Mormons: Do you interpret the Book of Mormon literally?

Factual Questions
1

As I mentioned in this thread that didn’t go anywhere, I spent a lot of time the other day reading about Mormonism - and most specifically, the mythos in the Book of Mormon about ancient Jewish colonization of the New World. From a storytelling perspective, it’s a pretty epic tale - the rise and fall of empires, ragtag refugees, a promised land, ancient prophecies, epic battles, heroic champions of goodness and liberty, and so forth. It’s no wonder they made it into aclassic space opera.

It’s also these elements, especially in light of what we know today about archaeology and genetics, that make it hard to swallow as a historical account. When the Book was written down in the 1820s Americans still knew very little about the history of Native Americans, and it seemed entirely plausible that they were a remnant of ancient European colonists. Today? Not so much. Of course, there’s wiggle room in every religion. From what I gather, the Book of Mormon can be interpreted in five different ways;

As literal history: All the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the New World were descended from Jews who sailed there in a series of refugee migrations between 2000 BC and 600 BC. They settled the continent, established a liberal democracy with separation of church and state, became Christians, made technological advances on par with Roman Europe, and were wiped out by a series of civil wars culminating around 400 AD. The Native Americans encountered when Europeans reached the New World were descendents of the apostates and reprobates who slaughtered the Christians and built their cities. The Golden Plates and other artifacts Joseph Smith described were physical objects he found on Hill Cumorah and returned to it, and which are presumably still there.

As semi-literal history: Some or most of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the New World were of Asiatic descent and arrived via a land bridge from Siberia during the Ice Age. The account of the colonization is literally true except that, rather than taking place across the entire continent, it was confined to an area of a few thousand square miles, perhaps in Central America or near the Great Lakes. The Golden Plates may have been physical, but may also have been ethereal objects shown to Joseph Smith and his associates in a divine vision.

As metaphorical history: Almost all of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the New World were of Asiatic descent. Jewish colonization was on a very small scale and contributed little to the Native American gene pool, but was significant enough to introduce Judaism into Native American beliefs. The nations described in the Book of Mormon are various Native American tribes, some of which were Jews and Christians. The people and places in the Book may not have been known by the names the Book uses, but the events mostly happened the way the Book says they did. The Divine Agency that revealed the book to Smith “edited” it to be more relateable to a person of his cultural background and historical knowledge, and Smith translated it to English using terms familiar to him.

As allegory: The events in the Book did not actually happen, but were related to Smith by the Divine Agency as an extended parable for the purpose of explaining the theology It wished Smith to promulgate.

As fiction: No Divine Agency spoke to Smith and he made the whole thing up.

I think it’s a safe assumption that “he made it up” is not a mainstream belief among practicing Mormons. I don’t know if we have m/any Mormons who post here, but if we do, i’d like to learn where your beliefs lie. How do you view the Book’s historicity personally? How does the Church (or at least the one in particular you attend services at) view it? What do your Mormon friends believe that you know of? If you or your children go/went to a Mormon private school, what are they taught about the history of the Native Americans? If the story is or is not historically true, does it have a bearing on the legitimacy of the morals it teaches?

Note: I don’t want to get witnessed or preached to, I don’t want to start a debate over whether Mormonism is religiously true, and I don’t want to impugn the beliefs of anyone who has a certain view or the other about literalism. I’m just seeking to educate myself about something I don’t understand very well and get a feel for what an increasingly significant part of the American public believes.

2

When I was an active Mormon? As literal history. No doubt about it, I believed everything happened exactly as written.
Now that I’ve left the church? As fiction.

I can’t say I’ve ever met and discussed it with a Mormon who didn’t believe it as literal history.

3

There are definitely a number of folks on the boards who were active in the LDS Church in the past. There is one poster I am aware of who is an active member.

4

I shared an office with a Mormon, went to Ward and Stake dances with him, visited the Mormon holy spots in upstate New York and attended the Hill Cumorak pageant many times. I was his Best Man when he got married (not sealed – there was no temple nearby, and I wouldn’t ha ve been allowed in, anyway). Then I moved out to Salt Lake City and [ui]really* got immersed in LDS culture.

They definitely do take it seriously and literally. If you have any doubt, go to the two Vistor’s Centers in Temple Square, or visit the Museum of Church Art on the next block. Some people have to work around a bit to accommodate LDS teachings with modern history and anthropology, or to reconcile what to an outsider might appear to be inconsistencies between LDS Scripture ajnd LDS practice, but other faiths do the same thing all the time.

5

Exmormon checking in and I’d have to say: What Bartman said.

6

Smapti,

Your question was well stated. It will be interesting to see additional responses.

Crane

7

This really is either a General Question or, (when seeking the personal views of individual Mormons), an IMHO question.

There is no need for every religion question to show up in Great Debates, (and there is no reason for those who do not believe to insist on making snide remarks), so I am sending this off to GQ in the hope that it finds expanded factual answers, (although the answers provided, so far, seem good).

[ /Moderating ]

8

Speaking as a life-long Mormon, I would agree that it is accepted as a literal history of the people who left Jerusalem and settled in the Americas. When I was younger, I think most Mormons would have told you that all of the inhabitants of North & South America were descendants of the Book of Mormon people.

In recent years, however, there has been an acknowledgement among LDS scholars and archaeologists that the Book of Mormon people were not the only ones there, that others migrated from other parts of the world and settled in the Americas.

9

Active Mormon, raised in the church, and I take it as what you have listed as “semi-literal/metaphorical history”. I don’t know that I’m typical, but I was raised to see science as an essential part of my faith, that “the glory of God is intelligence”(Doctrine and Covenants 93:36), and that in this life we see all things “through a glass, darkly”(1st Corinthians 13:12). If something proven to be true (i.e., the Asiatic background of Native Americans) conflicts with what we have taught, we need to (and do) adjust our teachings.

10

The official line today is closest to your second option. The events in the book are literally true, but there was a lot of other stuff going on in the Americas at the time. Among Mormons, this is known as the “Limited Geography Model”.

For years, until probably 20 or 40 years ago,your first option was kind of the assumed position, and I would guess there are still quite a few folks who believe it. I would say that somewhere around 80% to 90% of active adherents’ beliefs would fall closest into your #1 or #2.

There is then a small but definitely existing minority that either believe much of it is allegorical, or that there really was an account but it was inaccurate in many ways (much like the bible), or that the entire thing is fiction, but there is enough value in the Church to continue attendance. As I said, I would estimate this group at around 10% to 20%, but it is impossible to say how large it is. This would be considered a bit of a heterodox belief among Mormons, so most who believe this way aren’t really vocal about it.

11

Active member. Exactly what Clark Cello said, only I want to elaborate a little on the golden plates:

The official party line is made up of elements from both your “literal history,” “semi-literal history,” and “metaphorical history.” Yes, Mormons believe there were physical golden plates from the Hill Cumorah written by Jews thousands of years ago. (Which might still be under there, although I think Joseph Smith is supposed to have given them back to the angel.) But yes, when the translation was revealed to Joseph Smith, it was “edited” so that he could translate it using familiar terms. And yes, the general belief now among Mormons, especially educated ones, is that the Jewish colonization did not contribute a whole lot to the Native American gene pool. (Sort of in the same way that if you read the Old Testament, you’d think that the only people around at the time were Israelites beating up on everyone else, whereas that’s very far from the case.)

However, I’d imagine that many of the Mormons I know, particularly the ones that haven’t thought about it a whole lot, would fall into the “literal history” category, maybe the semi-literal one, except that I don’t know any Mormons who think that the golden plates weren’t physical objects.

(I’m a special case… somewhere between “allegory” and “fiction,” but I’m very atypical. I don’t know how many other people like me there are, because I never talk about this with other Mormons.)

12

I think that one particular part of the “semi-literal history” category is the most significant: Mormons believe that everything in the book is true, and that it has great religious value, but that it may not reflect a history that most people in the Americas experienced or knew about.

For those unfamiliar with the book, very, very early on, the settlers break up into two factions. The problem with trying to determine what kind of scope the Book of Mormon discusses is that it mostly follows only one of the groups, which happens to find itself outnumbered very quickly. Does it cover thousands of people? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? As far as I know, there are no clear answers. The settlers also meet people who were already in America, but again, gives no sense of scale. Were there more of them? Fewer? About the same?

I make no opinion here about the truth of it myself, but if it is indeed all fiction, I think it should be noted that it should be considered one of the great literary achievements in history. I mean, it would be considered a modern fantasy epic years before Tolkien. :smiley:

13

I was raised mormon, never really bought into it, and haven’t attended for nearly, fifteen years. I was taught it as being absolutely literal, and as far as I know every mormon I know still believes it as being absolutely literal. I haven’t discussed the book’s historicity it in detail with any of them lately, though, so their opinions may have changed. I doubt it though, based purely on their individual personalities.