Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Enigmatic Mirror

Home
Latter-day Saint
Historicity as Dividing Line

Historicity as Dividing Line

Last updated on: July 13, 2014 at 7:20 am by William Hamblin

Historicity as Dividing Line 2014-07-13T07:20:23-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The default assumption of non-LDS is that the unique LDS scripture in the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon are ahistorical. That is, they do not describe actual historical people, places and events. There never was a Nephi or a Moroni, and Jesus certainly didn’t visit the Lehites in the New World. Abraham, if he existed, did not do or write the things attributed to him in the Book of Abraham. Rejection of the historicity of LDS scripture is universally held by those who reject the authenticity of the LDS Church.

Likewise the default assumption of the vast majority of LDS is in the historicity of LDS scripture. The contents of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham–even if recorded, edited and transmitted by fallible humans–are commemorations of real people, places and events. The resurrected Jesus really did visit the descendants of Lehi in the New World. The Book of Mormon is not a parable, nor inspired fiction; it is history.

In the past half century, largely in response to secularizing indoctrination in graduate schools, a handful of LDS scholars have put for the claim that LDS scripture can be “inspired fiction.” That is, they reject the historicity of LDS scripture, but maintain that “fiction can be inspired.” (This is nothing new; it seems that each generation of scholars must undergo this trial by fire.)

I believe this position is an untenable position entailing both an equivocation and an obfuscation. It is an equivocation because of shifting the meaning of the world “inspired.” It is an obfuscation because it obscures the universally agreed reality that some fiction can be inspired (e.g. Jesus’ parables, and the Allegory of the Olive Tree in the Book of Mormon). The real question, perpetually sidestepped by the ahistoricists, is: is all scripture only fiction? The claim that Jesus told a fictional parable about the good Samaritan is quite a different matter than the claim that the apostles told a fictional parable about Jesus’ resurrection.

Thus we have three different positions:

1- Non-LDS = LDS scripture is not historical and not inspired

2- Liberal LDS = LDS scripture is not historical, but is “inspired” (in some broader sense of the term)

3- LDS = LDS scripture is historical and is inspired.

It is worth noting is that the liberal LDS position is held by only a miniscule fraction of all people, either LDS and non-LDS. The vast majority of people who reject the historicity of LDS scripture also reject the authenticity of the Restoration. The vast majority of people who accept the authenticity of the Restoration also accept the historicity of LDS scripture. Those few–very, very few–in the middle are trying to have their imaginary cake and eat it too. (Something that is possible only with imaginary cake, by the way.) I believe the inspired fiction theory is ultimately untenable and incoherent. The position contains too many internal contradictions; those who profess it in a self-reflective manner will inevitably be forced to conclude that the Restoration is not authentic, and indeed, that the claims of Joseph Smith himself are ahistorical.

So let me end with a little question. If there was no historical Melchizedek, and he did not have the priesthood of God, how are LDS claims to have a restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood any different from a claim to have the priesthood of Yoda, or the priesthood of Gandalf? How is an inspired fictional priesthood different from no priesthood at all?

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Previous Post

July 12, 2014

David Larsen on Scripture

Next Post

July 16, 2014 Le Disgraziate

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a sea that parted to let my people cross on dry ground but drowned their enemies. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Mediterranean Sea The Sea of Galilee The Jordan River The Red Sea