Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Who thinks the Book of Mormon is a gigantic allegory and that

1. There was no such person as Nephi or Lehi that came from Jerusalem to somewhere in the Western Hemisphere

2. There were no such peoples as the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites and Jaredites that interacted one with another; some of these groups suffered war-caused extinction.

3. Jesus Christ didn't visit one or more group of peoples in the Western Hemisphere

All of the above statements are correct, except the one about the BoM being an allegory. It is not presented as an allegory, nor is there a consistent symbolic thread. It is presented as a history, and as a history it fails. If calling it an allegory makes you feel better than calling it a fabrication, then go for it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

All of the above statements are correct, except the one about the BoM being an allegory. It is not presented as an allegory, nor is there a consistent symbolic thread. It is presented as a history, and as a history it fails. If calling it an allegory makes you feel better than calling it a fabrication, then go for it.

The impression I've gotten from some people is that they view the Book of Mormon as some divinely-inspired allegory where the spiritual concepts contained are true, but there is no historical basis whatsoever for the people or the events described.

I'm well aware that other people here view the Book of Mormon as a complete fabrication. I really don't care what they think. I'm more interested in those that are somehow trying to walk the intellectual tightrope of accepting the spiritual and denying the historical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Pelag, that's exactly how I felt. On the Acts matter, do we even have a solid date for the account, let alone evidence that the author actually was an "eyewitness" to the events recorded?

The more I read the letter, the more confused I became as to what the author was trying to convey. Perhaps he can further explain himself.

Another concurring opinion.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Therefore, if you could definitely prove there was no such person as Nephi, that Jesus never visited the western hemisphere, and there were never a civilication existing of Nephites and Lamanites, it would definitely affect my testimony/view of the BoM. That's not to say I would crumble into apostacy, as you might come up with a plausible "Plutarch Lives" angle like Archaea apparently believes, and still fit it into your testimony of the restored gospel. But it would take some pondering to adjust my testimony that way, and it would be an adjustment.

That said, I have no problem with embellishments, like Pelagius' Mulekite example. It's common knowledge people lie about being a Mulekite. We used to do it all the time back in high school to get chicks.

Ditto. I'm in the Jay Santos' camp on this one.

P.S.

The Mulekite line was very funny.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'll agree the spiritual aspects of the Book of Mormon are more important, but to deny the historical events chronicled as a whole seriously undermines the credibility of the book and its translator who clearly did not view it as some epic allegory.

To give just one example, I think to deny the historical occurrence of Christ visiting Americas is not an insignificant statement and it has serious spiritual implications, IMO.

Initially, I'm not denying the occurrence of facts alleged that I can neither confirm nor repudiate. There is nothing which confirms nor repudiates. If we accept a limited geography theory, the evidence is highly unlikely to ever be produced.

I ask the question, can I find value in the BoM, as a work of scripture without worrying whether the facts are accurate or true? I state emphatically, the teachings there are of value and beneficial, even if they are historically inaccurate.

Arguing that you know Christ appeared in the Americas is really irrelevant, but it is just as probable as not, if one accepts the claim he was immortal, died and resurrected. There is nothing stopping a risen immortal from appearing wherever he likes or liked.

To state that we must accept all allegations as proven fact to accept Joseph Smith as fulfilling a prophetic calling is also not true. AA wrote a brief work how JS fulfills that, even if all of his allegations are not completely accurate.

The BoM and the BoA work for me as scripture in that they have theological value, they sound like scripture, they are consistent with my theological views and they harmonize with existing other scriptures. I am interested if the facts can ever be triangulated by other sources, but I don't worry they won't be. As an aside, I don't believe they will be.

As Pelagius points out, whether the Muleks existed, how many may have fought and many other allegations are irrelevant to me.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To state that we must accept all allegations as proven fact to accept Joseph Smith as fulfilling a prophetic calling is also not true. AA wrote a brief work how JS fulfills that, even if all of his allegations are not completely accurate.

Wait a second . . . I did what?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The impression I've gotten from some people is that they view the Book of Mormon as some divinely-inspired allegory where the spiritual concepts contained are true, but there is no historical basis whatsoever for the people or the events described.

I'm well aware that some people here view the Book of Mormon as a complete fabrication. I really don't care what they think. I'm more concerned about those that are somehow trying to walk the intellectual tightrope of accepting the spritual and denying the historical.

Oh my god, I can't believe I'm about to agree with you. You can't walk that intellectual tightrope. It simply doesn't fly. It's natural to have doubts, and people deal with those doubts the best they can. But when it comes to the BoM, you pretty much have to buy the whole enchilada or none of it. I have no problem with those who buy the whole thing (my entire family falls into that category), but I wonder about those who try to pick and choose which parts of it they believe in (yeah, I know I ended that sentence in a preposition; if you have a problem with it, KMA!).

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Oh my god, I can't believe I'm about to agree with you. You can't walk that intellectual tightrope. It simply doesn't fly. It's natural to have doubts, and people deal with those doubts the best they can. But when it comes to the BoM, you pretty much have to buy the whole enchilada or none of it. I have no problem with those who buy the whole thing (my entire family falls into that category), but I wonder about those who try to pick and choose which parts of it they believe in (yeah, I know I ended that sentence in a preposition; if you have a problem with it, KMA!).

Likewise, agreed. The thing vouches for its authenticity from the first page to the last. To say that it's not true, but nevertheless teaches principles that are clearly divinely inspired . . . I don't know if I'd be able to buy that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The impression I've gotten from some people is that they view the Book of Mormon as some divinely-inspired allegory where the spiritual concepts contained are true, but there is no historical basis whatsoever for the people or the events described.

I'm well aware that other people here view the Book of Mormon as a complete fabrication. I really don't care what they think. I'm more interested in those that are somehow trying to walk the intellectual tightrope of accepting the spiritual and denying the historical.

Without expressing an inclination one way or the other regarding the BOM, my question is: do you use a similar approach to the old testament? Is it all or nothing there as well?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Without expressing an inclination one way or the other regarding the BOM, my question is: do you use a similar approach to the old testament? Is it all or nothing there as well?

That's a fascinating question. I'm a lot more comfortable viewing the OT as allegory. That's something I need to explore about my own beliefs.