In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Hamba Tuhan]

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Why are we to presume that the respsonse of 'the brethren' was not a direct outcome of their having sought God's wisdom?

Yep, give me a reliable 'Rasta man' in a coffee shop anyday. No having questions placed back into my lap there. I mean, what kind of God would do that???

[Hamba Tuhan]

"bra burners???"

Zak, you are one thing that always makes me go "HUH".

Finally, something beastie and I agree upon!

[Zakuska]

Curses! And to think I caused the Miraculous occasion!

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly. This is why questions relating to the historicity of the BoM are not insignificant or irrelevant. IMO.

The word I might use is non-essential. Belief in the book as an authentic ancient record, a second witness of Jesus Christ, is not dependent upon a detailed understanding of specific locales where it took place. It can have the same spiritual benefit whether one holds to this or that theory about geography, or even holds no theory at all.

I understand that not all believers will agree with this point. That's ok. As I've said many times, my purpose is to explain why some people do think this question is significant.

At issue here is whether their concerns are well-placed and whether the availability of answers constitutes a deal-breaker as regards the books authenticity. I don't think it has been shown that it does.

[beastie]

Point 1: How people interpreted Elder Oaks talk is not relevant. hwo he intended it is.

Well, since none of us share a hive-mind with Elder Oaks, all we can do is the same thing - read his words and interpret them in our minds.

Certainly those individuals may have misinterpreted his words. But given the fact that so many people interpreted his words in the same way, one could conclude it must be a reasonable interpretation.

Point 2: Revelation is what allows us to distinguish eternal truths from the philosophies of men. Where in the article does it say that non-authoritative voices can have no revelation? My reading of the article indicates that the "threat" is in following alternative voices that eschew revelation or treat such as less reliable route to knowledge, using their voices instead for personal gain, fame, or purposeful deception.

You

[beastie]

Two recent threads, the one on Chapel vs. Internet Mormonism and the other on LDS urban legends has prompted a fusion in my thinking. As a result, I have a new dichotomy to propose that perhaps, is not bogus like Chapel vs. Internet. It is this:On the one hand, we have Mormons who seek to learn and understand the authoritative doctrines, policies and positions of the Church so as to use them as guidelines for their own faith, belief, worship. For the purpose of discussion, I shall call them orthodox Mormons.On the other hand, we have Mormons who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever -- cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them folk Mormons.To illustrate how this breaks down, here are a couple of applications:A folk Mormon is convinced that all faithful Church members one day will be called upon to walk en masse to Jackson County, Mo., there to build the temple of the New Jerusalem.An orthodox Mormon understands that the above notion is a tradition handed down from the early Utah period of Church history, when some Church members were convinced the Second Coming would occur within their lifetimes and they would have the opportunity to go reclaim their Missouri lands.A folk Mormon is wedded to a traditional understanding about Book of Mormon geography (i.e. hemispheric or North American model) to the point of calling into question the faithfulness and loyalty of those who are not.An orthodox Mormon knows that the Church takes no official position about locales for specific Book of Mormon events and thus understands that Latter-day Saints are not bound to accept one particular model over another.A folk Mormon is prone to gospel hobbyism at the expense of a wholesome balance in scriptural and doctrinal scholarship.An orthodox Mormon lives "by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God."Critics who are prone to attack strawmen are likely to focus on the folk-doctrine beliefs of folk Mormons as an excuse to beat up the Church, because such beliefs are often easy targets. They express frustration and resistance when told that such beliefs are not authoritative.The categories (orthodox vs. folk Mormon) are archetypal, and I don't insist that a person must be either one or the other. A generally orthodox Mormon could have folk Mormon elements in his attitude.And I'm not yet saying this model is valid; I'm only thinking out loud here. It might be altogether unworkable, just as Internet vs. Chapel is. Your thoughts?

Which pejorative adjectives, and to whom in particular were they applied?

See bolded section above.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, since none of us share a hive-mind with Elder Oaks, all we can do is the same thing - read his words and interpret them in our minds.

Certainly those individuals may have misinterpreted his words. But given the fact that so many people interpreted his words in the same way, one could conclude it must be a reasonable interpretation.

A false perception is just that. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" one may think it is.

[Scott Lloyd]

See bolded section above.

This was only ever a theoretical model. I've said I was never really in earnest with it in the first place. And I've now discarded it as being in any way workable.

So who was maligned here? Shades's mythical "chapel Mormon" category? I don't believe in that.

Moreover, the phrase "for whatever reason" indicates that none of the adjectives necessarily applies to anyone.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You have deemed that someone who is truly LDS would not be upset at the idea of the prophet seeking counsel from scholars instead of seeking revelation from the Lord about the historicity of the BoM.

I'm rather certain that the prophets unreservedly accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon based exclusively on revelation from the Lord. I know I do. In the same manner, they accept the historicity of the birth of Jesus. Which particular cave in Bethlehem Mary gave birth in (or even whether Bethlehem has always been in the exact same location)* may, for some reason, be a related issue which they--and I--are happy to leave to the scholars to debate.

I am starting to understand, however, thanks to beastie's insights into minds foreign to my own, how a person who needs prophets to be willing and able to identify the exact cave of the Nativity might end up becoming disillusioned and abandoning the prophets altogether.

*Coincidentally, a scholar has already proposed a 'two Bethlehems' theory: 'In a 2005 article in Archaeology magazine, archaeologist Aviram Oshri pointed to the absence of evidence of settlement of the area at the time when Jesus was born, and postulates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Galilee (link).

[Ceeboo]

Just wanted to pop in and say THANKS to all that have contributed/shared in this thread.

As one who frequents this board due to my fascination with Mormonism, I have found this thread more than just a little interesting.

My personal opinions aside, as they are a moot point, a MUST READ thread for ALL. ( IMHO of course )

Thanks again for all perspectives offered.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[beastie]

A false perception is just that. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" one may think it is.

And what gives you the right to declare their interpretation was wrong?

The fact is that Sunstone has had a very difficult relationship with the church at times in its history. Some BYU faculty reported being strong discouraged from participating in Sunstone symposia during this time period.

[beastie]

I

[Scott Lloyd]

And what gives you the right to declare their interpretation was wrong?

My own reasonable interpretation, based on factors other than jaundiced and cynical presuppositions about the character of Church leaders.

The fact is that Sunstone has had a very difficult relationship with the church at times in its history. Some BYU faculty reported being strong discouraged from participating in Sunstone symposia during this time period.

Even if that's true, it's not the same thing as members being discouraged from reading it. I see in Elder Oaks's words a note of caution about the credence one gives voices that do not have the benefit of divine inspiration.

Good advice, say I.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact of the matter is that issues with the historiticy of the Bom is one of the top reasons people lose faith in the LDS church.

CFR.

[Calm]

Nope. Because Elder Packer understands that studying a matter out and then seeking revelation is not the same as allowing intellectualism to supercede revelation. He condemns one of those course. Not the other.

Indeed.

For the vast majority of LDS I've known, learning comes not primarily through revelation, but through studying (scholarship of either the academic or the personal kind) and experience that is then if necessary confirmed by revelation. Revelation and scholarship/study work hand in hand. Most LDS in my experience believe that God works through natural laws that we can discover through scientific study and that if something---like the moving of a mountain---appears to be unnatural, it is our understanding that lacks, not the law. Many even view learning new things through scholarship as a form of revelation, we speak of inspired inventors or researchers and mean exactly that. We seek blessings of healing and go to the doctor at the same time not because we lack faith, but because that healing may come through the hands of the physician. We have written on the walls at BYU Library is "the Glory of God is Intelligence" and that intelligence includes not only the spiritual, but the physical that exists within those walls contained and explained in all those books and demonstrated each and every day through the actions of the students and teachers who use that facility.

It is the imbalance--the scholarship without the revelation, the seeking of revelation without the studying out or preparation---that gets condemn in LDS society.

Continuing revelation is the core of our doctrine, our community; but we do not see it limited to one mode of transmission. In the end true knowledge will involve the confirmation of the Spirit as he confirms all truth, but only if in the beginning we've used our heads to seek that knowledge as well as our hearts.

[mercyngrace]

Well, since none of us share a hive-mind with Elder Oaks, all we can do is the same thing - read his words and interpret them in our minds.

Certainly those individuals may have misinterpreted his words. But given the fact that so many people interpreted his words in the same way, one could conclude it must be a reasonable interpretation.

There is a significant demographic that believes Pres. Bush had the New Orleans levees blown out to purposefully flood the city, another large group of people convinced they have been abducted by aliens, and other statistically significant groups that believe Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. The fact that they hold this belief by interpreting data the rest of the world reads differently does not speak to the "rationality" of their interpretation.

You

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think at this point I

[Calm]

But that's the whole point. The prophets, at least on this issue, appear to seek out intellectualism without bothering to follow up with revelation.

In what way? Simply because the leadership may depend on studies and such to decide for example the format of lds.org, does this exclude them seeking and receiving confirmation of their studies by the Spirit? Simply because an issue remains currently unresolved without revelation though we might have much scholarship available on it, is there any reason to suppose that the prophets have not sought for such revelation or will not receive it in the future. One of the basic tenets of the Church is that there is still much revelation out there to be received. Why should we assume that the prophets will be given answers simply because they ask? It's not that way in the scriptures, it's not that way in the church history books and we are not taught to expect our answers--whether intellectual, emotional or spiritual (though in reality any knowledge or experience is all three imo)---immediately, but in the Lord's time.

Often what "appears" to be is based more on the individual looking than the reality, another reason to seek the Lord's wisdom rather than solely depending on our own.

they are troubled by the idea of prophets seeking resolutions to troubling issues from scholars rather than from the Lord.

This is a false dichotomy, there is no reason that prophets cannot do both and in fact, a great deal of reason---including teachings in the scripture---why they should.

[Calm]

BTW, this is how some folk mormons interpreted Elder Oaks' talk:

You must be using a different definition of "folk mormons" than Scott did as in his category (which I think suffers from being limited to only two due to the rather small population of one of the groups as defined by relative extreme behaviour) it is improbable that any "folk mormons" would have heard of Sunstone, let alone participated in it.

edited to add smiley to clarify this was supposed to be humorous.

[mercyngrace]

You may think that people who are troubled by it aren

[beastie]

This was only ever a theoretical model. I've said I was never really in earnest with it in the first place. And I've now discarded it as being in any way workable.

So who was maligned here? Shades's mythical "chapel Mormon" category? I don't believe in that.

Moreover, the phrase "for whatever reason" indicates that none of the adjectives necessarily applies to anyone.

I supposed I could say

[beastie]

There is a significant demographic that believes Pres. Bush had the New Orleans levees blown out to purposefully flood the city, another large group of people convinced they have been abducted by aliens, and other statistically significant groups that believe Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. The fact that they hold this belief by interpreting data the rest of the world reads differently does not speak to the "rationality" of their interpretation.I'm not ignoring it. Elder Oaks distinguished between various alternative voices. Nonsense. And I think you know that - but that's only my interpretation. ;-) If you are LDS then you accept the scriptures and the tenets of the church. Is that hard to understand?I got 11,375 hits on the lds.org search engine for the phrase "study it out". I think describing the pattern for revelation I've outlined as "my" interpretation is kind of a stretch.

In what way? Simply because the leadership may depend on studies and such to decide for example the format of lds.org, does this exclude them seeking and receiving confirmation of their studies by the Spirit? Simply because an issue remains currently unresolved without revelation though we might have much scholarship available on it, is there any reason to suppose that the prophets have not sought for such revelation or will not receive it in the future. One of the basic tenets of the Church is that there is still much revelation out there to be received. Why should we assume that the prophets will be given answers simply because they ask? It's not that way in the scriptures, it's not that way in the church history books and we are not taught to expect our answers--whether intellectual, emotional or spiritual (though in reality any knowledge or experience is all three imo)---immediately, but in the Lord's time.Often what "appears" to be is based more on the individual looking than the reality, another reason to seek the Lord's wisdom rather than solely depending on our own.This is a false dichotomy, there is no reason that prophets cannot do both and in fact, a great deal of reason---including teachings in the scripture---why they should.

I don't know how to state this any more simply. The problem is that, again, from the perspective of some believers - it doesn't look like the "seek revelation" phase was involved at all. Bro. Roberts explicitly asked the brethren to seek revelation to help resolve these matters. There is zero indication that the brethren did that, and instead, threw it back in his lap.

While you all can speculate all you want that maybe the brethren did pray about it, there's nothing in these events that would strongly indicate that they did.

[Calm]

The fact that apologists work so hard to reconcile their theories without resorting to these sort of outright

[beastie]

CFR.

2001: Results of an informal poll:

A 2001-MAR survey of ex-Mormons by Mister Poll asked participants to "Please indicate up to 7 main reasons why you finally decided to leave the church." The most common results, sorted by percentages, were:

General disbelief of Joseph Smith as a chosen prophet (6%)

General disbelief of the Book of Mormon (5%)

Emphasis on blind faith / Obedience to church leaders (5%)

Found more peace outside the religion (4%)

General mindset of the fanatics of the LDS religion (4%)

LDS/religious logical fallacies/manipulations (3%)

Cult-like temple ceremonies (3%)

Book of Abraham (3%)

Character of Joseph Smith (3%)

Desire to uphold personal ethics (3%)

LDS stand vs. intellectuals (2%)

Brigham Young's teachings (i.e. blood atonement, race, etc) (2%)

Polygamy (2%)

LDS vs. feminist views (2%)

Book of Mormon archaeology (2%)

LDS stand on gay issues (2%)

Fatigue/ depression (2%)

Racial issues (2%)

Unanswered prayers about LDS "truth" (2%)

General dissatisfaction with apologetic (church scholars) answers (2%). 1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsleave.htm

[beastie]

Well, I have learned one thing from this thread, as well. Despite the claims of some on this site that the LDS church is really a big tent, with very few hard and fast doctrines that all LDS must believe, quite a few of you seem to believe that your interpretation of scripture is THE one to which all LDS must adhere, else be considered not true mormons.

In addition, any LDS that might be a bit disturbed about brethren not seeking revelation from God to address issues that may potentially affect the faith of many, is, apparently not a real mormon. I always had my suspicions about BH Roberts, anyway.

I