buraianto Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 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.Here you've made a guess at what the group would do. I don't want to single you out, so I'll aim this question at everyone: What would you personally do if the Church said something similar to this? Would you "vacate the building"? Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Here you've made a guess at what the group would do. I don't want to single you out, so I'll aim this question at everyone: What would you personally do if the Church said something similar to this? Would you "vacate the building"?First of all -- no such statement will ever be forthcoming.Secondly, based upon past history, Mormons will stay exactly where they are.How many people are going to invest $100,000 or more over a lifetime in tithing, and then quit?No, the more likely scenerio will be some development out of the Book of Mormon geography dispute.Today, LDS members are equally welcome, whether they support the limited geography model (as having occured in Central America or the Great Lakes region), or the continental model.The next step in this development will be for some educated members to view the BoM as an authentic ancient text, but not necessarily scientifically/historically accurate in all of its passages.The Mormons will first of all have to get used to allowing and tolerating a variety of opinions on just THAT MUCH -- before their kids and grandkids take the next step, into tolerating a variety of viewson the book's origins, authenticity, etc.UD Link to comment
structurecop Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 How many people are going to invest $100,000 or more over a lifetime in tithing, and then quit?No, the more likely scenerio will be some development out of the Book of Mormon geography dispute.Today, LDS members are equally welcome, whether they support the limited geography model (as having occured in Central America or the Great Lakes region), or the continental model.The next step in this development will be for some educated members to view the BoM as an authentic ancient text, but not necessarily scientifically/historically accurate in all of its passages.This is all I ask. Link to comment
Severian Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 What would you personally do if the Church said something similar to this? Would you "vacate the building"? I think a conservative people would be slow to take action in any case. Besides, Elvis has already left the building for all of us. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I think a conservative people would be slow to take action in any case. Besides, Elvis has already left the building for all of us.It would be interesting to see. If they said, "We believe that it's historical, but it's not necessary to believe that to be a faithful Mormon," I think quite a few people in the church would be relieved. The more conservative folks would probably keep believing it was literal and historical.It seems to me, though, that if it's not literal and historical, then the founders of Mormonism lied. That's kind of difficult for me to get past. Link to comment
Anijen Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 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?UDNot at all. I believe it is the most correct book but I wouldn't coerce by threats of any disciplinary action if whoever was sitting next to me believed differently than I do.However if Member "A" was called to a certain position and I knew that member A's beliefs and actions were opposite to the duty of that calling I would contact the Bishop, I'd say what I thought and then left it up to the Bishop. To suggest to a Bishop that he/she should have charges brought up against that member is not my call and something I just cant see myself doing. Link to comment
kamenraider Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 It seems to me, though, that if it's not literal and historical, then the founders of Mormonism lied. That's kind of difficult for me to get past.That's right. If someone believes that Moroni was nothing more than a fictional character, then they must admit he couldn't have appeared to Joseph Smith or given Joseph gold plates that he wrote on, and so if the Book of Mormon is thought of by someone as just inspired fiction, then they must admit that Joseph Smith would have to have fabricated a whole lot more than the Book of Mormon itself. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 That's right. If someone believes that Moroni was nothing more than a fictional character, then they must admit he couldn't have appeared to Joseph Smith or given Joseph gold plates that he wrote on, and so if the Book of Mormon is thought of by someone as just inspired fiction, then they must admit that Joseph Smith would have to have fabricated a whole lot more than the Book of Mormon itself.Yep, that's pretty much my conclusion. Obviously, others have reached different conclusions. Link to comment
paulhadik Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 this is why I stated that the argument behind all this is what is the source of revelation? this idea that God spoke in fables is an attack on the intelligence of the people back then. So then we must say that these were men, writing down interesting ideas whose morals are more important than their details.But Christ referred to jonah and adam and eve without winking and nudge-nudgeing.And Uncle, the EV's and RCC do have a little more experience here. The next step in this higher criticism is liberalism where we can interpret anything, even these morals that you feel are inspired, to mean whatever we want them to mean. Our beliefs become sugar-water and our churches social clubs.I mean after all, if God can't get it right when teaching it to us, then why should our ministers care so much? Link to comment
why me Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 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?)No. But Uncle Dale and I go back a long ways and we have had this discussion a few times. In the past, I termed Uncle Dale's theories as 'speculation as proof' because he wrote in such a way that made what he wrote sound true. And yet, much is just speculation and so, yes, the Uncle Daleites do tend to jump a little to reach a conclusion. One must see the difference between Hypothetical illustrations and documented facts. Uncle Dale tends to mix them both into one bag thereby creating a nice piece of convincing work. I like the Uncle and he taught me much about evidence and how to distinguish its validity when I began to look more carefully into his posting style. Link to comment
why me Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Yep, that's pretty much my conclusion. Obviously, others have reached different conclusions.Mine also. Those who leave open loop holes do not understand the mormon mindset. There is no going backward in regards to the book of mormon. I did say however, that one way out would be that the book was written by ancient prophets but not necessarily based on real events. Rather, as a means to convey god's message to the saints and people of the latter days. But even here the lds church would loose many members. No, it is the literal way or the highway for most LDS. Link to comment
why me Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 ....................................................................................................................................... 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. Yes, and this is the lds mindset that I was referring to. And hopefully, Uncle Dale can understand it. To have the lds church back away from the literal understanding would be devastating to members and cause a massive volcano within the lds community. But the leadership is not backing down. There is nothing really out there which would contradict the JS story. But there is much speculation. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Mine also. Those who leave open loop holes do not understand the mormon mindset. There is no going backward in regards to the book of mormon. I did say however, that one way out would be that the book was written by ancient prophets but not necessarily based on real events. Rather, as a means to convey god's message to the saints and people of the latter days. But even here the lds church would loose many members. No, it is the literal way or the highway for most LDS.Yeah. It's just too bad it's not literal. Link to comment
why me Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 It would be interesting to see. If they said, "We believe that it's historical, but it's not necessary to believe that to be a faithful Mormon," I think quite a few people in the church would be relieved. The more conservative folks would probably keep believing it was literal and historical.It seems to me, though, that if it's not literal and historical, then the founders of Mormonism lied. That's kind of difficult for me to get past.Your ending is exactly right only if the leadership would abandon the ancient prophet angle. With the ancient prophet angle, much can be digested. But still I believe that the disappointment would be severe and many would leave, regardless of tithing spent. The Postmorg and exmorg is full of people who paid tithing and left and who complain about the wasted money. Tithing invested would not keep many people inside the building to answer another poster. Link to comment
why me Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 How many people are going to invest $100,000 or more over a lifetime in tithing, and then quit?UDThey may be the first to leave and end up on a different board than this, if you get my drift. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The may be the first to leave and end up on a different board than this, if you get my drift. You really think tithing is the big issue for exmos? Link to comment
auteur55 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I still have not seen anyone on this thread who is advancing a non-literal history offer up any explanation as to who the man who called himself Moroni was that appeared to Joseph Smith. They also have not explained the 3 and 8 witness's and the existence of the plates. They also need to explain accepting modern prophets who have continually asserted time and time again that this CHURCH believes the BOM to be literal history.I would never support taking someones temple recommend away for believing the BOM to be more of a spiritual book. That should not affect someones standing in the church. But someone does present a great mental defect to be able to ignore so much of our history and pretend it was all fantasy.Nephi said:"the scriptures were never meant to be taken literally."CFR. Can you show me one scripture or prophet that has said this? Link to comment
structurecop Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I still have not seen anyone on this thread who is advancing a non-literal history offer up any explanation as to who the man who called himself Moroni was that appeared to Joseph Smith. They also have not explained the 3 and 8 witness's and the existence of the plates. You don't think the same God who transported the plates 4000 miles underground from the "real" Hill Cumorah to the one on which JS discovered the plates couldn't have fabricated some gold plates? I don't see anyone here who has proposed that the plates didn't exist or that the three or eight witnesses didn't have the experience they claimed, at least with their "spiritual eyes."They also need to explain accepting modern prophets who have continually asserted time and time again that this CHURCH believes the BOM to be literal history.Prophets always work within the cultural framework and understanding of their people. But someone does present a great mental defect to be able to ignore so much of our history and pretend it was all fantasy.Who out of these groups is pretending the past was fantasy? Link to comment
auteur55 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Who out of these groups is pretending the past was fantasy? So what are they claiming? I have yet to see anyone give any explanation supported by facts.You don't think the same God who transported the plates 4000 miles underground from the "real" Hill Cumorah to the one on which JS discovered the plates couldn't have fabricated some gold plates? I don't see anyone here who has proposed that the plates didn't exist or that the three or eight witnesses didn't have the experience they claimed, at least with their "spiritual eyesI refuse to assign such deceptive methods to our just and true creator. I don't believe he goes through some complex process to dupe the world into believing a false history. He also refers to the Nephite people in the D & C. Was he referring to a fictional people? Did he lie to the world that Christ appeared in the Americas? Were the other sheep Christ spoke of not the BOM people?Or should we accept the atonement as being a fictional "moral" story as well. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I don't see anyone here who has proposed that the plates didn't exist or that the three or eight witnesses didn't have the experience they claimed, at least with their "spiritual eyes."Here's how I see it --Were Mormons faced with ANY other set of old witnesses and old assertions about American pre-history, they would naturally be sceptical of any re-construction of the past that os not supported by known facts.That is, if the Unification Church people put forth witnesses and texts, asserting that the ancient Americans were really Korean Confucianists, I think that most people in Utah and in the LDS Church, would say: "No, we cannot accept such an absurd possibility -- it does not match the known facts."But, as Saints, we have inherited our own traditions, and religious traditions generally are not overturned in one fell swoop --- it takes decades and centuries for them to fade away or evolve into something else.I can pull out old Heber C. Kimball discourses, where he swore up and down that plural marriage would ALWAYS be practiced among the Mormons here in earth --- that the practice was so integral to the religion that it could NEVER be altered.Two or three generations had to die off, before Heber's pronouncements were thrown on the scrap heap. Among the Warren Jeffs followers, they are still revered as the gospel truth.Things take time -- the situation will evolve, after why me's generation is dead and buried.A hundred years from now, our knowledge of the ancient American cultures will be ten times what it is today -- ten times as much detail -- ten times as much conclusive evidence for certain developments and interactions in those preColumbian cultures, from Alaska to Chili.There will be no Nephites to be found -- and by then Mormons will no longer care about that old fantasy.Uncle Dale Link to comment
Severian Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 There will be no Nephites to be found -- and by then Mormons will no longer care about that old fantasy.Uncle Dale So the Mormon people will have progressed? Link to comment
auteur55 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 There will be no Nephites to be found -- and by then Mormons will no longer care about that old fantasy.O yes they will Dale. That is where you are wrong. The church was founded on this "fantasy" and lives or dies with it. Link to comment
Mighty Curelom Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 There will be no Nephites to be found -- and by then Mormons will no longer care about that old fantasy.Uncle Dale"That old fantasy" is Mormonism. The LDS church can no more extricate itself from a literally "true" Book of Mormon than it can divorce itself from the notion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If the BoM is just a fable, it makes Joseph Smith a conman, and no religion can willfully acknowledge that it based on a con. If the LDS church pulls the same trick as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it will meet the same fate. ("But there's no Reorganized LDS church anymore. They're the Community of Christ" Exactly.) Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 So the Mormon people will have progressed?Hopefully that is happenning most all of the time -- and that they will be better in the future than now, in many diverse ways.But there seems to be this "black and white" mentality holding them back. By that I do not mean racism (for that seems to have melted away), but a failure to comprehend gradations of literal views.An example:"let the dead bury their dead" can mean:1. that all burials must be conducted by dead people2. that dead people should bury themselves3. that people who are near death should do the burying4. that people "dead" to the gospel should be undertakers5. that people "dead" to the gospel should bury other people "dead" to the gospel6. that we should use this as a symbolic representation for faith vs non-faith7. that when we are "alive" in the gospel, it will all make sense as symbolismSo far as I can tell, some poeple on the MB are stuck at step #1, when it comes to the BoM, etc.UD Link to comment
Calm Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 You don't think the same God who transported the plates 4000 miles underground from the "real" Hill Cumorah to the one on which JS discovered the plates couldn't have fabricated some gold plates?Am curious as to why you've reached this belief that it was God and not Moroni who transported the plates (since the plates Moroni had were ones taken from the "'real' Hill Cumorah" according to the scriptures and there is no indication scripturally that he put them back into the same spot). Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.