In the How does anyone buy into Mormonism thread, PBear42 asked an actual question about LDS theology. Since that isn’t really a good thread in which to have a civil conversation, I’ll put my answers here. However, I’m about to head out for an afternoon of errands, and I’m going out of town tomorrow, so I can’t guarantee that I’ll be around all that much. I hate to start a thread like this, sorry, but what the heck, right?
1. Do you accept as literally true the story of the gold tablets? Relatedly, do you believe the Witnesses saw the tablets literally or in visions?
Yep, I do. Yes, I realize that there is no real archaeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM; I suspect there will not be for quite some time (probably never)–although it is interesting to me that there is more linguistic and geological evidence now than there was in 1830. If the BoM was a fake, it ought to have fallen apart as promptly and completely as Ossian’s poems did, and it certainly shouldn’t contain the linguistic and cultural elements that it does. (Of course, I’m sure you’ll disagree about whether or not the BoMdid fall apart like Ossian.)
At any rate, I seriously doubt that any archaological evidence, however amazing, would actually convince anyone of anything important. The important thing about the BoM is that it is a life-changing text, which tells us about God’s plan for us, how we can live according to his word, and how we can be saved. Now, really—if someone discovered an entire Nephite city, complete with gate that proclaimed “Welcome to Zarahemla!” in Reformed Egyptian, and street signs labeled “Nephi Avenue” and “Zoram Court”–would you decide on that ground that God exists, Christ is your savior, Joseph Smith was a real prophet, and that you had better join the LDS Church and change your entire life to live according to its teachings? I don’t think very many people would, and I don’t think that they would stick around long if they did. The way to become convinced of the truthfulness of the BoM is not to study archaeological evidence (though that is a fun game), but to ask God for direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. If you receive a spiritual witness as to the truth of its tenets, then you should live by it. The important thing is how we live our lives, and archaeology is a side issue—which is why, if you go to an LDS church meeting, you will not hear much about the latest findings in the Yucatan, but you will hear a lot about Christ and being kind to your neighbor.
AFAIK some witnesses saw the plates, and others saw visions. I’m not sure that you would put the same meaning on these terms as I would anyway. I haven’t read up on it much lately.
2. One of the more problematic constructs of the Book of Mormon is that the Indians (native Americans) were of Hebraic origin. Do you accept this tenet?
I think you may be misunderstanding the information we have—as, indeed, Mormons have done as well. In the early days, it was assumed that the people in the BoM were the sole ancestors of all the Native Americans in North and South America. This is clearly ludicrous, and is in fact not at all supported by the actual text, but it was quite easy to make the assumption at the time, given the usual Protestant and American attitudes of the time—and especially since one of the major geographical features in the BoM is a “narrow neck of land,” which can easily be taken to mean Panama (even though it’s not really very narrow, except in relative terms, if you’re looking at a globe). In scholarly circles, this is referred to as the Hemispheric model, and plenty of Mormons do still subscribe to it, though not with much thought. (You won’t really find Mormons arguing it or trying to find evidence for it, I mean.) A careful reading of the text, along with the knowledge we have now, leads BoM scholars to the Limited Geographical Theory (LGT), a fancy shorthand way of saying that there were already lots of people living on the American continent once Nephi & co. arrived, and that they probably partly assimilated into a larger, established culture. Moreover, they probably lived somewhere in Central America, in a relatively small area. This has been common opinion for at least 50 years now, probably longer.
So: yes, I think that what with intermarriage and moving around, a lot of Native Americans (really mostly Native Central Americans) probably have some very small amount of Hebraic heritage. However, it’s important to realize the very tiny number of Hebrew ancestors involved here, and the very large number of people already living there. One cannot expect to find obvious DNA evidence, the loud shouting by anti-Mormons notwithstanding.
3. What do you make of the Book of Abraham?
Interesting story, isn’t it? I do think that it’s correct scripture; how Joseph Smith got it, I am not quite sure. He certainly had lots and lots of papyri, but whether the scrolls simply served as a sort of catalyst by which he received the text by inspiration, or whether there actually was a scroll with that text upon it that he translated through inspiration, I do not know. He could not actually read hieroglyphs, of course; no one could at that time IIRC.
What people get excited about is the small amount of papyri that were discovered in the back rooms of the Met in the late 60’s which belonged to Smith (now called “The Joseph Smith Papyri”). These bits and pieces, when translated, did not contain any Book of Abraham, and so it was broadcast about that the whole thing was clearly a fake. The people who did the shouting were, however, conveniently overlooking a thing or two. The main thing is that the JSP as now constituted do not in any way form the entire collection that once existed. The eyewitness accounts (from non-Mormons as well) describe long scrolls covering the floors, not the small amount that we now have. Smith described the scroll containing the BoA text as written with small characters in both black and red; no such scroll is now in the collection. It is most likely that the greater amount of the papyri, including the BoA scroll, were consumed in the Chicago fire, but no one really knows.
I do sometimes wonder why people get so excited about the BoA text, and ignore the Book of Moses so completely. That one was simply dictated under direct inspiration, with no source text at all.
–The reasons I believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church have not got much to do with physical evidence of any kind. I believe it because it works for me. In my life, I have had many experiences which lead me to conclude that the scriptures and the LDS Church have the most truth of any organization that I have found. The way we see the universe and its workings is the one that makes the most sense to me of any I have seen. I can certainly understand that this makes little sense to some people, but it works very well indeed for me.
