What Is The Minimum Someone Must Believe About The Book Of Mormon?

[bjw]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. For instance, what if you believe the following:

1. That JS translated using the stone in the hat method and the stone would bring the stories to JS's memory, and he then put the stories in his own words after studying it out in his mind. This would explain the usage of some redundant language in some verses. This would also account for JS telling the tales about the former inhabitants of this continent to his family while growing up, as well as the dream his father had about the Tree of Life. This could be explained because he was getting the knowledge either by angelic means or revelation.

2. That JS, when writing about the Gadianton Robbers, used some characteristics of clandestine masonry when describing the group, since they had some of the same characteristics of the clandestine masons of the 19th century.

3. That JS, as a member of the treasure-digging group in his local area, used the idea of Captian Kidd's curse when writing about the curse God put on the land in the Book of Mormon, since it was a motif he was familiar with and would best fit what he was trying to convey that happened at that point in the history.

4. That JS exaggerated some numbers of those in the battles for effect, since he didn't actually have the number of how many soldiers were in those battles or killed.

In other words, believing in a looser translation for the Book of Mormon seems to free up a person from a lot of the baggage imposed by critics. It also makes more sense that these items are in the BoM this way than coincidence. Could a person still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe this way? Does it make sense that JS would use external influences whenever they fit the motif he was trying to convey?

[Sevenbak]

Does a Baptist preacher teaching from the Book of Mormon fulfill a "minimum" requirement? Here's a snip:

"I’m a licensed Southern Baptist minister and I embrace the Book of Mormon.

That is, I believe the truths recorded in it. No, I’m not a convert to the Mormon faith, nor am I a member of any particular "spin-off" restoration group such as the RLDS (Reorganized Latter-day Saints), Hedrikites, or Strangites. I’m still a Baptist minister. To be exact, I’m "charismatic Baptist." That is, I still embrace the "born again" experience. I still believe you’re saved by grace. By the shed blood of Christ. Salvation is by faith alone in His finished work on Calvary. I still believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. I believe and embrace those cardinal doctrines of Protestantism.

And you know what?…

I still believe the Book of Mormon too!"

http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

[LDSToronto]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

That really depends on how you define "a testimony of The Book of Mormon". What does that need to look like? Must one have a testimony that it is:

1. An authentic historical record of an ancient people

2. An authentic record of Christ's appearance to ancient Americans

3. Derived from plates delivered to a latter-day prophet

4. A book containing prophetic insight into the atonement

I don't know if there are other criteria, or if these are correct, but a testimony might be some, all, or different from those things listed above.

H.

[Mortal Man]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. For instance, what if you believe the following:

1. That JS translated using the stone in the hat method and the stone would bring the stories to JS's memory, and he then put the stories in his own words after studying it out in his mind. This would explain the usage of some redundant language in some verses. This would also account for JS telling the tales about the former inhabitants of this continent to his family while growing up, as well as the dream his father had about the Tree of Life. This could be explained because he was getting the knowledge either by angelic means or revelation.

2. That JS, when writing about the Gadianton Robbers, used some characteristics of clandestine masonry when describing the group, since they had some of the same characteristics of the clandestine masons of the 19th century.

3. That JS, as a member of the treasure-digging group in his local area, used the idea of Captian Kidd's curse when writing about the curse God put on the land in the Book of Mormon, since it was a motif he was familiar with and would best fit what he was trying to convey that happened at that point in the history.

4. That JS exaggerated some numbers of those in the battles for effect, since he didn't actually have the number of how many soldiers were in those battles or killed.

In other words, believing in a looser translation for the Book of Mormon seems to free up a person from a lot of the baggage imposed by critics. It also makes more sense that these items are in the BoM this way than coincidence. Could a person still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe this way? Does it make sense that JS would use external influences whenever they fit the motif he was trying to convey?

You've basically described Ostler's position.

I think the dividing line is whether Nephi et al. were real people.

[Storm Rider]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. For instance, what if you believe the following: .......

In other words, believing in a looser translation for the Book of Mormon seems to free up a person from a lot of the baggage imposed by critics. It also makes more sense that these items are in the BoM this way than coincidence. Could a person still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe this way? Does it make sense that JS would use external influences whenever they fit the motif he was trying to convey?

bjw, we are students of truth. As students our knowledge and understanding grows and also weakens. The objective is to endure to the end, to strive to grow, to become stronger in our relationship with Jesus Christ. I am not too concerned about where I am at today in my knowledge and understanding, rather I am concerned if I am striving to follow Jesus Christ or am I following after the passions of the flesh and the temptations of the evil one.

[zerinus]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. For instance, what if you believe the following:

1. That JS translated using the stone in the hat method and the stone would bring the stories to JS's memory, and he then put the stories in his own words after studying it out in his mind. This would explain the usage of some redundant language in some verses. This would also account for JS telling the tales about the former inhabitants of this continent to his family while growing up, as well as the dream his father had about the Tree of Life. This could be explained because he was getting the knowledge either by angelic means or revelation.

2. That JS, when writing about the Gadianton Robbers, used some characteristics of clandestine masonry when describing the group, since they had some of the same characteristics of the clandestine masons of the 19th century.

3. That JS, as a member of the treasure-digging group in his local area, used the idea of Captian Kidd's curse when writing about the curse God put on the land in the Book of Mormon, since it was a motif he was familiar with and would best fit what he was trying to convey that happened at that point in the history.

4. That JS exaggerated some numbers of those in the battles for effect, since he didn't actually have the number of how many soldiers were in those battles or killed.

In other words, believing in a looser translation for the Book of Mormon seems to free up a person from a lot of the baggage imposed by critics. It also makes more sense that these items are in the BoM this way than coincidence. Could a person still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe this way? Does it make sense that JS would use external influences whenever they fit the motif he was trying to convey?

The minimum requirement is that he translated it by the “gift and power of God”. Any theorizing that would undermine that statement would not be acceptable. That rules out pretty much all of your conjectures above.

Edited July 17, 2011 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

Agreed.

[David T]

The minimum requirement is that he translated it by the “gift and power of God”. Any theorizing that would undermine that statement would not be acceptable. That rules out pretty much all of your conjectures above.

I fail to see how "the gift and power of God" rules out inspired collaboration, including expansions and in-text 'likening' presented by the authorized disseminator of the message.

Edited July 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

nackhadlow:

Of course zerinus can speak for himself. However what I think he is saying is the exact method of translation is unknown to us at this time. There is a basic requirement to believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

To me sepeculations as to methods used are acceptable as long as clearly noted as speculations, and not put out as a doctrine of the Church.

[Deborah]

We start with the premise that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Joseph Smith himself said that it was translated by the gift and power of God. Everything else is speculation.

I have come to know Nephi, Alma, Moroni and they are very real. I have no doubt they once existed.

[CV75]

I was wondering what the general opinion was on here about what the minimum is that you must believe in order to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

***

Could a person still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe this way? Does it make sense that JS would use external influences whenever they fit the motif he was trying to convey?

Belief and testimony are two very different things, and sometimes they overlap and sometimes they do not.

Any belief of how the Book or Mormon got its content may or may not be congruent with a testimony or personal witness of its truthfulness or with a testimony of the Restored Gospel or with its being part of God’s marvelous work and wonder (whether that belief was developed before or after the testimony of any particular thing was obtained).

I don’t see the benefit of spending much time speculating on how Joseph may have operated outside the gift and power of God, but I would say a person can still retain a testimony of the Restored Gospel and believe the things described above. A lot of people spend their time doing a lot of unproductive things and still have a testimony, and over time, use their time better as a result of doing what it takes to retain their testimony.

I think the Book or Mormon invites us to gain a testimony despite the admitted weaknesses of the men responsible for it under God’s direction and influence, and that any imperfections in the book resulting from their weaknesses have more to do with a temporal understanding than a spiritual testimony, and that the spiritual testimony is more important.

[KevinG]

I think when the veil is removed from our eyes most of us (including the scholars) will be amazed at what we didn't know. Things we thought were literal will be shown to be metaphors. Things we thought were quaint tales will prove to have really happened as they were related. Things that never made the cannon will be of supreme importance and things in the cannon will be shown to be left over scraps of poetry (I feel that way now about song of Solomon).

Most importantly:

The primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince all people "that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations" (title page of the Book of Mormon). It teaches that all people "must come unto him, or they cannot be saved" (1 Nephi 13:40). Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is "the keystone of our religion, and a man [will] get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (introduction to the Book of Mormon). (LDS.org Gospel Topics "Book of Mormon")

Of least importance are any errors that may have crept in:

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." - Title Page

Edited July 17, 2011 by DaddyG

[bjw]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. Reading these posts got me to thinking that maybe God allowed imperfections in the book so that we could get our testimonies from the Spirit and not from any supposed evidence from the text itself. The BoM is unique in that it gives a way we can test its truthfulness in the last chapter of the book, and maybe God intends for that to be the only way to get a testimony. After all, being convinced of something by the Holy Ghost leaves a more lasting impression, whereas evidence from the text itself can be swayed by whatever findings or opinions are being tossed around at the time.

I think one of the Latter-day prophets said that the Holy Ghost is Spirit speaking to spirit, so it leaves a more lasting impression.

I can also see how the book's purpose, to bring people to Christ, is the book's main goal and it is sufficient for that purpose, which is why the Baptist minister mentioned in the earlier thread can have a testimony of it even though he is not a Mormon. It also explains why it is so effective as a missionary tool and is usually presented by the missionaries first, to bring the person to Christ so they can be further taught the Restored Gospel. That said, it seems like knowing the translation method or other evidence is not as important as having a testimony of the book's purpose.

[Jeff K.]

When looking at the Book of Mormon, we have to acknowledge a number of different things, some we can discover for ourselves, some we cannot.

1-The translation method of the Book of Mormon was fluid. Joseph Smith used a number of tools the Lord game him, among them being the seer stone, as well as revelation. We aren't entirely sure what all the tools were and how they were used. The Joseph Smith Papers are helping us understand much. But they aren't omniscient regarding all information around how the Book of Mormon was written.

2-Perspective of the reader does much to reflect upon what the Book of Mormon says. Just as there are many perspectives on the Bible there can also be many perspectives on the Book of Mormon. Large nations? Small nations? Only people? There is much over the last almost 200 years that is built upon a perspective of what is written. We see the debates all the time regarding population, number of Hill Cumorah's and so on.

There is a great deal of argument regarding methodology, and definition, as if such argument will somehow dictate whether or not the Book of Mormon truly is what it proclaims to be, a second witness of Jesus Christ. I have yet to see an argument that shows it is not a second witness of Jesus Christ. Nor have I heard a position that states God only uses one method for revelation, or one method for translation.

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Mistakes of men includes perspective on interpretation, as well as strongly held opinions.

[zerinus]

I fail to see how "the gift and power of God" rules out inspired collaboration, including expansions and in-text 'likening' presented by the authorized disseminator of the message.

The way in which the Book of Mormon says the translation was done, rules out a lot of those speculations:

2 Nephi 3

:

21 Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth

out of my mouth

unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers.

2 Nephi 29

:

2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should

proceed forth

out of my mouth

unto your seed;

and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel

Moroni 10

:

28 I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall

proceed forth

out of the mouth of the everlasting God;

and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.

It is a literal translation, proceeding directly out of the mouth of God. The words of the Nephites (because of their faith) have proceeded directly out of the mouth of God to their brethren. It was ultimately God’s translation, not Joseph Smith’s translation. Joseph Smith had little or no discretion to decide what to put in there and what not to, as taught in this verse: “. . . therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me” (D&C 9:9). Any theory that is not compatible the above is automatically ruled out.

Edited July 17, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. Reading these posts got me to thinking that maybe God allowed imperfections in the book so that we could get our testimonies from the Spirit and not from any supposed evidence from the text itself.

I don't think there are (or were) any "imperfections" in the Book of Mormon. It is true that a lot of changes have been made to the Book of Mormon since it was published; but nearly all of those changes related to the way in which the book was copied, typeset, or transmitted after it was translated. The greatest number of changes were punctuational, which has nothing to do with the way the book was translated. Another set of changes had to do with the standardization of American spelling. In the days of Joseph Smith American spelling had been standardized, and words were spelled differently by different people in different parts of the country. Still another set of changes had to do with errors which had entered into the text during the copying of the manuscript and its typesetting by the printer. None of these things had anything to do with the way the Book of Mormon was translated. If we eliminate all of those, the number of changes left are extremely small; and they can be explained in other ways than "imperfections" in the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 17, 2011 by zerinus

[KevinG]

I think God allows a lot of things because He delegates His authority to His imperfect children. Even the prophets who wrote the accounts and Joseph who translated them said any faults were the mistakes of men. The prophets definately did not claim inerrancy even with this "most correct" book.

What is not thwarted is God's plan and the spirit that testifies of the truthfulness of Christ's atonement.

[zerinus]

I think God allows a lot of things because He delegates His authority to His imperfect children. Even the prophets who wrote the accounts and Joseph who translated them said any faults were the mistakes of men. The prophets definately did not claim inerrancy even with this "most correct" book.

What is not thwarted is God's plan and the spirit that testifies of the truthfulness of Christ's atonement.

The prophets of the Book of Mormon did not claim there were faults in the book. They said that if there be faults, . . . That is not the same as saying there are faults. If you know of faults in the Book of Mormon (excluding the kinds of faults I have mentioned above), show me one.

[ERayR]

To do what?

[BCSpace]

What Is The Minimum Someone Must Believe About The Book Of Mormon?

That it was translated by the gift and power of God and that it's historical claims are true and largely/relatively accurate. Otherwise, one cannot honestly accept the truth claims of the LDS Church.

[Nathair/|\]

The prophets of the Book of Mormon did not claim there were faults in the book. They said that if there be faults, . . . That is not the same as saying there are faults. If you know of faults in the Book of Mormon (excluding the kinds of faults I have mentioned above), show me one.

Brant Gardner made a case that Mormon may have erred in identifying the Gadiantons of Helaman's day with the robbers of his day.

[altersteve]

The prophets of the Book of Mormon did not claim there were faults in the book. They said that if there be faults, . . . That is not the same as saying there are faults. If you know of faults in the Book of Mormon (excluding the kinds of faults I have mentioned above), show me one.

Orson Scott Card wrote this about the story of the Mulekites:

Let me offer an aside on the matter of Zarahemla and the Mulekites. Much has been made of the statement by King Zarahemla that his people were descended from the youngest son of King Zedekiah. Extraordinary and completely unconvincing efforts have been made to find such a son, overlooked by the Babylonian captors of Jerusalem; just as much effort has been devoted to explaining how a good Jaredite name like Mulek could show up in the family of an Israelite king. But is this really necessary? In Meso-American culture, every ruling class had to assert an ancient ancestor who was a god or, at the very least, a king in an admired culture. Whoever ruled in the Valley of Mexico always had to claim to be descended from or heirs of the Toltecs. Rival Mayan cities would play at ancestral one-upmanship. Imagine, now, the vigorous and dangerous Nephites, coming down the valley of the Sidon River from the highlands of Guatemala. King Zarahemla is negotiating with King Mosiah. Mosiah tells him of his ancestry, of course, and the story of how God led Lehi and Nephi out of Jerusalem at the time when Zedekiah was king of Israel.

To Mosiah, what he is doing is bearing his testimony and asserting the divine guidance that he receives as the legitimate king of a chosen people. To Zarahemla, what he is doing is claiming that his lineage gives him the right to rule over the people of Zarahemla and displace him from the kingship. So what does Zarahemla do? Well, Mosiah admits that his ancestors were not kings in Israel. So Zarahemla picks his most noble ancestor, Mulek, and then declares him to be the son of that last king of Israel. Thus if anybody has the right to rule over anybody, it's Zarahemla who has the right to rule over Mosiah and his people. But Mosiah kindly points out that if Zarahemla and his people are descended from Israelites, they certainly seem to have forgotten the language and writing, and therefore have obviously degenerated from the high culture of Israel. The Nephites, on the other hand, have preserved a writing system that no one else uses, and which Zarahemla can't read. They have a history accounting for every year since they arrived in America, which Zarahemla of course cannot produce.

In the end, whatever negotiation there was ended up with Zarahemla bowing out of the kingship and his people becoming subject to rule by the Nephites. But the story of Mulek served a very useful purpose even so -- it allowed the people to merge, not with the hostility of conquerors over the conquered, though in fact that is what the relationship fundamentally was, but rather with the idea of brotherhood. They were all Israelites. Thus no one had any reason to question the Mulek story, because, while it failed in its original purpose, to allow Zarahemla to prevail over Mosiah, it still served the valuable function of uniting the newly combined nation as a single tribe. It wasn't completely successful, of course, or there wouldn't have been a later revolt of Kingmen against Nephite Freemen, but considering that the people of Zarahemla outnumbered the people of Mosiah by quite a bit, the Mulek story may well have contributed to the ultimate victory of the judges in that struggle.

If this speculation is true, it does not imply that the Book of Mormon is somehow false. No one in the Book of Mormon ever claims that the story of Mulek came to anybody by inspiration. The source is never more than Zarahemla's assertion during his negotiations with Mosiah. That Mormon and other writers believed the story does not prove it true or false, it simply proves that it was part of the Nephite culture. And if my speculation is right, and Mulek was no more a son of Zedekiah than I am, we are spared the confusion of trying to reconcile this account with the utter lack of convincing evidence that Zedekiah had a boy named Mulek who escaped the Babylonians without generating a vast amount of Jewish tradition looking for the return of the lost son of the last king of Judah. We don't have to account for a migration to America led by the Lord but without the same kind of preparation and commandments given to Lehi and Nephi. We don't have to account for the fact that we think of America as being the inheritance of Manasseh and Ephraim, while in fact two thirds of the Nephites would have been descended from Judah -- which to my mind, at least, would make hash of the literality of the application of the parable of the stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah to the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

But this is only speculation, and if I'm wrong, and there really was a Mulek led to America by the Lord, I'm not going to lose my testimony about it! I just think it's something to think about, a possibility to consider.

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html

I think his view is very interesting.

[Gervin]

Does a Baptist preacher teaching from the Book of Mormon fulfill a "minimum" requirement? Here's a snip:

"I’m a licensed Southern Baptist minister and I embrace the Book of Mormon.

To your question, no. But to clarify his statement as a "licensed Southern Baptist minister" - he may have been ordained by a Southern Baptist church but under Baptist congregational polity, local churches determine for themselves the acceptability of their own chosen ministers and leaders. Unless he leads, as a minister, a Southern Baptist-affiliated church (and I don't think he does) he is not a So Bapt minister. Back to the thread ...

[zerinus]

Brant Gardner made a case that Mormon may have erred in identifying the Gadiantons of Helaman's day with the robbers of his day.

Thank you. That is a long article, and I haven't the time to read it right now. If you have read it, and can summarise for us briefly his argument with regard to that particular subject, then I can respond. Also, "may have erred" isn't good enough. If the conclusion is not definitive, then it does not meet my criteria.

[zerinus]

Orson Scott Card wrote this about the story of the Mulekites:

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html

I think his view is very interesting.

Interesting or not, I fail to see how that "proves" an error in the Book of Mormon.