Uncle Dale On The Book Of Mormon

[Severian]

I would ask you why you are being baptized into a church whose beliefs you do not believe.

Is not belief in the moral of the story even more important that assuming the story itself actually happened?

The way the story of the Book of Mormon is set up there can be no other way but the literalist interpretation.

Unless one followed the watercourse way of reason and evidence and came to the mystical Way of the Allegory.

The church would fall like a house of cards in a tornado.

The inherent moral of any story oft lives on past the willingness of those who once believed in them. You can pass them on to your Grandchildren and they to their Grandchildren.

[structurecop]

The old testament books you mentioned are an entirely different egg in my opinion. The character of the book of mormon depends on the literalist interpretation and its truth claims too.l

But the BoM rests on the literal existence of characters and events in the Hebrew bible. I'm not sure what Uncle Dale's goals would be with a decreased emphasis on the BoM, but all I want is for members to understand that it's okay to focus the same critical faculties we use on the Bible onto the BoM as well. In general, members seem okay with scholars pointing out improbable events in the Hebrew bible but when we make a similar list of BoM events suddenly it becomes apostasy. The BoM has become the Mormon version of the Koran -- no faithful investigation other than to prove its truthfulness is allowed.

[Nephi]

No comparison! And many Americans in the 1970's lost faith in the United States in the early 1970's.

Yes, these are things that are different in the analogy, but it doesn't negate the analogy. My analogy was simple. Just because something is found to be false doesn't mean you throw the whole thing away and don't learn from it.

In the case of the lds church, any backtracking from the original understanding of the book and how it came about, would cause many lds to lose faith in the church, in god, and I dare say, have severe depression.

Maybe so, but there would be many who would come forth to the church because of it as well. Besides, we are not stipulating that the church come out and say, "the BoM is not literally true." We are just stipulating that it should focus more upon the spiritual truths contained therein.

[why me]

Is not belief in the moral of the story even more important that assuming the story itself actually happened?

Unless one followed the watercourse way of reason and evidence and came to the mystical Way of the Allegory.

The inherent moral of any story oft lives on past the willingness of those who once believed in them. You can pass them on to your Grandchildren and they to their Grandchildren.

Not in this case. Of course, it may be wonderful if it did happen the way you write. But wisdom says otherwise. The story of book of mormon conception has been ingrained into the minds of the lds. It would all be one great lie if it wasn't literal. However, I should say that the one saving grace would be that the book was written by ancient prophets but the story is unhistorical but allegorical. That might fly if more information is discovered.

[why me]

Yes, these are things that are different in the analogy, but it doesn't negate the analogy. My analogy was simple. Just because something is found to be false doesn't mean you throw the whole thing away and don't learn from it.

Maybe so, but there would be many who would come forth to the church because of it as well. Besides, we are not stipulating that the church come out and say, "the BoM is not literally true." We are just stipulating that it should focus more upon the spiritual truths contained therein.

The book of mormon would be studied by theology interested students and other individuals who have a vested interest in religious inspired texts.

And if your case is to put less stress on the literal understanding and more on its doctrine, I would say 'yes' to that.

[structurecop]

However, I should say that the one saving grace would be that the book was written by ancient prophets but the story is unhistorical but allegorical. That might fly if more information is discovered.

I see three or four sets of authors in the BoM.

1. Someone familiar with ancient Near Eastern practices and symbolism

2. Someone familiar with political and social events that may have taken place somewhere on the American continent.

3. Someone heavily influenced by 19th century Christian interpretations of biblical themes.

4. Someone with some prophetic ability.

I don't believe these all to have come from the same person, but I am very turned off by the presence of #3. Does that mean I have to throw the whole thing out? No... the other three by far make up for it.

[Uncle Dale]

why you are being baptized into a church whose beliefs you do not believe.

Mormons say that they are the one true church -- that no lover of truth should belong to any other.

So, it's 1860 and I seek baptism in the LDS Church -- but just as I'm about to be put into the water,

I tell the officiating elders, "Oh, by the way, I profess the Adam=God doctrine to be a crock of crap."

So, they stop the ordinance then and there, saying "The Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator to

the One True Church has said Adam is our God: so, why you are being baptized into a church whose

beliefs you do not believe?"

Good question.

UD

.

[why me]

I see three or four sets of authors in the BoM.

1. Someone familiar with ancient Near Eastern practices and symbolism

2. Someone familiar with political and social events that may have taken place somewhere on the American continent.

3. Someone heavily influenced by 19th century Christian interpretations of biblical themes.

4. Someone with some prophetic ability.

I don't believe these all to have come from the same person, but I am very turned off by the presence of #3. Does that mean I have to throw the whole thing out? No... the other three by far make up for it.

No, because the story of how the book of mormon came into being still stands. However, once that story is contradicted by the lds church, the original history folds like light blanket as do members testimonies.

What would be your reaction if the lds church said: Brothers and Sisters, it has come to our attention that the book of mormon is not literal but rather it was a piece of inspired writing by Joseph Smith himself. Surely, those of us, who have received a testimony of the book of mormon will not be affected by this change of history interpretation, for surely the book is still a work of god.

Wards would become empty.

[Uncle Dale]

why you are being baptized into a church whose beliefs you do not believe.

Good question -- It's 1975 and I'm about to be baptized and I tell the elders, "Oh, by the way,

I refuse to follow the prophet in not recognizing African-descended LDS men as precisely equal

to white Mormons in every single way."

So the elders ask me, "why you are being baptized into a church whose beliefs you do not believe?"

Do you begin to see my argument here?

UD

.

[why me]

Mormons say that they are the one true church -- that no lover of truth should belong to any other.

So, it's 1860 and I seek baptism in the LDS Church -- but just as I'm about to be put into the water,

I tell the officiating elders, "Oh, by the way, I profess the Adam=God doctrine to be a crock of crap."

So, they stop the ordinance then and there, saying "The Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator to

the One True Church has said Adam is our God: so, why you are being baptized into a church whose

beliefs you do not believe?"

Good question.

UD

.

Which of course would be just a tad different than if you were to say: "Oh by the way....I profess the book of mormon to be a pile of crap because Sidney wrote it after stealing it from Spalding with JS as mouthpiece".

[Nephi]

"The Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator to the One True Church has said Adam is our God: so, why you are being baptized into a church whose beliefs you do not believe?"

A good answer to this (in church speak) is to say that you have no testimony of such a statement, so you cannot say its true right now. In reality, churches are like political parties. There are many of them out there, but those who believe everything they say w/o question are rare, and (in many cases) fairly mindless. I am a registered Democrat, but I don't follow everything they say. Churches are no different.

For me, this church teaches more truths than any other church I am familiar with, but my perfect spirituality (the spiritual beliefs that are in 100% agreement with what I know as truth) doesn't exist in church form. Because of this, I am a member of the Mormon Church.

[structurecop]

No, because the story of how the book of mormon came into being still stands. However, once that story is contradicted by the lds church, the original history folds like light blanket as to members testimonies.

What would be your reaction if the lds church said: Brothers and Sisters, it has come to our attention that the book of mormon is not literal but rather it was a piece of inspired writing by Joseph Smith himself. Surely, those of us, who have received a testimony of the book of mormon will not be affected by this change of history interpretation, for surely the book is still a work of god.

Wards would become empty.

If it's the truth, it's the truth. Are you saying that mass = correctness?

Besides, I always hear about how controversies purge the Church of weak members.

[why me]

If it's the truth, it's the truth. Are you saying that mass = correctness?

Besides, I always hear about how controversies purge the Church of weak members.

I am saying that there would be such a mass exodus that buildings would be empty. It would be too big for people to handle and both strong and weak members would fall by the wayside and rightly so. I say this meaning that the literal interpretation is changed to a non-literal interpretation with JS as author.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. But that does not mean that I agree with any particular persons' interpretation of it.

[Severian]

What would be your reaction if the LDS church said: Brothers and Sisters, it has come to our attention that the book of Mormon is not literal but rather it was a piece of inspired writing by Joseph Smith himself. Surely, those of us, who have received a testimony of the book of Mormon will not be affected by this change of history interpretation, for surely the book is still a work of God.

Wards would become empty.

While some members may gravitate to other religious groups offering even more peculiarities, I suspect the vast majority of the membership would be content with this new understanding.

[solomarineris]

UD, I agree whole heartedly that the BoM is not historically true, but is full of truths of spirituality. In fact, I extend this to old and new testaments as well. This does not mean that the Bible is not historically accurate (I honestly believe that JC existed), but is it 100% factual and accurate? Not hardly. Are the spiritual truths taught accurate? 100% yes.

When asked if I believe the BoM to be true, and the rest of the scriptures for that matter, I say yes, because I gain much spirituality from them, and the truths are 100% correct. In any mythology, there is no reason to argue about whether or not these things actually occurred because in most cases, it can not be proven one way or the other. Besides, scriptures aren't about the letter of the scriptures, its about the spirit of them.

Even if these things actually happened, God could care less if you literally believe they occurred. The reason for scriptures are for learning deep philosophical truths. If you were to miss these truths, but believe the literal things happened, you are sorely missing the point. If you (OTOH) get the spiritual truths but miss the literal parts, you are still better off for reading the scriptures, and gain what they are really there for - to teach spiritual truths.

I cannot believe that you are staking your life and energy into an "Illusion".

If you do not believe the veracity of BoM or Bible why would you take them seriously?

"Lord of the Rings". "Matrix", "Narnia" or other creations of Men have as good moral values. What makes the tale of BOM or Bible so important? They are not even written well enough to keep one's interest for a while.

The fact is those scriptures are full of violence, Genocide and killings.

At the end somebody named Jesus sacrifices himself for "Me" "My sins".

This absolutely does not make sense. I never asked him to die for me.

Life is too short to chase an Illusion. I definitely would live my life outside of the influences of scriptures, if I doubted their truthfulness.

[structurecop]

"Lord of the Rings". "Matrix", "Narnia" or other creations of Men have as good moral values.

Sorry, when you mentioned Matrix you must have meant "morally bankrupt."

[Nephi]

I cannot believe that you are staking your life and energy into an "Illusion".

If you do not believe the veracity of BoM or Bible why would you take them seriously?

As I stated on several occasions in this thread, the moral and spiritual truths are correct in the BoM. They are also correct in the Bible. We were never supposed to take these things literal.

[Anijen]

I believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book! I do not believe there is another book (in the entire earth, that we have right now) as correct as the BoM, I think its closest competition would be the D&C. I believe in its history also. I love this book. I believe Pres Benson is probably rolling over in his grave with the attitude of some truth, uh some history, some correctness....

[Uncle Dale]

I believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book! I do not believe there is another book (in the entire earth, that we have right now) as correct as the BoM, I think its closest competition would be the D&C. I believe in its history also. I love this book. I believe Pres Benson is probably rolling over in his grave with the attitude of some truth, uh some history, some correctness....

So then, if at next sacrament service the member next to you said he/she believed differently, would you

press to have him/her brought before a church court? or stripped of his/her callings? or otherwise

disciplined, kept from teaching the children, etc?

UD

[jadams_4242]

I just don't understand how anyone would think differently. They must not know the lds mindset about the book of mormon. The church would have to put on a really good spin if they changed their position and even then, there would be a massive exodus, especially when the Internet lds church haters would chime in on the boards.

.......................................................................................................................................

Why me.........this is not directed solely at you, i just picked you to put my reply into the works.

............................................................................................................................................

Not to even think about such a theory? this church stands for and beleives in the b.o.m, and everything

else that you are aware of. Why would we change anything that is true, i know this thread is in regard

to the history truth of the b.o.m , But to even discuss the church changing its doctrine to fit what the rest

of the world would except, is ludicrus. If the spiritual teachings of the book are true then the history also

is accurate, this is not the book of Psalms, this is the book of Morman, it was not recorded and translated

to get a point across by using psalms or parables, it was translated to speak the truth, all the truth.

we either beleive it as it was intended to be Holy scripture, or we do not. We cannott pick and choose.

All this kind of thinking does is open the door to more wrongs. We can all think what we want to think,

And i think that these kinds of analogys that the b.o.m is historicaly not accurate, is simply nothing more

than advesarial work that begins to crack the concreate walls of beleife and testimony. it underminds

the faith of struggling members searching for the truth, this kind of talk is nonsensical, it can not even

sustain itself in truth or fact, We either beleive the entirity of the scripture thru faith,truth,spirit,and study,

or we do not beleive at all.

[kamenraider]

Is there some conclusive evidence out there that proves that the Book of Mormon is not historically true, or am I missing something? (Or are people like Uncle Dale and Nephi jumping a little to reach their conclusion?)

[jadams_4242]

Is there some conclusive evidence out there that proves that the Book of Mormon is not historically true, or am I missing something? (Or are people like Uncle Dale and Nephi jumping a little to reach their conclusion?)

From what i know there is no evidence whatsoever, its simply in this discussion i read that sevearal

posters are resigning themselves to beleiving that the historicity of the book is not true. i dont go there

i know better, i have done wayyy too much study to even think the history is not accurate.

Things that cannot be proven scientifically should always be left open to possibility in both directions.

[Uncle Dale]

Is there some conclusive evidence out there that proves that the Book of Mormon is not

historically true, or am I missing something? (Or are people like Uncle Dale and Nephi jumping

a little to reach their conclusion?)

I am simply advising toleration. If there are LDS who have studied the book and have decided that it is

NOT an authentic ancient document, I do not think such people should be persecuted (for an honest

difference of opinion).

People are born into churches, grow up in those same churches, and occasionally find that they cannot

accept a few things out of hundreds of points of church doctrine, practice, tradition, viewpoint, etc. I

see no reason to expell or punish LDS members who do not accept the historicity of the BoM. But other

people on this MB are saying differently --- I half wonder if they'd have their own kids excommunicated,

just for believing (as the many millions of others in this world do), that the BoM is not ancient and that

there never was any such thing as a great Nephite civilization in the Americas.

Aren't there more important matters in our spiritual lives, than having to conform to a fixed notion of

what a certain set of texts represents?

UD

[jadams_4242]

I am simply advising toleration. If there are LDS who have studied the book and have decided that it is

NOT an authentic ancient document, I do not think such people should be persecuted (for an honest

difference of opinion).

People are born into churches, grow up in those same churches, and occasionally find that they cannot

accept a few things out of hundreds of points of church doctrine, practice, tradition, viewpoint, etc. I

see no reason to expell or punish LDS members who do not accept the historicity of the BoM. But other

people on this MB are saying differently --- I half wonder if they'd have their own kids excommunicated,

just for believing (as the many millions of others in this world do), that the BoM is not ancient and that

there never was any such thing as a great Nephite civilization in the Americas.

Aren't there more important matters in our spiritual lives, than having to conform to a fixed notion of

what a certain set of texts represents?

UD

None of us need conform to what a fixed notion, nor shoud we, But the bottom line is, if we beleive in our

souls that this book is true in spirtuality then how can we not beleive in historicity. All this kind of

thinking does is to manifest small infestations that grow into larger problems. The book of morman is not

a parable or psalm of any kind ,it is Holy scripture, and holy scripture does not does not direct and

inform with any untruths, even history. We either beleive it or we do not.