Would You Stay Lds If It Was Found That The Bom Was Not Historical?

[rongo]

A member of my ward told me that he sat next to an evangelical Protestant minister on a plane trip to Colorado. Religion came up, and the minister asked him what it would do to his belief in Jesus if he could, hypothetically, prove to him that the Book of Mormon events never happened and the people never existed (not by way of bashing ---- more of a thought experiment). He told me that he answered the minister that it would be devastating to his belief in Christ. I told him that if it could hypothetically be proven to me that the Book of Mormon wasn't historical, it wouldn't affect my belief in Christ. My testimony of the Savior and the atonement doesn't stem from the Book of Mormon; it stems from my personal experience with reptentance and applying the atonement.

Would I leave the Church? I think my reaction would be like Peter's when Jesus asked him "Will ye also go?" (at a low point in the ministry, with defections and apostasy): "Where can we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

I can't think of any other church I would then go to, but my belief in God, Christ, and the atonement would be intact.

I think the actual effect of such a thing would be similar to what Richard Bushman described in the 1970s when Wesley Walters' attacks and "research" into the First Vision, Joseph Smith's treasure digging, etc. was ahead of the apologetic curve. He said that the Church and BYU's response (sending men to New England to begin anew to understand the context and background) would ultimately strengthen the Church and testimonies, so Walters' ultimate effect would be positive. But if not, he said, most Saints would "move heaven and earth" to keep things intact before ever considering abandoning ship.

I think that realistically, the threshold of "proof" would be very, very high for me and most others before we would consider it "settled" that the Book of Mormon had been "proven" to be non-historical.

[Ahab]

A member of my ward told me that he sat next to an evangelical Protestant minister on a plane trip to Colorado. Religion came up, and the minister asked him what it would do to his belief in Jesus if he could, hypothetically, prove to him that the Book of Mormon events never happened and the people never existed (not by way of bashing ---- more of a thought experiment). He told me that he answered the minister that it would be devastating to his belief in Christ. I told him that if it could hypothetically be proven to me that the Book of Mormon wasn't historical, it wouldn't affect my belief in Christ. My testimony of the Savior and the atonement doesn't stem from the Book of Mormon; it stems from my personal experience with reptentance and applying the atonement.

Would I leave the Church? I think my reaction would be like Peter's when Jesus asked him "Will ye also go?" (at a low point in the ministry, with defections and apostasy): "Where can we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

I can't think of any other church I would then go to, but my belief in God, Christ, and the atonement would be intact.

I think the actual effect of such a thing would be similar to what Richard Bushman described in the 1970s when Wesley Walters' attacks and "research" into the First Vision, Joseph Smith's treasure digging, etc. was ahead of the apologetic curve. He said that the Church and BYU's response (sending men to New England to begin anew to understand the context and background) would ultimately strengthen the Church and testimonies, so Walters' ultimate effect would be positive. But if not, he said, most Saints would "move heaven and earth" to keep things intact before ever considering abandoning ship.

I think that realistically, the threshold of "proof" would be very, very high for me and most others before we would consider it "settled" that the Book of Mormon had been "proven" to be non-historical.

What if you knew it was Christ who had told you the Book of Mormon is true? If you believed in Christ, and he told you the Book of Mormon was true, what would it do to your faith in Christ if you somehow found out the Book of Mormon was not true?

[Garden Girl]

When I accepted Moroni's challenge regarding praying for a witness of the BoM's truth, I received a very strong witness, so it would take major unrefutable evidence to the contrary... and it would break my heart because of all the implications, particularly in regard to the witness by the Spirit...

I would be adrift and sorrowful the rest of my days...

GG

[Ahab]

When I accepted Moroni's challenge regarding praying for a witness of the BoM's truth, I received a very strong witness, so it would take major unrefutable evidence to the contrary... and it would break my heart because of all the implications, particularly in regard to the witness by the Spirit...

I would be adrift and sorrowful the rest of my days...

GG

Me too, but we don't need to worry, do we.

If Christ tells us something is true, and actually happened, there is no evidence which could prove that what he said happened didn't happen.

I was just trying to take the question in the OP to its logical conclusion. There really is nothing which could prove it is not historical, because it really is.

[rongo]

What if you knew it was Christ who had told you the Book of Mormon is true? If you believed in Christ, and he told you the Book of Mormon was true, what would it do to your faith in Christ if you somehow found out the Book of Mormon was not true?

For me, my testimony of the atonement and Jesus as Savior (and Holy Ghost as Comforter) are much more powerful than my spiritual confirmations about scripture. As you indicate, they can't be surgically separated, really ---- I'm just playing along with the hypothetical though experiment. But *if* ---- I would still be left with my powerful and undeniable experiences with prayer, repentance, the atonement, etc.

I learned from my mission to Germany to be very careful with using the word "know." Germans, including stake presidents, area authorities, etc. often use the word "believe" when most Americans would say "know" when bearing their testimonies. Their testimonies were just as strong as ours, but they use language more precisely and with more reverence than we do ("Oh, you Americans love everything" --- said when a missionary would comment on "loving chocolate" or "hating brocolli."). I testify that I know the atonement is real, but I testify that I believe in the Resurrection or the Restoration. That doesn't make my tesimony of either "weak," and they aren't. For me, it goes back to D&C 46 (first gift of the Spirit is to know that Jesus is the Christ, the second to believe those who know, that they also might have eternal life. It's okay to know some things and "only" believe others. To me, that's what a testimony is ---- declaring that, and how and why we know and believe.

Long story short ----- hypothetically "proving" that the Book of Mormon isn't historical wouldn't shake my testimony of Jesus or God, even if I thought Jesus revealed that it was. Not for me, anyway.

[Nathair/|\]

If the Book of Mormon is not at least as historical as, say Plutarch, Herodotus, Pliny or Tacitus, I'd still believe in Jesus, but as just one of the many tribal gods, no better or worse and there would be no reason to follow his commandments as long as I'm not infringing on the rights of another human being.

[canard78]

I am "LDS" and the Book of Mormon is not historical. Neither is the Bible. Scripture tells stories that might have a basis in history but the intent was never to put across historical facts. At best, the Book of Mormon is a scriptural book presented as a "historical novel". I believe the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith's creation, entirely, with input from a wealth of sources, including the archaeological theories of his time. Joseph Smith believed in his vision of the ancient Americas; believed that it was accurate and literal as he "received" it, and he had the entire book, plot and doctrine, everything, in his head until he finally got it out. Then he more or less forgot about it. He never taught his sermons from the Book of Mormon, always the Bible....

This last sentence... Pretty strong, but would question its accuracy although I have no evidence to counter. So he never quoted king Benjamin when preaching service? Or Alma when talking of the resurrection? How about Mormon when discussing infant baptism?

All of Lecture on Faith and no references to the BoM?

[rongo]

This last sentence... Pretty strong, but would question its accuracy although I have no evidence to counter. So he never quoted king Benjamin when preaching service? Or Alma when talking of the resurrection? How about Mormon when discussing infant baptism?

All of Lecture on Faith and no references to the BoM?

Largely true. The Brethren in Journal of Discourses quote overwhelmingly from the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants, and very rarely from the Book of Mormon.

We have come in our day to appreciate the gold mine of restored "plain and precious" truths in it (e.g., atonement, resurrection, first principles and ordinances, etc.). But, the 19th century Brethren rarely quoted from the Book of Mormon. I think this was one of the things President Benson had in mind with his emphasis on the curse in D&C 84. He didn't feel the Church had taken the Book of Mormon seriously, and he felt that we were still under the curse.

[Ahab]

For me, my testimony of the atonement and Jesus as Savior (and Holy Ghost as Comforter) are much more powerful than my spiritual confirmations about scripture. As you indicate, they can't be surgically separated, really ---- I'm just playing along with the hypothetical though experiment. But *if* ---- I would still be left with my powerful and undeniable experiences with prayer, repentance, the atonement, etc.

What do you mean by much more powerful? Has God told you that the scriptures are true, that they are what they say they are, to some extent?

For example, in the Book of Mormon someone named Nephi wrote what he thought and some events of what happened to him and some other people he knew about. Has God assured you that the Book of Mormon is a true record, that someone named Nephi actually wrote about that, and those things he said happened did actually happen, even if someone else like maybe someone named Mormon edited his record?

Can you honestly say that you know at least some of what is recorded in the Book of Mormon actually happened?

[canard78]

To answer the OP, it would depend. If there was a hard and fast evidence or announcement that it was an intentional fraud, a deceptive fabrication, then I probably wouldn't stay.

I currently know the principles are true and work. I am confident there is some historical accuracy in the stories/people in it, I think some of the process of translation/dictation was heavily influenced by Joseph's environment. I don't, for example, think that if an expert in 'reformed Egyptian' had sat and academically translated the plates that we'd have an identical version (possibly not even close). I think that even though it is probably factual and historical, some of the stories are 'epic saga' style accounts, but written by the people named in the book.

I recognise I don't know for certain in this life and probably won't.

I guess I don't have a certainty that its fully historical and I am actively LDS already. Time may change either one of those positions.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, you're right. The Book of Mormon is indeed on much stronger historical footing than the Bible. I mean ... Jeff Lindsay. It really doesn't get any better in terms of scholarship. I'm embarrassed I even provided a link to Biblical Archaeology Review. I should probably just cancel my subscription now.

If you are trusting the Biblical Archaeological Review for validation of your religion you probably should just cancel your subscription now.

[canard78]

What do you mean by much more powerful? Has God told you that the scriptures are true, that they are what they say they are, to some extent?

For example, in the Book of Mormon someone named Nephi wrote what he thought and some events of what happened to him and some other people he knew about. Has God assured you that the Book of Mormon is a true record, that someone named Nephi actually wrote about that, and those things he said happened did actually happen, even if someone else like maybe someone named Mormon edited his record?

Can you honestly say that you know at least some of what is recorded in the Book of Mormon actually happened?

I know it wasn't my question but... I wonder if you can 'know' something happened that is a dead event. I believe the book to be true, based on a spiritual witness and based on the truth found through living the principles taught (the fruit etc).

Historical evidence points strongly towards it being factual (Lehi in Arabia particularly). So I know the principles work. In the past I 'felt certain' and 'had no doubt' that the people in it and the events depicted are entirely factual. I no longer do. I'm confident some is factual. I don't believe Joseph authored it as a fraud, but I still have uncertainty which takes away the ability to say 'I know the Book of Mormon stories are all (or even partially) historically factual and accurate.

The French BoM is a direct, accurate (mostly) translation of the exact words and phrases that Joseph dictates. That's a real translation. I am not certain that a side-by-side comparison of the plates and English translation would work the same way. There's too much 19th C ideology in it, too much KJV of the OT and, more challenging, too much KJV of the NT in it to believe Mormon wrote the exact words and phrases that Joseph then translated.

Except Curloms an Cumoms, they might be in the original.

I know I must sound like a contradiction. How can it be both inspired and not historically accurate all the way through? How could Joseph have had gold plates and yet have not translated them word for word? I recognise I may be a frustration to some here. I'm a frustration to myself.

[Gervin]

If you are trusting the Biblical Archaeological Review for validation of your religion you probably should just cancel your subscription now.

You stated:

"There are more facts supporting the BoM than there is the Bible, but people still believe the Bible."

I challenged that by showing that there are reputable scholars who are academically committed to the historicity of the Bible and have verifiable facts (your word) validating that historicity. I asked if you could provide a similar level of facts (actually, more facts, b/c of your claim for the BoM). You gave me links to papers on hypothetical connections, best guesses, and faith-promoting literature.

I said nothing about religion validation.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Gervin

[DBMormon]

If the BOM were proven a "Farse". Then I would find some little church that is non denominational and the funny things is..... I would take my BOM with me. It draws me closer to God, so while in your hypothetical situation the LDS church may not be true the book still serves a purpose. Strange isn't it? the thing you said is made of fairy tale history made me leave the church but not leave the book.

Edited January 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[Ahab]

I know it wasn't my question but... I wonder if you can 'know' something happened that is a dead event. I believe the book to be true, based on a spiritual witness and based on the truth found through living the principles taught (the fruit etc).

What do you mean by a "dead event". Is that how you refer to an event in the past? If so, I think you can know it happened by knowing someone who was there when it happened and that person telling you that it happened. Essentially by accepting knowledge of God from God as he gives you that knowledge.

Historical evidence points strongly towards it being factual (Lehi in Arabia particularly). So I know the principles work. In the past I 'felt certain' and 'had no doubt' that the people in it and the events depicted are entirely factual. I no longer do. I'm confident some is factual. I don't believe Joseph authored it as a fraud, but I still have uncertainty which takes away the ability to say 'I know the Book of Mormon stories are all (or even partially) historically factual and accurate.

Why are you not sure? Do you no longer trust the person who told you it was true? What caused you to be sure in the first place?

The French BoM is a direct, accurate (mostly) translation of the exact words and phrases that Joseph dictates. That's a real translation. I am not certain that a side-by-side comparison of the plates and English translation would work the same way. There's too much 19th C ideology in it, too much KJV of the OT and, more challenging, too much KJV of the NT in it to believe Mormon wrote the exact words and phrases that Joseph then translated.

Except Curloms an Cumoms, they might be in the original.

I don't think a translation needs to be a word for word translation, and sometimes it can't be due to some words in one language not having an exact corollary in another language. I think the point is to share an idea or feeling with someone, and the Holy Spirit can help us with that when the words themselves are not enough.

I know I must sound like a contradiction. How can it be both inspired and not historically accurate all the way through? How could Joseph have had gold plates and yet have not translated them word for word? I recognise I may be a frustration to some here. I'm a frustration to myself.

For one thing, accurate doesn't mean exactly, at least not to me. I think it's accurate as in close enough to give the general idea of what actually happened, with God helping to give us his perspective.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

What if Pres Monson were an alien from planet Hoth, would I still consider him a prophet?

No way.

Xeron, of course- not a problem but if he is from Hoth, AND IT COULD BE PROVEN forget about it. Of course proving it could be a problem considering the Narathian Effect and all.

[Ahab]

No way.

Xeron, of course- not a problem but if he is from Hoth, AND IT COULD BE PROVEN forget about it. Of course proving it could be a problem considering the Narathian Effect and all.

What's the population of people on Hoth, these days? Not one prophet there among all of them? Has that become another planet in what we refer to as Outer Darkness now? That's a shame. How did it get so bad?

[mfbukowski]

I can't think of any other church I would then go to, but my belief in God, Christ, and the atonement would be intact.

I agree. I have already thought about this and I would start my own, with Temples and the endowment, and the idea that families can be together forever if sealed by Priesthood Authority based on revelation of who has that authority alone.

Then I would postulate that God has a body and that the Godhead consists of 3 persons united in purpose and love, and that God is the Father of our spirits, and that the Bible is scripture which teaches all these principles, and that we need prophets on the earth and that all of this can be confirmed by testimony experiences by praying about these truths.

Pretty cool huh? I just made all that up. Do you think anyone would believe it?

It would be at least as believable as any of these other man-made denominations that make their own interpretations of the Bible and go from there.

[mfbukowski]

I think that realistically, the threshold of "proof" would be very, very high for me and most others before we would consider it "settled" that the Book of Mormon had been "proven" to be non-historical.

Actually it is impossibly high.

If Nephites and Lamanites were sub-cultures of the larger, perhaps Mayan culture etc there might be no historical evidence ever of any Nephites or Lamanites. It would be impossible to prove that such a group of peoples did NOT exist.

[mfbukowski]

What's the population of people on Hoth, these days? Not one prophet there among all of them? Has that become another planet in what we refer to as Outer Darkness now? That's a shame. How did it get so bad?

Gun control.

[altersteve]

Of course I would. The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, whether it's "historical" or not (although currently, from my research, I do not find a reason to think that at least most of the events described in the Book of Mormon really happened).

Edited January 16, 2013 by altersteve

[ERayR]

I agree. I have already thought about this and I would start my own, with Temples and the endowment, and the idea that families can be together forever if sealed by Priesthood Authority based on revelation of who has that authority alone.

Then I would postulate that God has a body and that the Godhead consists of 3 persons united in purpose and love, and that God is the Father of our spirits, and that the Bible is scripture which teaches all these principles, and that we need prophets on the earth and that all of this can be confirmed by testimony experiences by praying about these truths.

Pretty cool huh? I just made all that up. Do you think anyone would believe it?

It would be at least as believable as any of these other man-made denominations that make their own interpretations of the Bible and go from there.

Wish I could give you a dozen rep points for this one.

[Mike Reed]

I'm staying.

[Ahab]

Wish I could give you a dozen rep points for this one.

You could give a dozen points to 12 different people and then ask those people to give him a point, each.

[theplains]

I choose to believe. However I'm not blind to the implications of that belief. If it were conclusively proven that Jesus was/is a fictitious person(This side of the grave I don't expect we'll ever have that proof). What would be the point of belief? It doesn't require a specific deity to be a good person. To treat others fairly, to love your family, to be a good and productive citizen.

This, I feel, is the common goal of most false religions. They try to water down "Jesus Christ" and make him only

a possessor of the "Christ-consciousness". So, when they talk about their "Christ", they don't mean that they

fully accept the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Tom Harpur is one example who claims that Jesus was not a historical person. If there was no Jesus, there was

no atonement, and there is no reason to believe. Likewise, if the Book of Mormon is not historical, a whole lot

of deception has been done. If that doesn't matter, then I suppose Shakespeare could create a religion out of

a fictitious play.

Jim