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

[Damien the Leper]

Oh please don't do that.

By all means show me the conflicts. You may save me from this cult after all!

Don't you dare leave the cult! You're no good to me as a non-Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

Don't you dare leave the cult! You're no good to me as a non-Mormon.

Not a chance!

But don't tell anyone I said that- ok?

Edited January 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

Can you be more specific?

I go back to my first post regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the need to (or not to) acknowledge it as true in order to move closer to Christ. If Christ says, “I am the Way, and the Truth” it appears that he wasn’t (telling) the truth if indeed the way (the path) requires belief in the Book of Mormon.

I see contradiction in the LDS position, so I suggested that for some the Book of Mormon may itself be a stumbling block.

I also see contradiction in how the beliefs are laid out here. mfbukowski states, “We believe that the truth path is found in the Book of Mormon, and the church including subsequent revelations, etc.” canard78 says, “I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel.”

The position that we “have eternity to find the truth” (though I’ve always enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin) calls into question lots of scripture (Lazarus and the Rich man, Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:11-15, Luke 16:26, and John 3:36 and 5:24 – among others).

[Lightbearer]

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!

First let me say that I believe in a God of miracles. He exists, to me that is a fact that is undeniable. It cannot be "proven" otherwise. Oh I am well aware many can and do find excuses not to believe, not to have faith. But I am not one of these. Also for me The Book of Mormon is historical, don't get me wrong I do not understand how exactly it may fit into "secular history" but my reasons for knowing it is true have nothing whatever to do with secular learning, archeology, or science. Do I believe that Nephi, Mormon and Moroni were real flesh and blood men who lived in ancient america? Yes absolutely, without reservation. They are as real as my own father and mother and sisters, wife and son. They are not fairytale characters nor is the Book of Mormon a sacred fable. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion and if it is not what it claims to be then the church is not what it claims to be. Oh yes it may be a good organization, but without revelation and I do not mean just to the Prophet and Apostles, I mean to the membership in general, then it is not of any worth (at least spiritually). But I do say, it (The Book of Mormon) is true and it in reality did happen just as the prophets and apostles testify of it. God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith is the choice seer who should bring back the everlasting Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a lie built on a foundation of lies. It is true and those who try to accept the one without accepting the Book which is the keystone are only deluding themselves. So your question is flawed if I "discovered" the Book was not true (historical) then would I stay in the church? It really is meaningless because to me this church IS REVELATION... so if the revelations are not true then the church would likewise be untrue. But again I say they are both TRUE!

[canard78]

First let me say that I believe in a God of miracles. He exists, to me that is a fact that is undeniable. It cannot be "proven" otherwise. Oh I am well aware many can and do find excuses not to believe, not to have faith. But I am not one of these. Also for me The Book of Mormon is historical, don't get me wrong I do not understand how exactly it may fit into "secular history" but my reasons for knowing it is true have nothing whatever to do with secular learning, archeology, or science. Do I believe that Nephi, Mormon and Moroni were real flesh and blood men who lived in ancient america? Yes absolutely, without reservation. They are as real as my own father and mother and sisters, wife and son. They are not fairytale characters nor is the Book of Mormon a sacred fable. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion and if it is not what it claims to be then the church is not what it claims to be. Oh yes it may be a good organization, but without revelation and I do not mean just to the Prophet and Apostles, I mean to the membership in general, then it is not of any worth (at least spiritually). But I do say, it (The Book of Mormon) is true and it in reality did happen just as the prophets and apostles testify of it. God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith is the choice seer who should bring back the everlasting Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a lie built on a foundation of lies. It is true and those who try to accept the one without accepting the Book which is the keystone are only deluding themselves. So your question is flawed if I "discovered" the Book was not true (historical) then would I stay in the church? It really is meaningless because to me this church IS REVELATION... so if the revelations are not true then the church would likewise be untrue. But again I say they are both TRUE!

I am LDS but question why you patronise non-mormons/non-believers by saying they "find excuses" to not believe. This is nonsense. Many good, honourable non-mormons do so for good reasons and are at peace doing that.

And while your testimony is clearly of value to you, you're apparently not willing to answer the actual hypothetical question so why join the thread to criticise those who do.

[canard78]

I go back to my first post regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the need to (or not to) acknowledge it as true in order to move closer to Christ. If Christ says, “I am the Way, and the Truth” it appears that he wasn’t (telling) the truth if indeed the way (the path) requires belief in the Book of Mormon.

I see contradiction in the LDS position, so I suggested that for some the Book of Mormon may itself be a stumbling block.

I also see contradiction in how the beliefs are laid out here. mfbukowski states, “We believe that the truth path is found in the Book of Mormon, and the church including subsequent revelations, etc.” canard78 says, “I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel.”

The position that we “have eternity to find the truth” (though I’ve always enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin) calls into question lots of scripture (Lazarus and the Rich man, Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:11-15, Luke 16:26, and John 3:36 and 5:24 – among others).

Firstly, neither I, nor mfb speak for the church. I most certainly don't. So if mfb and I have a different view then you can't call that an 'official' LDS contradiction just a contradiction from two people's views. Besides, you said mfb's post had internal contradictions... so why point out that the contradiction was with someone elses post. That's like him saying your post has contradictions but then comparing them to mine.

I'm not going to 'bible bash' with you, I'll simply say that I don't base my beliefs solely on the Bible, so why throw them at me to say I'm wrong? However, clearly people CAN and DO get close to Christ without the Book of Mormon. If any Mormon says otherwise I agree that they are blinkered. But I don't think the church has ever claimed that only people who read the Book of Mormon can know and love Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Firstly, neither I, nor mfb speak for the church. I most certainly don't. So if mfb and I have a different view then you can't call that an 'official' LDS contradiction just a contradiction from two people's views. Besides, you said mfb's post had internal contradictions... so why point out that the contradiction was with someone elses post. That's like him saying your post has contradictions but then comparing them to mine.

I'm not going to 'bible bash' with you, I'll simply say that I don't base my beliefs solely on the Bible, so why throw them at me to say I'm wrong? However, clearly people CAN and DO get close to Christ without the Book of Mormon. If any Mormon says otherwise I agree that they are blinkered. But I don't think the church has ever claimed that only people who read the Book of Mormon can know and love Christ.

I don't disagree with you - he doesn't understand our beliefs.

[mfbukowski]

I go back to my first post regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the need to (or not to) acknowledge it as true in order to move closer to Christ. If Christ says, “I am the Way, and the Truth” it appears that he wasn’t (telling) the truth if indeed the way (the path) requires belief in the Book of Mormon.

I see contradiction in the LDS position, so I suggested that for some the Book of Mormon may itself be a stumbling block.

I also see contradiction in how the beliefs are laid out here. mfbukowski states, “We believe that the truth path is found in the Book of Mormon, and the church including subsequent revelations, etc.” canard78 says, “I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel.”

The position that we “have eternity to find the truth” (though I’ve always enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin) calls into question lots of scripture (Lazarus and the Rich man, Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:11-15, Luke 16:26, and John 3:36 and 5:24 – among others).

You just aren't getting this at all. There is not even a contradiction between what canard said and I said much less, as he points out, in the gospel itself. I already showed you how we did not disagree- but I guess you didn't read it.

I don't want to bible bash either with you, but for those who are interested I actually looked up those scriptures and they say nothing at all about what you said they said.

I will just post them and let the other LDS bash to their heart's content if they like- but the bottom line is that none of these "prove" what you think they do:

Hebrews 9:27,

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Revelation 20:11-15

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Luke 16:26,

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

John 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Christ bridged the gulf- and yes the judgement comes after death- but there are two judgements- the first immediately after death and the last a long time after death as part of the resurrection.

Edited January 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Let's think about it. Their language was unrecognizable relative to Hebrew, they were separated from the Jewish culture by a thousand years and thousands of miles, etc. We should not be looking for "jews" or Israelites in mesoamerica, but for Nephites and their culture. One example is the use of towers in religious practices.

I've seen you mention towers as evidence a few times and I'm interested to know the specifics of the mesoamerican towers if you have a link?

I happened upon the following photo while trying to read up on the 19th C revival camps:

An engraving of a Methodist camp meeting in 1819 (Library of Congress).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_meeting

In the engraving there's a tower to preach from, a big crowd (including families) and tents pointing at the tower.

Is that evidence that King Benjamin's last speech was inspired by methodist revival camps? Of course not. So why do towers in mesoamerica provide evidence in favour of it?

Towers/platforms/elevations are a basic tool for speaking to any crowd - religiously or not...

From the humble soapbox:

To the impressive minarets:

In the absence of a PA system, it's hardly surprising that people all round the world elevate the speaker to address large crowds.

I still believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. But isn't it the case that if we over-engage with the research and call the evidences against 'coincidences' but the evidence in favour as 'not coincidences,' then we're undermining the only thing that makes a difference, which is the spiritual impact of it. I would guess for every one evidence 'for' a critic could provide one evidence against. In the end we pile it all up and one of us has more coincidences than the other. The evidence counts for nothing, beyond the evidence that the spiritual lessons and principles work. As such, we shouldn't be insisting on it being taken as historical and instead it needs to be taken as spiritual (regardless of the authorship). I'm clinging onto that last part, because if I stack up all the coincidences on either side and weigh that into the equation then I'm not sure I'd like the outcome.

[Tacenda]

I've seen you mention towers as evidence a few times and I'm interested to know the specifics of the mesoamerican towers if you have a link?

I happened upon the following photo while trying to read up on the 19th C revival camps:

An engraving of a Methodist camp meeting in 1819 (Library of Congress).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_meeting

In the engraving there's a tower to preach from, a big crowd (including families) and tents pointing at the tower.

Is that evidence that King Benjamin's last speech was inspired by methodist revival camps? Of course not. So why do towers in mesoamerica provide evidence in favour of it?

Towers/platforms/elevations are a basic tool for speaking to any crowd - religiously or not...

From the humble soapbox:

To the impressive minarets:

In the absence of a PA system, it's hardly surprising that people all round the world elevate the speaker to address large crowds.

I still believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. But isn't it the case that if we over-engage with the research and call the evidences against 'coincidences' but the evidence in favour as 'not coincidences,' then we're undermining the only thing that makes a difference, which is the spiritual impact of it. I would guess for every one evidence 'for' a critic could provide one evidence against. In the end we pile it all up and one of us has more coincidences than the other. The evidence counts for nothing, beyond the evidence that the spiritual lessons and principles work. As such, we shouldn't be insisting on it being taken as historical and instead it needs to be taken as spiritual (regardless of the authorship). I'm clinging onto that last part, because if I stack up all the coincidences on either side and weigh that into the equation then I'm not sure I'd like the outcome.

Just like the coincidence of the name MoronI and it being the capital of the Comoros Islands Edited January 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Organized, dogmatic religions are helpful to some but not most people (some of the "some" seem to need a hefty dose of "fear the Almighty").

And yet stats say otherwise in regard to health and happiness (the more religious, including those who attend church more often, tend to be happier and healthier).

For example, for young men, being active LDS means you are less likely to commit suicide than an inactive LDS young man and both are less likely than a nonLDS young man.

Edited January 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But Nephi turned out to be wrong. The equation is incorrect. It's not circular.

Not when this condition is taken into account.

For Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day

[Calm]

I am LDS but question why you patronise non-mormons/non-believers by saying they "find excuses" to not believe. This is nonsense. Many good, honourable non-mormons do so for good reasons and are at peace doing that.

Just to point out, he did condition it with "many" and depending on how many is "many" he could be right or wrong. (IMO, the "many" has to tend to few percentagewise to be accurate if he also means inappropriate, unreasonable excuses.)

It is also hard to know exactly what he means by "excuses". Does he mean 'too lazy to find the truth so one just says have not received a witness' or is his "excuse" a reasonable one of not having received a witness after decades of seeking it? IOW, are they valid or invalid excuses (it comes across as assuming they are "invalid" which is problematic in my view).

Oh I am well aware many can and do find excuses not to believe, not to have faith.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209213938

Edited January 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

And yet stats say otherwise in regard to health and happiness (the more religious, including those who attend church more often, tend to be happier and healthier).

For example, for young men, being active LDS means you are less likely to commit suicide than an inactive LDS young man and both are less likely than a nonLDS young man.

I believe it, but I'd be interested in a CFR to see their methodology (research geek).

We're very quick to dismiss research against us (highest antidepressants, highest porn subscriptions) as dodgy data or unconsidered variables like, for antidepressants, more mothers (post natal depression), higher affluence (more meds) and less self medication (with alcohol).

[canard78]

Not when this condition is taken into account. (Believe words at last day)

Clearly when we're dead (or if we live to the last day) God will lay out all the books and laws that were ignored.

But the implication from the post I was replying to and Nephi's words, are that this should be the case in mortality. And it's not. Believing in Christ does not (in mortality) cause all people to believe the Book of Mormon is true.

[Calm]

I believe it, but I'd be interested in a CFR to see their methodology (research geek).

We're very quick to dismiss research against us (highest antidepressants, highest porn subscriptions) as dodgy data or unconsidered variables like, for antidepressants, more mothers (post natal depression), higher affluence (more meds) and less self medication (with alcohol).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/

People who worship frequently are happier than those who don’t.

http://www.jabfm.org/content/19/2/103.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=religion%252C+long+life&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Results: Weekly attendance at religious services accounts for an additional 2 to 3 life-years compared with 3 to 5 life-years for physical exercise and 2.5 to 3.5 life-years for statin-type agents. The approximate cost per life-year gained was between $2,000 and $6,000 for regular exercise, $3,000 and $10,000 for regular religious attendance, and between $4,000 and $14,000 for statin-type agents

For LDS, it is apparently a 8-11 year addition...though the approximate cost is probably greater in proportion due to tithing (and I am not sure exactly of the year count as it is phrased weirdly).

http://www.jefflindsay.com/WWisdom.shtml (am going to bed now or I would track down the original study for you, but this link has enough info to do it.)

[Calm]

Clearly when we're dead (or if we live to the last day) God will lay out all the books and laws that were ignored.

But the implication from the post I was replying to and Nephi's words, are that this should be the case in mortality. And it's not. Believing in Christ does not (in mortality) cause all people to believe the Book of Mormon is true.

I read it as we should believe in mortality, but that Christ will confirm it as definite truth (knowledge as opposed to faith perhaps) at the last day ("For Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day")

[canard78]

Just to point out, he did condition it with "many" and depending on how many is "many" he could be right or wrong. (IMO, the "many" has to tend to few percentagewise to be accurate if he also means inappropriate, unreasonable excuses.)

It is also hard to know exactly what he means by "excuses". Does he mean 'too lazy to find the truth so one just says have not received a witness' or is his "excuse" a reasonable one of not having received a witness after decades of seeking it? IOW, are they valid or invalid excuses (it comes across as assuming they are "invalid" which is problematic in my view).

http://www.mormondia...entry1209213938

The full quote you're defending is:

First let me say that I believe in a God of miracles. He exists, to me that is a fact that is undeniable. It cannot be "proven" otherwise. Oh I am well aware many can and do find excuses not to believe, not to have faith. But I am not one of these.

The definition of "Many" is: amounting to a large but indefinite number. It's etymology is also in the root 'the multitude.'

"Some" on the other hand is similar, but implicitly smaller: a part, or an unspecified number of something (almost the same as 'many' but without the qualifier 'large')

That's all by-the-by. Even if Lightbearer had said 'a few' there is still a judgement of motives and intent that can't be known as a generalisation.

Why not simply acknowledge that people who don't believe in God have weighed up the evidence and have chosen not to.

[canard78]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/

http://www.jabfm.org/content/19/2/103.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=religion%252C+long+life&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

For LDS, it is apparently a 8-11 year addition...though the approximate cost is probably greater in proportion due to tithing (and I am not sure exactly of the year count as it is phrased weirdly).

http://www.jefflindsay.com/WWisdom.shtml ( am going to bed now or I would track down the original study for you, but this link has enough info to do it .)

The joys of time differences, my kids are just kicking me out of bed after a reasonable lie-in.

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look.

[Gervin]

Firstly, neither I, nor mfb speak for the church. I most certainly don't. So if mfb and I have a different view then you can't call that an 'official' LDS contradiction just a contradiction from two people's views. Besides, you said mfb's post had internal contradictions... so why point out that the contradiction was with someone elses post. That's like him saying your post has contradictions but then comparing them to mine.

I don't recall saying that the two of you speak for the church. With your regard to the necessity for a belief in the Book of Mormon, I was simply pointing our that if there isn't a consistency in adhering to what the church teaches (assuming that the church teaches that the Book of Mormon must be believed in, literally) then it's a mixed-message to those who are trying to figure out if the book is the path to truth, or just a book that might lead to truth.

I'm not going to 'bible bash' with you, I'll simply say that I don't base my beliefs solely on the Bible, so why throw them at me to say I'm wrong? However, clearly people CAN and DO get close to Christ without the Book of Mormon. If any Mormon says otherwise I agree that they are blinkered. But I don't think the church has ever claimed that only people who read the Book of Mormon can know and love Christ.

I don't think I said you were "wrong" and if I did I apologize. I agree that people can and do get close to Christ without he Book of Mormon. I'm an example

Obviously, the LDS Church acknowledges that the there are people who "know" Christ without the Book of Mormon. Am I wrong to assume, however, to think that the church believes and teaches that to truly know Christ, to know the fulness of Christ, one must have a testimony for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

[Gervin]

You just aren't getting this at all. There is not even a contradiction between what canard said and I said much less, as he points out, in the gospel itself. I already showed you how we did not disagree- but I guess you didn't read it.

I don't want to bible bash either with you, but for those who are interested I actually looked up those scriptures and they say nothing at all about what you said they said.

I will just post them and let the other LDS bash to their heart's content if they like- but the bottom line is that none of these "prove" what you think they do:

Christ bridged the gulf- and yes the judgement comes after death- but there are two judgements- the first immediately after death and the last a long time after death as part of the resurrection.

OK, you don't believe that the Bible teaches that our salvation is dependent on what we do while we're alive. I'd be curious for you to show how that is reflected in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. But, to stay on topic, can you show me where in the Book of Mormon it teaches that we have all of eternity to accept Christ - or why a belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon gets one to that position?

[thesometimesaint]

I believe it, but I'd be interested in a CFR to see their methodology (research geek).

We're very quick to dismiss research against us (highest antidepressants, highest porn subscriptions) as dodgy data or unconsidered variables like, for antidepressants, more mothers (post natal depression), higher affluence (more meds) and less self medication (with alcohol).

There is even a simpler reason for higher use of anti-depressants in Utah. Utah is a test market for the marketing of drugs. No company would spend millions of dollars for advertizing if it didn't work.

[cdowis]

Just like the coincidence of the name MoronI and it being the capital of the Comoros Islands

Why do you think it is a coincidence? Have you actually done any research on the history of the Comoros Islands, or are you just speaking off the top of your head.

Homework assignment -- who were the early settlers of those islands? Black Africans or .......

Edited January 19, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I don't recall saying that the two of you speak for the church. With your regard to the necessity for a belief in the Book of Mormon, I was simply pointing our that if there isn't a consistency in adhering to what the church teaches (assuming that the church teaches that the Book of Mormon must be believed in, literally) then it's a mixed-message to those who are trying to figure out if the book is the path to truth, or just a book that might lead to truth.

I don't think I said you were "wrong" and if I did I apologize. I agree that people can and do get close to Christ without he Book of Mormon. I'm an example

Obviously, the LDS Church acknowledges that the there are people who "know" Christ without the Book of Mormon. Am I wrong to assume, however, to think that the church believes and teaches that to truly know Christ, to know the fulness of Christ, one must have a testimony for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

The Church teaches that the Book of Mormon is literally true. The Church has never taught that it contains all truth.

The Church teaches that the Book of Mormon is another testimony of Christ. Literally the fulfillment of the Prophecy that the Stick of Joseph and the Stick of Judah will be combined into one testament of Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

OK, you don't believe that the Bible teaches that our salvation is dependent on what we do while we're alive. I'd be curious for you to show how that is reflected in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. But, to stay on topic, can you show me where in the Book of Mormon it teaches that we have all of eternity to accept Christ - or why a belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon gets one to that position?

Incorrect. We believe and teach that our salvation is dependent on what we do while we're alive. We don't teach that we have all of eternity to accept Christ. However we do believe and teach that for those that had no opportunity in this life to fully hear and accept the Restored Gospel. They will be given that opportunity in the next. Only God gets to decide when we've had that opportunity.