[This post originally appeared at Studio et Quoque Fide and is reposted here with permission.]
The “historicity wars” of the bloggernacle have died down, and I am reticent to start them back up again. Since I am generally ignored by the bloggernacle, however, that is unlikely to happen. I have long pondered over the relevance of historicity for the Book of Mormon—if it matters, and if so, why it matters. As I have been reading about the experiences of Joseph Smith and others with the plates and other artifacts in the newly released From Darkness unto Light: The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, I have once again begun to ponder the question of historicity.
For me, I think it helps to realize that what we are talking about when we discuss history and historicity is the experiences of other people, and whether they existed or not. When I share personal experiences with other people, it matters to me that the things I experienced really happened. It matters that these are not just stories I am making up, but that they reflect real things that I have personally been through and witnessed. I glean things from real experiences that I don’t gain from “fishing stories.”
Likewise, it matters to me if you believe my experiences are real when I share them with you. I’m assuming I am not the only one who would feel hurt if someone told me, after I shared a deeply personal experience, “That is a nice story. And I think there is a lot we all can learn from it. But I just don’t believe that really happened to you.” Express skepticism that things are not exactly as I perceive them? OK (maybe the all the people driving 3 under the speed limit when I am in a hurry aren’t actually out to get me after all). Believe that there might be other perspectives to consider? Sure. But think I am just making my own life experiences up? Ouch. That hurts just to imagine someone discounting the very things that have made me who I am.
The reverse is, I think, also true. It matters to me if the experiences you claim as your own are real. It matters if the things you tell me happened to you actually happened. I would feel betrayed if, in fact, I found out you were lying to me about them. Granted I might be a little more sympathetic if I knew you were a habitual liar, or had some kind of mental instability, or for some other reason really believe your stories to be your real experiences, but my sympathy would not necessarily mitigate the feeling that I can’t really trust you when you claim to be talking about your own personal experiences. The sense of betrayal would be magnified if the stories you told as if they were your own personal experiences had galvanized me to provide you with monetary support, or in some other way make sacrifices on your behalf. And, again, I am guessing I am not alone in any of this. Most others would feel the same way. It is human nature.
So getting back to the question about whether historicity of the Book of Mormon matters, I would like to ask, matters to whom? Perhaps we should think about that.
Do you think it matters to say, Emma, Joseph’s wife, if the object wrapped in the linen cloth that sat on the table as she transcribed Joseph’s dictation, was really a set of metal plates containing a record of ancient prophets, whose words Joseph was dictating in translated form? Emma suffered estrangement from her parents and family over Joseph’s refusal to show this object to any of them. She saw her house torn apart by a crazed Lucy Harris, wife of Martin, who was determined to find and see that object. And she generally endured all kinds of hardships due to the events that unfolded from the translation of that record. Yet through it all, she dutifully chose not to look under the linen cloth. Tell me, do you think it matters toher, if her husband’s claims about angels and plates and ancient peoples are true? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Emma.
Speaking of Martin Harris, let’s talk about him for a minute. Do you think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to him? This is the man who took copies of ‘caractors’, ostensibly from the plates, to scholars back east in New York City (and, probably, Philadelphia), at great personal expense, to see if the writings could be verified. The man who experience severe strain on, and the eventual failure of, his marriage due to his efforts to assist in the work of getting the record translated and published, who mortgaged the bulk of his farm to that end. The man who carefully investigated the members of the Smith family upon first hearing the stories of the angel and plates, who cautiously hefted the box containing the plates, until he was satisfied that the object within was either lead or gold, and who practically begged to be one of the witnesses when word got out that a select few would get to see the plates. Do you think it matters to that man—Martin Harris—if Joseph’s stories about angels and plates and ancient peoples are true? Do you think it matters to him if his own experience seeing an angel holding the plates, and hearing a voice declaring that the translation of those plates is correct really happened? That is wasn’t something just in his head, or some kind of deception on Joseph Smith’s part (or, worse, of God’s part)? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Martin.
How about Mary Whitmer? The women who carried the brunt of the burden of having long term house guests stay with her family as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery finished the translation there. The women who at one point was so exhausted by the extra labor and sacrifice required of her at this time that she was granted—or believed she was—a view of the plates, shown to her by some stranger who then miraculously disappeared; an experience that gave her the strength endure the hardship until the translation was complete. Do you think it matters to her if she really saw a man with the plates that day? That is matters that those really were the same plates that contained a record that Joseph was translating from? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Mary Whitmer.
What about the many others close to Joseph Smith? His father, mother, and siblings, whose lives were put at risk assisting Joseph in hiding and protecting this object that he told them was an ancient record engraved on gold plates. Whose very lives were disrupted and uprooted time and time again for the sake of the movement that started after the text was published. Do you think it matters to them if Joseph was just spinning old money diggers yarns or telling fanciful stories? Or if he himself was somehow convinced of these stories, but they nonetheless were not really happening? No real angel, no real plates, no real Nephites or Lamanites? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to them.
Let’s even consider Joseph Smith himself. Everything the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon set in motion ultimately cost him his life. Do you think it matters to him if the plates were objectively real? And if those plates really contained an ancient text? And if the words he was dictating to his scribes really were a translation of that record? He endured mobs trying to take the object he kept in that box. Lucy Harris ransacking his home. The enmity of his in-laws. And widespread mockery for the text he published and stories he told about its origins. In his 1838 history he poignantly told about the ridicule he endured for visions he claimed to have. Do you think it matters to him if the revelations he had were more than merely the product of his own mind? If the history he believed he was revealing actually is history? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Joseph Smith.
I think it is clear that to all of these people, the historicity of the Book of Mormon most certainly matters. And I think it matters to all of them—but especially Joseph—if we believe their stories. Just like it would to you and me if we shared our personal experiences with someone else. We can see how much it mattered to them in the many tellings and retellings of their experiences that we have on record. The historicity of the Book of Mormon mattered to them, and it mattered to them if others believed in it too. I think it matters to them if we believe it now. Likewise, just as it would matter to us if someone today told us bogus stories as personal experiences, it should matter to us if these stories are historically true. We are, after all, giving our lives to those stories.
Those are the people who are indisputably real, and others (like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, etc.) could be added to that list. But what if we take this a little further? Do think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to say, Mormon? To the man who so very carefully sifted through a thousand years of history and meticulously engraved his well crafted narrative history onto metallic sheets. Do you think the veracity of that history matters to him? Do you think he cares if we believe that he is a real person who actually went through that painstaking effort? Or what about Moroni, who promised to see us before the bar of God on judgment day? The man who diligently finished what his father started. And then spent 35 lonely years protecting that record as he wondered. And who came back from the dead to see to it that we would have the record today. Do you really think it wouldn’t matter to him if you believe he is real? That he just shrugs his shoulders and thinks, “Well, at least you still think its inspired.” What about Nephi, the man who started the record (who also promises to see us at the judgment bar)? The man who endured 8 years of hardship in the Arabian desert, who not only spent years laboring to build a sea worthy vessel, but also had to navigate it across thousands of miles of oceans, who had to lead and organize a new colony. A man who spilt blood for the sake of providing records to his own people. Do you think it matters to him if we believe the stories he told about his family’s journey and hardships?
How about the multitude who saw and felt the risen Lord, Jesus Christ? Who deemed the event of utmost importance to bear witness of it collectively? Do you think it matters to them if you or I believe their witness? If we really believe that event happened, as they testified? While we are on the topic, how about the Savior himself? Do you really think he does not care what we believe about the things he said and did in front of that multitude? That as he carefully and lovingly ministered to the sick and infirm among them, and blessed their children, he simply didn’t care if others would believe those things happened? I think historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to the Savior. I am sure there are things that matter more to him than that, but I nonetheless suspect this is not something he feels is completely irrelevant.
So, does the historicity of the Book of Mormon matter? It certainly mattered to the people—both ancient and modern—who contributed to our having it today, as is evident in the sacrifices they endured to make that possible. It should matter us, too.
If we repudiate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, what are we to make of the prophecies contained therein? Especially regarding the mission of the Church, the establishment of Zion, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? These are things for which the Church is ostensibly preparing. Many of these prophecies concern the Lamanites, which are, to some, a fictional people. What then?
The more interesting question is–what if it wasnt historical at all? What if it were shown definitively that the BOM was completely ahistorical? Would the BOM still be important? WOuld you still have a testimony of it? I think the people you mentioned in your post would. I think that folks who put all their eggs in the historical basket might be on a foundation of sand.
I guess with your logic(the two people who wrote ahead of me) those who put their faith in a historic Jesus or people of Israel or Abrahamic covenant are building on a foundation of sand because I’m not sure their is much evidence for either of those two things. (Or “scientific evideince” that can stand up to the demands of the scientific method or a legal courtroom for proof)
Yes, historicity matters, but shouldn’t we be willing to explore and entertain all of the possibilities? After all, we are talking about a book that was dictated by a man looking at a stone in a hat. We are also talking about a book with no significant archaeological support, loads of anachronisms, and many other potential issues. We can’t even decide where the Book of Mormon peoples lived in the Americas.
It appears to me that the testimonies of many LDS members crumble when they encounter the many difficulties that can accompany a strict historical view of the Book of Mormon. I prefer to believe the book is historical while leaving open the very real possibility that it isn’t.
For me the point is that the BOM’s purpose is not historical but that does not mean it did not take pace in a real society with real people. In many ways the Bible is not historical either but again that does not mean it did not happen in a real place to real people. We meed to be careful how with through around the term Historical. In accepting (after considerable study and research) the mesoamerican hypothesis for BOM lands when I read the BOM it has for me more meaning and significance but my testimony is based on the spirit not the archaeology.
I think Jer and Clay make significant points. How to define something as “historical” as it relates to the Bible or other ancient text is hard enough, throw in the layer of it being devinely “translated” into KJV style English by a frontier prophet, the BOM is hard to categorize. I bleieve it relates a real people, but how much is historical in an academia sense o have no idea. You have ancient authors relating stories about an ancient culture and religion, that is then being edited by an ancient American Christian prophet, and then translated into English by a frontier prophet for our days. A critic would say this all non-sense and in a way I wouldn’t blame them, but if this really was from God it would be hard to know what to really expect. We can state well God would do it this way… But it is are opinion
Our opinions*
@John Jacob:
“The more interesting question is–what if it wasnt historical at all? What if it were shown definitively that the BOM was completely ahistorical? Would the BOM still be important? Would you still have a testimony of it?”
Nope. I wouldn’t. Would I still possibly find spiritual value in it, even be inspired by it in ways? Sure. But no, I would not have any sort of testimony that it was revealed by God, that its teachings could bring me eternal life, etc.
“I think the people you mentioned in your post would.”
You think if Emma had pulled the linen cloth away to find, say, a fake set of tin plates, she would still have had a testimony of what her husband was doing? She would have been indifferent to the fact that her house was ransacked to protect Joseph’s forgery? That she had been left ill after delivering a stillborn child by her husband because he was concerned not for the sacred manuscript Martin might have lost–which she had helped transcribed–but because he was worried about having his con exposed? You really think none of that would have mattered to her?
You really think Martin Harris would not have felt betrayed if the story of an ancient record was not true? If he felt the same way you do, why, then, the trip east to have scholars look at the “caractors”? Why the careful consideration and hefting of the wooden box? And the eager desire to see the plates?
Similar questions could be asked of everyone else whose lives were effected by the very real presence of the plates. Reading their stories and experiences makes it very clear that the genuineness of the record was VERY important to them. To say otherwise, as you do, requires we completely ignore their own stories about when the Book of Mormon came into their lives. And it couldn’t be any other way. With the plates a present reality for them (whether they could see them or not, the object covered in linen cloth or locked in a wooden chest was there), and Joseph Smith under constant scrutiny for his claims, there was no room for them to take some sort of “middle-ground.” They didn’t have that luxury. And, my point is, people who keep saying it doesn’t matter now are blinded by their “privilege,” much like “white privilege” or “male privilege” can blind some to the real concerns and plight of others who are not so “privileged.”
Those who were there when the book first came forth did not have the privileged of carving out some nebulous middle-ground, and anyone who reads and takes their experiences seriously understands that neither do we.
“I think that folks who put all their eggs in the historical basket might be on a foundation of sand.”
The inspired-fiction thesis strikes me as much sandier.
“You really think Martin Harris would not have felt betrayed if the story of an ancient record was not true?”
Besides feeling betrayed by Joseph personally, think of his feelings after losing all of that money and his wife to a giant con.
I’m not a mindreader, but I can imagine Martin Harris being pretty upset.
“The more interesting question is–what if it wasnt historical at all? What if it were shown definitively that the BOM was completely ahistorical? Would the BOM still be important? WOuld you still have a testimony of it?”
No. I wouldn’t have a testimony. If the Book of Mormon goes, I go. Sure, it’d be a nice, even interesting, 19th century religious book with some interesting ideas, but I would have a really hard time regarding it to be anything more than that. I sure as heck wouldn’t bank my eternal life or salvation on it afterwards (assuming I wouldn’t just go full agnostic/atheist, since my testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is one of the key reasons why I’m a theist).
But that’s just me.
I don’t see any legitimate way to separate the historicity of the BoM from the validity of Joseph’s calling as a prophet. Either the BoM is historical and JS is a true prophet, or the BoM is not historical and JS is not a true prophet. Any other option must rely on sophistry and cherry picking the facts to make it work. If anybody is uncomfortable with not being able to objectively prove the historicity of the BoM then they need to learn to listen to the spirit more and trust God more than man.
To me some of the comments here are attempted scholarly gobbledygook. “Ahistorical”? “Lacking archeological evidence”? This is very simple; either you accept the Book of Mormon for what Joseph Smith and even the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants claim it to be, or not. It cannot be “open to other possibilities”. Joseph was clear in his testimony about how he obtained the plates but was less clear on the translating process itself. Our eighth article of faith says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God”. No “except, it is open to other possibilities”. Even the Lord himself said, “Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel..” (D&C 27:5). If I accept Joseph as a prophet and God speaking to him in revelation, then I accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, Lehi, etc. were real people who lived real lives and some of them preceded the Lord’s coming to them. And the Lord saw fit in his wisdom to teach us from their trials and mistakes as well as their amazing strength among great wickedness as we await his second coming. I believe God gives us just enough to know something is true, but leaves just enough ambiguity so we have to rely on faith. Archeological evidence? I have read there’s little to no archeological evidence of the Israelites destroying the canaanites and occupying that land. But regardless, I know the Book of Mormon is what it claims. And too many members who sometimes think they’re smarter than the room by half, make it complicated. As Paul said, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”. It’s not just historical in nature. Indeed, that’s not it’s purpose. The title page states that the Book of Mormon’s purpose is to convince all of us “that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.” Still, accepting the historicity of the book is connected to the truthfulness of the book. It is what it claims to be. No more exploring the definition of “is” – is needed.
I have a testimony of the BOM and I can’t deny it. If I did’t have similar experiences that the prophet had I think my tree could be shaken. But because of my personal experiences the shaking only adds oxygen and water into the roots making my tree stronger having been built upon testimonies of what I believe is true. Alma 32. The principle of causation is real and when applied to the BOM the possibilities abound. If the Powers that be, would spend a fraction of what was spent in Israel and Egypt in the Americas a lot more could be realized.
While it is clear from the parables of Jesus, that God can use fiction to teach a message, when a work is presented as true, there are two choices, either it is true or it is a fraud. Either Joseph Smith is a prophet or a con artist. Either Mormons follow the Lord or are an easily deceived and misguided people.
While at some points people present false dichotomies, in this case there is a true diachotomy.
That said, we need to make sure the arguments for the Book of Mormon’s historicity are based on close readings of what the text says, and not unfounded extrapolations. Some times the text forces conclusions that work against some theories used to try to discredit the Book of Mormon. For example, the only way that the account of Sharem and what he said to Jacob makes any sense is if there was at some point a sizeable incoporation of unmentioned peoples into Nephite society.
I think it is important to bear in mind John Sorenson’s argument that the Book of Mormon is much more a Meso-American work than we recognize, reflecting primarily an account of just one family.
The problem with our understanding of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is not that we read them to much as histories, but too little. What we should actually gain from the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a realization that God’s dealings with humans have been greater than just the Bible. We need to read these books as accounts of such dealings, not as all encompassing.
Another problem is that some confuse historicity and accuracy. Luckily Mormon at times makes it clear that he is dependent on the works of others, and that there are errors. Two accounts comes to mind, the end of the Jaredites (although I am not sure such a word is ever used in the Book of Mormon) and the flood at the time of Noah. Hugh Nibley pointed out both accounts describe all flesh being destroyed from the land. However in the case of the Jaredites it took several years to gather the armies. This suggests there may have been people who stayed well outside of the fighting. It was the end of a nation and civilization, but leaves open the survival of people connected with that country.
In the case of Noah, the destruction of all the people within the society and country he was familiar with may or may not have corresponded to the destruction of all living people on the earth. The text can be historic, and reflect the events perceived and understood to the people at the time, and yet not reflect how things happened according to our description.
It is God’s speaking to every man in his own language that we need to contemplate and deal with more.
I doubt that anything I could contribute to this discussion will make any difference to those who are entrenched in their ideas. However, I would like to make a few comments and request that folk on both sides of the fence contemplate them.
In the 1750s the Lord blessed Emanuel Swedenborg (E.S.) with extended visions and the opportunity to visit the spirit world on numerous occasions; during which visits he was allowed to view the different kingdoms where spirits are “relegated” after physical death. (Please note that relegated is parenthetically enclosed. Mr. Swedenborg maintains that we select the place where we will dwell and that placement is based on our affections in this world. As such, no one is thrust into hell. They go there of their own accord to be in company with others who enjoyed the same “delights” they indulged in during mortality.)
Swedenborg recorded his experiences and perceptions in Latin, and as one reads any of his works, it becomes obvious that he goes to extreme lengths to assure that he is not misquoted or misunderstood. Even with that, it appears to me that translators from the Latin to English have had some difficulties; and points that Swedenborg wanted to make have been corrupted.
The most lengthy of E.S.’s writings is the Arcana Coelestia. In the Arcana he provides detailed insights into the meanings of the text found in Genesis and Exodus. He does, however, venture into other books of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. If I were asked to summarize the thousands of pages he wrote on those two Biblical Books + alone, I would say that the theme is how much we are loved by the Lord and that those who return that love (along with loving their fellow men) will find themselves in a position to be with Him.
Swedenborg invests considerable energy discussing the primitive church (Adam up to the flood); the ancient church (that from Noah); and churches on down through the ages, including the one formed by Christ, which he labels as a restoration; and discusses what most of us would term an apostasy. He proclaims that the true Church of Christ was not upon the earth at the time the Lord opened up the visions of the hereafter to him. E.S. in other chapters in the Arcana discusses the Gospel being taken to the Gentiles and why the Lord elects to take this action as opposed to work through the existing venues of Christianity, and that ultimately Judah will have yet another opportunity to acknowledge the Lord. ( then go to verse 2243)
Swedenborg never tried to organize a church. There is one now, but he never expressed a desire to have that occur. While he was labeled a mystic, a crazy, eccentric, and more; there was never any major resistance to what he wrote about. On the other hand, Joseph Smith, and others associated with him, had considerable woes and persecution. Any chance that Satan may not want the truth, with authority, to get out? After all, in every other dispensation where the gospel has been present on the earth, Satan has succeeded in corrupting it.
If one chooses to study E.S. and his writings they will find that there is much more hidden meaning than is readily apparent in the historical and prophetic elements of the Bible. I trust this is the case with the Book of Mormon.
Bottom line: love everybody, even if they do not agree with you. Invest all your energy in lifting others up and introducing them to Christ (acknowledging that others may have a different view as to Who Christ is and what He is all about). Forge a relationship with God. God revealed truths to men through the ages. This was done in an effort to assist them in elevating their lives. So, there is good and truth in Buddhism, Zoroasterism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, and more. (Notice that every one of these religions experienced an apostasy and were warped as time elapsed.)
There are over 350 Christian denominations. There was only one Jesus Christ. He did not go to one village and teach one thing and then to another and teach something different. To do so would not have been logical. If you are a member of the one true church Christ organized in any dispensation, you will not have wasted nor waste your time trying to tear down what others believe. . .
The Book of Mormon is an historic book describing people who really existed and lived out their lives in real geographic locations.
Most things that once existed are never found through archeology. Archeology only finds a small percentage of what once existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Archeologist John Clark notes that archeology is always incomplete. He notes that one thing that is found trumps many things that are not. Archeologists don’t expect to find most things but a few discovered things which match a text constitutes strong evidence that the text is true. One can always focus on something that has not been discovered but there will always be things that are never discovered. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Focusing on what has not been discovered causes people to ignore what has been found. As Clark says, the list of things that have not been found from the Book of Mormon is short.
The longer we go, the more evidence is discovered which confirms parts of the Book of Mormon. There are literally scores and scores, even hundreds, of Book of Mormon details that are now confirmed or supported by evidence that was not available in Joseph Smith’s time. Maybe Joseph Smith could have guessed a handful of things right. But when one sees the number of very specific details that the Book of Momon gets right one begins to realize that nobody could have fabricated the Book of Mormon. It is a genuine ancient text describing real events, real people, and real places!
The Book of Mormon was published in the year 1830. At that time there was little in the way of scholarly or archeological evidence to support it. Joseph Smith (and Mormons ever since) claim that it is a true historic account that really happened. We will call this claim one.
It turns out that the longer we go, the more evidence is discovered which confirms parts of the Book of Mormon. There are literally scores and scores, even hundreds, of Book of Mormon details that are now confirmed or supported by evidence that was not available in Joseph Smith’s time. Maybe Joseph Smith could have guessed a handful of things right. But when one sees the number of very specific details that the Book of Momon get’s right one begins to realize that nobody could have fabricated the Book of Mormon and gotten so many things right by guessing.