As I reflected upon the relationship between faith and scholarship, I have come to realize something I feel is crucial in regards to historicity of scripture: we should evaluate historicity as a matter of faith; not as a matter of scholarship. When examining whether or not the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or Book of Moses contain any historical truth, we often overlook necessity of the fundamental principle of it: “it rests first upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”[1] Satan moves scriptures wholly to a secular sphere because it invites skepticism. While many evidences exist in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon[2] and Book of Abraham[3], there exists much to explore and uncover. Indeed, we do not have a complete picture of any ancient civilization, especially not in the Americas. By transitioning the conversation about historicity into an entirely secular sphere, we do not encounter scriptures on the terms that they must be encountered upon.
Affirming historicity corroborates with Joseph Smith’s narrative about the ancient texts themselves and enables effective warrants upon which to build faith. It allows the reader to develop a cohesive philosophical system upon which to read the text. It takes the text on its own terms instead of dictating how the text be taken. Determining historical authenticity or probability of a text requires the believer to both study it out and exercise faith in Jesus Christ.
We identify scripture as sacred and inspired (by the Holy Spirit) literature[4], not merely historical records or fiction. A definition of scripture from scripture reads: “shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”[5] Historicity exists as a necessary element of scripture because God cannot will falsehoods so deviant from the historical narrative presented.[6] While imperfect men act as the vehicle for scripture from a perfect member of the Godhead, the power and inspiration of their words provide evidence of their possession of priesthood and prophetic authority and they must be historical to possess a power and demonstrate it. [7]
To claim that such texts lack historicity has larger theological ramifications than may appear obvious at first. If the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and other texts lack historicity, then only the theological and moral concepts taught are true. If only these parts are true, then God could not have inspired portions of scripture where historical events are recounted. It requires the subordination of revelation and elevation of empiricism to create this claim. This in turn changes the parameters that the text demands we use to determine its authenticity.[8]
Scripture demands a spiritual witness because it reflects the means by which it was authored. Without that scriptural witness, then the scriptures exist merely as words woven together—deligitimizing any claim it might make to having theological authority to tell us why we’re here and moral authority to direct our thoughts and behaviors. Kent P. Jackson confronted the “inspired fiction” position after examining what Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon in public sermons, private conversations, and revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as what the Book of Mormon claims about itself and concludes that “[t]he book’s repeated assertion of its historicity, the faithful testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning it, and the voice of God speaking to us of it through the Doctrine and Covenants join with the spirit of personal revelation and testimony in bearing witness that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record of ancient origin.”[9]
To discount the witnesses that corroborate the physical nature of the gold plates as well as Joseph Smith’s repeated testimony of the historical authenticity of the book might as well be a repudiation of the entire Restoration because the way to test Joseph Smith’s word about the Restoration are his fruits: the scriptures he restored. By suggesting the historicity of scripture is irrelevant to one’s testimony, we miss the message and purpose of the Restoration.
Regarding the Book of Mormon, in the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, we read: “and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work” and in the Testimony of Three Witnesses, we read: “a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared.” Beyond Joseph Smith, those who saw the plates and were involved in the translation process attest that it is an ancient record, delivered to the earth by the literal visitation of angels. To suggest otherwise dismantles the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. When Joseph Smith claims that these texts—including the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon–are of ancient origin, that means either they are ancient and Joseph restored the priesthood and gospel of Christ to the earth or they are not ancient and he did no such things.
The Book of Mormon is not merely folklore or mythology, constructed to lead others to becoming more moral individuals. It does not purport to be that. It describes itself as “an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites…[convincing] the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”[10] Affirming that the Book of Mormon isn’t historical would mean that Jesus did not show himself to the aforementioned peoples and, consequently, one cannot truly accept the Book of Mormon as a work of true scripture since it would not fulfill its stated purposes.
Perhaps when we speak about the historicity of these scriptures, we’re approaching them too much through a secular academic lens. We search for archaeological, linguistic, and historical corroboration for them—a noble effort that we need to continue to pursue – but I don’t believe that that alone is what should constitute a testimony of their historicity. I believe we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate their antiquity; but even if we did not, merely having evidence for the ancient nature of these records does not constitute an authentication of the text.
The knowledge of the historicity of the ancient texts that Joseph translated comes through a divine witness of the Holy Spirit.[11] Elder Jeffrey R. Holland declared that “[i]f anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect, or otherwise, has been deceived.”[12] Inherent to Elder Holland’s excellent comments is the belief that these pages represent an ancient work. Without that belief, it is obvious that Elder Holland would conclude that the impact that these pages would have on individuals would be diminished or eliminated. Why stake someone’s membership in the Church on it if not of paramount importance? More importantly, however, is that Elder Holland makes the testimony of Jesus Christ and the spiritual witness of millions the most important evidence of The Book of Mormons’ truthfulness.
While we may quibble over how these texts might be historical and ancient, we must remember that we are first and foremost a religious people and not a group of historians engaging in a social club. Paraphrasing the Doctrine and Covenants, the historicity of these ancient texts is a matter of scholarship, but more importantly a matter of faith. It is a matter that is integral and foundational to a testimony of Jesus Christ. May we never separate faith from study (nor study from faith) in this matter nor any matter pertaining to the kingdom of God. By shifting the conversation to both a union of scholarship and faith, we better understand the purposes of the two individually.
[1] https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historicity-book-mormon
[2] https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology
[3] https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Evidences
[4] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/scripture?lang=eng
[5] D&C 68:4
[6] Enos 1:6
[7] Deuteronomy 18:15-22
[8] Moroni 10:4
[9] https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/joseph-smith-historicity-book-mormon
[10] “Title Page” to The Book of Mormon
[11] “Introduction” to The Book of Mormon
[12] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2009/10/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng
Hanna Seariac is a MA student in Greek and Latin at Brigham Young University. She is writing a book on the history of the priesthood and another one that responds systematically to anti-LDS literature. She works as a research assistant on a biblical commentary and as a producer on a news show. She values Jesus Christ, family, friends, hiking, baking, and really good ice cream.
Faith in Christ matters…
I’ve read her article, and I found it an academical failure. A few things I noticed:
“we should evaluate historicity as a matter of faith; not as a matter of scholarship.”
So basically, it doesn’t matter what historical and documented fact may prove or disprove, it only matters what you believe. Why even bother studying history?
“Satan moves scriptures wholly to a secular sphere because it invites skepticism.”
There it is… those of us who have problems with the historicity of the BoM or BoA are deceived by Satan. This is one of the main reasons I decided to distance myself from the church.
“By transitioning the conversation about historicity into an entirely secular sphere, we do not encounter scriptures on the terms that they must be encountered upon.”
This idea is assuming the “scripture” in question is in fact true. Since its inception to the modern day, science, common sense, history, and previously “proven” scripture (bible) have shown the BoA and BoM to be problematic at best, and completely fabricated at worst.
“Historicity exists as a necessary element of scripture because God cannot will falsehoods so deviant from the historical narrative presented. While imperfect men act as the vehicle for scripture from a perfect member of the Godhead, the power and inspiration of their words provide evidence of their possession of priesthood and prophetic authority and they must be historical to possess a power and demonstrate it.”
She begins talking in circles… historicity (I don’t think Hanna knows the proper definition of this word vs history) is used to validate scripture. What then should a person do when historicity proves the contested scripture wrong?
“To claim that such texts lack historicity has larger theological ramifications than may appear obvious at first. If the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and other texts lack historicity, then only the theological and moral concepts taught are true. If only these parts are true, then God could not have inspired portions of scripture where historical events are recounted. It requires the subordination of revelation and elevation of empiricism to create this claim. This in turn changes the parameters that the text demands we use to determine its authenticity.”
The use of 10 dollar words doesn’t make Hanna’s argument anymore valid or believable. She used the word empiricism (like historicity, I’m not sure she really understands what this word means) which is the idea that concepts or ideas are only justifiable through experience. I’m assuming her line of thinking comes from her assumption and absolute belief in the BoA and BoM. Her argument is history should validate the scripture because the scripture is certainly true. That is setting up an impossible scenario for scholars. Hanna is demanding that any evidence found should verify her pre-conceived notion of truth and proof.
The award for most obtuse comment goes to Jimmy. Not only does he not understand that the issue addressed in the OP is the important of historicity rather than whether the BofM and BofAbr are historical, but he makes the same kinds of assertions that he thinks he is critiquing Hanna for making (who doesn’t actually make any of the assertions that Jimmy thinks he is critiquing).
The most uninformed comment also goes to Jimmy. Asserting that the Bible is “proven” to be historical is the very same kind of assumption of proof that Jimmy critiques Hanna for making who in fact never made the comment. It is also so outrageously uninformed regarding biblical scholarship that one can only assume that Jimmy is some fundamentalist who is completely bereft of any knowledge of biblical scholarship.
The award for most arrogant comment also goes to Jimmy who makes assertions of fact about the historicity of the BofM and BofAbr without a whit of argument, logic or evidence — while blaming Anna for a mistake she does make but that he does.
“We should evaluate historicity as a matter of faith; not as a matter of scholarship.”
Would you advocate applying this method toward religious writings from any source, or is it only applicable to Mormon writings? Is accepting the historicity of (purportedly historical) non-Mormon religious writings also a matter of faith?
“While many evidences exist in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon[2] and Book of Abraham[3], there exists much to explore and uncover.”
Would you accept the following similar argument: “While many evidences exist against the historicity of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, there exists much to explore and uncover”?
“Indeed, we do not have a complete picture of any ancient civilization, especially not in the Americas.”
Are you saying that no one can ever draw any conclusions about ancient civilizations until we “have a complete picture”? When do you expect that to occur?
“Determining historical authenticity or probability of a text requires the believer to both study it out and exercise faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are you saying if someone concludes that a text is not historical, this means they lack faith? Is it ever possible for someone to correctly conclude that a text is historical without exercising “faith in Jesus Christ”?
“While imperfect men act as the vehicle for scripture from a perfect member of the Godhead, the power and inspiration of their words provide evidence of their possession of priesthood and prophetic authority and they must be historical to possess a power and demonstrate it.”
You’re saying that their “priesthood and prophetic authority” is evidence of their historicity, and, in turn, the evidence of this “authority” is “the power and inspiration of their words”? Again, would you advocate applying this method toward religious writings from any source, or is it only applicable to Mormon writings?
“This in turn changes the parameters that the text demands we use to determine its authenticity.”
Are you saying that a text should be judged according to whatever standard is set forth in the text itself? Does this require that we take the text at its word that its “parameters” are actually the best or most reliable? Is it possible for a text to demand faulty parameters “to determine its authenticity” that would lead us to incorrect conclusions?
“When Joseph Smith claims that these texts—including the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon–are of ancient origin, that means either they are ancient and Joseph restored the priesthood and gospel of Christ to the earth or they are not ancient and he did no such things.”
You appear to be a strong advocate of the idea that the historicity of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is 100% essential to the truth claims of the church. In other words, for you, a denial of historicity is also a denial of the truth claims of the church. Yet, you also say that determining historicity requires the exercising of “faith in Jesus Christ.” If historicity is so important, why weaken its definition by expanding it in such a way that many more religious texts could now meet its new requirement? It’s difficult to tell a believer that they are not “exercising faith in Jesus Christ,” after all, when they sincerely believe they are doing so. If a believer determines that some non-Mormon religious text is historical using the method you advocate, would you accept their claim? If a believer determines that the Book of Mormon lacks historicity using the method you advocate, would you accept their claim? Would you instead doubt that they truly exercised “faith in Jesus Christ”?
I am very interested in learning the historical facts of the Book of Abraham. This, along with Spiritual confirmation as Hanna recommends. Unfortunately, the work of Dr. Ritner and all non-BYU scholars of Egyptian work disagree with the historicity of the Book of Abraham. What is one to do in that situation? Once again, faith must play a stronger card than history.
Thanks Hanna, while voices rise, and fingers point to secular reasoning, we must be steadfast in Christ.
The critical narrative is that Christ rose from the dead. All of our canon witnesses to this historical necessity of our faith.
My hope for the resurrection helps me to act in faith with Christ. He is the Truth, Way, Life and Word. I participate in his Love by sharing my love.
The Bible testified of Christ’s resurrection.
If Christ rose from the dead, the Book of Mormon is historical.
If Christ rose from the dead then Joseph could have visions.
Historicity depends on His sacrifice, and resurrection, not on horses, armor and chariots.
I disagree that there are many historical evidences for the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. There are many evidences against them and a small handful of “hits” that apologists can magnify to try to make their case stronger.
If your argument is that personal spiritual confirmation should override the evidences against those documents, I will never try to take down that position. But to me it seems dishonest to say there are many evidences supporting them, because there simply aren’t, unless you go through a lot of selective picking and choosing to get there.
Thank you Blake, your comments sum up the attitude most amateur LDS apologist have when they are put up against a wall.
FairMormon’s self description is as follows:
“FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Hanna’s comments are a departure from this description. Hanna is asserting that historicity, which can be classified as “documented answers”, comes second to how the items be criticized makes a person feel via their faith.
This is a dangerous bit of advice as it can lead someone down paths which at best are incorrect, and at worst destructive.
If a person were to solely base their scholarly studies on their feelings, we would (IMO) still espouse some of the now out-dated scientific theories and hurtful doctrine of past prophets. At the risk of adding non-related elements to this line of thinking, I feel the following example is great to illustrate the potential pitfalls.
In 1949, the first presidency released a proclamation to the world reaffirming the “doctrine of the negro” by stating:
“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality”
This proclamation was treated as scripture and held in the same regard as the now celebrated “Proclamation of the Family”. Did the first presidency who sign this proclamation feel good about their decision?
How is the this example related? When we ignore scholarship in lieu of faith and feelings we become ignorant to fact and truth.
BYU had an active BoM archeology department whose mission was to find scientific proof of the book, and the church further invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into this enterprise. As the evidences stacked up against the claims made about the BoM, the church, and by extension BYU, changed their approach to inviting members and investigators to solely rely on faith. Science cannot validate the BoM.
John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein, the two chief scholarly apologetics of the BoA, have destroyed their reputations to the outside world. I honestly feel bad for them, as the only path apologist’s and the church can logically take at this point in regards to the BoA, is strictly a spiritual revelation.
I believe is Hanna is an honest person with an honest desire to verify her faith, but her position of disregarding scholarly studies to default to belief and feelings is setting herself up for eventual failure. There are several ex-apologists who have lost their faith going down the path of Hanna.
At the end of the day, truth is truth, regardless on how it makes you feel.
The prioritization of a spiritual witness born from *study* and faith is not excluding scholarship from the conversation, but merely pointing out that an inherently secular approach is antithetical to scripture. Not once do I say to base it solely on faith, in fact, I say: “By shifting the conversation to both a union of scholarship and faith, we better understand the purposes of the two individually.”
I’m not saying shift entirely over to faith, but recognize that as religious people, historicity is not merely an academic effort. I don’t speak for FairMormon, but I do not see this at odds with the mission of FairMormon, considering: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_How_do_Latter-day_Saints_respond_to_arguments_from_diversity_against_the_use_of_spiritual_experiences_in_their_epistemology%3F
A purely secular approach to any religion inherently will fail because we discuss ancient texts from which we have a divorced context. Even within traditional Christianity, examining the Bible (one of the most attested ancient texts) becomes difficult because the truth claims are not all documented by evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that grounding beliefs on the evidence that we do have and recognizing that faith plays a role for religious people is an important aspect of apologetics. I do not say to ignore scholarship as you suggest, but say: “By transitioning the conversation about historicity into an entirely secular sphere, we do not encounter scriptures on the terms that they must be encountered upon.
Affirming historicity corroborates with Joseph Smith’s narrative about the ancient texts themselves and enables effective warrants upon which to build faith. It allows the believer to develop a reasonable and cohesive belief system that will waver in the authority that the texts. Determining historical authenticity or probability of a text requires the believer to both study it out and exercise faith in Jesus Christ.”
I believe you have misrepresented my argument. My argument is that there is evidence, evidence matters to a degree, but as religious people, the witness that the texts say we should care about is a spiritual witness. That does not mean that you do not develop a spiritual witness on reason and scholarship, but it does mean that an entirely secular approach will fail, which should not be shocking because if you have a degree of familiarity with ancient studies, our framework for studying these civilizations dramatically changes over time because of new evidence we stumble upon. I disagree with your assertion that this mythical monolith of science disproves the BOM when in fact there have been several studies that corroborate parts of the BOM.
As a side note, I did not have the desire to verify my faith as you suggested. I deconstructed my belief in the Catholic faith and reconstructed a belief system that perfectly aligned with the LDS faith.
Hanna,
Thank you for the reply, and I truly wish you luck in your future endeavors of apologetic defenses. As a former apologetic, I would urge extreme caution on which arguments to hang your hat upon. What is true today, may be disavowed tomorrow.
This is not the place to enter into a discourse for verifiable studies on the BoM or BoA, but I will say that most corroborating studies are anecdotal and made easier when the goalpost is constantly moved. One of many examples to illustrate this is historically, the church has identified the Lamanites as the primary ancestors of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. That position has changed as evidence has plainly shown quite the opposite, and now apologists must take a different approach. Another example is the BoA was claimed to be a direct translation written by Abraham’s own hand. Now that we have the actual papyri used to give us the BoA, apologist must once again change their position.
People often confuse evidence as proof, and use those terms interchangeably which potentially sets a person up for future failure. For example, there is evidence that the world is flat. I can look out of my window and plainly see that evidence… it looks flat. However, when a person takes into account the mountains of evidence which shows the Earth is in fact a globe, the little example of the Earth looking flat outside of my window should be discarded.
The flat Earth example sums up the BoM and BoA very well. While small and anecdotal evidences do exist of their historicity, it seems that more evidence is produced daily to show otherwise. It is extremely difficult to discount evidences which go against the absolute position many apologists have. John Gee is a prime example of an apologist who has destroyed his reputation outside of our small little LDS community by ignoring well established and universally accepted truths of Egyptology by doing exactly what your article encourages people to do.
I strongly and honestly encourage you to be very careful on how you frame your own apologetics. Being a true apologetic almost requires a person to live in an echo-chamber and intentionally put on blinders. Faith is important. Truthful historicity is important. Both faith and historicity can harmoniously exist together, but only if both are respected.
Hannah, faith is applied to an assertion that lacks reliable evidence. It’s also applied to the gaps in our knowledge about the assertion. As our knowledge grows, our faith in that assertion lessens, replaced by knowledge based on evidence.
When the evidence is contrary to our assertion, it is then *blind faith* to continue to believe that assertion. That, in my opinion, is not the purpose of the principle of faith. It is not meant to override the evidence.
The evidence that mounts against the historicity of the BoM and BoA, to a reasonable person, contradicts the assertions made about their historical origins. Those assertions should be removed from your statements of faith.
The existence of God, Jesus, and the spiritual realm can safely stay in the faith camp because no evidence exists to contradict these assertions. But wherever someone makes concrete, verifiable earthly claims, faith is at best a temporary resting place while we test the claims.
One other point I would make. There is a difference between spiritual witness as a motivation for action and a witness as a basis for objective knowledge. If someone has an overwhelming sense/experience that leads them to do something, that’s not something that can be empirically challenged except as to its legality or morality. It’s also very personal.
But if I have an experience that leads me to claim knowledge about an historical event, that is another matter entirely. That experience should be challenged, tested and likely rejected as evidence for the event’s veracity. The church’s own history shows repeatedly that events we felt spiritually were historical have been shown not to be so.
So what do we make of our spiritual experiences? I think that is the more interesting question.
Jimmy,
You make some interesting statements but, unfortunately, they are riddled with factual errors.
The 1949 First Presidency letter was never a “proclamation to the world”. Some on-line critic recently and deceitfully put it on a template that resembles the one used for the Family Proclamation.
Letters from the First Presidency are used to communicate policy, not doctrine. Take a look at the history of these letters if you don’t believe me. Without the combined signatures of the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, teachings cannot be considered official church doctrine. Please carefully read:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
BYU had an archaeology department, founded in 1946, but never had “an active BoM archeology department” as you claim. You significantly overstate their interest in “proving the Book of Mormon”.
You assert that “evidences stack up against the claims made about the BoM”. I invite you to read the transcript from Matthew Roper and Kirk Magleby’s 2019 Fairmormon Symposium presentation:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/time-vindicates-the-prophet
Their presentation clearly shows that evidence of support for what were once believed to be Book of Mormon anachronisms is growing quickly (from 7% confirmed to now over 70% confirmed). As time passes, more evidences will be uncovered, but with the trend strongly in favor of Book of Mormon support, many don’t have the time to wait until next year, next decade, or 50 years when many more evidences are bound to be uncovered. I think this is part of what Hanna was referring to. Most Church members choose to forge ahead in their discipleship of Christ because more evidence will come when it comes and will never be 100% (as it is not for any scripture anywhere), so why delay in the more important matter of becoming better followers of Christ?
The Church never identified the “Lamanites as the primary ancestors of the indigenous peoples of the Americas”. The word used in the previous non-canonical introduction to the Book of Mormon was “principal”, not “primary”. Look in the dictionary how many synonyms there are for “principal” and there is plenty of room for a full breadth of interpretations. The recent adoption of the words “among the ancestors of the American Indians” is equally as vague – “among” could be anywhere from 1% to 99% – and underscores that nobody really knows the exact contribution of Book of Mormon peoples to the indigenous population of the Americas.
It is very unlikely that we have the actual papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. A simple question: Where are the other two facsimiles?
I believe you are also a sincere person, but misstatements of easily retrievable facts do not help your case.