cdowis Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) There appears to be faithful LDS who have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but do not believe that the BOM is actual history.One of our guests suggested that we slay this dragon, so here goes:I need to have someone please explain this. We have Moroni visiting JS, but he is not a historical character? We have eleven witnesses to the gold plates, but they all lied -- there were no plates? Or there were plates, but written by a non-existent Mormon?Can someone please explain this to me. Edited October 27, 2011 by cdowis
phaedrus ut Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I have many friends in this position. For them it's really more of a stop gap measure than a firmly held belief. They can't logically belief the historicity of the BOM but they want to remain members of the church. Van Hale, host of a pro-LDS AM talk radio show, has publicly expressed that he believes it's a inspired book but not a actual history of a actual people. I'm sure you can find his actual statements on the matter with a simple search.Phaedrus
Calm Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I find that some Saints have had spiritual witnesses of some aspect of LDS doctrine and because another aspect of LDS doctrine more or less follows from that, they speak of having knowledge of those aspects as well when the reality is they haven't had a spiritual witness in that specific detail.Sometimes this is recognize like those who say they have proved the Prophet to be a Prophet in some things, they don't feel a need to have to prove him in all things.I do not see this as a problem as I do not believe that anyone has had a spiritual witness in all things, I don't think the Lord would set things up for us that way as I believe he wants to maximize us seeking him out, not have us rest content in our spiritual wisdom not feeling a need for more spiritual enlightenment.
cdowis Posted October 27, 2011 Author Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Joseph Smith lied about Moroni, he lied about the golden plates, he lied about the translation process, the witnesses lied about the angel Moroni, and the plates. JS gave Martin Harris a transcript of characters from the imaginary plates.And Joseph Smith was a prophet.I think my head is going to explode. Edited October 27, 2011 by cdowis 1
Calm Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) A poster whose name I cannot mention.Why not? If you do not specify the poster than how will he know if you misunderstand him or not? Presenting it like this is reading a gossip column with hints and innuendos that can't be defended against. Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah
phaedrus ut Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Joseph Smith lied about Moroni, he lied about the golden plates, he lied about the translation process, the witnesses lied about the angel Moroni, and the plates. JS gave Martin Harris a transcript of characters from the imaginary plates.And Joseph Smith was a prophet.I think my head is going to explode.I guess it's a matter of perspective. I've known quite a few LDS students that went into graduate religious studies. Those that remained it the church did so by creating a very heterodox belief system regarding their Mormonism. That includes many that believe that Zarahemla is nor more real that Mordor. I understand that more than people that build a apologetic Rube Goldberg machine of lost papyrus, Tapirs, limited geography, lose translations all very long shot probabilities answers to retain belief. In the long run I think it's a hard fence to straddle. Ultimately we all have to answer the hard questions you've mentioned rather than just put them on the shelf. Phaedrus 1
Freedom Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I know many christians such as evangelicals and catholics, that do not believe much of the bible and feel it is mostly just good storied that never actually occurred. It certainly is not unique to mormonism. It is common to any faith based believe system where the concrete evidence is elusive.
cinepro Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Joseph Smith lied about Moroni, he lied about the golden plates, he lied about the translation process, the witnesses lied about the angel Moroni, and the plates. JS gave Martin Harris a transcript of characters from the imaginary plates.And Joseph Smith was a prophet.I think my head is going to explode.While the topic under discussion isn't my position, I will point out that we don't believe in infallible Prophets. Joseph Smith may have just been mistaken about Moroni. He may also have had cultural beliefs and assumptions about the history of the americas and God inspired him according to those beliefs.It's also possible that, given Joseph's digging activities, he could have actually found some plates and felt inspired to translate them. People dig up ancient artifacts (even scriptural ones) all the time without any angelic help.It's possible that your head might explode because of the contradictory nature of the premises under consideration. Or it could be from a lack of imagination.
maklelan Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 There appears to be faithful LDS who have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but do not believe that the BOM is actual history.One of our guests suggested that we slay this dragon, so here goes:I need to have someone please explain this. We have Moroni visiting JS, but he is not a historical character? We have eleven witnesses to the gold plates, but they all lied -- there were no plates? Or there were plates, but written by a non-existent Mormon?Can someone please explain this to me.You misrepresent me. I did not say I did not believe the BoM is actual history. I said I didn't know if Nephi, Lehi, and Laman were "real historical persons." I said this because I don't know the degree to which the Book of Mormon is accurate as history. I don't know the extent of the human error in the text, or what figures have been misrepresented, misremembered, invented, or forgotten as a result of almost a thousand years of human transmission. Is it inerrant, or is it historically accurate to varying degrees because different people from different time periods and with different capacities and resources did their best to record the events as they understood them? I have never received any personal inspiration or revelation that indicated the Book of Mormon is inerrant. I must then base my conclusions on what the evidence shows me, and the evidence unequivocally leads me to conclude the latter. I see no reason to believe the Book of Mormon is inerrant in any sense of the word. Precisely what is implied or required by acknowledging it is the "word of God" has never been fully unpacked anywhere in the Standard Works, to my knowledge. As a result, I can either draw inferences, speculate, and rely on the assertions of others, or I can trust that God will let me know what he needs me to know through the normal processes. Through a great deal of prayer and pondering, I have chosen the latter.Until something is revealed to me regarding the degree to which the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, I don't feel I can state with any degree of confidence the degree to which this or that character has been accurately or inaccurately represented unless the nature of my testimony regarding the Book of Mormon bears directly on some aspect of that character's presentation in the text. I believe that Moroni was a real person. I believe the portion that describes Christ's ministry to the Americas represents real events. I believe there was a small migration to the Americas from the Near East. I don't wish to speak in absolute terms about the smaller details of the text. I believe the Book of Mormon teaches me and guides me, not because it is accurate history, but because it is God's word and his Spirit guides my study. 2
maklelan Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Ultimately we all have to answer the hard questions you've mentioned rather than just put them on the shelf.So you believe that when I stand before the judgment bar of God he will ask me if I believed that Nephi, Lehi, and Laman were historical figures, and that my eternal salvation will somehow be contingent upon answering this in the affirmative? Does everyone get asked this same question?
Calm Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) You misrepresent me...... As a result, I can either draw inferences, speculate, and rely on the assertions of others, or I can trust that God will let me know what he needs me to know through the normal processes. Through a great deal of prayer and pondering, I have chosen the latter...... I don't wish to speak in absolute terms about the smaller details of the text. I believe the Book of Mormon teaches me and guides me, not because it is accurate history, but because it is God's word and his Spirit guides my study.Just so you know, Dan, I got that the first time you said it and it was obvious that most others did too. I don't understand what was so confusing about it that it resulted in such posts as cdowis' here. It was very straight forward in my opinion. Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah
phaedrus ut Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 So you believe that when I stand before the judgment bar of God he will ask me if I believed that Nephi, Lehi, and Laman were historical figures, and that my eternal salvation will somehow be contingent upon answering this in the affirmative? Does everyone get asked this same question?I had no idea who Charles was alluding to when I hopped into the thread. I just thought it was a interesting discussion. But in the broadest of terms you're very typical of what I described in my earlier post. I don't know you so I can just go by what I've read over the years. My impression is that you're LDS with advanced biblical studies and if you're like many I've known in a similar situation you've made some adjustments to a previous black and white LDS worldview to fit it with your secular knowledge. I've noticed that freethinkers are threatening to some when their beliefs don't fit neatly into a perceived required orthodoxy. As we see on here from time to time that discomfort some people feel may lead to accusations of apostasy.As far as my statement that "Ultimately we all have to answer the hard questions" it wasn't meant that you're subject to a divine judgment on the issue but rather a persons cognitive disequilibrium will want to balance itself out. You seem like a nice guy so if there is a judgement bar I'm sure you'll be fine. Phaedrus
cdowis Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) You misrepresent me. I did not say I did not believe the BoM is actual history. OK, so apparently I was not referring to you. Edited October 28, 2011 by cdowis
maklelan Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 OK, so apparently I was not referring to you.No, you were very clearly referring to me.
Deborah Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I don't know that we will ever have solid evidence in this life of the historicity of the BOM, but the existence of a separate people led by God to this land and God visiting this land made sense the first time I heard it. I think the people were real but I think we are reading some idealized descriptions of many of them. They were after all men with human weaknesses and we are only seeing the outcome of their efforts as summarized by Mormon. When I read the BOM they feel real to me and I think there were men who were indeed like those we read about.
cdowis Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) No, you were very clearly referring to me.OK, so NOW you are saying that you fit the description in my post. Please make up your mind. Edited October 28, 2011 by cdowis
maklelan Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 OK, so NOW you are saying that you fit the description in my post. Please make up your mind.I'm not confused in the least. You were referring to me, but you either misunderstood or misrepresented my position.
volgadon Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 OK, so NOW you are saying that you fit the description in my post. Please make up your mind.No, he is saying that your description follows Rob Bowman's misrepresentation of him.
Rob Bowman Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 volgadon,Thanks for dragging me into this!I did not misrepresent Dan. I did not say he believed that nothing in the Book of Mormon is historical. I said that if such Book of Mormon figures as Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni were not real historical persons then the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It's an exercise in obfuscation to make this issue about Book of Mormon inerrancy. No Mormon, to my knowledge, believes that the Book of Mormon is inerrant, but the official teaching of the LDS Church is that it is a true history of real peoples communicated in writing by ancient Nephite prophets, one of whom, Moroni, appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the gold plates to translate those ancient writings. If Moroni did not exist then the whole story is false. Charles can see that; why can't you or Dan see it?No, he is saying that your description follows Rob Bowman's misrepresentation of him. 1
Log Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 So you believe that when I stand before the judgment bar of God he will ask me if I believed that Nephi, Lehi, and Laman were historical figures, and that my eternal salvation will somehow be contingent upon answering this in the affirmative? Does everyone get asked this same question?Yes, actually. Everyone gets asked this same question. http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.27?lang=eng#26
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 Guys. Reread maklelan's posts.I believe that Moroni was a real person. I believe the portion that describes Christ's ministry to the Americas represents real events. I believe there was a small migration to the Americas from the Near East. I don't wish to speak in absolute terms about the smaller details of the text. I believe the Book of Mormon teaches me and guides me, not because it is accurate history, but because it is God's word and his Spirit guides my study.
Rob Bowman Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 Jeremy,You wrote:Guys. Reread maklelan's posts.Yes, in this thread Dan affirmed the existence of Moroni. In our earlier discussion on another thread (which prompted Charles to start this one) Dan was noncommital about any of the purported historical figures of the Book of Mormon. He specifically could not say whether Nephi, for example, was a real person. I suggested that at the very least Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni would have to be non-negotiable; so far, unless I've missed something, Moroni is the only one he has definitely affirmed was historical, and only in this thread, after the question was raised a second time. In my post above, I was simply responding to volgadon's post, explaining to him what my argument was concerning Dan's position, which again was presented in another thread before Dan's post in this thread affirming the historicity of Moroni.
maklelan Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 Jeremy,You wrote:Yes, in this thread Dan affirmed the existence of Moroni. In our earlier discussion on another thread (which prompted Charles to start this one) Dan was noncommital about any of the purported historical figures of the Book of Mormon.This is inaccurate. I was non-committal about three specific figures, namely Nephi, Lehi, and Laman. I was generally non-committal about unilaterally affirming the historicity of any given figure from the text. I even clarified later:I don't believe I am required by any official or authoritative statements to make a positive declaration of the historicity of the individuals you named.He specifically could not say whether Nephi, for example, was a real person. I suggested that at the very least Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni would have to be non-negotiable; so far, unless I've missed something, Moroni is the only one he has definitely affirmed was historical, and only in this thread, after the question was raised a second time. In my post above, I was simply responding to volgadon's post, explaining to him what my argument was concerning Dan's position, which again was presented in another thread before Dan's post in this thread affirming the historicity of Moroni.I don't think this is a point that merits much debate.
Recommended Posts