The question of Book of Mormon historicity is one that I struggle with deeply. I enjoy faith matters and would love to see this same question addressed with someone who comes at it from a non-literal, non-historical perspective. Great conversation, just hoping for a part 2 from the other side of the coin.
Yes, this. Joe cannot relate to ever questioning, at one point somewhat arrogantly calling it a "curiosity," which helps explain why this interview is so disappointing. He came to his conclusion early on and has worked backward ever since to support and never cast doubt on that conclusion. We don't need an interview with a "scholar" for this -- it's frankly irrelevant to anything thinks he is adding to the conversation.
Information from the National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560 Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book. 1. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. 2. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America. 3. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game (sic) hunters spread across the Americas.) 4. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked used (sic) in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron. 5. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East. 6. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt. 7. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
While this was quite good in many ways, I echo what some others have said that I would very much prefer a conversation about the historicity of the Book of Mormon with someone who has deeply struggled with that subject. I would ask that you please address B.H. Roberts in that discussion as well. And I am both politely asking Faith Matters to cover this as well as pleading because of where I am at right now.
While this discussion has been honest it is still vague about the real lack of evidence. I believe it’s time to start done serious with like that done by Chris Thomas. The theology is Devine and the gospel pure. When we say the fulness of the gospel is found therein this opens up a whole new can of worms I’ve never read or heard anyone tackle.
@@jaromsmiss wow my voice text didn’t really translate well on my last comment:) I’ve chosen to trust the doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon because of the biblically sustained doctrine that is found therein and not because of its origin. If any evidence was found it would change a lot of things as far as the institution of the church goes but there is no evidence yet. We’re taught over and over the booking Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. I think we should stand by this and take the claim more seriously than we do when we worship the institution.
I was disappointed to hear what I understood Joseph to say that he could not see where it was possible to still be a member of the church and not believe the historicity claims. As an inactive member i was hoping to find some encouragement to find a way of belonging. There are many that feel we are not welcomed to partake of the brotherhood due to having a different belief about the origins of the book and our religion. I think the most important aspect of a religion is to bring souls to Christ. Sadly, in our religion it seems more important that one's testimony must be based first on the truthfulness of the religion and then that of Christ. Thank you for this episode. May God bless.
I'm terribly sorry that what I said came across that way (a few others have suggested as much to me). I didn't mean to imply that at all. I want absolutely anyone who's happy to be tied to the Church to have a place in it. I'll call you my sister or my brother any day of the week. What I was trying (unsuccessfully!) to say at that moment in the podcast is that---and this I believe---rejecting certain faith claims about the Book of Mormon but nonetheless remaining squarely within the Church is something rare. It's a difficult position to hold on to, whatever the (largely social) reasons for that fact. But let me be perfectly clear: If anyone occupies that position, they're as much a member of the Church---they belong in the Church---as much as anyone else.
@@joespencer1556 Thanks. No worries. It's understandable. In my opinion. I believe there are many who feel like they can't belong unless they believe a certain way. Just not comfortable about it. So rather stay home then participate. They don't want to be looked down upon as "something wrong with them" and yet feel like a hypocrite by pretending to believe. In my situation I have held close my belief in Christ but I do miss association with those who were once my friends when I was active. I often wonder if I should find a Christian faith based church to feel associated with others. I do fear that many who leave the church leave belief in God altogether. It shouldn't have to be this way. That is why I am a proponent of developing a testimony of Christ above all else. Thank you for participating in this podcast.. God bless you and your family and a world that is in chaos.
@@dl1130 Question: When you say testimony of Christ first, are you referring to doctrinal religious stuff, or are you taking about the teachings of Jesus and actions of Jesus during his ministry?
@@leem3299 No. Referring to our church made developing a testimony of it's truthfulness above that of Christ. That has changed today. Most testimonies refer to Christ and less on "I know this church is true...."
@@dl1130 Ah, but I was wondering, the stuff about Christ that you hold to - is it the stuff that is emphasized most at church (substitutionary Atonement), or is the stuff you hold to more the life and teachings of Jesus? I guess I'm asking, when you think of Jesus what comes to your mind first?
This is my 2nd time listening to this and as a member going through a faith crisis I find a lot of issues that I am struggling with. Here is a very brief list of what is causing me to doubt. If the Nephites had steel swords, horses, chariots, steel bows, metal armor, etc. coupled with having a very precise and exact way to record and teach history using a written language that by the way is unrivaled to this day in its efficiency of communication they would have decimated and overtaken anyone in that area as being incredibly lacking in those resources that the other civilizations would have at least mentioned in their oral histories this amazing race of people that were superior in every way. Yet there is zero record of the Maya, etc. even mentioning them. They had the ability to cross the oceans with their knowledge of ship building then why did they not travel to other continents to share the gospel. Lehi and Nephi knew almost the exact date of Christ's birth, knowledge that included his name, his mother's name, details about his ministry and death. Yet in later books they did not know and even lamented the fact that they did not know when Christ was going to be born. They had the priesthood and were performing baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost centuries before the birth of Christ. Why when Christ appeared to them would he not have had a much more specific message for them but instead basically Christ gave them the same message that he presented to the Jews in the old world when they were far beyond that level of knowledge. In regards to the small plates having the record that apparently Heavenly Father knew was going to be lost and arranged for this record to be kept to compensate for that loss. (This is based more on lessons that I grew up listening to rather than being directly correlated to the loss of the 1st manuscript.) To tie that in to an unrelated issue to this presentation, with Joseph's ability to use the seer stone/interpreters to locate lost objects why did he not just look into the hat to see where Lucy had hidden the manuscript and direct Martin to just go and get them. If it was destroyed by her then he should have been able to either see that or have a message from God that it was destroyed. IMO had re re-translated those lost pages it would have cemented his gift as a seer and translator as opposed to throwing up his hands and saying, All is lost, all is lost. There is no record of him trying to locate the lost pages. I could probably write a massive essay on all of the other issues. These are just a few of my questions.
hey so i don’t know how everything turned out, i’m responding to this a year later haha but i just find it really interesting the question about why Christ would be give the same sermon as in the Old World when the Nephites were theologically advanced by the time he got there. Also the question of Lehi and Nephi knowing many details about Jesus but their descendants lamenting not knowing was also something that caught my attention. anyways, those were great questions right there imo, and i’m not gonna disprove them or anything i just thought it was cool
Thank you, thank you, thank you for having these conversations! I do wish that the issue of Bible scholars finding that parts of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon hadn't even been written yet during that Book of Mormon time period. I would love to see this "problem" discussed openly.
Is this the idea of two Isaiah’s? This idea is brought about by biblical secular scholars to deal with the issue of so many prophecies having specific and direct fulfillment. From what I understand, they say one lived before and one lived later. I flat out don’t subscribe to that. There was only one Isaiah. He died before Lehi’s family left Jerusalem. He was an incredible prophet who Christ himself invited us to read and understand “for great are the words of Isaiah.”
@@jamescrane6583 What do you mean? Isaiah really employs dualism in his prophesying. One passage can allude Cyrus the Persian, and that same passage can allude to Jesus Christ, for example. One passage can refer to war chariots, and that same passage can allude to modern tanks, cars and even airplanes. Isaiah so beautifully and poetically describes Jesus Christ, the Messiah (Isaiah 53). I really do believe that there was a prophet named Isaiah who lived around 700 B.C. and saw many things pertaining to the future of Israel, the Jews, the Messiah, the calamities and turmoil in the very last days, the coming of the Lord in glory and destruction of the wicked, the millennial reign of the Lord with complete peace on earth for 1000 years, and the eventual end of the world and Judgement. He saw a significant portion of Gods plan for His children and the fulfillment thereof. There are many things written by Isaiah that haven’t even happened yet (see some of the list above). Yet, I’m certain they will. Amos 3:7 “For surely the Lord God will do nothing, except he revealeth his secret to his servants, the prophets.” This is my view, God bless.
@@chrishumphries7489 there a way that we refer to events. If some before 2001 was prophesying about a terror attack in New York they would use different terminology than some one referencing the event after 9/11. The terminology employed can be used to date the writing. Thus is one technique used to date the writing of Isaiah and to support the multiple author hypoyhosis.
Of course historicity matters. As prophets such as Hinckley have stated. The whole point of the Restoration was to restore priesthood authority through the physical administering of keys (John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John). If it’s all made up somehow or allegorical, then what’s the point???
I suspect that there would not need to be many changes to the text of the Book of Mormon to remove the anachronisms and other things that point away from it being historical. So I wonder why it was written in such a way as to raise historical problems.
Perhaps our understanding of history is incorrect or limited in some areas, and as more is revealed, we will be reinforced in our faith. Look up "Book of Mormon howlers" for examples of criticisms which turned into evidences as we discovered more.
@@EmanuelNeves just watched it. Not many of them are very persuasive. Regardless of how many lucky hit's Joseph got, the number of irreconciled anachronisms, scientific and linguistic impossibilities outweigh them tenfold. It just takes one single anachronism like a compass or the "name" Jesus Christ, or "Satan" to knock the Book out of the realm of historical fact.
Because they claim it is actual historical text translated by Joseph smith. Now we know actual facts about JS and treasure digging and seer stones and how the BOM was actually “translated”. The church lied for over 100 years to make their fake book seem legit
I fully believe in the book’s historicity, but I also accept that there is no mental model I or anyone else can create to verify its historicity. Its historicity doesn’t fit most people’s paradigms and plausibility structures, and that’s okay- our culturally-constructed paradigms and plausibility structures don’t determine what is true.
I think it's going a bit far to say that no one can create a model to verify it. It might be possible in the future with new evidence and understanding. Otherwise I fully agree, people have preconceived notions regarding history or other sciences, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's especially hard to disprove that something happened using archeology and DNA science, if not impossible.
You can’t disprove or prove the existence of a God sure. But you can absolutely prove the Book of Mormon has no historical validity whatsoever. But as they said in this interview, we as Mormons are very conditioned to see things as black and white. And even though there is evidence, a conditioned Mormon with confirmation bias very rarely will ever consider the possibility. Their view is already made up. In other words the jury has already made its decision before the trial. I’ll just share one of the many facts that any Hebrew biblical scholar could factually and undeniably show you. In the Book of Mormon there are multiple chapters and verses that are from the Old Testament. You were taught the reason for this is because nephi and lehi obtained the Old Testament scriptures from laban and took them with them. The claim is that nephi quotes them as he writes on his plates. Isaiah, Malachi, jeremiah, and others for example are in the Book of Mormon(exact same rendition as Joseph’s king James version of the Bible actually, even carrying the exact same errors exclusive to that version of the Bible lol.) You might ask, when Joseph looked at the rock in the hat and read each word as it appeared(literally how Joseph claimed he “translated” and the church now corroborates it) then how did his revealed words that appeared on the rock perfectly match his English version (different from a version nephi would have) Bible and retain the exclusive errors of that Bible? But I digress because that is besides the point. You see there is actually a fundamental problem with when these Old Testament books were actually written and when nephi and lehi supposedly obtained them and left for the americas. you know that he left Jerusalem around 600 bc. This HAD to be when they left because we already know when Jerusalem was taken captive. So tell me, how does nephi have books that didn’t exist yet? Malachi and Jeremiah for example were not even created until centuries later. Isaiah had been started but wasn’t completed until LONG after nephi passed away. So then how is this nephi character reading books on plates he took from this Laban guy that LITERALLY did not exist yet. A patent undeniable fact that anyone can prove with minimal research required based on the historic events within these books and our knowledge of when these events occurred. allowingwhen these particular books were written. Joseph however did not know this at the time. So now we have a record he “translated” that matches his own Old Testament written by a Nephi who existed centuries before the very books he quotes ever even existed. This is a fact, one of many and not even the most egregious that render the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be impossible. As someone who was once fully in because and believed. I know that the implications of this may not register for you because they once didn’t for me. Confirmation bias is powerful, no one wants to be wrong. You want it to be true so you will interpret the information in whatever way you have to in order to maintain your convictions. I know. I get it. The path of respecting facts in spite of our biases is not an easy one. But please critically think here. The prophet Ezekiel for example was exiled in Babylon after Jerusalem was taken over, an event you know would have to of happened after nephi got the plates from Laban and left Jerusalem. We know that ezekial didn’t even start writing his prophesies until he was in exile and that his writings span roughly 22 years. How then is nephi quoting ezekial from plates before the author had ever even written it?? It is historically impossible. This is a massive problem, it’s impossible for nephi to have had access to these books based on when they were written. Some critical thinking and you can see what the implications of this are.
Most Bibles contain maps illustrating where important biblical events took place. You can visit the ruins or cities described in the Bible(Jerusalem, Antioch, Bethlehem, Damascus, Babylon, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, etc...). If you get atheist, Christian, and Jewish scholars together, they can agree on where the events allegedly took place and confirm the existence of cities and sites in those places, even if an atheist or a Jew denies certain miracles or historical events took place there. Nothing comparable can be said about the Book of Mormon. Some Mormons say the events of the book take place across North and South America. Others say it took place in Central America, in Panama or Mexico. And still other say the events of the book took place in the Heartland of America. That’s why some Mormons are conducting expeditions in Southeast Iowa to uncover the ancient city of Zaramehla that purportedly had 100,000 people living in it in the fourth century, which would have made it one of the largest cities in ancient North America. But so far, the expeditions haven’t found a single thing. In fact, according to the National Geographic Society, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past, and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” To put this into perspective, it would be very difficult to defend the Bible if some Christians said the city of Jerusalem was in Israel, others said it was in southern France, and still others said it was in India. Latter-Day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU's archaeology division(New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS church to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After many years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon: "...you can't set the Book of Mormon geographically down anywhere-because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt - archaeology. I should say - what is in the ground will never confirm what is in the book."
I think it is possible to not really care about the historicity of the religious texts and participate fully. For me surmising that all mythical religions are essentially the same in their status, why not pick up your ancestors faith and take it as far as you can.
I enjoyed this and appreciate that both Spencer/Givens seem to agree that "the historicity of the Book of Mormon is absolutely essential ... I don’t think it can be got around for all the reasons we’ve been talking about." I question, however, the idea that it is "essential to the Book of Mormon in the _last_ instance or in the _last_ analysis" as Spencer asserts. If we apply this to the parallel that Spencer/Givens themselves use, it would be like saying that the historicity of Christ's resurrection is essential only in the last instance or last analysis. On the contrary, it is the foundation, and thus the first instance, for all else. You cannot build a house and then in the _last instance_ add a foundation as an afterthought. I think the Book of Mormon's real power comes precisely from the real lived human interaction with and testimony of Jesus Christ's reality and resurrection. The historicity of these figures and their testimonies are foundational, thus _first_, to all the theology and literary forms one can glean from it thereafter. Without this first and foremost anchor, any manner of "theology," reasoned opinions, or really insightful close readings can be wrested from its pages as Blake Ostler aptly pointed out in his comments concerning the Brief Theological Introductions to the Book of Mormon series. He stated pointedly of the one volume he was reviewing "this book is not a work of theology" precisely because of its lack of historical sensitivity and that all of the books in this series could be called "A Review of Texts Without Context." This is not to say that brilliant and even helpful readings cannot be made when ignoring or at most relegating to the last instance a text's historical context, but such works should be classified as opinion (even really good ones) and not necessarily the theology of the Book of Mormon or its authors. Given that historicity is foundational or at least "essential" to the Book of Mormon's theology, it saddens me that many at the Maxwell Institute and BYU Department of _Ancient_ Scripture in recent years have marginalized or put last those who have sought to defend that foundation. Such division not only undermines the fullest potential of the other projects the Spencer is excited about, but it has weakened our ability to truly harness the power and beauty, to which Spencer/Givens allude, of the Book of Mormon.
Historicity is important since each book chapter for the BM states the time line. The claim is also that ancient Israelites came to America. There are also battles in the BM where millions of soldiers fought. The historical part of the BM needs to be in place otherwise the whole story fall sapart.
I'm agnostic about BoM historicity. I believe in it because of what it teaches me about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit that witnesses its truth to me. If it were somehow proven not to be a literal historicity, I would still believe in it because of its fruit. And "ye shall know them by their fruits."
Some scholars think that many or most of the stories in the Bible are allegorical, but set in a historical context. That provides the precedent for also considering the Book of Mormon to be an allegory in a historical context.
Super enjoyable content. Thanks so much for posting. Unfortunately, I was listening while mowing the lawn - and between the bumps and jostling, my phone sent a complaint to youtube about harrassing or bullying. I have sent them a retraction. So sorry. Subscribed, liked, and will be watching your other videos!
The coherence, complexity, intricacy, and illumination of the Book of Mormon does not necessitate historicity, but it does necessitate singular enlightenment ( or divine revelation if you like).
The sooner the LDS leaders recognize that the BOM is not historical the sooner they'll be able to adopt the LDS message to be even more compelling in the secular age. As a missionary I recall dozens of people walking away from investigating the church early during the discussions simply because they instantly recognized what I could not see and did not understand at the time...that the BOM and the visions of Joseph Smith are useful allegories rather than literal history. I truly believe that once the LDS religion grows beyond it's literal roots, it's message will become even more compelling and lead more to Christ and the covenant path.
It's fascinating how in my reading of Ray Dalio and his studies of the rise and fall of nations he comes to some of the same conclusions that the Book of Mormon does: that as a people grow in wealth, if they don't make that growth work for everyone, if we they get a wide wealth gap and the people don't take care of the poor, those with assets will tend to grow wealthier while those with just money will grow poorer as inflation eventually wears away at what wealth they had and internal (and sometimes external) conflict is bound to occur over the rift.
Dr. Givens comments: "That was a fundamentalist response, was to argue for a transcendental truth that isn’t pegged to history." How is fundamentalist meant here? My understanding is that literalism and historicity are hallmarks of fundamentalism.
Acceptance of historicity of the Book of Mormon is not central. What is central is to search the text for a greater understanding of the doctrine of Christ.
Fluff. How about actually addressing some of the historicity issues. Less discussion about chiasmus and Nibley. More actual historical data (or lack thereof).
It is interesting how sure of themselves people supposedly wielding science can be. Science is one tool and has limitations. You can't prove or disprove God or the Book of Mormon with science, that's the whole point of faith. The ability to recognize truth via spiritual discernment is something we all have (but not all use: see the parable of the Sower). I don't need any outside opinion to tell me if something rings with truth and both the Book of Mormon, parts of the Bible (Most of the New Testament) and the words of Jospeh Smith ring so clearly.
The book talks about armies in the hundreds of thousands fighting with metal swords. We have discovered swords from Roman times all over Europe. You can say there is evidence there were Romans there at that time. No faith necessary. Where are all the artifacts a civilization like that would leave behind? There is none. Let’s just stick to facts. I believe what I have evidence for. There is a shocking lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon. But lie to yourself some more if it makes you feel better
You can prove a hell of a lot with all of the historical record. View of hebrews. Clark commentary on the Bible. The Joseph smith papers. The Rosetta Stone. The kinderhook plates. The history of 400 versions of Mormonism. Banning blacks from heaven for over 100 years. Rigdonites having black leadership. It all points to the brighamites not being what they have claimed to be.
You can’t disprove or prove the existence of a God sure. But you can absolutely prove the Book of Mormon has no historical validity whatsoever. But as they said in this interview, we as Mormons are very conditioned to see things as black and white. And even though there is evidence, a conditioned Mormon with confirmation bias very rarely will ever consider the possibility. Their view is already made up. In other words the jury has already made its decision before the trial. I’ll just share one of the many facts that any Hebrew biblical scholar could factually and undeniably show you. In the Book of Mormon there are multiple chapters and verses that are from the Old Testament. You were taught the reason for this is because nephi and lehi obtained the Old Testament scriptures from laban and took them with them. The claim is that nephi quotes them as he writes on his plates. Isaiah, Malachi, jeremiah, and others for example are in the Book of Mormon(exact same rendition as Joseph’s king James version of the Bible actually, even carrying the exact same errors exclusive to that version of the Bible lol.) You might ask, when Joseph looked at the rock in the hat and read each word as it appeared(literally how Joseph claimed he “translated” and the church now corroborates it) then how did his revealed words that appeared on the rock perfectly match his English version (different from a version nephi would have) Bible and retain the exclusive errors of that Bible? But I digress because that is besides the point. You see there is actually a fundamental problem with when these Old Testament books were actually written and when nephi and lehi supposedly obtained them and left for the americas. you know that he left Jerusalem around 600 bc. This HAD to be when they left because we already know when Jerusalem was taken captive. So tell me, how does nephi have books that didn’t exist yet? Malachi and Jeremiah for example were not even created until centuries later. Isaiah had been started but wasn’t completed until LONG after nephi passed away. So then how is this nephi character reading books on plates he took from this Laban guy that LITERALLY did not exist yet. A patent undeniable fact that anyone can prove with minimal research required based on the historic events within these books and our knowledge of when these events occurred. allowingwhen these particular books were written. Joseph however did not know this at the time. So now we have a record he “translated” that matches his own Old Testament written by a Nephi who existed centuries before the very books he quotes ever even existed. This is a fact, one of many and not even the most egregious that render the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be impossible. As someone who was once fully in because and believed. I know that the implications of this may not register for you because they once didn’t for me. Confirmation bias is powerful, no one wants to be wrong. You want it to be true so you will interpret the information in whatever way you have to in order to maintain your convictions. I know. I get it. The path of respecting facts in spite of our biases is not an easy one. But please critically think here. The prophet Ezekiel for example was exiled in Babylon after Jerusalem was taken over, an event you know would have to of happened after nephi got the plates from Laban and left Jerusalem. We know that ezekial didn’t even start writing his prophesies until he was in exile and that his writings span roughly 22 years. How then is nephi quoting ezekial from plates before the author had ever even written it?? It is historically impossible. This is a massive problem, it’s impossible for nephi to have had access to these books based on when they were written. Some critical thinking and you can see what the implications of this are.
Dr. Spencer describes the faith of those who uncouple historicity from theology as "a weird faith." Isn't there room within the Restoration Movement, and Christianity in general, for an incarnational, liberatory, contemplative, social justice Christianity that isn't tied to the veracity of historical events? If Christian faith and discipleship are based on historical narratives that can be undermined by facts, then it seems that faith is misplaced.
I don’t think there’s room within the restoration movement and Christianity for that. At least not the kind of Christianity that is tied to the claims of divinity that it makes. In the church, the Book of Mormon is held as a keystone, as a testament of Joseph Smith’s calling. Therefore the divinity of Christ and the Restoration rest on the truth claims and historical implications of the Book of Mormon. And in the same way Christ’s divinity is dependent on his Resurrection. If there are deep issues with these historical claims that may even cause us to come to the conclusion that they are not historically true, I think it’s valid to question the faith that comes along with it. That said, I think one can still have deep faith in the principles and values and teachings of Christianity within the church and without, independent of our belief in its divinity. I think that giving up good Christian values simply because of historical questions can be misplaced faith
The theology of the Book of Mormon is very consistent throughout hundreds of years without any development, whereas there was always theological development in the Old Testament that was always changing: From polytheism to Heno/Monotheism, monism (God) to dualism (God/Satan), and the afterlife (there is nothing vs there is a vague spiritual afterlife). Additionally, the Book of Mormon contains ZERO of the theological developments of Nauvoo, including getting sealed up to eternal life, polygamy, Temple worship requiring signs/tokens, theosis, 3 degrees of glory, etc. We need to confront things as they are and to not misrepresent the beliefs of ancient people by "mormonizing" them. Heck, the BoM doesn't keep with the current teachings of the church.
“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” - Joseph Smith, Jr. Does it matter where it comes from if it's true? Dali Lama? Buddha? Mohammad? Paul? The point is to receive truth, of course not to have faith in a fallible person.
@@bryjbry The "if its true" part is the problem. I have studied the claims of Joseph Smith for almost 50 years. There is so much falsehood, confusion and outright lies in his many claims, in his supposedly supernatural translations and in his blatantly FALSE prophecies that, while some of the things he said may be true, the TRUTH is, he was as phony as the $3 bills that he printed up to issue from his illegal, fake "bank" (or "anti-bank" as he called it) in Kirtland.
@@bryjbry sounds like something a con man would say. You think the background and credibility of Joseph smith is not relevant? It’s the most relevant question any member should have. I agree with the original post, Faith in Joseph smith, knowing all that can be known about him, is ridiculous
You know the cult is on its last legs when they start putting out videos like “ does it even matter if this thing we told you was true and real is actually not?”
@@bryjbryhere’s the things man, us members have been raised to seek for truth and proclaim it. It’s only natural for someone who has left the church to be very vocal about why they did so and want to help others understand as well
This guy was the wrong person to be interviewing on this topic. He openly states that he has never really felt the necessity to question the Book of Mormon. As someone who deeply struggles with the historicity of the bom and what that means for the church story as a whole, I don’t want someone to talk about how the book makes them feel or what they can learn from the book. Let’s talk about if the book is not historical, what does that mean. If the bom is simply revelation or inspired writing, what does that mean for our faith and for the primary purpose of the bom, to bring the lamanites back into the Christian fold. Seems like a nice guy, just not a very enlightening interview. Lots of scholarly jibber jabber.
I was hoping for an academic discussion here. Instead, it was a soft discussion from a place of belief-based bias. There was no actual rigorous discussion or thoughtfulness on the problematic issues of historicity. Let's just lump all that uncomfortable stuff into an earthen vessel under the umbrella of human error. I've come away from this disappointed.
Dr Spencer's position seems to be that though the Bof M historicity is problematic, to put it kindly; Its virtues such as the nuanced and complex message of grace, conception of covenants, etc, makes it worthy of a faith and spiritual conviction. Ok, fine, if the BofM was the theological and doctrinal focus of the LDS faith I would say fine, no problem, whatever floats your boat. No harm done and not demonstrably different that other Christian faiths. But of course what this position ignores is the LDS claims of absolute truth of the BofM and Smith as a prophet and restorer of some mythical authority gives them a license to create absurdities as absolute truths for another two centuries. A Mormon has to accept Brigham Young, a rabid racist, proponent of slavery, Adam is God teaching, some crimes (like a white marrying a black) as requiring blood atoning scoundrel as a prophet of God. As one has to accept Tall Tales and lazy learners Rusty as a prophet, and will soon have to accept Dont criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true Oaks as a prophet. Mormons have to accept the Book of Abraham as the word of God, a claim that has been proven to be so absurd as to be worthy of late night comedy. One has to accept that God charges a fee of ten percent of your income to enter into full exaltation. One has to accept that drinking coffee is grounds for denial of full exaltation; and finally one has to accept that the "translator" of the BofM , a convicted con artist, sexual predator and child rapist is a prophet of God. Sorry Dr Spencer, but you know as well as anyone that one can't be a member of your church and have the nuanced set of beliefs you describe.
Belief or even faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon never saved anyone. Faith in Christ is a different story, and a person can have faith in Christ by acting on the precepts taught by the Book of Mormon, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The Gospel is timeless and universal and works independent of time and place. Does the historicity of the Book of Mormon matter? What does it mean for the Book of Mormon to "matter"? I suppose it keeps scholars busy entertaining one another, while never coming to any kind of conclusion. The Book of Mormon was not written for or about people who would never read it. It was written for and about the LDS people, who are the Gentiles. The Book of Mormon looks into the future and levels a sharp indictment against the church. The Book of Mormon is the most prophetic and powerful anti-Mormon book ever written. But the message of the Book of Mormon does have transformative power, separate and apart from its historicity, or even a belief in the LDS church. I don't need some scholar to tell me whether this is true or not. I can read the book and test it for myself. Apart from the elaborate Hebraic literary structures, which may be impressive, elaborate Hebraic literary structures never saved anybody, either. The book is a witness of Christ, designed to make the reader, who applies the precepts contained therein, himself a witness of Christ.
He’s honest about the issues. The wolves dressed as sheep are those whom tell me everything is fine, don’t worry just believe and the scariest are those who say just trust us it’s true. Have you heard anyone tell the church to only look into things from the institutions references? Yeah those are the sheep you should be careful learning from in any institution.
I can only say that I disagree with your suggestion that Terryl is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I have felt such a strong witness of the spirit when reading his material. I suggest that his true feelings come out very strongly in his books. Check out the last chapter of his book The Crucible of Doubt.
@@jasonwallace7456 I agree and I was defending Tyrryl from the comment above. While saying that any time someone tells you that you don’t need to look elsewhere for information, just look here in the approved material, you should be concerned.
Terryl as a wolf in sheep's clothing?!!! Your comment comes across as far far far far right, Chad Daybell, black-and-white, pre-industrial theology, DezNat, Rexburg-Saudi Arabia craziness.
The question of Book of Mormon historicity is one that I struggle with deeply. I enjoy faith matters and would love to see this same question addressed with someone who comes at it from a non-literal, non-historical perspective. Great conversation, just hoping for a part 2 from the other side of the coin.
Yes, this. Joe cannot relate to ever questioning, at one point somewhat arrogantly calling it a "curiosity," which helps explain why this interview is so disappointing. He came to his conclusion early on and has worked backward ever since to support and never cast doubt on that conclusion. We don't need an interview with a "scholar" for this -- it's frankly irrelevant to anything thinks he is adding to the conversation.
Information from the National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon
The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
1. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
2. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
3. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game (sic) hunters spread across the Americas.)
4. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked used (sic) in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
5. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
6. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt.
7. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
While this was quite good in many ways, I echo what some others have said that I would very much prefer a conversation about the historicity of the Book of Mormon with someone who has deeply struggled with that subject. I would ask that you please address B.H. Roberts in that discussion as well. And I am both politely asking Faith Matters to cover this as well as pleading because of where I am at right now.
While this discussion has been honest it is still vague about the real lack of evidence. I believe it’s time to start done serious with like that done by Chris Thomas. The theology is Devine and the gospel pure. When we say the fulness of the gospel is found therein this opens up a whole new can of worms I’ve never read or heard anyone tackle.
if tomorrow, they discovered the city of Zarahemla, would you honestly be fine then?
@@jaromsmiss wow my voice text didn’t really translate well on my last comment:) I’ve chosen to trust the doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon because of the biblically sustained doctrine that is found therein and not because of its origin. If any evidence was found it would change a lot of things as far as the institution of the church goes but there is no evidence yet. We’re taught over and over the booking Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. I think we should stand by this and take the claim more seriously than we do when we worship the institution.
Yes. Please, please a candid discussion on B.H. Roberts is very, very much needed.
I agree 100%
I was disappointed to hear what I understood Joseph to say that he could not see where it was possible to still be a member of the church and not believe the historicity claims. As an inactive member i was hoping to find some encouragement to find a way of belonging. There are many that feel we are not welcomed to partake of the brotherhood due to having a different belief about the origins of the book and our religion. I think the most important aspect of a religion is to bring souls to Christ. Sadly, in our religion it seems more important that one's testimony must be based first on the truthfulness of the religion and then that of Christ. Thank you for this episode. May God bless.
I'm terribly sorry that what I said came across that way (a few others have suggested as much to me). I didn't mean to imply that at all. I want absolutely anyone who's happy to be tied to the Church to have a place in it. I'll call you my sister or my brother any day of the week. What I was trying (unsuccessfully!) to say at that moment in the podcast is that---and this I believe---rejecting certain faith claims about the Book of Mormon but nonetheless remaining squarely within the Church is something rare. It's a difficult position to hold on to, whatever the (largely social) reasons for that fact. But let me be perfectly clear: If anyone occupies that position, they're as much a member of the Church---they belong in the Church---as much as anyone else.
@@joespencer1556 Thanks. No worries. It's understandable. In my opinion. I believe there are many who feel like they can't belong unless they believe a certain way. Just not comfortable about it. So rather stay home then participate. They don't want to be looked down upon as "something wrong with them" and yet feel like a hypocrite by pretending to believe. In my situation I have held close my belief in Christ but I do miss association with those who were once my friends when I was active. I often wonder if I should find a Christian faith based church to feel associated with others. I do fear that many who leave the church leave belief in God altogether. It shouldn't have to be this way. That is why I am a proponent of developing a testimony of Christ above all else.
Thank you for participating in this podcast.. God bless you and your family and a world that is in chaos.
@@dl1130 Question: When you say testimony of Christ first, are you referring to doctrinal religious stuff, or are you taking about the teachings of Jesus and actions of Jesus during his ministry?
@@leem3299 No. Referring to our church made developing a testimony of it's truthfulness above that of Christ.
That has changed today. Most testimonies refer to Christ and less on "I know this church is true...."
@@dl1130 Ah, but I was wondering, the stuff about Christ that you hold to - is it the stuff that is emphasized most at church (substitutionary Atonement), or is the stuff you hold to more the life and teachings of Jesus? I guess I'm asking, when you think of Jesus what comes to your mind first?
This is my 2nd time listening to this and as a member going through a faith crisis I find a lot of issues that I am struggling with. Here is a very brief list of what is causing me to doubt. If the Nephites had steel swords, horses, chariots, steel bows, metal armor, etc. coupled with having a very precise and exact way to record and teach history using a written language that by the way is unrivaled to this day in its efficiency of communication they would have decimated and overtaken anyone in that area as being incredibly lacking in those resources that the other civilizations would have at least mentioned in their oral histories this amazing race of people that were superior in every way. Yet there is zero record of the Maya, etc. even mentioning them. They had the ability to cross the oceans with their knowledge of ship building then why did they not travel to other continents to share the gospel. Lehi and Nephi knew almost the exact date of Christ's birth, knowledge that included his name, his mother's name, details about his ministry and death. Yet in later books they did not know and even lamented the fact that they did not know when Christ was going to be born. They had the priesthood and were performing baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost centuries before the birth of Christ. Why when Christ appeared to them would he not have had a much more specific message for them but instead basically Christ gave them the same message that he presented to the Jews in the old world when they were far beyond that level of knowledge. In regards to the small plates having the record that apparently Heavenly Father knew was going to be lost and arranged for this record to be kept to compensate for that loss. (This is based more on lessons that I grew up listening to rather than being directly correlated to the loss of the 1st manuscript.) To tie that in to an unrelated issue to this presentation, with Joseph's ability to use the seer stone/interpreters to locate lost objects why did he not just look into the hat to see where Lucy had hidden the manuscript and direct Martin to just go and get them. If it was destroyed by her then he should have been able to either see that or have a message from God that it was destroyed. IMO had re re-translated those lost pages it would have cemented his gift as a seer and translator as opposed to throwing up his hands and saying, All is lost, all is lost. There is no record of him trying to locate the lost pages. I could probably write a massive essay on all of the other issues. These are just a few of my questions.
hey so i don’t know how everything turned out, i’m responding to this a year later haha but i just find it really interesting the question about why Christ would be give the same sermon as in the Old World when the Nephites were theologically advanced by the time he got there. Also the question of Lehi and Nephi knowing many details about Jesus but their descendants lamenting not knowing was also something that caught my attention. anyways, those were great questions right there imo, and i’m not gonna disprove them or anything i just thought it was cool
These are genuine concerns and are well-articulated
Thank you, thank you, thank you for having these conversations! I do wish that the issue of Bible scholars finding that parts of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon hadn't even been written yet during that Book of Mormon time period. I would love to see this "problem" discussed openly.
I’m working on a presentation on that issue; it’s complicated, and frankly that theory is worth our skepticism.
Is this the idea of two Isaiah’s? This idea is brought about by biblical secular scholars to deal with the issue of so many prophecies having specific and direct fulfillment. From what I understand, they say one lived before and one lived later.
I flat out don’t subscribe to that. There was only one Isaiah. He died before Lehi’s family left Jerusalem. He was an incredible prophet who Christ himself invited us to read and understand “for great are the words of Isaiah.”
@@chrishumphries7489 it's more than just prophesies. It also has to do with ways things are sa it d and word choice.
@@jamescrane6583 What do you mean? Isaiah really employs dualism in his prophesying. One passage can allude Cyrus the Persian, and that same passage can allude to Jesus Christ, for example. One passage can refer to war chariots, and that same passage can allude to modern tanks, cars and even airplanes.
Isaiah so beautifully and poetically describes Jesus Christ, the Messiah (Isaiah 53).
I really do believe that there was a prophet named Isaiah who lived around 700 B.C. and saw many things pertaining to the future of Israel, the Jews, the Messiah, the calamities and turmoil in the very last days, the coming of the Lord in glory and destruction of the wicked, the millennial reign of the Lord with complete peace on earth for 1000 years, and the eventual end of the world and Judgement. He saw a significant portion of Gods plan for His children and the fulfillment thereof.
There are many things written by Isaiah that haven’t even happened yet (see some of the list above). Yet, I’m certain they will.
Amos 3:7 “For surely the Lord God will do nothing, except he revealeth his secret to his servants, the prophets.”
This is my view,
God bless.
@@chrishumphries7489 there a way that we refer to events. If some before 2001 was prophesying about a terror attack in New York they would use different terminology than some one referencing the event after 9/11. The terminology employed can be used to date the writing. Thus is one technique used to date the writing of Isaiah and to support the multiple author hypoyhosis.
Of course historicity matters. As prophets such as Hinckley have stated. The whole point of the Restoration was to restore priesthood authority through the physical administering of keys (John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John). If it’s all made up somehow or allegorical, then what’s the point???
I suspect that there would not need to be many changes to the text of the Book of Mormon to remove the anachronisms and other things that point away from it being historical.
So I wonder why it was written in such a way as to raise historical problems.
Perhaps our understanding of history is incorrect or limited in some areas, and as more is revealed, we will be reinforced in our faith. Look up "Book of Mormon howlers" for examples of criticisms which turned into evidences as we discovered more.
@@EmanuelNeves just watched it. Not many of them are very persuasive. Regardless of how many lucky hit's Joseph got, the number of irreconciled anachronisms, scientific and linguistic impossibilities outweigh them tenfold.
It just takes one single anachronism like a compass or the "name" Jesus Christ, or "Satan" to knock the Book out of the realm of historical fact.
Because they claim it is actual historical text translated by Joseph smith. Now we know actual facts about JS and treasure digging and seer stones and how the BOM was actually “translated”. The church lied for over 100 years to make their fake book seem legit
I don't need to watch ONE SECOND of THIS to answer the Question. HELL YES IT MATTERS!!!
I fully believe in the book’s historicity, but I also accept that there is no mental model I or anyone else can create to verify its historicity. Its historicity doesn’t fit most people’s paradigms and plausibility structures, and that’s okay- our culturally-constructed paradigms and plausibility structures don’t determine what is true.
I think it's going a bit far to say that no one can create a model to verify it. It might be possible in the future with new evidence and understanding. Otherwise I fully agree, people have preconceived notions regarding history or other sciences, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's especially hard to disprove that something happened using archeology and DNA science, if not impossible.
You can’t disprove or prove the existence of a God sure. But you can absolutely prove the Book of Mormon has no historical validity whatsoever. But as they said in this interview, we as Mormons are very conditioned to see things as black and white. And even though there is evidence, a conditioned Mormon with confirmation bias very rarely will ever consider the possibility. Their view is already made up. In other words the jury has already made its decision before the trial. I’ll just share one of the many facts that any Hebrew biblical scholar could factually and undeniably show you. In the Book of Mormon there are multiple chapters and verses that are from the Old Testament. You were taught the reason for this is because nephi and lehi obtained the Old Testament scriptures from laban and took them with them. The claim is that nephi quotes them as he writes on his plates. Isaiah, Malachi, jeremiah, and others for example are in the Book of Mormon(exact same rendition as Joseph’s king James version of the Bible actually, even carrying the exact same errors exclusive to that version of the Bible lol.) You might ask, when Joseph looked at the rock in the hat and read each word as it appeared(literally how Joseph claimed he “translated” and the church now corroborates it) then how did his revealed words that appeared on the rock perfectly match his English version (different from a version nephi would have) Bible and retain the exclusive errors of that Bible?
But I digress because that is besides the point. You see there is actually a fundamental problem with when these Old Testament books were actually written and when nephi and lehi supposedly obtained them and left for the americas. you know that he left Jerusalem around 600 bc. This HAD to be when they left because we already know when Jerusalem was taken captive. So tell me, how does nephi have books that didn’t exist yet? Malachi and Jeremiah for example were not even created until centuries later. Isaiah had been started but wasn’t completed until LONG after nephi passed away. So then how is this nephi character reading books on plates he took from this Laban guy that LITERALLY did not exist yet. A patent undeniable fact that anyone can prove with minimal research required based on the historic events within these books and our knowledge of when these events occurred. allowingwhen these particular books were written. Joseph however did not know this at the time. So now we have a record he “translated” that matches his own Old Testament written by a Nephi who existed centuries before the very books he quotes ever even existed. This is a fact, one of many and not even the most egregious that render the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be impossible.
As someone who was once fully in because and believed. I know that the implications of this may not register for you because they once didn’t for me. Confirmation bias is powerful, no one wants to be wrong. You want it to be true so you will interpret the information in whatever way you have to in order to maintain your convictions. I know. I get it. The path of respecting facts in spite of our biases is not an easy one. But please critically think here. The prophet Ezekiel for example was exiled in Babylon after Jerusalem was taken over, an event you know would have to of happened after nephi got the plates from Laban and left Jerusalem. We know that ezekial didn’t even start writing his prophesies until he was in exile and that his writings span roughly 22 years. How then is nephi quoting ezekial from plates before the author had ever even written it?? It is historically impossible. This is a massive problem, it’s impossible for nephi to have had access to these books based on when they were written. Some critical thinking and you can see what the implications of this are.
Most Bibles contain maps illustrating where important biblical events took place. You can visit the ruins or cities described in the Bible(Jerusalem, Antioch, Bethlehem, Damascus, Babylon, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, etc...). If you get atheist, Christian, and Jewish scholars together, they can agree on where the events allegedly took place and confirm the existence of cities and sites in those places, even if an atheist or a Jew denies certain miracles or historical events took place there.
Nothing comparable can be said about the Book of Mormon.
Some Mormons say the events of the book take place across North and South America. Others say it took place in Central America, in Panama or Mexico. And still other say the events of the book took place in the Heartland of America. That’s why some Mormons are conducting expeditions in Southeast Iowa to uncover the ancient city of Zaramehla that purportedly had 100,000 people living in it in the fourth century, which would have made it one of the largest cities in ancient North America. But so far, the expeditions haven’t found a single thing.
In fact, according to the National Geographic Society, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past, and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”
To put this into perspective, it would be very difficult to defend the Bible if some Christians said the city of Jerusalem was in Israel, others said it was in southern France, and still others said it was in India.
Latter-Day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU's archaeology division(New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS church to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After many years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon: "...you can't set the Book of Mormon geographically down anywhere-because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt - archaeology. I should say - what is in the ground will never confirm what is in the book."
I think it is possible to not really care about the historicity of the religious texts and participate fully. For me surmising that all mythical religions are essentially the same in their status, why not pick up your ancestors faith and take it as far as you can.
Please explain the contributions of the Book of Mormon in providing a better description of the meaning of grace.
I enjoyed this and appreciate that both Spencer/Givens seem to agree that "the historicity of the Book of Mormon is absolutely essential ... I don’t think it can be got around for all the reasons we’ve been talking about." I question, however, the idea that it is "essential to the Book of Mormon in the _last_ instance or in the _last_ analysis" as Spencer asserts. If we apply this to the parallel that Spencer/Givens themselves use, it would be like saying that the historicity of Christ's resurrection is essential only in the last instance or last analysis. On the contrary, it is the foundation, and thus the first instance, for all else. You cannot build a house and then in the _last instance_ add a foundation as an afterthought.
I think the Book of Mormon's real power comes precisely from the real lived human interaction with and testimony of Jesus Christ's reality and resurrection. The historicity of these figures and their testimonies are foundational, thus _first_, to all the theology and literary forms one can glean from it thereafter. Without this first and foremost anchor, any manner of "theology," reasoned opinions, or really insightful close readings can be wrested from its pages as Blake Ostler aptly pointed out in his comments concerning the Brief Theological Introductions to the Book of Mormon series. He stated pointedly of the one volume he was reviewing "this book is not a work of theology" precisely because of its lack of historical sensitivity and that all of the books in this series could be called "A Review of Texts Without Context." This is not to say that brilliant and even helpful readings cannot be made when ignoring or at most relegating to the last instance a text's historical context, but such works should be classified as opinion (even really good ones) and not necessarily the theology of the Book of Mormon or its authors.
Given that historicity is foundational or at least "essential" to the Book of Mormon's theology, it saddens me that many at the Maxwell Institute and BYU Department of _Ancient_ Scripture in recent years have marginalized or put last those who have sought to defend that foundation. Such division not only undermines the fullest potential of the other projects the Spencer is excited about, but it has weakened our ability to truly harness the power and beauty, to which Spencer/Givens allude, of the Book of Mormon.
Historicity is important since each book chapter for the BM states the time line. The claim is also that ancient Israelites came to America. There are also battles in the BM where millions of soldiers fought. The historical part of the BM needs to be in place otherwise the whole story fall sapart.
If its not a historical record, then Joseph Smith lied. So obviously, it matters to anyone who cares about a rational faith.
But he didn't lie if he genuinely believed it was a historical record. Regardless of whether it was or not.
I'm agnostic about BoM historicity. I believe in it because of what it teaches me about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit that witnesses its truth to me.
If it were somehow proven not to be a literal historicity, I would still believe in it because of its fruit. And "ye shall know them by their fruits."
Some scholars think that many or most of the stories in the Bible are allegorical, but set in a historical context. That provides the precedent for also considering the Book of Mormon to be an allegory in a historical context.
Super enjoyable content. Thanks so much for posting. Unfortunately, I was listening while mowing the lawn - and between the bumps and jostling, my phone sent a complaint to youtube about harrassing or bullying. I have sent them a retraction. So sorry. Subscribed, liked, and will be watching your other videos!
The coherence, complexity, intricacy, and illumination of the Book of Mormon does not necessitate historicity, but it does necessitate singular enlightenment ( or divine revelation if you like).
The sooner the LDS leaders recognize that the BOM is not historical the sooner they'll be able to adopt the LDS message to be even more compelling in the secular age. As a missionary I recall dozens of people walking away from investigating the church early during the discussions simply because they instantly recognized what I could not see and did not understand at the time...that the BOM and the visions of Joseph Smith are useful allegories rather than literal history. I truly believe that once the LDS religion grows beyond it's literal roots, it's message will become even more compelling and lead more to Christ and the covenant path.
It's fascinating how in my reading of Ray Dalio and his studies of the rise and fall of nations he comes to some of the same conclusions that the Book of Mormon does: that as a people grow in wealth, if they don't make that growth work for everyone, if we they get a wide wealth gap and the people don't take care of the poor, those with assets will tend to grow wealthier while those with just money will grow poorer as inflation eventually wears away at what wealth they had and internal (and sometimes external) conflict is bound to occur over the rift.
Dr. Givens comments: "That was a fundamentalist response, was to argue for a transcendental truth that isn’t pegged to history." How is fundamentalist meant here? My understanding is that literalism and historicity are hallmarks of fundamentalism.
Acceptance of historicity of the Book of Mormon is not central. What is central is to search the text for a greater understanding of the doctrine of Christ.
Fluff. How about actually addressing some of the historicity issues. Less discussion about chiasmus and Nibley. More actual historical data (or lack thereof).
What joseph smith did- experience something, creat a book and then start a church is not unprecedented. It has been done many times.
It is critical to read Tad Callister "A case for the Book of Mormon".
@@blizzard2oo I read the book and was very disappointed. It is full of weak, fallacious arguments.
It is interesting how sure of themselves people supposedly wielding science can be. Science is one tool and has limitations. You can't prove or disprove God or the Book of Mormon with science, that's the whole point of faith.
The ability to recognize truth via spiritual discernment is something we all have (but not all use: see the parable of the Sower). I don't need any outside opinion to tell me if something rings with truth and both the Book of Mormon, parts of the Bible (Most of the New Testament) and the words of Jospeh Smith ring so clearly.
The book talks about armies in the hundreds of thousands fighting with metal swords. We have discovered swords from Roman times all over Europe. You can say there is evidence there were Romans there at that time. No faith necessary. Where are all the artifacts a civilization like that would leave behind? There is none. Let’s just stick to facts. I believe what I have evidence for. There is a shocking lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon. But lie to yourself some more if it makes you feel better
@@grantbeck9228 Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Scientific method 101.
@@grantbeck9228 Case in point th-cam.com/video/VaXrX0veR9Y/w-d-xo.html
You can prove a hell of a lot with all of the historical record. View of hebrews. Clark commentary on the Bible. The Joseph smith papers. The Rosetta Stone. The kinderhook plates. The history of 400 versions of Mormonism. Banning blacks from heaven for over 100 years. Rigdonites having black leadership. It all points to the brighamites not being what they have claimed to be.
You can’t disprove or prove the existence of a God sure. But you can absolutely prove the Book of Mormon has no historical validity whatsoever. But as they said in this interview, we as Mormons are very conditioned to see things as black and white. And even though there is evidence, a conditioned Mormon with confirmation bias very rarely will ever consider the possibility. Their view is already made up. In other words the jury has already made its decision before the trial. I’ll just share one of the many facts that any Hebrew biblical scholar could factually and undeniably show you. In the Book of Mormon there are multiple chapters and verses that are from the Old Testament. You were taught the reason for this is because nephi and lehi obtained the Old Testament scriptures from laban and took them with them. The claim is that nephi quotes them as he writes on his plates. Isaiah, Malachi, jeremiah, and others for example are in the Book of Mormon(exact same rendition as Joseph’s king James version of the Bible actually, even carrying the exact same errors exclusive to that version of the Bible lol.) You might ask, when Joseph looked at the rock in the hat and read each word as it appeared(literally how Joseph claimed he “translated” and the church now corroborates it) then how did his revealed words that appeared on the rock perfectly match his English version (different from a version nephi would have) Bible and retain the exclusive errors of that Bible?
But I digress because that is besides the point. You see there is actually a fundamental problem with when these Old Testament books were actually written and when nephi and lehi supposedly obtained them and left for the americas. you know that he left Jerusalem around 600 bc. This HAD to be when they left because we already know when Jerusalem was taken captive. So tell me, how does nephi have books that didn’t exist yet? Malachi and Jeremiah for example were not even created until centuries later. Isaiah had been started but wasn’t completed until LONG after nephi passed away. So then how is this nephi character reading books on plates he took from this Laban guy that LITERALLY did not exist yet. A patent undeniable fact that anyone can prove with minimal research required based on the historic events within these books and our knowledge of when these events occurred. allowingwhen these particular books were written. Joseph however did not know this at the time. So now we have a record he “translated” that matches his own Old Testament written by a Nephi who existed centuries before the very books he quotes ever even existed. This is a fact, one of many and not even the most egregious that render the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be impossible.
As someone who was once fully in because and believed. I know that the implications of this may not register for you because they once didn’t for me. Confirmation bias is powerful, no one wants to be wrong. You want it to be true so you will interpret the information in whatever way you have to in order to maintain your convictions. I know. I get it. The path of respecting facts in spite of our biases is not an easy one. But please critically think here. The prophet Ezekiel for example was exiled in Babylon after Jerusalem was taken over, an event you know would have to of happened after nephi got the plates from Laban and left Jerusalem. We know that ezekial didn’t even start writing his prophesies until he was in exile and that his writings span roughly 22 years. How then is nephi quoting ezekial from plates before the author had ever even written it?? It is historically impossible. This is a massive problem, it’s impossible for nephi to have had access to these books based on when they were written. Some critical thinking and you can see what the implications of this are.
Fantastic conversation. I really appreciated this!
NT Wright only incidentally tries to substantiate the resurrection? He only wrote an 850 page book doing so.
Dr. Spencer describes the faith of those who uncouple historicity from theology as "a weird faith." Isn't there room within the Restoration Movement, and Christianity in general, for an incarnational, liberatory, contemplative, social justice Christianity that isn't tied to the veracity of historical events? If Christian faith and discipleship are based on historical narratives that can be undermined by facts, then it seems that faith is misplaced.
I don’t think there’s room within the restoration movement and Christianity for that. At least not the kind of Christianity that is tied to the claims of divinity that it makes. In the church, the Book of Mormon is held as a keystone, as a testament of Joseph Smith’s calling. Therefore the divinity of Christ and the Restoration rest on the truth claims and historical implications of the Book of Mormon. And in the same way Christ’s divinity is dependent on his Resurrection. If there are deep issues with these historical claims that may even cause us to come to the conclusion that they are not historically true, I think it’s valid to question the faith that comes along with it.
That said, I think one can still have deep faith in the principles and values and teachings of Christianity within the church and without, independent of our belief in its divinity. I think that giving up good Christian values simply because of historical questions can be misplaced faith
The theology of the Book of Mormon is very consistent throughout hundreds of years without any development, whereas there was always theological development in the Old Testament that was always changing: From polytheism to Heno/Monotheism, monism (God) to dualism (God/Satan), and the afterlife (there is nothing vs there is a vague spiritual afterlife).
Additionally, the Book of Mormon contains ZERO of the theological developments of Nauvoo, including getting sealed up to eternal life, polygamy, Temple worship requiring signs/tokens, theosis, 3 degrees of glory, etc.
We need to confront things as they are and to not misrepresent the beliefs of ancient people by "mormonizing" them. Heck, the BoM doesn't keep with the current teachings of the church.
Smith’s story of acquiring the plates from Moroni is an allegory, just as the Book of Mormon is an epic allegory.
Faith? Yes. Faith in Joseph Smith? ...LOL ...WHY?
“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”
- Joseph Smith, Jr.
Does it matter where it comes from if it's true? Dali Lama? Buddha? Mohammad? Paul? The point is to receive truth, of course not to have faith in a fallible person.
@@bryjbry The "if its true" part is the problem. I have studied the claims of Joseph Smith for almost 50 years. There is so much falsehood, confusion and outright lies in his many claims, in his supposedly supernatural translations and in his blatantly FALSE prophecies that, while some of the things he said may be true, the TRUTH is, he was as phony as the $3 bills that he printed up to issue from his illegal, fake "bank" (or "anti-bank" as he called it) in Kirtland.
@@bryjbry sounds like something a con man would say. You think the background and credibility of Joseph smith is not relevant? It’s the most relevant question any member should have. I agree with the original post, Faith in Joseph smith, knowing all that can be known about him, is ridiculous
You know the cult is on its last legs when they start putting out videos like “ does it even matter if this thing we told you was true and real is actually not?”
Can leave it, but can't leave it alone is legit.
@@bryjbry so clever and original. I bet you feel so safe and justified. lol. Use your brain man
@@bryjbryhere’s the things man, us members have been raised to seek for truth and proclaim it. It’s only natural for someone who has left the church to be very vocal about why they did so and want to help others understand as well
He quotes the book of mormon to support the book.of mormon!!
This guy was the wrong person to be interviewing on this topic. He openly states that he has never really felt the necessity to question the Book of Mormon. As someone who deeply struggles with the historicity of the bom and what that means for the church story as a whole, I don’t want someone to talk about how the book makes them feel or what they can learn from the book. Let’s talk about if the book is not historical, what does that mean. If the bom is simply revelation or inspired writing, what does that mean for our faith and for the primary purpose of the bom, to bring the lamanites back into the Christian fold. Seems like a nice guy, just not a very enlightening interview. Lots of scholarly jibber jabber.
Book of scholar to me is always amusing to me. A scholar about 1 book that isn't true.
I was hoping for an academic discussion here. Instead, it was a soft discussion from a place of belief-based bias. There was no actual rigorous discussion or thoughtfulness on the problematic issues of historicity. Let's just lump all that uncomfortable stuff into an earthen vessel under the umbrella of human error. I've come away from this disappointed.
The BOM is categorically and demonstrably false; the church and the university based on the BOM is equally demonstrably false.
marcus
Dr Spencer's position seems to be that though the Bof M historicity is problematic, to put it kindly; Its virtues such as the nuanced and complex message of grace, conception of covenants, etc, makes it worthy of a faith and spiritual conviction. Ok, fine, if the BofM was the theological and doctrinal focus of the LDS faith I would say fine, no problem, whatever floats your boat. No harm done and not demonstrably different that other Christian faiths. But of course what this position ignores is the LDS claims of absolute truth of the BofM and Smith as a prophet and restorer of some mythical authority gives them a license to create absurdities as absolute truths for another two centuries. A Mormon has to accept Brigham Young, a rabid racist, proponent of slavery, Adam is God teaching, some crimes (like a white marrying a black) as requiring blood atoning scoundrel as a prophet of God. As one has to accept Tall Tales and lazy learners Rusty as a prophet, and will soon have to accept Dont criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true Oaks as a prophet. Mormons have to accept the Book of Abraham as the word of God, a claim that has been proven to be so absurd as to be worthy of late night comedy. One has to accept that God charges a fee of ten percent of your income to enter into full exaltation. One has to accept that drinking coffee is grounds for denial of full exaltation; and finally one has to accept that the "translator" of the BofM , a convicted con artist, sexual predator and child rapist is a prophet of God. Sorry Dr Spencer, but you know as well as anyone that one can't be a member of your church and have the nuanced set of beliefs you describe.
Belief or even faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon never saved anyone. Faith in Christ is a different story, and a person can have faith in Christ by acting on the precepts taught by the Book of Mormon, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The Gospel is timeless and universal and works independent of time and place.
Does the historicity of the Book of Mormon matter? What does it mean for the Book of Mormon to "matter"? I suppose it keeps scholars busy entertaining one another, while never coming to any kind of conclusion.
The Book of Mormon was not written for or about people who would never read it. It was written for and about the LDS people, who are the Gentiles. The Book of Mormon looks into the future and levels a sharp indictment against the church. The Book of Mormon is the most prophetic and powerful anti-Mormon book ever written.
But the message of the Book of Mormon does have transformative power, separate and apart from its historicity, or even a belief in the LDS church. I don't need some scholar to tell me whether this is true or not. I can read the book and test it for myself. Apart from the elaborate Hebraic literary structures, which may be impressive, elaborate Hebraic literary structures never saved anybody, either.
The book is a witness of Christ, designed to make the reader, who applies the precepts contained therein, himself a witness of Christ.
Chloroform in print
This just screams a waste of time.
Terryl is scholarly how ever sometimes he fills to me as wolf in sheep clothing. Sorry! So please be careful when learning from him.
He’s honest about the issues. The wolves dressed as sheep are those whom tell me everything is fine, don’t worry just believe and the scariest are those who say just trust us it’s true. Have you heard anyone tell the church to only look into things from the institutions references? Yeah those are the sheep you should be careful learning from in any institution.
I can only say that I disagree with your suggestion that Terryl is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I have felt such a strong witness of the spirit when reading his material. I suggest that his true feelings come out very strongly in his books. Check out the last chapter of his book The Crucible of Doubt.
@@jasonwallace7456 I agree and I was defending Tyrryl from the comment above. While saying that any time someone tells you that you don’t need to look elsewhere for information, just look here in the approved material, you should be concerned.
Terryl as a wolf in sheep's clothing?!!! Your comment comes across as far far far far right, Chad Daybell, black-and-white, pre-industrial theology, DezNat, Rexburg-Saudi Arabia craziness.
He’a more like a sheep in wolf’s clothing.