Do the false claims of the Book of Mormon undermine Mormonism?

[gsa]

No, says Philip Jenkins, a conservative Christian:

Of all the reasons why Mormons leave the faith, archaeological or historical qualms surely account for an insignificant minority of defectors. Am I wrong about that? At the other end of the process, I find it difficult to imagine many people becoming Mormon because of the church’s ability to explain the settlement of the New World. Newcomers join for excellent personal reasons, in search of community, of values, or new and better models of family. They are not going to abandon those powerful and enticing structures, those networks of community and family, just because a supposedly inspired text is wrong about ancient archaeology.

A religion – any religion – is vastly more than a single scripture. It is composed of the traditions and history accumulated by believers over the centuries, their experiences and memories, their shared daily realities. It is a matter of culture, and when I say that, do not take it as meaning something trivial or dismissive. Isn’t culture a vehicle for progressive revelation? As I say, I am speaking of any and all religions, Christian and otherwise.

For Mormons, as for other believers of most shades, historical or archaeological claims rank low in the structures of belief. Once within the faith, any nagging concerns about historical issues are easily set aside. People are often very good at juggling competing statements and belief systems in their minds, and when conflicts arise, they are assigned to separate mental compartments.

Do you agree that the historical claims of a religion have no bearing on their spiritual, theological and moral claims?

 

[George-ananda]

No, says Philip Jenkins, a conservative Christian:

Of all the reasons why Mormons leave the faith, archaeological or historical qualms surely account for an insignificant minority of defectors. Am I wrong about that? At the other end of the process, I find it difficult to imagine many people becoming Mormon because of the church’s ability to explain the settlement of the New World. Newcomers join for excellent personal reasons, in search of community, of values, or new and better models of family. They are not going to abandon those powerful and enticing structures, those networks of community and family, just because a supposedly inspired text is wrong about ancient archaeology.

A religion – any religion – is vastly more than a single scripture. It is composed of the traditions and history accumulated by believers over the centuries, their experiences and memories, their shared daily realities. It is a matter of culture, and when I say that, do not take it as meaning something trivial or dismissive. Isn’t culture a vehicle for progressive revelation? As I say, I am speaking of any and all religions, Christian and otherwise.

For Mormons, as for other believers of most shades, historical or archaeological claims rank low in the structures of belief. Once within the faith, any nagging concerns about historical issues are easily set aside. People are often very good at juggling competing statements and belief systems in their minds, and when conflicts arise, they are assigned to separate mental compartments.

I think this guy makes a good case and I like what he says.

Do you agree that the historical claims of a religion have no bearing on their spiritual, theological and moral claims?

The historical things become less important as time goes by compared to the living evolving religion of now. Finding out now what actually happened in ancient times does not really change anything.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you agree that the historical claims of a religion have no bearing on their spiritual, theological and moral claims?

To tie the title of your thread to the question you are posing, I would have to say that, for me, any archeological evidence or lack thereof for the Book of Mormon (I'm assuming that's what you are talking about when you use the phrase "false claims") is secondary to the doctrines of the faith. And when people say things like, "Mormons are really nice people, even if they are unbelievably gullible and stupid," I am tempted to respond by saying, "Whatever kind of people Mormons may be, they are are what they are because of what they believe, not despite what they believe." Being a Mormon has made me a better person than I would be otherwise, and the doctrines of Mormonism make far more sense to me than the doctrines of traditional Christianity. Whether evidence can be found for an ancient city somewhere in the western hemisphere known as Zarahemla is immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gsa]

To tie the title of your thread to the question you are posing, I would have to say that, for me, any archeological evidence or lack thereof for the Book of Mormon (I'm assuming that's what you are talking about when you use the phrase "false claims") is secondary to the doctrines of the faith. And when people say things like, "Mormons are really nice people, even if they are unbelievably gullible and stupid," I am tempted to respond by saying, "Whatever kind of people Mormons may be, they are are what they are because of what they believe, not despite what they believe." Being a Mormon has made me a better person than I would be otherwise, and the doctrines of Mormonism make far more sense to me than the doctrines of traditional Christianity. Whether evidence can be found for an ancient city somewhere in the western hemisphere known as Zarahemla is immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

I don't understand this though. You say that Mormons are what they are because of what they believe, but then you say that whether evidence of Mormonism's claims is found is immaterial. How does that work? I agree, Mormons are influenced by their beliefs, as are Muslims and Christians. But surely the evidence for those beliefs is material?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't understand this though. You say that Mormons are what they are because of what they believe, but then you say that whether evidence of Mormonism's claims is found is immaterial. How does that work? I agree, Mormons are influenced by their beliefs, as are Muslims and Christians. But surely the evidence for those beliefs is material?

I believe the doctrines of Mormonism, its theology, its understanding of God's plan for humanity. Those beliefs resonate with me as being true. I don't need archeological evidence for plants, animals, etc. mentioned in the Book of Mormon to confirm the validity of Mormon doctrine to me. The thing is, as time goes by, archeological, cultural and linguistic evidences are being found, and many of the things that, fifty years ago, were said not to have existed in the pre-Columbian Americas have since been discovered. The problem is that nobody really even knows where they should be looking for this evidence. To me personally, the linguistic evidence is more compelling than the archeological evidence, but even so, it's all just frosting on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gsa]

I believe the doctrines of Mormonism, its theology, its understanding of God's plan for humanity. Those beliefs resonate with me as being true. I don't need archeological evidence for plants, animals, etc. mentioned in the Book of Mormon to confirm the validity of Mormon doctrine to me. The thing is, as time goes by, archeological, cultural and linguistic evidences are being found, and many of the things that, fifty years ago, were said not to have existed in the pre-Columbian Americas have since been discovered. The problem is that nobody really even knows where they should be looking for this evidence. To me personally, the linguistic evidence is more compelling than the archeological evidence, but even so, it's all just frosting on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

If we could disprove the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, and demonstrate that there was no infusion of Hebrews into the New World before the Spanish arrived, would that change your beliefs at all?

 

[Katzpur]

If we could disprove the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, and demonstrate that there was no infusion of Hebrews into the New World before the Spanish arrived, would that change your beliefs at all?

It's hard for me to answer that question since I don't see this proof as forthcoming. To begin with, proof leaves virtually no wiggle-room. What you might cite a "proof" today might be discredited ten years from now. People have been trying to disprove the Book of Mormon for 185 years now, and they haven't done particularly well. If I could prove the infusion of Hebrews into the New World before the Spanish arrived, would that change your beliefs about Mormonism? Honestly, I doubt very much that it would.

You know, I can't help but wonder why you want so much to prove Mormonism false. Is it concern for our (i.e. Mormons') welfare? Does it just tear you apart to see us all so brainwashed and delusional? Or is it just more of a game with you? Maybe you start threads like this about other religions and I just don't notice the ones that aren't about Mormonism. But honestly, I couldn't care less if Catholics see the Shroud of Turin as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Trying to prove them wrong is the last thing on earth I'd be interested in doing. And if it could be conclusively proven that it's just a random piece of fabric, I would hardly expect a mass exodus of believers from Catholicism.

 

[gsa]

It's hard for me to answer that question since I don't see this proof as forthcoming. To begin with, proof leaves virtually no wiggle-room. What you might cite a "proof" today might be discredited ten years from now. People have been trying to disprove the Book of Mormon for 185 years now, and they haven't done particularly well. If I could prove the infusion of Hebrews into the New World before the Spanish arrived, would that change your beliefs about Mormonism? Honestly, I doubt very much that it would.

Oh it would. I would definitely revisit the BoM claims if there was any such evidence. That might not lead me to accept Mormon doctrines, but the claims? Sure.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh it would. I would definitely revisit the BoM claims if there was any such evidence. That might not lead me to accept Mormon doctrines, but the claims? Sure.

Well, if you'd accept the evidence, I have to wonder why you wouldn't accept Mormon doctrine. It seems to me that physical proof is really important to you. I'm wondering, though, what kind of a distinction do you make between "evidence" and "proof"?

 

[gsa]

Well, if you'd accept the evidence, I have to wonder why you wouldn't accept Mormon doctrine. It seems to me that physical proof is really important to you. I'm wondering, though, what kind of a distinction do you make between "evidence" and "proof"?

Evidence that the Hebrews came to America is not necessarily evidence for Mormon doctrine. Perhaps that helps?

 

[Katzpur]

Evidence that the Hebrews came to America is not necessarily evidence for Mormon doctrine.

That all depends. If there were incontrovertible evidence that a group of Hebrews migrated to the Americas, it would certainly lend credence to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, and that, in turn, would be evidence for Mormon doctrine, at least to the extent that Mormon doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon (and not all of it is).

Perhaps that helps?

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to understand whether you see "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms, and I'm still not sure.

 

[gsa]

That all depends. If there were incontrovertible evidence that a group of Hebrews migrated to the Americas, it would certainly lend credence to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, and that, in turn, would be evidence for Mormon doctrine, at least to the extent that Mormon doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon (and not all of it is).

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to understand whether you see "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms, and I'm still not sure.

No, evidence is not proof. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish a claim as true.

If there were incontrovertible evidence that a group of Hebrews came to the pre-Columbian Americans, that might lend credence to the veracity of the Book of Mormon. But that depends on what Hebrews, the size of the contingent, their religious beliefs, when they came, etc. And of course that simply establishes that Hebrews came, says nothing of what happened when they arrived.

 

[Katzpur]

No, evidence is not proof. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish a claim as true.

Or as false.

If there were incontrovertible evidence that a group of Hebrews came to the pre-Columbian Americans, that might lend credence to the veracity of the Book of Mormon. But that depends on what Hebrews, the size of the contingent, their religious beliefs, when they came, etc. And of course that simply establishes that Hebrews came, says nothing of what happened when they arrived.[/QUOTE]Agreed. All of those things would make a great deal of difference.

 

[Kirran]

It seems to me that the historical details claimed in the Book of Mormon aren't exactly the point. Their literal reality of these historical events doesn't seem to ultimately matter. Whether they are literally true in such a way or not, they still can teach things. They can be learnt from, and help you live a good life and be happy.

 

[gsa]

It seems to me that the historical details claimed in the Book of Mormon aren't exactly the point. Their literal reality of these historical events doesn't seem to ultimately matter. Whether they are literally true in such a way or not, they still can teach things. They can be learnt from, and help you live a good life and be happy.

People may find the works of Shakespeare inspiring, but they don't form religions around them. How seriously do people take the practitioners of the Jedi religion? And they make no claim that the Star Wars mythos describes future or historical events that took place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."

But if the historical claims in the Book of Mormon are not true, as is the consensus of non-Mormon archaeologists and historians, why would we credit any other theological, spiritual or moral claims made by the book's proponents? Moreover, can you be LDs and believe that these historical claims are not true? It seems that Jenkins and others have an understanding of the religion entirely different from the Mormons themselves.

 

[Kirran]

People may find the works of Shakespeare inspiring, but they don't form religions around them. How seriously do people take the practitioners of the Jedi religion? And they make no claim that the Star Wars mythos describes future or historical events that took place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."

But if the historical claims in the Book of Mormon are not true, as is the consensus of non-Mormon archaeologists and historians, why would we credit any other theological, spiritual or moral claims made by the book's proponents? Moreover, can you be LDs and believe that these historical claims are not true? It seems that Jenkins and others have an understanding of the religion entirely different from the Mormons themselves.

Because they're entirely different types of claims.

Yes, I'm sure you can, and I'm sure there are Mormons out there who don't accept the literal reality of these historical claims.

 

[Looncall]

It seems to me that the historical details claimed in the Book of Mormon aren't exactly the point. Their literal reality of these historical events doesn't seem to ultimately matter. Whether they are literally true in such a way or not, they still can teach things. They can be learnt from, and help you live a good life and be happy.

It is clear that one can at least suspect that Mormonism originated in a scam. (How Smith must have laughed alone in the night!) Anything that is found to be outright ridiculous fiction in his writings lends credence to that suspicion.

Of course Mormons try to slough off the historical nonsense in the Book of Mormon. No-one likes to admit they have been conned.

 

[Kirran]

It is clear that one can at least suspect that Mormonism originated in a scam. (How Smith must have laughed alone in the night!) Anything that is found to be outright ridiculous fiction in his writings lends credence to that suspicion.

Of course Mormons try to slough off the historical nonsense in the Book of Mormon. No-one likes to admit they have been conned.

I think Smith believed everything he claimed.

 

[Looncall]

I think Smith believed everything he claimed.

Why do you think that? How do you think Smith came by his odd ideas?

 

[Kirran]

Why do you think that? How do you think Smith came by his odd ideas?

I think he basically had visions, which may or may not have been wish-fulfilling hallucinations.