Book of Mormon: Spiritual (but not factual) Authenticity

[_Nimrod]

That the Book of Mormon may not be factually authentic, the apologetic argument goes, does not mean the Book of Mormon is not spiritually authentic.

Where does that leave the claim that the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ?

How would a mythical (non-factual) story of Jewish descendants in the ancient Americas provide a witness?

If there were no Nephites for Jesus to actually appear to, how would the work of fiction (even if 'spiritually authentic') be a witness to anything?

Why would God inspire someone with a made up story to back up what is set forth in the NT--i.e., the Jesus resurrected after physical death?

[_zzyzx]

If it is not factually authentic... isn't it a lie?

Why read a fiction novel and then PRAY about it?

[_Nimrod]

If it is not factually authentic... isn't it a lie?

Why read a fiction novel and then PRAY about it?

Is that what I was supposed to do after reading Lord of the Flies?

[_just me]

Myths and legends all tell us the same story over and over again. It is the story of every human being. The Book of Mormon is a second witness as is the Bible (and any other sacred text). The first witness is each of us. And I mean that in a very all encompassing univeral way.

Think about the stories of the Book of Mormon. They reflect the reader. The reader IS each of the characters of the Book of Mormon. And that isn't always a flattering thing.

The story of Nephi is a perfect example of a guy who doesn't get it. Most people who believe in Nephi don't get what he didn't get as well. But not only is the reader Nephi, they are also Laban, Laman, Lehi, etc. It is perfect in its reflection and the book contains everything it needs to to "awaken" the reader. The book is symbolically true for everyone who believes in it, it seems.

Myth is largely lost on modern people. It really is a great vehicle for teaching about the journey of humanity. When we started taking it so dang seriously (literally) we lost some of that teaching ability. Of course dogma gets in the way, too. Just because myths are not historical truths doesn't mean they are not useful. I highly recommend The Power of Myth and The Hero With A Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. Those books have really helped me see the big picture in regards to myth and legend.

Anyway, that is my current flow of thought on the topic. I think it is fascinating to think about.

[_Nimrod]

Myths and legends all tell us the same story over and over again. It is the story of every human being. The Book of Mormon is a second witness as is the Bible (and any other sacred text). The first witness is each of us. And I mean that in a very all encompassing univeral way.

Think about the stories of the Book of Mormon. They reflect the reader. The reader IS each of the characters of the Book of Mormon. And that isn't always a flattering thing.

The story of Nephi is a perfect example of a guy who doesn't get it. Most people who believe in Nephi don't get what he didn't get as well. But not only is the reader Nephi, they are also Laban, Laman, Lehi, etc. It is perfect in its reflection and the book contains everything it needs to to "awaken" the reader. The book is symbolically true for everyone who believes in it, it seems.

Myth is largely lost on modern people. It really is a great vehicle for teaching about the journey of humanity. When we started taking it so dang seriously (literally) we lost some of that teaching ability. Of course dogma gets in the way, too. Just because myths are not historical truths doesn't mean they are not useful. I highly recommend The Power of Myth and The Hero With A Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. Those books have really helped me see the big picture in regards to myth and legend.

Anyway, that is my current flow of thought on the topic. I think it is fascinating to think about.

I don't have a problem with a parable being a fictional story. It is not portrayed by the teller as factually having occurred. However, outside of such a technique, as used in the Bible, I find it hard to fathom that made-up myths, presented as actual events when they did not occur, as a better teaching tool than relating actual events of situations that have occurred. I suppose that if the goal of the lesson is not a truth about reality, fanciful myths might be better. But I do not see fiction being passed off as having actually taken place--until science debunks it--as helpful. All it does is breed mistrust when the reader learns that was was shoveled at him as factual is just a load of BS.

[_just me]

I don't have a problem with a parable being a fictional story. It is not portrayed by the teller as factually having occurred. However, outside of such a technique, as used in the Bible, I find it hard to fathom that made-up myths, presented as actual events when they did not occur, as a better teaching tool than relating actual events of situations that have occurred. I suppose that if the goal of the lesson is not a truth about reality, fanciful myths might be better. But I do not see fiction being passed off as having actually taken place--until science debunks it--as helpful. All it does is breed mistrust when the reader learns that was was shoveled at him as factual is just a load of BS.

Sure. That does upset a lot of people. I think it is a valid reaction.

This would be why I never, ever told my children Santa Claus was real. I would only have them tell me what they thought. I never wanted them to come back at me and say I lied to them. However, I know a lot of parents who do keep up the myth of Santa with their children until the child figures it out for themselves.

I don't know that the creation myth in Genesis was ever intended to be taken literally as historical factual truth. However, symbolically it works as do all the other creation myths. The whole Bible is myth. All the cultures that have ever been have created their own myth. I am not sure that the myths have ever started with "this never actually happened, it is a myth to teach you a lesson." Instead they start with "In the beginning" or "once upon a time."

All I know is that I have learned more from our myths after realizing they were myths than when I took them for historical accounts. Joseph Campbell said that we learn more from other peoples myths than our own because we take our own too seriously. I think he was right on.

[_MCB]

Just me, one rhetorical question:

If the Book of Mormon is just a teaching story, which I believe it is, then why is there no LDS-sponsored guide to using it to teach moral truths?







Because that would invalidate it as literal history, particularly if it were used to teach people about the consequences of racism.

[_just me]

Just me, one rhetorical question:

If the Book of Mormon is just a teaching story, which I believe it is, then why is there no LDS-sponsored guide to using it to teach moral truths?







Because that would invalidate it as literal history, particularly if it were used to teach people about the consequences of racism.

More importantly, it would undermine the institution who wield their power through dogma and literal belief. When a literal belief falls away so does the dogma and those are the things proping up the institutional church.

I do think it is possible to learn the moral lessons from reading the text literally. However, since the LDS church has turned Nephi, Joseph, et al into idols the real lessons have not been learned. Again, just using Nephi as an example-he killed a man, broke 3 of the commandments to obtain a record that was supposedly so important because it contained those commandments which he had just broken. LOL He is not to be emulated.

Sorry for answering your rhetorical question. It was too good to pass up. ;) Great point!

[_MCB]

Yeah, Hagoth and Mormoni 9 are my favorites. Most of the rest goes in the trash bin.

Good topic. :)

[_truth dancer]

Hi JM,

I too am a huge, HUGE fan of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung.

I sort of agree with your comments but... the problem is, Joseph Smith and the LDS church are not in any way talking about myth. The Book of Mormon is presented as a true history with real people. Further, it has nothing to do with women; it is a story about men. It is written by men for men.

I recall a reporter asking JC what is the true church. He responded, "They are all true." I remember thinking that the LDS church doesn't fit within his paradigm because to believe in Mormonism, one must accept the Book of Mormon as a factual history, the prophets as speaking to Jesus, God as a real Caucasian man living near Kolob, resurrected people in the CKHL with bodies of flesh and bone, etc. etc. It just doesn't work in my opinion.

Yes, we can find "truth" regarding the human journey in most stories and these narratives do speak to our nature, but I believe many were written as reality and history; only as we learn and discover more about existence do they turn into myth.

I'm pretty sure that in another thousand years, our 'truth' (for example, the big bang as our creation myth), will be seen as sweet myths believed by those of our time. Our stories tell us about ourselves, they tell future generations about us; how we lived, experienced the world, and interacted with each other.

~td~