DBMormon Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 just asking here but how would one rationlize that the book of mormon is not historical but a restoration still occured?
Libs Posted May 31, 2012 Author Posted May 31, 2012 just asking here but how would one rationlize that the book of mormon is not historical but a restoration still occured?It does have some problems, as I mentioned earlier...especially, in regards to the fact that it is suppose to be another testament of Jesus Christ. But, that aside, I'm not sure why it would all have to be true history. I doubt every single story in the Bible is precisely true history and much of it may be allegory, but that doesn't mean those stories cannot teach and inspire...or that the writer was not inspired by God.
BCSpace Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) So, as far as the topic of this thread, if someone were to say to their Bishop, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I am not sure if the book is true history....that, likely, would not be problematic? But, if that same person said, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I just don't believe it is true history...that would be more problematic, because it was more a statement of fact, than a question one is struggling with? (If I am understanding you correctly)That's right.The Church is keenly interested in doctrinal correctness especially as it relates to what is being taught. It is a constant drumbeat to the leaders of Stakes and Wards.I think it is the Church's duty to be keenly interested and aware of what is being taught as official doctrine. That is a part of their job. But, even though they set the bar, there has to be some leniency with membership, who are all learning and growing at different rates... even in leadership, there is always room for improvement and growth (I would think).Sure. The Church does not go out of it's way interrogate people on their beliefs. However, since the temple has a higher standard than mere membership, someone who makes public staements of dissent or unbelief or is known to be affiliated with groups opposed to LDS doctrine is likely going to find themselves being asked more specifically about the relevant TR questions. Most unbelievers in the Church understand this and keep a very low key which is appropriate as the Church wants a positive believing environment.But since membership or holding a TR has no bearing on whether or not one is right in the sight of God nor does it justify one's contrary beliefs, it is extremely important to differentiate and identify in public discourse and debate between that which is of God and that which is not.Yes, that's true...which is why I was thinking, in the very beginning of this thread, that the question of Book of Mormon historicity would not even come up...so, not really a problem, as far as feeling a need to lie or cover up anything (if one did not believe in the historicity, that is)..I guarantee you it will come up (and has come up) in a TR interview if someone publically (or confidentially to the ledership of the Church) makes such statements as the BoM is part of the Restoration.I doubt every single story in the Bible is precisely true history .... but that doesn't mean those stories cannot teach and inspire...or that the writer was not inspired by God.True. But there is an element of historicity to it's truth claims. If one were to dismiss the historicty of say, Jesus being the son of God, such a one would likely not succesfully pass a TR interview if one were honest. Edited May 31, 2012 by BCSpace
Libs Posted May 31, 2012 Author Posted May 31, 2012 If one were to dismiss the historicty of say, Jesus being the son of God, such a one would likely not succesfully pass a TR interview if one were honest. Yes, I think that would be going, even a step further, than simply questioning the historicity of the Book of Mormon or "some" of the things in the Bible.I do believe Jesus is a true historical figure, even though I might question some of the stories told about him.Appreciate your input, BC. Thanks.
cinepro Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Every time I see the title of this thread, I think of how awesome it would be to see an article with the same title in the Ensign.
mfbukowski Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 That's right.Sure. The Church does not go out of it's way interrogate people on their beliefs. However, since the temple has a higher standard than mere membership, someone who makes public staements of dissent or unbelief or is known to be affiliated with groups opposed to LDS doctrine is likely going to find themselves being asked more specifically about the relevant TR questions. Most unbelievers in the Church understand this and keep a very low key which is appropriate as the Church wants a positive believing environment.But since membership or holding a TR has no bearing on whether or not one is right in the sight of God nor does it justify one's contrary beliefs, it is extremely important to differentiate and identify in public discourse and debate between that which is of God and that which is not.I guarantee you it will come up (and has come up) in a TR interview if someone publically (or confidentially to the ledership of the Church) makes such statements as the BoM is part of the Restoration.True. But there is an element of historicity to it's truth claims. If one were to dismiss the historicty of say, Jesus being the son of God, such a one would likely not succesfully pass a TR interview if one were honest.I think we need to avoid coaching someone on how to pass a temple recommend interview- I think it should be left to the bishop to do the questioning.
why me Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Why?Good question and this simple word as puzzled many people. You just need to put the word me after it. Edited May 31, 2012 by why me
Recommended Posts