Alma 32 and Book of Mormon Historicity

Alma 32 and Book of Mormon Historicity 

By Ken K. Gourdin

Another poster at Mormon Dialogue & Discussion posted the following in response to a prior post, in which I advised someone who had her new testimony of the Book of Mormon shaken by an anti-Mormon video.  The thread can be found here, last visited today: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54126-the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon/page-7#entry1209295060.  I recommended that she read Alma 32 and ask herself, in light of Alma’s counsel, why she would need archaeological or historical evidence to buttress her testimony of the Book of Mormon.  Another poster replied: “I read Alma 32 and am having trouble finding your argument. However, I am not familiar with these readings and am obviously missing your observation. Could you possibly elaborate on why Alma 32 suggests that historical or a[r]chaelogical evidence is not necessary to proving a faith is truth?”

I replied:

I don’t accept the premise of the argument advanced by some, that an alleged total lack of historical or archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon dictates that its believers must, therefore, accept that, while it contains profound spiritual truths, it lacks any basis in historical reality.  Accepting such a premise would dictate that I reject the existence of tangible objects and purportedly-genuine heavenly messengers which figured prominently in its coming forth.

As to tangible objects, if Book of Mormon events did not actually take place essentially as recorded, then why the need for plates?  For an alleged fraud, the Book of Mormon seems entirely too obsessed with its own source material: its compilers say, essentially, “In compiling our abridgment, we took a section of our abridged history from these plates, and another section of our abridged history from those plates,” and so on.  It would seem to me that Joseph Smith violated a cardinal rule of fraud: “Keep it simple, stupid.”  Not only must the purported plates from which the Book of Mormon reportedly was translated be accounted for, but other purported records and physical artifacts need to be accounted for, as well.  For background, see Cameron J. Packer (2004), “Cumorah’s Cave,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, Pp. 50-57, Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, available on line at the following address (last accessed today): http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=13&num=1&id=338.

And, thusfar, I have said nothing of other physical objects which played a role in the Book of Mormon’s coming forth, such as Joseph Smith’s seer stone, the hat in the “head-in-the-hat” accounts, or the interpreters.  I’m sure there are no shortage of skeptics who feel they can win the battle over the Book of Mormon’s coming forth by persuading others to concentrate, not on the book itself, but rather on the chain of purported events which led to its coming forth.  After all, everyone knows that God (if there is one) doesn’t reveal scripture by such means.  Yet how was Joseph Smith, with his limited intellect, able to produce such a coherent narrative (Samuel Clemens’/Mark Twain’s blithe dismissal of the work as “chloroform in print” notwithstanding)?  If simple plagiarism is the answer, why didn’t the original creators of the work(s) from which Joseph Smith “borrowed” (or at least, their descendants) ever come forth?  And if such works figured prominently in the book’s coming forth, why was their being resorted to never mentioned by those who were in a position to know about them?  Why did Emma Smith say Joseph didn’t refer to any other work while translating?  More impressive, why did she say that when Joseph resumed translating, he did so without having any portion of the manuscript read back to him?  And again, such objections fail to address the question of why Joseph Smith didn’t adhere to the “KISS Principle.”

Many detractors dismiss this information with a wave of the hand and by indicating that its purveyors simply were deluded or were lying. That is their prerogative.  However, this information, too, is inconsistent with the “KISS Principle” cited above.  Even the smallest possible conspiracies, those involving but two people, tend, eventually, to collapse under their own weight.  I’m puzzled as to how and why an alleged conspiracy which was (and is) far larger has yet to collapse.  Joseph Smith apparently was simply very adept at attracting a large number of those who are especially prone to delusion and hallucination to become part of his conspiracy.

As to the purported physical existence of actual [I]beings[/I] from a world beyond this one with whom Joseph Smith and others purportedly interacted, the “Book-of-Mormon-as-inspired-fiction” theory also either fails to account for them or concludes that they (God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, the Angel Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Elias, Elijah, Moses, et cetera) were mere [I]ad hoc[/I] holograms created to support an otherwise-fictional story.  And other earthly beings who allegedly interacted with many of these heavenly beings apparently did so merely out of a shared delusion.  Again, why was the “KISS Principle” violated, and why did so many of these people (who were in the best position to tell the truth about what really went on, and regardless of later disaffection from Joseph Smith), instead, continue to maintain that they actually saw heavenly beings?  (See, e.g., Richard Lloyd Anderson (1989), Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book).

Now, how does all of this relate to Alma 32?  I admit, I have never seen any of the physical objects to which I refer above; and I admit, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the others have appeared to me personally.  I accept the premise that the faith necessary to believe these things is a spiritual gift.  I admit, I merely “believe on [others’] words” (see Doctrine & Covenants 46:13-14; see also John 20:29).  Why do I believe these things?  Because (naive soul that I am!), in faith, I planted the seeds necessary to gain that belief and they bore good fruit in my life.  Had those seeds not borne that good fruit, then, consistent with the counsel in Alma 32, I would have cast them out and continued to look for other seeds which would bear good fruit in my life.

Having said this, does this mean, then, that I don’t have questions about aspects of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, about Church history, or about something this Church leader said or that Church leader said?  Of course not.  I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to have a reasonably well-functioning brain and to not have questions about such things.  In the Millennium or on The Other Side, I anticipate the opportunity to attend several firesides (Mormon meetings usually highlighting a featured speaker) with themes such as, “Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?“; “Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?“; and so on.  Do I know everything about the intricacies of Church history?  About some things, I simply have to shrug my shoulders and say, with Nephi, “I know not the meaning of all things.  Nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children” No.  With Brother Davis Bitton, “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church”.  See Davis Bitton (2004), “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” FARMS Review, Vol. 16, Iss. 2, Pp. 337-354, Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, available on line at the following address (last accessed today): http://www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=560.

In the end, physical artifacts and purportedly-genuine interactions with heavenly beings notwithstanding, one must apply the test given in Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon to discover whether the book is what it purports to be, as well as whether Joseph Smith really is a prophet of God and whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is God’s true church restored to the earth.

Advertisements

About kenngo1969

Just as others must breathe to live, I must write. I have been writing creatively almost ever since I learned to write, period! I have written fiction, book- and article-length nonfiction, award-winning poetry, news, sports, features, and op-eds. I hope, one day, to write some motivational nonfiction, a decent-selling novel, a stage play, and a screen play.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Alma 32 and Book of Mormon Historicity

  1. chngdbygrace@yahoo.com says:

    Hello Mr. Gourdin,
    I started to read your response, and was stopped by the first paragraph, I did read through but really the first paragraph did me in. I encounter this quite a bit these days, and it never ceases to amaze. Just because something may contain truth in it does not automatically make it a divine work. I would hope that you do not believe the above article is God breathed, yet (I am assuming) you would claim that it contains truth, and that you did not write anything false in it.

    The argument stops at the truth claims of the LDS Church. The leaders of the LDS have contended that if one error is found within the church or the Book of Mormon, they would cease to be of God.

    I have encounter “grand spiritual truths” in text books, in scientific studies and so many other sources that are not considered divinely inspired nor the Word of God. In the Hindu holy text, the twelfth incarnation of Vishnu is nearly identical to the second coming of Jesus. Just because this pagan and ungodly text contains truth does not mean that God authored it.

    The LDS and the Book of Mormon make claim to it being a historic document, divinely inspired and divinely translated. If this proves to be false, it does not negate the truth that may be contained within its pages, but it does remove it from the realm of being authored by God…

    Also the advice found in Moroni 10:3-5 is contradictory to Biblical council, defies the principle of falsifiability and sets anyone who cannot work themselves into believing, due to logical and practical evidences that the Book of Mormon is a work of man and not God, up as not sincerely seeking. Which allows the LDS church to side step the real concerns and problems with their holy text. This logic reminds me of a comment from a Mormon woman who responded to a request for the evidences that lead a missionary to his belief that the Book of Mormon was true. She stated, “I used to think I could know truth with just my brain, but then I read the book. Now I know it is true that it is the truth.” A contradiction of the Law of Non-Contradiction…

    The Bible does not leave wiggle room for believers to have blind faith… rather to check their brains at the door (or to without ones brain).
    Thank you for your time,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s