Damien the Leper Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Let's move the goal post a little bit. What if Jesus' bones were found?I would stay home.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Let's move the goal post a little bit. What if Jesus' bones were found?I would stay home.Not me.We all need some way to feel redeemed for the rotten things we have done. I would stand on a mountain top and confess all my sins to the universe and promise to never do them again.It might not help, but it would be better than continuing to do them and make myself more miserable.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Wish I could give you a dozen rep points for this one.Still shows a zero.At least one would be nice
teddyaware Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) As I've read over the thread "Fairy Tales and the BOM". I see that there are a few that believe in the church no matter if the BOM is historical or not. Is it because they feel the church is the best one to raise a family in, do they feel the LDS people among the best they've met? Do LDS make the best neighbors? Is there a light in their countenance? Do these attributes make you think you would stay LDS no matter what. Even if the church is like any other Christian church? Or would you leave and find another church or become Athiest? My personal opinion is that if the church ever determined that the BOM wasn't historical but wanted to continue to have a Christ centered church, (somewhat like the RLDS aka Community of Christ church did) I believe I would stay LDS!At the outset, please understand that what I'm about to say means no disrespect to Tacenda. I can tell she's a good-hearted soul and I wouldn't want her to take any offence. But I'm going to say what I feel I must say.After reading Tacenda's original post (above), I got a strange and familiar feeling that took some deep thought to get my thinking on the matter into sharper focus. After a while, it hit me! The premises of the above questions are, in their own way, a lot like the questions the adversary asked the Lord as his forty day and night fast was coming to a conclusion. His questions were subtley designed to get the Saviour to begin to question the surety of his testimony of his own divinity and mission.The devil's goal was to get the Lord to act on any doubts he might have to prove that he, in reality, actually did doubt himself. I paraphrase:"If you are who you say you are, turn these stones to bread to prove you are the Son of God." "If you are who you say you are, jump off the pinnacle of this temple and land safely below to prove you really are the Son of God."If the Lord had acted out on those requests, it would prove there were actual doubts -- or at very least show that he had some degree of insecurity in his sense of himself -- because each challenge began with the words "if you are."While not strictly analogus, and though surely not intentional, the questions in Tacenda's original post track along the same lines and produce the same challenges to doubt as the devil's questions did to the Lord. Here's what I mean: (Please excuse my use of literary license so as to more cogently make my points.)1. "Do these attributes" (i.e. best church to raise families, best people, best neighbors, happiest contenances "make you think you would stay LDS, no matter what?" Interpretation: 'Even if one day it's proven the Church isn't true, I bet I can get some of you to admit you'd stay just because it's such a great organization.'Answer the above question and doing so makes it seem you may have doubts the Church is true, and it could just be that it's actually only the Church's dynamic people and organization that makes it seem that it might be true).2. (Would you stay in the Church), "even if the church is like any other Christian church" (i.e, just another human organization).Answer the above question and it might seem you're ready to entertain the notion that the Church may be just like any other church (i.e. without authority and continuing revelation).3. (Would you stay in the Church if it proved to be false), "or would you leave and find another church or become Athiest?"Answer the above question and you'll seem to admit you may harbor doubts that the Church is true, or may even have doubts as to the very existence of God himself.4. "My personal opinion is that if the church ever determined that the BOM wasn't historical but wanted to continue to have a Christ centered church, (somewhat like the RLDS aka Community of Christ church did) I believe I would stay LDS!"Assent to the above statement and you'll seem to admit that the Book of Mormon may just prove to be a pack of many, many lies and that you'd remain "LDS" even if the whole Church is built on a foundation of lies,To put things in even sharper perspective, just imagine the Lord himself being asked similarly loaded questions concerning the truth (or supposed non-truth) of his divinity.I know many of you will think that I ought to "lighten up" on this one. But the above words of warning go out only to those who have a received a confirming witness of the Spirit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Lord's one and only true Church. When you know the Church is true, it's best not to entertain "if" questions like these, even if it's just for "fun." Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware 3
rongo Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 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? Let me put it this way. Are there things you believe, not know, Ahab (a la D&C 46)? Or, do you "know" everything in your testimony?I believe the scriptures are true. I feel the Spirit when I read them, and I have had spiritual experiences with them. But, they pale in comparison to the power and Spirit I have felt when I have applies and received the atonement. They also pale in comparison to revelation I have had, some of which was when I was a bishop (not all). I know that God is real, that He exists, and that He can forcefully make Himself and His will known. This knowledge I have would remain even if, hypothetically, it could somehow be proven that the Book of Mormon is not historical.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?Not specifically, no. But my testimony has never centered on that.That said, I believe strongly in the Book of Mormon as a historical record of real people and events. I believe that the prophets lived, really wrote what they said they did, and were called of God to play their role in that record. I also believe strongly that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon through the gift and power of God.I don't know that on the same level that I know other things, though. And that's perfectly okay.
rongo Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 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.Absolutely. But, as B.H. Roberts pointed out, our case is much stronger than simply counting on the inability of critics to prove a negative. And, we need to do more than simply rely on the inability to prove a negative.I gave quotes along these lines in the fireside we did in our stake (I wrote, directed, and spoke at two of four that brought over 130 non-members).The quotes are on page 3. http://www.fillthenet.com/BoM_fireside_handout.pdf 1
Jude2 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 What if you discovered that you had two heads ahd three legs. Are you human, what kind of job would you get?What if............ this is another of those silly "what if" questions by those with too much time on their hands.Amen
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I question and doubt the Church every day, just like I question and doubt pretty much everything else I can think of. (I guess I'm just not a trusting sort of guy.) It seems to me that questioning everything -- and I mean everything -- is the only way to get a little closer to a reliable, workable paradigm. The only reason I currently believe in the Book of Mormon (or any other belief I hold) is that so far, it has stood up to the questions I've asked. If the core of the Book of Mormon was falsified, I'd leave in a heartbeat, and study what it was about my previous paradigm that I found convincing. If it could somehow be proved that Christ never really existed and He was just a solar myth or something, I would certainly no longer be Christian. You can live a perfectly fine life without believing in these things; it doesn't make any sense to me to stay in an organization if I don't believe the fundamental claims it is premised on. I'd certainly have more free time.That doesn't mean, however, that I would give up what I consider to be the values that we promulgate (more or less successfully). That is, I would still believe that the human body is a glorious Temple for whatever the biological cause of consciousness ends up being. I would still believe that no one "created" that fundamental part of each individual Intelligence, and so each person is responsible for their own actions. I would still believe that there is no such thing as "original sin" and that people should be judged by their understanding of their own choices and not those of their parents. I would still believe that creating something from nothing is an impossibility, and that we have the ability to create systems by consciously organizing preexisting material. I would still believe that if we are not at least trying to be Saviors working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of every conscious entity that has ever existed, that we are as salt that has lost its savor. But I feel no obligation to pretend to believe something I don't; if Conservative arguments started making sense to me, I'd happily stop being a Liberal. If I suddenly find out that the conspiracy theorists are right and we didn't land on the moon and the holocaust never happened and the earth is flat and we're all brains living in the Matrix, then that's what I'll believe, regardless of what people would say about my "flip-flop". The fact that I don't believe these things to be true right now doesn't mean that I know I won't in the future; it means that I have not yet been persuaded that such arguments are correct, based on my current understanding. The principles here are perpetual abeyance, going where the evidence takes me no matter what, and eternal progression. If I don't want to isolate myself into stasis, I can only move based on my current beliefs, whether they are correct or not. The trick is not to cling to error once better evidence has been provided. At the same time, jumping ship at the first sign of a question is hardly better; superficial critiques of a given religion or philosophy or political party are rarely effective, because they simply don't address the core issues.But we can't escape ourselves; I grew up in a specific time in a specific place with specific people and specific access to specific information, and the same is true of everyone who has ever existed. I would certainly not be a Mormon if I had never encountered the Book of Mormon; duh. If traditional Trinitarian Christians had made better arguments when I was a kid, maybe I'd be one of them. If I hadn't read Darwin or Dawkins or Gould or Tattersoll, maybe I wouldn't believe in evolution. If I'd been raised Mormon and taught that McConkie was infallible and never to question anyone who held the Priesthood, I'd probably have been disillusioned long ago and probably wouldn't be a Mormon today.I can't make my decisions based on the web of information contained in another person's head, because I don't have access to it. If they are unable to persuade me that their view is better than mine, it still doesn't mean I'm correct and they're wrong, or vice versa. We build up our individual paradigms based on the information we have encountered; no one has all the answers. We can't possibly condense the lifetime of experience that informs our every thought and decision into a few sentences and hope to persuade someone else for why we believe a given idea; everyone has to learn everything for themselves, in their own time. It wasn't until the 16th century that "belief" had shrunken into a mere mental acceptance of abstract "truths." The root of the word, leubh, is the same as that of "love." Faith, fides, is just trust, but that doesn't mean we're always placing our trust in people or institutions worthy of that trust. To "know" something is to have a feeling of surety, but there are plenty of things I've "known" in the past that I've had to revise when I've encountered information I didn't have before. We create our "beliefs" and "truth" and "knowledge"; they're not "things" floating around outside ourselves, they're things we love. They're useful stories that can -- and should -- always be revised with the addition of further information. The stories we keep are the ones that make sense of the most data, but they're always approximations, models, simplified condensed versions of immediate experience. 3
Sky Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, so I'd have a really hard time if the Book of Mormon turned out to not be historical. That would present a whole host of other problems and challenges to grapple with. I don't really subscribe to the notion that the book could still be inspired, but the people and events described in the book essentially never existed or happened. To me, it's either true or false. I can't prove that the book is historical, but I accept that it is simply on faith. I read the Book of Mormon and feel good feelings when I read it (a.k.a. the Spirit), and that motivates me to have faith in Christ and make positive changes in my life. For now, that is good enough for me. Science or archeology may never prove definitively one way or the other the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, so we each have to rely solely on our own personal, spiritual experiences through our study of it. That seems to be how God wanted it to be.
Saints Alive Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 As I've read over the thread "Fairy Tales and the BOM". I see that there are a few that believe in the church no matter if the BOM is historical or not. Is it because they feel the church is the best one to raise a family in, do they feel the LDS people among the best they've met? Do LDS make the best neighbors? Is there a light in their countenance? Do these attributes make you think you would stay LDS no matter what. Even if the church is like any other Christian church? Or would you leave and find another church or become Athiest? My personal opinion is that if the church ever determined that the BOM wasn't historical but wanted to continue to have a Christ centered church, (somewhat like the RLDS aka Community of Christ church did) I believe I would stay LDS!if I found that the BOM was completely fake I would leave the church in a heartbeat. But that's not exactly your question, it is possible for the BOM to not be historical but still be inspired allegory. In that case I would stay in the church. The latter seems to be the position of many CoC members.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Absolutely. But, as B.H. Roberts pointed out, our case is much stronger than simply counting on the inability of critics to prove a negative. And, we need to do more than simply rely on the inability to prove a negative.I gave quotes along these lines in the fireside we did in our stake (I wrote, directed, and spoke at two of four that brought over 130 non-members).The quotes are on page 3. http://www.fillthene...ide_handout.pdfReally great stuff- thanks!That really speaks to the difference between what happens in the "Mormon Corridor" (though Arizona is not exactly geographically the center) and what we get away with in the mission field. I can never imagine such a fireside being held here where members are not even typically slightly aware of any of these issues in the first place much less worried about how to answer questions about them.That handout is an excellent quick reference for quick answers on these issues- a kind of distilled and portable FARMS all in itself- great job!
sethpayne Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 As I've read over the thread "Fairy Tales and the BOM". I see that there are a few that believe in the church no matter if the BOM is historical or not. Is it because they feel the church is the best one to raise a family in, do they feel the LDS people among the best they've met? Do LDS make the best neighbors? Is there a light in their countenance? Do these attributes make you think you would stay LDS no matter what. Even if the church is like any other Christian church? Or would you leave and find another church or become Athiest? My personal opinion is that if the church ever determined that the BOM wasn't historical but wanted to continue to have a Christ centered church, (somewhat like the RLDS aka Community of Christ church did) I believe I would stay LDS!Indeed I would and I have.I certainly don't try and persuade others to adopt my PoV. Everyone has to do what is best for them.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 You know I love your posts, but just, perhaps literally, for the sake of argument, I thought I would challenge two statements here which seem to me to be somewhat contradictory.The only reason I currently believe in the Book of Mormon (or any other belief I hold) is that so far, it has stood up to the questions I've asked. If the core of the Book of Mormon was falsified, I'd leave in a heartbeat, and study what it was about my previous paradigm that I found convincing. If it could somehow be proved that Christ never really existed and He was just a solar myth or something, I would certainly no longer be Christian. You can live a perfectly fine life without believing in these things; it doesn't make any sense to me to stay in an organization if I don't believe the fundamental claims it is premised on. The question is, how do you square the above with the following- or don't you think there is conflict?To "know" something is to have a feeling of surety, but there are plenty of things I've "known" in the past that I've had to revise when I've encountered information I didn't have before. We create our "beliefs" and "truth" and "knowledge"; they're not "things" floating around outside ourselves, they're things we love. They're useful stories that can -- and should -- always be revised with the addition of further information. The stories we keep are the ones that make sense of the most data, but they're always approximations, models, simplified condensed versions of immediate experience.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Indeed I would and I have.I certainly don't try and persuade others to adopt my PoV. Everyone has to do what is best for them.Yet indeed it appears that many here have adopted a more pragmatic view after all.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 As I've read over the thread "Fairy Tales and the BOM". I see that there are a few that believe in the church no matter if the BOM is historical or not. Is it because they feel the church is the best one to raise a family in, do they feel the LDS people among the best they've met? Do LDS make the best neighbors? Is there a light in their countenance? Do these attributes make you think you would stay LDS no matter what. Even if the church is like any other Christian church? Or would you leave and find another church or become Athiest? My personal opinion is that if the church ever determined that the BOM wasn't historical but wanted to continue to have a Christ centered church, (somewhat like the RLDS aka Community of Christ church did) I believe I would stay LDS!If the church ever came out and officially stated that the Book of Mormon was not a historical book, they would have to also admit Joseph Smith was a fraud. If that was the case, then for absolute sure, I would not be LDS anymore. For me, it all comes down to the truthfulness of our prophets. If they are frauds, then the entire structure of the church is built upon fraudulent behavior. The implications for the church if all that were true is an utter complete deal breaker. The Book of Mormon is a true historical book. Every apostle and prophet since Joseph Smith himself have testified in Christ's name for the validity and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. These are men of God- his very apostles! Jesus Christ did visit the Americas just as the Book of Mormon claims. The angel Moroni is a real historical being and also a servant of Heavenly Father. Pray for a witness that the Book of Mormon is true and do so with real intent. 1
Tacenda Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 Has anyone ever read the original 1830 Edition of the BoM? I finally found mine that was lost. Of course it's only a copy that I purchased for around. $25.00. I've not read very much yet. But was interested to know what others think. It's in chapter form so easier to read, for me anyway. But see the necessity of putting it in scripture form.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2009/10/50/GC_2009_10_503_HollandJR___eng_.wmvPerhaps one of the greatest testimonies of the truthfulness and validity of the Book of Mormon. May we all become believers. Jeffery R. Holland's divine and inspiring testimony! Edited January 17, 2013 by Rob Osborn
Nathair/|\ Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 If it could somehow be proved that Christ never really existed and He was just a solar myth or something, I would certainly no longer be Christian.Just for my own curiosity, what if you came to believe that He existed, but was only as powerful as the gods of other nations, say it would be a close match between him and Marduk for example.(This is not my position, I believe Christ is Lord over everything one could reach in eleven dimensions, at least, and and the other gods have power only on this Earth and possibly where intelligent beings who are descended from Earthlings and worship them might move.)
canard78 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 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.Very interesting. I suppose it's understandable - all of them were converts and so raised on the Bible, plus they had 'live' revelation and clarification of doctrine on a (sometimes) daily basis in the 1830s. It must have been an exciting time.Jeff Lindsay speculated that this is one of the reasons so many presumptions were made about the Book of Mormon that didn't have a basis in the text. If you quickly read it once and didn't come back to it it would be easy to make several presumptions that lead to an incorrect belief. A land north and south with a narrow neck... it's only when people started studying it and trying to map it that you realise they cover distances that are too small to be hemispheric.I do wonder why God didn't correct that though... it could have saved a lot of bother and trouble.
canard78 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 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.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?Dead event - yes, and event that is gone and we have no way of seeing and knowing.Why am I not sure? Two reasons - I've never actually had a spiritual witness to the Book of Mormon's complete historical accuracy. Only that it is 'of God.' Second, it's not that I don't trust God... perhaps I don't trust myself. The experience I had was real and I would never patronise myself by saying I've never had those spiritual experiences. I have been taught to ascribe that experience to an interaction with God. Sometimes I'm confident accepting that principle and source. Sometimes I question it. I hope one day I don't. But whatever happens... that experience is a memory that I continue to ascribe supernatural meaning to. Others could accept I had the experience but ascribe different meaning to it.As Scrooge said to Marley: "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"Spiritual experiences happen on the inside of us. We then choose what meaning we give it.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.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.And that's the point... we personally can't know for certain how much of the Book of Mormon's content or origins are exactly as we're told they happen. We have to rely on an intangible impression combined with our ability to weigh the evidence for and against. The evidence for and against is inconclusive. So we're left with only spiritual impressions... which are frustratingly fleeting and unreliable.Question: If we have to place our trust solely on spiritual experience, what if someone prays to know that the Book of Mormon is true and gets no answer, what does that mean?Or, if someone prays for confirmation, after studying it out in their mind, that the book is NOT true and does get a spiritual witness... what then?Do we simply presume they are either insincere or deceived?
bcuzbcuz Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I question and doubt the Church every day, just like I question and doubt pretty much everything else I can think of. (I guess I'm just not a trusting sort of guy.) It seems to me that questioning everything -- and I mean everything -- is the only way to get a little closer to a reliable, workable paradigm.I enjoyed reading your post, all of it.
Alan Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Joining this discussion late, as I am in the habit of doing. Probably something to do with the time difference.The question is, would I stay LDS if it was found that the BoM was not historical. The answer is definately not. There would be no point. The implications of a non-historical Book of Mormon are enormous and catastrophic for the corporate church and the actual church (the Saints). I believe it would ultimately result in the death of the church (both of them - though the corporate church would probably hang on longer) - as is slowly happening in the CofC.For me, I would continue my Christian faith and probably attend the local Church of England in my village.
Recommended Posts