The scholarly panel discussion of the Book of Mormon as literature was held Wednesday evening in Salt Lake City. Write-ups about the conference (prior to) are at DMI, Mormon Metaphysics and also The Deseret News. A Motley Vision has a very nice write up on the post conference from Eric Russell who was lucky enough to attend.
The Daily Herald also has a nice write up here. Highlights include:
Robert Price considers the Book of Mormon fiction. Richard Bushman wants to separate the text of the book from the beliefs of individual members of the LDS Church about Joseph Smith as a modern-day prophet. Phyllis Tickle is an “absolute literalist” who believes the book was divinely inspired, but as an Episcopalian doesn’t necessarily accept it. Robert Rees and Mark Thomas, both Mormons, believe many of the best insights into the book, which lies at the core of their faith, come from people who are not LDS.
This is an interesting observation from Robert Rees and Mark Thomas. During the conference Rees noted that LDS members tend to read the Book of Mormon more superficially while non-members tend to read it more in depth–food for thought for us to be certain:
Robert Price considers the Book of Mormon fiction. Richard Bushman wants to separate the text of the book from the beliefs of individual members of the LDS Church about Joseph Smith as a modern-day prophet. Phyllis Tickle is an “absolute literalist” who believes the book was divinely inspired, but as an Episcopalian doesn’t necessarily accept it. Robert Rees and Mark Thomas, both Mormons, believe many of the best insights into the book, which lies at the core of their faith, come from people who are not LDS.
The most curious of the panelists was Robert Price:
Price, a humanist, New Testament scholar and member of the Jesus Seminar — a group of scholars who study the historical Jesus — was least like the other panelists in that he rejects the book as the word of God and believes it amounts only to literature.
He is an Episcopalian who was converted as a youth, goes to church frequently and puts the Bible in the fiction category as well — stories, doctrine and all.
“I consider myself a Christian, but I’m not even sure Jesus ever existed,” he said. The uncertainty doesn’t keep him from worshipping, and he benefits by participating in the drama of religion, he said. “I love all the religions. I no longer believe literally the stories or the doctrines of any of them.”
Now, from Price’s status as a non-member, scholar, and a humanist I can understand his position and rejection of the Divinity of Book of Mormon; but, I am at a loss about how he claims to be Christian yet not be sure Jesus ever existed–and also how he classifies the Bible as fiction. I assume such a position is supposed to give him as a scholar and intellectual greater credibility? I think such a position is inconsistent with a professed Christian. Either you are a believer or you aren’t. I guess I’m just a simple bloke as I explained Ronan on a different thread. Guilty as charged! Bushman as always has great insights:
Bushman, a historian at Columbia University whose ancestors have been LDS for five generations, said his experience as a Mormon historian has taught him to appreciate the doctrines; but he looks at the text. In an academic study the Book of Mormon, the text needs to be considered on its own, he said.
“Great documents frequently are embedded in a story that in some way becomes more important than the document itself,” he said. He added that the both doctrine and the view that the Book of Mormon is an endorsement of Joseph Smith as a prophet muddies the study of the book.
“That complicates the study of the text because always in the background is his authenticity as a prophetic figure,” Bushman said.
Some of the most profound insights from the Book of Mormon for these scholars include its message of care for the poor and downtrodden and the evils of war–both of which I would agree–but probably include a few of my own: Testimony of Jesus Christ as Savior and Reedemer of all mankind; Concept of open canon and continuing revelation among others. I would liked to have been able to attend–but alas most of these types conferences seem to take place far away from California’s Central Coast.
August 10, 2006 at 10:18 am
Now, as a non-member, scholar, and a humanist I can understand his position and rejection of the Divinity of Book of Mormon
This was posted by Guy Murray? What am I missing?
August 10, 2006 at 10:23 am
Last Lemming: Very simple. From a “rational” viewpoint most people who are non-members, scholars, and humanists will reject the Book of Mormon, its message and Divinity. There is no surprise in this–and I can understand it looking at the Book of Mormon through that prism; however, I personally am a believer and I reject the humanist view.
August 10, 2006 at 10:38 am
Thanks for the review.
I think the actual claims the Book of Mormon makes about it’s own origin ought to be taken into account right? A huge part of it’s message is of a modern restoration. If one wants to just look at the text, fine. The might turn up some interesting stuff from time to time. But it misses the whole point.
August 10, 2006 at 10:53 am
Eric,
I agree with you that the actual Book of Mormon claims are much more significant than anything else—but it is interesting to read and learn about these other ideas. And, more important is that fact that people are reading the Book of Mormon and are discussing it in forums such as this, generating press coverage and the like. That is always a good thing, as it may draw more people into reading it and determining its truthfulness.
August 10, 2006 at 11:33 am
Thanks for sharing this. Personally, I am troubled by various studies that have come out recently that try to downplay the divinity of the Book of Mormon, or its inspired nature, some claiming it to be a work of fiction, or at best, a historical novel. What’s more, members of the church, upon reading these books, agree with the authors. An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins written by Grant Palmer is one. I wrote a review on Amazon.com of this book quoting Proverbs 3:5-7, or the “trust in the Lord,” and “lean not unto thine own understanding,” scripture. I got only 12 of 110 reviews helpful mark, which shows that most readers of that book agree that the Book of Mormon is not divine in origin.
August 10, 2006 at 12:30 pm
My point was that the sentence I quoted identifies you as (among other things) a humanist.
August 10, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Dan, It is at times discouraging to read about these attacks on the Book of Mormon. I can’t say that it is surprising. There are those who are out to discredit the Book of Mormon either through the most harsh and absurd criticisms imaginable–or through means more subtle.
Grant Palmer is one of those more subtle attacks. But, when you think about it, those who no longer believe, or who have never believed really have no option but to continue to attack. Were The Book of Mormon to be what it claimed then those in the attacking camp are caught in the most egregious of errors and position relating to the eternities.
Members of the Church who do read these works and are persuaded by them, I believe, had problems with their testimonies already. The Book of Mormon in the final analysis as everyone already knows can never empirically be proven–only through the whispering of the Spirit can one ever hope to know of its Divinity.
Last Lemming: I’m not nearly smart enough to be a humanist. What I had hoped to convey by the sentence you quoted was that it was Price who is the nonmember, humanist, etc, etc. My effort was probably at best unartful. Perhaps I can edit the sentence for better clarity.
August 11, 2006 at 5:18 am
I am at a loss about how he claims to be Christian yet not be sure Jesus ever existed–and also how he classifies the Bible as fiction.
Great literature—say, Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables—does not have to be ‘real’ to be ‘true.’ In fact, it could even be more ‘true’ the less ‘real’ it is! With respect to Christianity, one can go a nontrivial distance (in terms of mortal applicability) with Jesus’ ethical teachings and message of self-sacrifice, perhaps enough for someone to make these aspects sufficiently central to their philosophy to call themselves “Christian.” (In my case, my parents have ensured that I cannot evade the name “Christian” even if I wanted to…)
August 19, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Christian, Thanks for your comment. I’ve been out of town for a week. I understand what you’re saying. Les Miserables as you point out does not have to be real to be true, or even good–but in my own view The Bible and Book of Mormon make claims that either are or are not true. They aren’t historical fiction say like Les Mis . . . but that’s my own take.