absolutist position of “Is the book true”. And as you pointed out there are a host of problems with the “Is the book true” approach.

A reader believes that God has told them to read a book that is the most true book yet the reader then finds it boring? Is that really a likely scenario?

And a few Tolkien readers I know are well… Let’s just say that reality is bent a bit! But harmed by the experience? Nah.

No, I don’t think many are that influenced by historicity arguments. They read for meaning. I personally find discussions of historicity while analyzing ancient texts rather boring.

Elisa I did a double take when I saw your name listed as the author. Welcome back; you were missed. I hope all is well.

People have asked what it would take for people like me to return to active church participation. If evidence supported the Book of Mormon being what the church leaders (and not the apologists) claim, well, I would consider returning as it may lend credence to the founding narrative. Though I probably still wouldn’t return. While the Book being historically verified would be great, there are too many missteps since that time for me to engage with the organization’s unhealthiness today.

I’m the same as Angela. It’s just not good literature. I’ve read it enough for this lifetime. We all have different tastes and my wife and I rarely read the same books so YMMV. My list of books to read grows faster than I can read the books on it.

As for trying to lump the Bible into the same camp, I disagree. While not every story in the Bible can be verified as true, Jewish people do exist in the world today. Where are the Lamanites?

And while I associate with people that are quite infatuated with Middle Earth, Hogwarts, Tatooine, and the Marvel multiverse, I feel confident in saying that not a single one of them thinks these places are real. I find that argument silly.

Setting aside the actual truth claims and the implications of said claims made by the church for two centuries now, I’m a bit hesitant to affirm that propositions (1) and (2) in the OP need to have any bearing on (3) for any given individual. If we were to apply these same standards to any other (non-biblical) religious text, would we come to the same conclusion that said text has lost its status (at least a little) as a source of Universal Truth (if there is such a thing)?

For me, the Quran is a good comparison for the BoM – much closer than the Bible. The Quran is believed to contain the literal word of God, as revealed directly to Muhammad through an angel in a series of visions over a relatively short period of time (if this is incorrect, any correction is welcome). It also has biblical and quasi-biblical stories, as well as issues contemporary to Muhammad imprinted all over it. I won’t touch the controversial/problematic to modern readers – parts of the Quran. (Sound familiar)?

Ask the typical Imam if the traditional story of how the Quran came about is “true” and I have little doubt he would answer in the affirmative. However, if you could anonymously poll all of the nearly 2 billion Muslims around the world, would they all agree? How many would (again, anonymously) admit that they believe Muhammad (and his successors) pretty much made it all up, yet the Quran is still “True” to them and remains foundational to their faith? Out of 2 billion people, how many are we talking here? 2 million? 20 million? 200 million? Probably more. I can’t prove this, of course, but it seems logical given the sheer numbers. The point being, if millions of believing Muslims do not affirm the (1) or the (2) of the Quran, as it were, yet enthusiastically affirm the (3), I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t apply to the BoM (scaled down to Mormon numbers, of course).

For what it’s worth, I find that the case for the historicity of The Book of Mormon has improved by several orders of magnitude since I was young, sixty-years ago. I’ve made a serious effort to keep up with the scholarship since 1975, pro and con, and have been published on the topic myself many times, including once by Oxford University Press. When I was young, the good scholarship collected might fill half a shelf. Now, I have a wall full from literally hundred of scholars across an astonishing range of professional backgrounds examining the text in ways I never would imagined, left to my own devices. I have also closely considered several scholarly attempts to explain it all away, and compared those attempts against the best apologetics according to Thomas Kuhn’s criteria for paradigm choice: Puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity ad aesthetics, and future promise. Kuhn also explains that since no paradigm solves all the problems it defines, that paradigm choice always involves deciding “Which problems are more significant to have solved?” Rather than speak about the evidence for historicity or the lack thereof in airy generalities, like Trump on his elusive evidence of voter fraud, I will mention specifics like the way that King Benjamin’s discourse matches the patterns of the pre-exilic festival patterns that combined the Feast of the Tabernacles, the Sabbath Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Jubilee, expresses it all elaborate chiastic patterns, and for all that, has something profound to say to people who don’t see any of that. I am also impressed by Larry Poulson’s case that the Grijalva is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the description of the Sidon, and that Mesoamericans conceived directions as a flattened X rather than + format, which makes a huge difference in “the plain meaning of the text” for the plausibility of Sorenson’s correlation. I’m impressed by John Clark’s 2005 demonstration that overtime the clear trend with Book of Mormon issues is toward resolution rather than away from it, and that the 2018 LiDAR surveys continued that trend, revolutionizing our knowledge of Ancient Mesoamerican cultures, and supporting the Book of Mormon picture, rather than undercutting it. I am impressed by the Aston’s work on the Lehi’s journey, by Barker’s First Temple theology compared to the Book of Mormon, by Gardner and Sorenson and others on the New World correlations, by Thomasson and Hawkin’s essay on Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon, showing how Mormon and Moroni fit the profile of survivor’s of Nazi and Soviet death camps as “surviving to bear witness,” by Alma as demonstrating all the characteristics and after effects of Near Death Experience, by Ricks’s work on the authentic names, by Matthew Bowen on how the meaning of the Hebrew names helps show word play in the stories, and by Colleen Harrison’s demonstration that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 Steps of Addiction recovery, and much else.

I notice the relevance of Douglas Hofstdadter’s observation that “proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions” and that “Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.” As a specific demonstration of the importance of that idea I noticed that Dehlin and Coe demonstrated the importance of that situation as they insisted that the lack of any evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads constituted devastating evidence against The Book of Mormon, while both failed to notice that the text does not mention either item. Similarly, claims that DNA evidence somehow debunked The Book of Mormon depends on axiomatic assumptions about The Book of Mormon. In particular Matt Roper’s “Nephi’s Neighbors” makes an impressive case that the Book of Mormon presupposes interaction with local populations from the start, and John Butler’s discussion of Icelandic DNA and current populations shows how the majority of people “living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.” So arguments, such as offered by Southerland, involve axiomatic assumptions that the Book of Mormon commits us to supposing no one else was here, and that DNA testing can be safely counted on to show us just who was and was not here. I’ve learned to pay close attention to the assumptions behind arguments made. That, I believe, is why Jesus spoke of removing the beam from our own eye first, being self-critical, and why he spoke of the need to secure new wine bottles for new wine. Sometimes the problem is not the evidence, but the framing assumptions we make about what we are looking at. For example, Ethan Sproat’s important “Skins as Garments” essay, showing that most commentators on Alma 3:4-5 skip over the mention of “skin girded about their loins” when interpreting the subsequent line: “and the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” Recognizing that skins can be garments, and as such telling symbols of a chosen lifestyle, and not just epidermis, makes a huge difference.

Regarding question on and “knowability” I notice that Alma 32 distinguishes between those who insist on final definitive proof up front, “knowing” in advance so as to ensure that none of the uncomfortable “sustaining” of other imperfect people and sacrifice, and commandments, and unpopularity that goes with membership will be wasted on something unproven, and those others who settle for “cause to believe” that falls short of perfect knowledge, but that is nevertheless based on the results of successful experiments on the word over time that provide discernable results, enlighten and expand the mind (not just feelings), that enlarge the soul (as demonstrated by Enos and expanding circle of concern), and lead to fruitful discoveries that the investigator would never have seen had they not tried the experiments, and that lead not to “perfect” knowledge, but rather future promise for ongoing investigations. At this point in my life, I can look back at what many notable LDS scholars have uncovered, indeed, a few things that I found on my own and published, and consider that if I had left the faith back in the 70s, I would have never known what I was missing.

For the story of the origins of the Book of Mormon, I notice that Richard L. Bushman observed that “Most of the detailed sources were written by believers, and to follow them too closely infuses a narrative with their faith. Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.” (The Recovery of the Book of Mormon, 24). I am impressed that our best idea of what Joseph Smith’s neighbors thought he would produce is the “Book of Puki” which is utterly different that the Book of Mormon in style and content and size and depth and impact. And that in style and content, the Spaulding Manuscript and View of the Hebrews were notably different in style and content. (See Gee, “The Wrong Type of Book” for telling details.) I am also impressed that criticism of LDS history has resulted in the Joseph Smith Papers, putting all of the original sources out there for all to see including what we have of the original manuscript, which shows that the eye-witness descriptions of the translation were basically accurate. That it was dictated very quickly.

If a person wants to view The Book of Mormon as fictional, and still wants to obtain some benefit, go right ahead. Most of the attempts I have read on that front have not impressed me, but I do think the approach could be fruitful for some. Grant Hardy’s last few essays in his Annotated Book of Mormon might be the most helpful to date. Alma leaves the choice of which portion of the word on which to experiment, and what specific experiments done, up to his listeners. And our book reports that “all things which have been by God are the typifying of Christ” which to me suggests that, among much else, yes Harry Potter was inspired, even though I personally see Nahom and Bountiful and the Sidon as far more believable and findable in the real world than Hogwarts. “And there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good: and all things which are good cometh of Christ.” (Moroni 7:24).

As to getting benefit from Book of Mormon study, and not believing it to be historic, I did mention that Colleen Harrison has demonstrated that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 Steps of Addiction recovery. See He Did Deliver Me From Bondage. That has a demonstrated power to heal and change lives, and got here long before Dr. Bob and Bill W.

Kevin, have you encountered any non-Mormon historians or anthropologists of pre-Columbian America who accept the Book of Mormon’s historicity? Sincere question. I would be very interested to hear about one.

Back in 2008 Mark Wright made this post at Mormon Dialogue and Discussions.

“I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.
As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from pseudoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant’s new volumes, but I don’t know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won’t take the time to respond to an email (I’m not kidding).”

“As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I’m at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night – everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart’s voice was going out (David Stuart is the world’s leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don’t make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I’m LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.”

Elsewhere Wright commented that was persuaded them was that they could see how the accounts in the Book of Mormon fit with their knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica.

And of course, Margaret Barker as a non-LDS Biblical scholar is also relevant. She spoke about The Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference in Washington DC in 2005 five times using the phrase “the revelation to Joseph Smith.” Her talk was published in BYU Studies in 2005, and she has retained close ties to a wide range of LDS scholars ever since. I was the first LDS scholar to contact her, and she has been very gracious ever since, even collaborating with me on an essay published at Oxford University Press.

I also notice that the Gospel of John demonstrates this kind of question has a long history. “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48). I understand the need to ask the question, but I find that it is more important to consider who is doing the real inquiry, seeking for further light and knowledge no matter the cost, and who just wants to thrive and get ahead in the current social environment. Ask Rusty Bowers and Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney what happens if you go against the party line and express unpopular opinions. And look at up and down votes and why they tend to stack up in a single direction for specific opinions.

As to Kevin Christensen’s point about there being non-Mormon academics who accept the Book of Mormon’s main claims, I really don’t think there is, with some extraordinary exceptions: those being Sarabia and Goldsmith, who actually converted to the church. It should be noted, however, Goldsmith doesn’t have any publications on ancient Mesoamerica (at least not that I was able to locate). Sarabia seems to have published a little bit, but seems to be a more or less low-level player in the larger academic world, granted he is the site director of Teotihuacan. This is among the most significant site in Mexico, although there are over 29,000 archaeological sites in the country, 150 of which are open to the public.

Margaret Barker has certainly been friendly with BYU and academics there. But has she accepted that there were Christians in the pre-Columbian Americas? Saying that the Book of Mormon was the “revelation of Joseph Smith” doesn’t seem like good evidence that she has accepted the larger claim that Christianity existed in ancient America. I have heard many non-Muslims and even believing Mormon intellectuals who have referred to the Qur’an as the Muhammad’s revelation. That doesn’t mean that they have accepted Islam. In Barker’s publications I really see no evidence that she has accepted the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I know for a fact that there are many non-Mormon academics who are gracious to and accepting of Mormon intellectuals. On Allen Christensen being accepted and celebrated by non-Mormon archaeologists, is Christensen giving presentations showing how Christians existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, or is he just presenting on topics that are related to Mesoamerica but don’t defend the larger more controversial truth claims of the Book of Mormon (or even have anything to do with the Book of Mormon). My sense is the latter. Again, the analogy of Islam is relevant here. There are many believing Muslims who have done amazing research on the Qur’an and early Muslim community and history of the Middle East circa 600-700. Some of these studies have a pro-Muslim bent to them, but it doesn’t mean that I as a non-Muslim can’t appreciate them or that I have to accept the tenets of Islam to appreciate them.

“Ask Rusty Bowers and Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney what happens if you go against the party line and express unpopular opinions.”

Wait, so you’re saying that more non-Mormon academics don’t accept the Book of Mormon being historical because the modern world of academia is like the Trumpist Republican Party and they will push out the academics who accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon? And in the same comment you say that Allen Christensen is treated like a hero? Doesn’t make any sense. My reading is that there are 3 main reasons that more academics aren’t accepting the historicity of the Book of Mormon and its main claim that Christians existed in the pre-Columbian Americas?

1) They don’t know much about it.
2) They know about the claim but find it extremely extraordinary and unconvincing because of a massive lack of evidence, as well as extremely poor argumentation in defense of a historical Book of Mormon. They’re nice to believing Mormons because we live in a politically correct age (I don’t say that pejoratively but positively) and academics mostly consider it wrong to criticize people for their religious traditions and backgrounds.
3) Mormon intellectuals themselves undersell the Book of Mormon. They say to believers that there is strong evidence of its historicity, but to non-believers they wouldn’t dare, because they know deep inside that that’s just not true. Evidence of pre-Columbian American Christians would be one of the biggest findings of the century. If you know for certain that there is evidence, you should be shouting it from the rooftops. You’re not. Because you know your so-called evidence really isn’t all that compelling.

I am very glad to read your commentary, Elisa. I’m quite surprised by the amount of pushback.

It is clear that the Bible has actual historical provenance. The Book of Mormon has supernatural, dropped into Joseph Smith’s life, then whisked away origins.
Those are wholly different.

Even so, I get bored with ancient texts (actual or supposed) being used to make a point in almost any current discussion. Knowledge and understanding of them, yes, but giving them almost any sort of authoritative bearing, no.

There is so much happening here and now. There are many events that we should understand decently well. We have academics and experts with professional knowledge that is much more apropos. There are political shenanigans happening that make me fear for the future.
Those matter.

An additional comment on Kevin Christensen’s “Ask Rusty Bowers and Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney what happens if you go against the party line and express unpopular opinions.”

I’ve never heard of someone losing their job or being shunned by academic or intellectual peers for converting to Mormonism and thereby accepting that the Book of Mormon is historical. I don’t doubt that there are or could be cases of this. But mostly people are pretty tolerant and accepting towards people of different faiths. I know for a fact in my time in academia, everyone thought it was pretty cool that I was Mormon. For them it was like meeting an exotic rare bird. The same way I felt when I met someone who grew up Zoroastrian. It is one thing if someone is pushy about their religious beliefs and tries to awkwardly impose them on others. But as long as you’re rather private about your beliefs, and maybe express them as something you believe but others don’t necessarily need to, everyone is fine.

Where I do see the ostracism and heavy social pressure against expressing unpopular opinions is in Mormon circles. If you built any sort of reputation among Mormon intellectual peers and then express to them that you don’t believe that the Book of Mormon is historical, you are dead to them. If you work at BYU, you will most certainly lose your job. Even just among the Mormon community, if you let loose that you don’t believe in a historical Book of Mormon, people will call you to repentance, show you endless apologist nonsense, act defensive, try to place the burden of proof on you, and say that you expressing doubt somehow magically made their testimony stronger. You could get called into the bishop’s office for expressing such a belief out loud. I’ve long been interactive on blogs, and this is probably the only active (ish) Mormon blog where I can express doubt about the Book of Mormon’s historicity and be accepted. At By Common Consent, Times and Seasons, and other blogs, I have expressed doubts about historicity to strong defensive reactions threatening to remove my posts if I don’t comport. I think I know who the Trumpist-like mobs are, and they aren’t non-Mormon academics.

The theme I’m sensing is that apologists need to do a much better job at demonstrating the reliability and validity of their claims.

I like the post, though I’m a bit curious how the OP demonstrates (via their same emphasis on logic) how they can be even confident that there is such thing as god or spirit.

Personally, If the BoM’s worth is questionable based upon its literal truth claims, then so is the Bible IMO. People are not obliged to read them and their value should be considered relative to what can be validly learned from them, relative to other texts.

The BoM is a window into how Joseph Smith, and perhaps many others in his society, understood/negotiated with their religious social environment. We can use the BoM to see how religious concepts changed within the church across time, and how Joseph and others’ view of these concepts were also socially mediated by other actors/constructs.

Understanding the Bible and its formation is likewise only as useful, as to the extent that they can reveal the ideas, myths, and mores of the groups with the authority to determine its translation and composition.

I also agree with Elisa that there can be timeless truths about human nature but that would partially depend on how we understand such nature. Nature is entwined with nurture- aka the influence of subjective cultural practices and values.

So is the BoM worth studying? Possibly- but not in the way orthodox members would opine.

The Book of Mormon is an 18th century American Christian religious text written during the American’Great Awakening’.

It is useful- not because it can (demonstrably) bring anyone to “god”(which remains unverifiable) -but for what it reveals about specific human ideas, power structures, and processes, at the time of its creation or (potentially) more generally.

Readers have to be critical though, of both the text and its authorship, in order to derive anything valid or reliable from these texts. Unfounded emphasize upon the Bible/BoM’s textual inerrancy or infallibility on the other hand, are merely veiled attempts at reinforcing social power absent of either evidence or logic.

(This is meant to be read bluntly. I swear I’m not trying to sound like an “angry” (agnostic)-atheist, but I just don’t see the

Aside from my terrible composition (so sorry, I keep changing things midway) the other noteworthy horror found in my prior two posts is that technically the BoM is a *19th century text, as it was published in 1830.

The convention for referencing centuries just doesn’t make sense to my ADHD brain 😦

Elisa:

“That the BoM claims to be historical does not support, remotely, a conclusion that it is.”

I agree–there’s not enough evidence to objectively verify that the BoM is what it says it is. However, I’m of the opinion that the book makes the most sense if we study it in light of what it says about itself.

The 19th century elements in the text are easily explained by the target language and culture into which the BoM was translated. But there is so much more in the text that goes beyond Joseph Smith’s or anyone else’s understanding from that time. So many ancient themes, motifs, modes, and structures have been discovered in the text by Latter-day Saint scholars — from Nibley to Welch to the veritable army of current talent and expertise — that the book’s authenticity is practically undeniable.

Even so, those discoveries are not finally enough to prove to anyone’s mind that the BoM is authentic–not yet at any rate. (I believe there will be plenty of confirming empirical evidence at some point in the future.) But thankfully we are not left without a means of learning whether or not the BoM is what it says it is. We can do as it suggests towards the end of the text:

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Welcome back, Elisa. We missed you. The short answer to the question, of course, is “It matters if it’s important to you.” I, too, am surprised at some of the pushback. Since I don’t consider the B of M to be historical, a lot of this just doesn’t bother me that much. And I have to say, the older I’ve gotten, the less “truth” I feel the book has to teach me generally. So I guess my answer is that, in all three of the senses you mention, the “truth” of the book isn’t valuable.

But your post raises some other really interesting issues, one of which is about the provenance of ancient texts. As other posters have noted, there is a significant difference between the Bible and the B of M, and I think Joseph Smith was quite deliberate in constructing the surrounding narrative of the B of M’s origin; if you set it up that, hey, you got some gold plates from an angel, but it turns out you didn’t really need them anyway cause you “translated” the book with a rock in a hat, but then, hey, the plates got taken back up into Heaven or wherever, that’s a brilliant set up that does two things: 1. It gets you out of any kind of intellectual or scholarly inquiry into the text in question, since you don’t have any of the ur-text in your possession and 2. It puts you into the perfect position to manipulate the faithful; if you don’t “believe” in the B of M, then you don’t have “faith” (at least the right kind/amount, anyway) and therefore the burden of proof falls on the reader/inquirer into the text rather than the creator of it. It’s a brilliant bit of con artistry that would impress even the likes of Verbal Kint.

And of course, as others have noted above, despite the fact that this really doesn’t have to be an either/or question, the church is really invested in this narrative of the B of M being the literal, historical truth. Sadly, I think that actually forecloses a lot of avenues of engagement to the text. As another commenter with an academic background (Humanities), I think the most effective ways to read texts are complex and nuanced, for no other reason that there is, ironically, perhaps, actually more universality to be found in that kind of reading than in the “literal” kind of proof-texting and reading that a Sunday school class can devolve into. And once one frees themselves from questions of “truth” concerning a text’s origins, one can more fully and more freely explore whatever “message” a text might have. It matters not at all to me, for example, whether the events in Twelfth Night are “true”; but that play has taught me more about love, identity, loss, and connection than any other text has, precisely because I didn’t concern myself with whether events in the play actually happened or even could have possibly happened. If we treated the B of M as a fiction, even an “inspired” fiction, I actually think we’d get more out of it. YMMV.

Editing my last ¶/sentence to only the first part

First, glad to see that Elisa returned. Hopefully not temporarily. 🤞

I used to say that the BofM was the strongest part of my testimony. I believed for years that even though JS was a fraud that somehow God allowed him to bring it to light. Now I see there are simply too many issues with it. It’s a It’s a clever book but it belongs in the fiction section of the library.

The main problem I have with how it’s revered is opportunity cost. For every hour I spent w the BofM I could be reading something better or doing something else. Growing up my neighbor was known as one of the most righteous women in the ward. Her children were hellions and my mom fed them often and sometimes helped with schoolwork, etc. They’d say that their mother was too busy studying scripture to make dinner. I realize that happens in all religions but that was one of the fruits of organized religions and scripture that grew into my apostasy. The stake asking its members read it 3 times this year is foregoing so many things! Take your kids on a hike or read James and the Giant Peach.

I can understand how people may not see the BOM as historical. But I agree with Mary Ann in that the Bible and the BOM can be read from the same point of view. Personally I don’t have to require that everything in the Bible is historical and that the provenance of the books and the authors are as purported to profit from reading it either. There are many scholars who doubt that a Moses actually wrote “the five Books of Moses,” or that there was a historical Job or Jonah, or that Israelites really did wipe out every living thing on the side of their enemies, that Isaiah wrote all the books of Isaiah, etc. As you say, the Bible and BOM don’t compare from a literary, cultural and historical standpoint. The Bible had probably many edits over many generations that made it relevant to the cultures of the people in power at different times. If the premise of the BOM were to be accepted, it had a different focus: in the small plates of Nephi, a deliberate focus away from history and culture and the rest of the plates with books written eponymously under the same directive, with one edit by the ultimate compiler of the records.

Mary Ann,

“I’m not convinced that the Bible and Book of Mormon should be dealt with differently in this discussion”

I couldn’t disagree more. A remarkable amount of archaeological evidence has surfaced from the 1800s to the present that corroborates Biblical events, people, and places. In 2023 alone a number of findings have been made that reveal the historicity of the Bible. These include:

1. A monumental structure at Tel Shimrom, a Canaanite city with two mentions in the Bible (Joshua 11:1; 19:15).
2. The discovery of silver pieces used as currency in the Middle Bronze Age (2000s BC). This lends credence to the idea of patriarchal prophets of Genesis using silver for purchases as in Genesis 23:16 where Abraham buys the land of Ephron with 400 silver shekels.
3.. The discovery of core cities around Khirbet Qeiyafa that have wall constructions that were common in Judea in the 10th century. This shows an emerging kingdom and growing administration during the time of King David and Solomon (10th-9th century BC).
4. The discovery of garrisons in the southern territory of Edom, basically Hebrew fortresses in the Negev, corresponding with 2 Samuel 8:14, where it says that David made garrisons and made the inhabitants of Edom his servants.
5. The deciphering of a Queen of Sheba sherd found in 2012 which is dated to the 10th century. When is was found a decade ago, researchers couldn’t figure out what language was on the description. Until last, a researcher found it was an inscription in Southern Arabian reading “labdanum”, an ancient spice used in making incense (labdanum is identified as such an ingredient in temple incense in Exodus 30:34). This corresponds to 1 Kings 10:2 in which the Queen of Sheba visits King Solomon carrying with her spices.

This was just last year. And these weren’t the only Biblical archaeological discoveries of 2023.

The minimization of Biblical archaeology in order to save face for the Book of Mormon needs to stop. Those who make the claims “well, just like the Book of Mormon there is a lack of archaeological evidence for the Bible too” are simply unaware of the massive amount of archaeological findings that corroborate the Bible and its historicity.

I, too, a few years was once dumbfounded by an apologist argument making the claim of the overall lacking evidence for the Bible. That is until I read Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbermann. That changed everything. It showed to me clearly that the Bible is rooted in an actual historical framework and that there is a massive amount of evidence of the events and material culture described in it that date back centuries before the Hebrew Bible’s final construction and compilation 300-150 BC. The Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in the 700s BC really happened. The Babylonian captivity and migration of Jews to Babylon in the 500s BC really happened.

I’ll second Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbermann. And for fun add “Did God Have a Wife: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel” by William C Dever
Now to switch gears, consider someone wrote an SF alternative history of the early colonial America where a Sinbad the sailor type sailed to Plymouth Rock and established an Caliphate. Sounds like a kick-butt interesting idea.
But what if they claimed it was not SF, but actual factual religious history revealed to them by God.
I would ask what empirical evidence was there. And some follower says they had ships and believed in monotheism, Abraham, Jesus. I’d be like, um, your taking things out of context, and ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it was Separatists from England. But they say–The evidence is there ,some has been found and much more will yet be found. But more importantly it’s factually accurate because God said so and told me. Can’t be more authoritative than that.

I don’t know anything about question one, two or three. But evidence needs to be empirical. And make believe doesn’t establish reality.
But music, art, philosophy, religion can provide meaning to our lives. Enrich our lives.
But when it comes to thoughts and prayers, I’ll choose modern medicine and science.

So good to have Elisa writing again. Also loved Andrew’s contribution. For me, if the BOM is not historical how can it possibly have come from God? And what is the point of Mormoni’s promise? If its not historical and it is from God then what the actual F God! We’re going to have a long chat! That God can NOT be my judge. I think it’s more interesting to study the social construct that lead to those involved swearing to the existence of the Gold plates. They clearly were convinced. Joseph had to be far more impressive than he’s given credit for.

Brad D,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

“The Golden Plates were supposedly unearthed in upstate New York, so it would make sense that events took place around there, right?”

That was the assumption of most members early on. But there’s no reason why Moroni could not have made the trek from Mesoamerica — or anywhere else — over a period of thirty years.

“I’m not aware of any growing list of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.”

As I say, nowadays we take much of the evidence that has been found since the publication of the Book of Mormon for granted. We moderns view ancient America very differently than folks did two hundred years ago. But the irony is: though the BoM was criticized (back in the day) for its depiction of ancient American civilizations–today those depictions are vindicated by what we’ve learned about the subject over the intervening years.

And on top of that there are gobs of books and papers and presentations by Latter-day Saint scholars in many different fields of study having to do with evidence for the BoM. One of the benchmarks of a great work of literature — or anything really — are the bookshelves overflowing with studies and critiques that have been inspired by it. And such is the case with the BoM. Just in the area of literature — including linguistics and etymology and so forth — so much work has been done that it’s practically impossible to believe that any person from Joseph Smith’s time and place could have made it up–let alone an ignorant farm boy.

“And therein lies the difference between you and me. I don’t believe in a historical Book of Mormon because I see no evidence of such a thing.”

My hope is that people will try to accept the Book of Mormon on its own terms. And that means (IMO) that the honest seeker doesn’t need to be settled on the question of the book’s historicity in order to accept it as an inspired book of scripture. I think the Lord is more interested in our efforts to abide by the precepts of the BoM than whether or not we’ve come to terms with its historicity.

Jack, the main claim of the Book of Mormon is that there were Christians living in the pre-Columbian Americas. I’ve never seen evidence to back this claim. “Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this” is not evidence of Christians in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Jack
I can’t resist. Like a moth to a flame, my biology compels me.
In 1519, the European Cortez marched on Tenochtitlán. In 1533 the European Pizarro marched into Cuzco. In 1540 Coronado went searching in the american southwest for the Seven cities of Gold. And then there was the discussion and speculation in the US about the Mound Builders. So ancient American civilizations were known.
Also it was bit of a big deal with Humboldt in 1804 visiting Jefferson in White House because of the recent Louisiana Purchase and the need to know about New Spain.
We do know much more about Ancient American civilizations, and ironic or not, nothing yet vindicates the Book of Mormon. That jungle just keeps gets smaller.
Joseph smith did not live in the hermetically sealed “The Village”. His father among other things taught school. His brother Hyrum went to Dartmouth. So ignorant farm boy was not so ignorant.
As a bit of a trekkie(and avoiding Tolken), there are gobs of books and papers and presentations on Star Trek in many different fields of study. Bookshelves overflowing with studies and critiques that have been inspired by Trek. So I am gratified to see that Star Trek is not only great literature, but great art. And inspiring scientific research.
But I’m going to go further and say it actually happened. Zefram Cochrane invents warp drive and on April 5, 2063, makes first contact with the Vulcans.
As further proof, the there a plaque in Riverside, Iowa stating James T Kirk will born there in March 22, 2233. And in Bloomington, Indiana another marker celebrating the future birthplace of Kathryn Janeway in May 20, 2336.
You haven’t been to the 23rd or 24th centuries, so you can’t say it didn’t happen. Can you disprove it.

If the Book of Mormon inspires you, is scripture to you, a sacred text, right on brother. But it is not historical.

Does it matter if the Books of Mormon is true? Yes, it matters, because every prophet from JS to TSM has told us it’s a literal history of the people who lived in the Americas, and I believed it to my core and, as a missionary, was scripted to testify of this. Then in 2016, RMN delivered a talk to Mission Presidents when he was president of the Q12 and said the Book of Mormon “…is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages,” which was the beginning of the end for me. I understand that plenty of members are not affected by this shift because membership in a high-demand religion fills a need for them. Others of us expect prophets to delivery useful and accurate information ahead of the curve, but in this case it seemed that RMN was adjusting the narrative to conform to what archeologists had already concluded, which is that there’s no evidence to corroborate that the Book of Mormon “is an actual historical account of a group of people who left Jerusalem in approximately 600 B.C., written by actual people who existed somewhere on the American continent between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.” There are other cases where the Q15 has chosen gaslighting rather than give a full-throated acknowledgement that huge error has been made, the impact of which has been devastating for many of us. Credibility is compromised and I have no inclination to follow them. Yes, it matters!

Brad,

I’ve been trying to limit my comments to a couple o’ three–but I’ve already gone beyond that. So this must be my last response.

Re: Evidence for Christianity: I think we should keep in mind that the Nephites were indeed a peculiar people in their circumstances. They were not Maya (IMO) and so that made them a small minority–if, indeed, they were located in Mesoamerica. And so the question is–what should we expect to find from a relatively small culture that was stomped out of existence by its neighbors? What did their places of worship look like? I don’t think they used the cross as a symbol of their religious commitments. And we know that the Lamanites destroyed all of the Nephite records they could find–which was part of an effort to rid the land of all Nephite identity.

If the BOM is not true, I can skip the guilt and shame and go to 7-11 or Dairy Queen on any given Sunday -easy to do because I will have given myself a 10% bump in income.

Andrew S
I’ve been thinking about your “enchanted world”.
Personally, for real life for me, dealing with the here and now is enough. I don’t have enough bandwidth for anything supernatural.