Book Of Mormon Historicity And Temple Recommends

[Tsuzuki]

Depending on what is meant by 'source', I disagree in general that the Holy Ghost is the source of anyone's tesitmony on anything. One typically has to be presented with something the Holy Ghost can testify to and that something is the source. But I understand what you mean. It doesn't change (or even address) what I said one whit.

Suit yourself. I see no reason to conform to your logic. I still get my temple recommend.

[BCSpace]

Depending on what is meant by 'source', I disagree in general that the Holy Ghost is the source of anyone's tesitmony on anything. One typically has to be presented with something the Holy Ghost can testify to and that something is the source. But I understand what you mean. It doesn't change (or even address) what I said one whit.

Suit yourself. I see no reason to conform to your logic. I still get my temple recommend.

Honesty is the reason (yet another TR question as I recall).

[Tsuzuki]

Honesty is the reason (yet another TR question as I recall).

And I am honestly not conforming to your faulty logic.

[BCSpace]

Honesty is the reason (yet another TR question as I recall).

And I am honestly not conforming to your faulty logic.

You have not presented anything showing my logic is faulty. The fact remains that one whose set belief is that the BoM is not what it claims to be cannot honestly and satisfactorily answer some of the TR questions.

[Tsuzuki]

You have not presented anything showing my logic is faulty. The fact remains that one whose set belief is that the BoM is not what it claims to be cannot honestly and satisfactorily answer some of the TR questions.

Just because someone does not have a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, that does not mean that they have a set belief in its non-historicity.

26 Now, as I said concerning faithâ??that it was not a perfect knowledgeâ??even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

- Alma 32:26-27

[HiJolly]

You have not presented anything showing my logic is faulty. The fact remains that one whose set belief is that the BoM is not what it claims to be cannot honestly and satisfactorily answer some of the TR questions.

"what it claims to be" is an excellent point. I know no one asked me, but I agree with Tsuzuki on this one.

HiJolly

[BCSpace]

Just because someone does not have a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, that does not mean that they have a set belief in its non-historicity.

It does.

historicity his

[Tsuzuki]

LDS doctrine is that the BoM is historical. So if you believe that it's just a faith promoting fairy tale, myth, or the like, you are in conflict with the TR.

Non-belief is not the same as disbelief. I am open to the belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I wouldn't go so far as to list it as one of my defining beliefs. I really don't care one way or the other about it, because I already have an independent confirmation of its truth. And as I stated earlier in the thread, I don't believe in the historicity of anything, so for me the entire issue is meaningless.

[BCSpace]

Non-belief is not the same as disbelief.

The salvational effect is the same. One cannot be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6).

I am open to the belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon

Then I don't think there is an immediate problem (until your faith in JS being a prophet and of the restoration of the Church is tested). I have always said (though not necessarily in this thread that I recall) that if one is trying to believe (or by logical extension, open to belief) then one is still on the path.

Such an expression 'non-belief' would probably still illicit some questions about your testimony about the Restoration of the Gospel (question 3) in my experience.

So getting back to the original premise of this thread which, according to the original poster, is about those who believe the BoM is inspired but not historical; such are in conflict with the TR questions because the LDS Church teaches that the BoM is historical and such teaching therefore is part of the keystone of our religion.

[Tsuzuki]

If I ever travel to the past, I will be sure to acknowledge the Nephites.

[BCSpace]

If I ever travel to the past, I will be sure to acknowledge the Nephites.

Bring me back a curelom and stay away from the daleks.

[Tsuzuki]

Bring me back a curelom and stay away from the daleks.

Be nice or I'll bring you back a cumom instead.

[BCSpace]

Be nice or I'll bring you back a cumom instead.

And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. Ether 9:19

Sa-weet!

[Tsuzuki]

You won't be saying that when you find out how much upkeep cumoms take.

[smac97]

MMS,

Book Of Mormon Historicity And Temple Recommends, Are you entitled to one if you do not believe?

I assume you mean "if you do not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Is that correct?

These statements seem to compel the conclusion that those who believe that the BOM is inspired but not historical, are not with the church on the issue (which I think is undisputed, anyway).

That's what I think.

I addressed this issue at some length here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=12843

Of course, many groups working against the Church teach that the BOM is not historical. Does this mean that those who do not believe in the historicity of the BOM should not get their recommends because they sympathize with the groups to the extent they teach that the BOM is not historical-which is a teaching contrary to the teachings of the Church ?

I don't think so.

I would leave it to the discretion of the interviewer. We don't need to have a perfect understanding of the Gospel in order to be worthy to enter the temple.

-Smac

[moriancamur]

The TR interview asks:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Recently, the church put out a press release in its newsroom entitled "Approaching Mormon History" that stated:

"It is often asked, for example, how the Church can reconcile the authenticity of the Book of Mormon with the absence of archeological proof. This difficulty is inherent in all religious history and illustrates how spiritual matters are best verified by spiritual means."

"Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, also interviewed by Helen Whitney, similarly expressed the need to take Church history literally. Articulating the difficulty of finding middle ground between myth and reality, President Hinckley said of the foundational story of Mormonism that â??it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world.â? "

These statements seem to compel the conclusion that those who believe that the BOM is inspired but not historical, are not with the church on the issue (which I think is undisputed, anyway).

Of course, many groups working against the Church teach that the BOM is not historical. Does this mean that those who do not believe in the historicity of the BOM should not get their recommends because they sympathize with the groups to the extent they teach that the BOM is not historical-which is a teaching contrary to the teachings of the Church ?

I don't have any clue as to how accurate the BOM history is, just as I don't know what God looks like. I can still pray and get answers and I can still read the BOM and find answers and feel Spiritually enlightened. Thats all that really matters to me. What happens in the practical experience.

If it works, what does it really matter?:

[BCSpace]

You won't be saying that when you find out how much upkeep cumoms take.

Did Noah say anything about how much they contributed to that mess at the bottom of the ark?

Of course, many groups working against the Church teach that the BOM is not historical. Does this mean that those who do not believe in the historicity of the BOM should not get their recommends because they sympathize with the groups to the extent they teach that the BOM is not historical-which is a teaching contrary to the teachings of the Church ?

I don't think so.

I would leave it to the discretion of the interviewer. We don't need to have a perfect understanding of the Gospel in order to be worthy to enter the temple.

But we do have a perfect understand of what the Church teaches regarding the historicity of the BoM. Likely the interviewer will not ask that specific question unless he's heard something or you take Unk's challenge. But the fact remains, especially because the doctrine is so clear, that one is not being truthful if such a one answers yes to question 3,4, and 7.

[Tsuzuki]

Did Noah say anything about how much they contributed to that mess at the bottom of the ark?

He would have, but he was speechless.

[hagoth7]

Some people understand this verse to mean that the Liahona (referred to as "directors") was also with the plates in Cumorah.

Ah, yes. I'm of a different opinion, partly because Joseph never mentioned having it (nor did any of the witnesses ever make mention of seeing it).

But I can certainly see why many would opt to believe what you've stated above.

[freakin a man]

If the things and people in the Book of Mormon did not really happen, then there was no Moroni that appeared to Joseph Smith. If there was no Moroni, then what else can we really believe about the restoration? I don't think its possible for a person to legitimately hold a temple recommend while basically believing that Joseph Smith was a fraud and liar by claiming to see an angel when in reality in their mind that angel did not exist.