Book of Mormon and the Priesthood

[Anonymous]

Unknown wrote:

I believe the BoM and BoA are “more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story”, but it would be heartbreaking and further undermine the authority of the Q15 if it turns out that they’re only inspired fiction.

Curtis wrote:

Not really. I know that is a difficult issue, but the veracity of the Church doesn’t hinge on it.

I believe the BoM/BoA to be inspired scripture… but I have less confidence in them being historical records. It’s possible to believe the former and not the latter, but it’s tough and you should keep it to yourself in most Mormon circles. I once said “I don’t need Nephi to be a historical person to find value in the Book of Mormon,” to a couple of family members (bro and bro-in-law) and they jumped down my throat.

There’s a problem with the “non-historical” / “inspired fiction” approach… what about the plates and the stone box on Cumorah and the angelic visitations. If there never was a historic Moroni then there never were golden plates nor stone boxes up Cumorah.

If there was no angel, no plates, no stone box on the hill… what does that make Joseph Smith? Deluded, confused or… worse?

The plates are too tangible, too real, too attested to to just forget about them, much as I’d like to. They are an inconvenience to the inspired fiction conclusion.

To paraphrase Hamlet: “O that these too, too solid plates would melt…”

[Author]

Posts