Chap wrote:huckelberry wrote:I think this is why people honestly have experiences of spiritual confirmation with the Book of Mormon. It touches on mythic patterns that bring to mind important values for some people .It may in fact be revelation of the best good for some people. It may be true in some ways for them at that time.
True in some ways?
Well, it is interesting to see 'true' used in a way that evidently excludes any actual correspondence between the factual statements made in the Book of Mormon, and historical reality.
As some readers may have noticed, I don't think that dictionary definitions are a useful way of settling disagreements. But the idea of a book being said to be in any way 'true' when the majority of the factual statements made in it are false ... well, that seems just a leetle tiny bit outside the normal range of usage of the word 'true', does it not?
I did not think I had to repeat that I think historically the book is fiction. Perhaps I thought my nod to honorentheos suggested that. Do i have to also spell out that I think the book is mythically flawed as well? My subject was how different people have different spritual experiences but the experiences are actually important to them.
//////
adding later with a few more moments of time available
Chap, I was not trying to utilize some form of postmodern apologetic for the Book of Mormon. That sort of thing has happened so I suppose it is natural that you are suspicious though. I was thinking first of a much more traditional idea about the relationship of fictional stories and the truth. One might propose that there is truth in Hamlet independent of whether there was at some time a Danish prince who tried to resolve uncertainty about his stepfathers criminality by employing a fictional play. Or if one determines that in fact there was once such a troubled prince that piece of data would not improve or detract from the play or the plays truthfulness.