Finding "New Spirituality In The Book Of Mormon"

[wayfarer]

At the very least, Mark Thomas clearly states that Joseph lied:

"How he lied, perhaps even to himself" http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=thomas_20_1

Thomas also states that Joseph saw a vision, but implies if I read him right that the vision was created by his psychological interactions with his surroundings as opposed to a real encounter with God:

Lying to himself could be seen as implying a mental disorder...thus justifying the accusation that Thomas sees JS as a lunatic.

As far as frontier fiction fabricated by Joseph Smith, it would seem to be implied in this comment: http://signaturebook...ry.org/?p=22027

I agree that the characterizations made by Thomas and Price are not particularly useful to believers. I don't subscribe to using the language of 'lying' and 'delusion'...or even 'frontier fiction'. These labels tend to want to dismiss the work, which, to me, is much more divine than those labels allow.

One of the most brilliant prophetic explanations of why things were done in a way that today we think is wrong was given by GBH in an interview: "Because that's how the leaders of the time interpreted the will of the Lord."

I believe there is an incorrect assumption -- indeed a paradigm -- that 'revelation' from the Lord is an exact dictation of the Lord's will. It certainly can be, but the reality, for the most part, is otherwise. "All scripture is given by inspiration", according to Paul, and Joseph reflected that it wasn't that the Lord just gave an answer, but rather, one has to study it out in one's mind, and the Lord will reveal it to the mind and heart of the prophet. Whether we like it or not, prophets often prophesy things that may not be perfectly accurate, but in their heart of hearts, and mind of minds, they believe it is. Kevin points out a very important scripture here:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

D&C 1:24-25

Joseph Smith had a worldview that differs from our worldview today. He used what he felt as his spiritual sense to guide him in ways we might find a bit suspect today. I know it's hard to accept that, but I believe it to be the case. His internal spiritual sense would allow him to accept things and people, at times, as being inspired that were in fact not so. (Bennett being a classic example). This does not mean that he was a liar or deluded, but rather, that is how he interpreted the will of the Lord.

Joseph evidently believed, strongly, that the north american native indians were indeed lamanites. He so stated in the Wentworth letter; and he believed that one of the mound builders was "Zelph", a white lamanite. His testimony was as sure as ours is on a number of levels. This did not mean that he got it perfectly right. In fact, it appears that he was completely wrong.

There is some evidence that the story line of the Book of Mormon parallels other works available to Joseph, and he also would tell stories of native americans prior to his receiving of the gold plates. He also had a strong working knowledge of scripture. He had visions speaking of his prophetic mission, He had visions that he was to translate ancient records, and claimed to be given these physical records. He probably did receive them -- or at least I find evidence that the plates existed -- from contemporaneous accounts and witnesses. But from my point of view, given that he didn't actually translate them in any normal way we can consider 'translation', the plates are somewhat of a MacGuffin - helpful, perhaps, to give gravitas to the transmission process, but not essential to the story.

In a way that can only be called 'inspired', and in a time period I find extraordinary, Joseph produced the Book of Mormon. He never could replicate that feat later in life -- although when he received the papyrii, he tried -- but there wasn't the same cohesive production of scripture.

Yet what did that scripture -- that remarkable production of the book of mormon include? "inspiration", generated through the mind and heart of the Prophet. As the world was not formed ex nihilo in mormon theology, neither did the book of mormon get formed ex nihilo, but rather, the inspiration of the Lord organized the materials already present in the prophetic mind of Joseph Smith -- stories of an account of native americans, a story line that parallels Ethan Smith, scriptures quoted verbatim from the King James Version. And while the raw materials do not appear to be a divine origin, and there are issues with the historicity of the account -- it may not be historical at all -- what Joseph Smith produced was scripture: the word of the Lord through the mind and heart of his prophet -- whether by His own voice or through the voice (mind and heart) of his servants, it is the same.

It is thus not accurate in my mind to call this prophetic result "lying", "delusion", nor "fiction". There is only one word for it: "Scripture".

[ALarson]

But then, once I started looking into the terms "Middle Way", I found much, much more than just a differentiating label. I found that we're in the middle of a lot of things, and while it definitely would be more 'accurate' to say 'Centered Way', (as the late Stephen Covey would call the 'Divine Center'), I will continue to use Middle Way for a number of considered reasons.

It really does not matter what term is used and "Middle Way" seems to be used more and more. What does it matter what it's called?

Whatever it's called, there are more and more active members beginning to define their beliefs in this manner. When they discover information regarding the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, church history, polygamy, polyandry and on and on (and these are becoming more and more available and known to many more members), many still want to believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and still believe in the sacredness of the Book of Mormon (even though they no longer believe it is historically factual). Don't you want the members who change some of their beliefs to stay in the church?

I know of many in my family who still attend church, pay their tithing, and have a TR who have joined the "Middle Way" and are very happy. I also know at least 2 leaders in my ward who now believe the Book of Mormon is not true history but is still inspired. There are probably many more.

I don't understand why Louis Midgley and others react with such fear and anger to this. It's happening and you can't stop it. Many are able to learn these things and still believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history. But others can't.

Also, one can still believe in Jesus Christ and his atonement and not believe that the Book of Mormon is true history.

I REALLY do not understand the insults and name calling against those who still choose to attend, still believe the church is true but no longer believe in the history of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 19, 2013 by ALarson

[wayfarer]

It really does not matter what term is used and "Middle Way" seems to be used more and more. What does it matter what it's called?

Whatever it's called, there are more and more active members beginning to define their beliefs in this manner. When they discover information regarding the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, church history, polygamy, polyandry and on and on (and these are becoming more and more available and known to many more members), many still want to believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and still believe in the sacredness of the Book of Mormon (even though they no longer believe it is historically factual). Don't you want the members who change some of their beliefs to stay in the church?

I know of many in my family who still attend church, pay their tithing, and have a TR who have joined the "Middle Way" and are very happy. I also know at least 2 leaders in my ward who now believe the Book of Mormon is not true history but is still inspired. There are probably many more.

I don't understand why Louis Midgley and others react with such fear and anger to this. It's happening and you can't stop it. Many are able to learn these things and still believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history. But others can't.

Also, one can still believe in Jesus Christ and his atonement and not believe that the Book of Mormon is true history.

I REALLY do not understand the insults and name calling against those who still choose to attend, still believe the church is true but no longer believe in the history of the Book of Mormon.

Great comments. The reason for calling it something, is to deifne its being. Terms like "cultural mormon", "cafeteria mormon", "apostate", etc. tend to have their baggage, whereas "MIddle Way" has a long tradition of moderation and balance through many faith traditions.

As well, it's not something to 'join'. It's simply to find balance and authenticity, "centering" one's life on core principles of truth, and avoiding extremes. It's simply an approach, and probably not for everyone.

[Questing Beast]

"Middle way" is code for "make it work". We all are trying to make it work.

Since each one of us is an egocentric world, never touching metaphysically, it makes no sense to expect each of us to hold the exact same view of reality, making the definition of "reality" equally impossible. In the physical world we focus too much on shared observance of material evidence. This propensity is furthered by the veneration of science, which is the fastest growing "religion" today. But science is limited to this empirical world only, not the "world" of belief. The worlds of belief are infinite both in size and number, but this empirical world is only one, one that we share with our five senses only. Digging in the ground for "proof" of anything is only going to prove that something physical remains of something that once lived. Interpretation then takes over. And interpretation is inevitably paired with observer biases. Once someone has revealed their bias for a subject of study you either agree or not, in total or in part, usually in part. Religion is not about digging in the ground for proof.

Surviving written accounts form the main basis for studying the origins of the LDS faith. The BoM is the single largest body of written evidence that can be studied to further a study of Joseph Smith, if we must study Joseph Smith. Some, e.g. Bukowski here, are far beyond any need to study Joseph Smith. They are already "knowing", in spite of any digging for proof that occupies so many of the rest of us.

When someone knows a thing, it is pointless to point out assumptions on why they are mistaken in their knowledge. If someone says "I know", that is the end of the matter.

I know that "God" is real, because I know that I Exist and that all of Existence in the First Place requires a Cause. The rest of it is just "scenario making" stuff to me. I won't be here much longer, and I know that I am an immortal, so this world has about as much importance to the immortal me as a temporary game for amusement. But we can and do learn things from serious games. And my focus while "being there" (here) is all about what Is Joy and conversely what is not Joy. I know that this "game" holds precisely the same core purpose for everyone. I know that everyone is immortal like me, and I believe that we know each other intimately as immortals, whereas here we do not, except on the subliminal/metaphysical "plane"....

Edited February 19, 2013 by Questing Beast

[go_utes01]

Great comments. The reason for calling it something, is to deifne its being. Terms like "cultural mormon", "cafeteria mormon", "apostate", etc. tend to have their baggage, whereas "MIddle Way" has a long tradition of moderation and balance through many faith traditions.

As well, it's not something to 'join'. It's simply to find balance and authenticity, "centering" one's life on core principles of truth, and avoiding extremes. It's simply an approach, and probably not for everyone.

If you can't join this "middle way", why do you feel the need to proselytize for it?

[wayfarer]

Honestly I know you are being all counter-culture and all but capitalizing God would help a lot.

When someone offers you his hand, you don't pick your nose, and when you are trying to communicate on a religious board about how you are a believer, you don't fail to capitalize "God".

Yes, please....this would help in not creating the illusion of nonbelief in God when wayfarer writes. Too many insist on not capitalizing God to belittle the belief and for me this motivation emotionally transfers to others who do it for other reasons even when I know that the motivation is not the same. If it is simply carelessness and nothing more on wayfarer's part not to capitalize "God", it seems to me showing respect to God by showing care even in the littlest of ways is something we should strive to do. When I see others respecting God (even those who do not believe themselves in God but try to respect others' beliefs), I tend to respect them more myself.

I don't think it is a counter-cultural thing, and to be honest, I don't know why I do it, but it feels right to me. Scratching my head a bit, I can find several reasons:

1. It's intimate. I've been fascinated to see that transformation of 'thee' and 'thou' from intimate informal English, to the idea that we use formal jacobian English to address diety. In spanish, of course, we use 'tu' and not 'usted' -- the informal, intimate language in prayer. Such intimacy speaks to our relationship with god (there I go again).

2. I use 'wayfarer' in lowercase, and thus I use 'god' in lowercase as well. This is part of an intimate relationship to me.

3. It's a title, not a name of a being, and that title is not unique to one individual in Mormon theology. I will capitalize "Elohim" if I'm referring to the Father, but even then, "elohim" means "gods" in hebrew, not God the Father.

4. God is not the other (capitalized here because it's the beginning of sentence), but rather "one with us", and "one of us". I don't like language and symbolism that creates a gulf between us and god.

5. Thomas Jefferson used 'god' in the lowercase when he wrote in a letter to Benjamin Rush, "I have sworn on the altar of god eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man." This amazing statement rims the rotunda around the Jefferson Memorial.

6. "The unwritten order of things" is not exactly my cup of tea. I think this kind of goes with white shirts, suits, and other cultural artifacts that may not have any bearing on the eternities.

7. I don't think god cares...having asked him. Maybe he's just given up on trying to straighten me out.

I appreciate your concern, and I'd like to say I will try, but I'm honestly not trying to pick my nose (much as it needs it at times) nor being disrespectful. it's just what flows from my fingers and feels right.

[go_utes01]

I don't think it is a counter-cultural thing, and to be honest, I don't know why I do it, but it feels right to me. Scratching my head a bit, I can find several reasons:

1. It's intimate. I've been fascinated to see that transformation of 'thee' and 'thou' from intimate informal English, to the idea that we use formal jacobian English to address diety. In spanish, of course, we use 'tu' and not 'usted' -- the informal, intimate language in prayer. Such intimacy speaks to our relationship with god (there I go again).

2. I use 'wayfarer' in lowercase, and thus I use 'god' in lowercase as well. This is part of an intimate relationship to me.

3. It's a title, not a name of a being, and that title is not unique to one individual in Mormon theology. I will capitalize "Elohim" if I'm referring to the Father, but even then, "elohim" means "gods" in hebrew, not God the Father.

4. God is not the other (capitalized here because it's the beginning of sentence), but rather "one with us", and "one of us". I don't like language and symbolism that creates a gulf between us and god.

5. Thomas Jefferson used 'god' in the lowercase when he wrote in a letter to Benjamin Rush, "I have sworn on the altar of god eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man." This amazing statement rims the rotunda around the Jefferson Memorial.

6. "The unwritten order of things" is not exactly my cup of tea. I think this kind of goes with white shirts, suits, and other cultural artifacts that may not have any bearing on the eternities.

7. I don't think god cares...having asked him. Maybe he's just given up on trying to straighten me out.

I appreciate your concern, and I'd like to say I will try, but I'm honestly not trying to pick my nose (much as it needs it at times) nor being disrespectful. it's just what flows from my fingers and feels right.

Of course you are entitled to your beliefs, but you also need to be aware of your audience. And as long as you find your idiosyncrasies more important than offending others, you should continue them.

Edited February 19, 2013 by go_utes01

[wayfarer]

If you can't join this "middle way", why do you feel the need to proselytize for it?

I would say I advocate it as a viable, faithful path, and I choose to defend it against those who say that it is not viable to be on a faithful Middle Way within Mormonism. The Middle Way simply tries to see things from all angles, while holding on to core (central, middle-of-my-being) things in faith. There is nothing to proselytize here.

[Questing Beast]

Capital "G" God is the Cause of Existence in the First Place to me, all other "gods" get the small "g". So for my prose it is contextual. The written form has nothing to do with intimacy, but accuracy. There is only one "God"....

[wayfarer]

Of course you are entitled to your beliefs, but you also need to be aware of your audience. And as long as you find your idiosyncrasies more important than offending others, you can continue them.

It's a good point. I do try to be respectful at times, but as you well know, other times I don't seem to care if I offend someone. I think that those I care about the most -- and this is not meant to be disrespectful to faithul, believing members, are those who will identify with my way of being and even my way of writing.

As well, if I feel like the term 'god' should be personal to me, then am I being authentic if I play a game so as to not offend others? Sometimes, we just need to go with our gut.

I really do appreciate your concern and do not mean to offend in this case in the least.

[wayfarer]

Capital "G" God is the Cause of Existence in the First Place to me, all other "gods" get the small "g". So for my prose it is contextual. The written form has nothing to do with intimacy, but accuracy. There is only one "God"....

I think we need to start another thread on that topic. IF that is the case, then my lowercase 'god' is exactly accurate to what I believe. I would refer you to the Seer, Volume 1 number 2 under the title, "The Preexistence of Man". Or, BH Roberts treatise on the Mormon theology of god.

edited: including the link to a thread on this topic.

Edited February 19, 2013 by wayfarer

[go_utes01]

It's a good point. I do try to be respectful at times, but as you well know, other times I don't seem to care if I offend someone. I think that those I care about the most -- and this is not meant to be disrespectful to faithul, believing members, are those who will identify with my way of being and even my way of writing.

As well, if I feel like the term 'god' should be personal to me, then am I being authentic if I play a game so as to not offend others? Sometimes, we just need to go with our gut.

I really do appreciate your concern and do not mean to offend in this case in the least.

Why would you care more about people who agree with you? That does not seem very Christlike, or likely to help others come to a better understanding of your beliefs. Aren't we all sons and daughters of God with infinite and eternal worth? Shouldn't we care about the feelings of all?

[go_utes01]

I think we need to start another thread on that topic. IF that is the case, then my lowercase 'god' is exactly accurate to what I believe. I would refer you to the Seer, Volume 1 number 2 under the title, "The Preexistence of Man". Or, BH Roberts treatise on the Mormon theology of god.

It seems to me, that we only have one Heavenly Father, one God. Just as there are many fathers on earth, I only have one Dad. There may be other beings that have reached the level of godhood, however, we only have one God, and He should be respected.

[wayfarer]

Why would you care more about people who agree with you? That does not seem very Christlike, or likely to help others come to a better understanding of your beliefs. Aren't we all sons and daughters of God with infinite and eternal worth? Shouldn't we care about the feelings of all?

Perhaps I did not make my point clear. The reason I have posted to this site is because there are people here who want to vilify people I care about and push them out of the Church, so that those who question, those who doubt, those in the midst of faith crisis, don't spread disease germs to the pure and faithful.

I'm not worried about your faith, for example, because you appear to not be concerned in the same way. More power to you. My concern (care) is for those who are stuggling.

[ALarson]

It seems to me, that we only have one Heavenly Father, one God.

Key words are "it seems to me". Why not allow all different beliefs to be discussed here? Just because you believe we only have one God, that does not mean that all have to believe this or they are being disrespectful. It's not an either/or for many.

[ALarson]

Perhaps I did not make my point clear. The reason I have posted to this site is because there are people here who want to vilify people I care about and push them out of the Church, so that those who question, those who doubt, those in the midst of faith crisis, don't spread disease germs to the pure and faithful.

I'm not worried about your faith, for example, because you appear to not be concerned in the same way. More power to you. My concern (care) is for those who are stuggling.

And there are many who are struggling. This is a fact and the numbers are growing. Why ignore it or pretend it is not happening today within the church?

I love reading your posts wayfarer and appreciate your contributions.

Edited February 19, 2013 by ALarson

[wayfarer]

It seems to me, that we only have one Heavenly Father, one God. Just as there are many fathers on earth, I only have one Dad. There may be other beings that have reached the level of godhood, however, we only have one God, and He should be respected.

Is that consistent with our doctrine as LDS? There are three essential elements of the Mormon doctrine on Diety (per BH Roberts):

1. That God (he capitalizes, so I will in quoting him) is a being with a body in form like man's: God is an exalted, perfected man.

2. We believe in a plurality of Gods.

3. We believe that man may become a God.

Even in understanding the gods with whom we interact: there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. We do not believe, as in the Nicene creed, that there is only one God in substance (homoousion), but rather three persons AND three gods (at least).

[go_utes01]

Key words are "it seems to me". Why not allow all different beliefs to be discussed here? Just because you believe we only have one God, that does not mean that all have to believe this or they are being disrespectful. It's not an either/or for many.

Do you see me not allowing others' beliefs? Did I tell Wayfarer (or you) to stop posting his beliefs? Nope. Post away. What do you believe? I like hearing from all different perspectives. That does not mean that some people will not be offended - but, that is ok and probably expected when you join in conversation of deeply important and for many sacred topics on an internet discussion board.

[go_utes01]

Is that consistent with our doctrine as LDS? There are three essential elements of the Mormon doctrine on Diety (per BH Roberts):

1. That God (he capitalizes, so I will in quoting him) is a being with a body in form like man's: God is an exalted, perfected man.

2. We believe in a plurality of Gods.

3. We believe that man may become a God.

Even in understanding the gods with whom we interact: there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. We do not believe, as in the Nicene creed, that there is only one God in substance (homoousion), but rather three persons AND three gods (at least).

Are you saying I shouldn't hold my belief? Interesting from somebody from your perspective.

[wayfarer]

Are you saying I shouldn't hold my belief? Interesting from somebody from your perspective.

No, not at all. I'm just curious how you reconcile "One God" with LDS doctrine, starting at the first Article of Faith. It's perfectly acceptable to believe in one god. echad/ahad -- hebrew/arabic for 'is one' is a common expression among the abrahamic religions, and is stated explicitly in the book of mormon. Now...how to reconcile that? That we should take to another thread -- and I have opened one up entitled, "Orson Pratt on the Oneness of God".

Edited February 19, 2013 by wayfarer

[ALarson]

I believe Brother Midgley and Hamblin are concerned with those who promote the idea it didn't happen because of the implications of what it means as it all ties back to Christ and the Atonement and the important of the actuality of that life and that act.

As I stated above, many people believe in Jesus Christ and the Atonement, but do not believe in the Book of Mormon.

[Nevo]

There is a difference between not caring something happened and promoting the idea that it didn't happen. I believe Brother Midgley and Hamblin are concerned with those who promote the idea it didn't happen because of the implications of what it means as it all ties back to Christ and the Atonement and the important of the actuality of that life and that act.

Mark Thomas does not "promote" the idea that the Book of Mormon is fiction, so this explanation doesn't quite work.

At the very least, Mark Thomas clearly states that Joseph lied... Lying to himself could be seen as implying a mental disorder...thus justifying the accusation that Thomas sees JS as a lunatic.

The "accusation that Thomas sees JS as a lunatic" is not justified by anything in Thomas's article. The whole thrust of Thomas's article is that Joseph Smith actually had the visions he claimed to have. The visions are described in naturalistic terms but Thomas nowhere claims that Joseph was deluded or had "a mental disorder."

The title of Thomas's article is provocative but it doesn't really fit the content, leading me to wonder whether Thomas chose the title himself or whether it was applied by an editor. In any case, Thomas clarified his views in a Dialogue article that appeared around the same time:

"There are several ways to account for the historical inaccuracies in the latter versions of Joseph Smith's accounts of the vision. One can simply state that Joseph Smith lied and was loose with the facts to get across new theological points in a later historical setting, as Vogel postulates. However, I believe there is a more plausible explanation. Recent research on memory has indicated that memory is more metaphorical reproduction than a storehouse of facts. Memory can therefore blend separate events and conclusions, and lead to misremembering details, combining memories, or remembering events which did not occur. I believe Joseph Smith had rethought the biblical passages—supposedly cited by the angel—so many times, and the actual vision had been so long ago, that he simply mixed up his own meditations on scripture with his previous vision.

Whether Joseph Smith was dishonest to himself and others in his erroneous recitations of the details of his vision is a matter I cannot determine, but it strikes me as too simplistic a conclusion in this case

" (pp. 159-160; emphasis added).

As far as frontier fiction fabricated by Joseph Smith, it would seem to be implied in this comment: http://signaturebook...ry.org/?p=22027

Sure, a nineteenth-century provenance for the Book of Mormon is "implied" in some of the statements in Digging in Cumorah. It is also implied in some of the statements in Rough Stone Rolling. That the 1830 Book of Mormon text addressed a nineteenth-century audience is, I think, generally admitted by LDS and non-LDS literary critics and historians alike. Terryl Givens, for example, writes that "nineteenth-century parallels...are part and parcel of the self-proclaimed prophetic texture of the work" (By the Hand of Mormon, 166).

For a perceptive and even-handed review of Digging in Cumorah, I recommend Grant Hardy's "Speaking So That All May Be Edified."

And for a particularly disturbing example of the atheist-admiring Mark Thomas's insidious, ahistorical, faith-destroying approach to the Book of Mormon, see his "Moroni: The Final Voice."

Edited February 19, 2013 by Nevo

[wayfarer]

I believe Brother Midgley and Hamblin are concerned with those who promote the idea it didn't happen because of the implications of what it means as it all ties back to Christ and the Atonement and the important of the actuality of that life and that act.

As I stated above, many people believe in Jesus Christ and the Atonement, but do not believe in the Book of Mormon.

i think calmoriah's characterization of Drs Midgley's and Hamblin's intent is accurate. the challenge is linking historicity with testimony.

For whatever reason, the tangible, empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon is lacking. Perhaps, if such evidence existed, becoming a Latter-day Saint would be a nobrainer. Enemies if the church justify rejecting the entire message of the Gospel because not just the lack of evidence, but the evidence that it is not historical. Requiring belief in historicity denies entrance into the Kingdom and access to the King's gospel to any who refuse to shut off their critical thinking (skeptical) minds. i am not saying that those here who believe the literal account have turned iff their minds, but if they have been skeptical, some degree of justification has had to occur. This is often too much to ask: believing something to be true (in some material respect) when is proven not to be (in that same material respect) is not faith, according to Alma 32.

the book of mormon may well have had a historical basis, but the method of its transmission was entirely revelatory. understanding that revelation works through the mind and heart means that the raw materia fir the book included joseph's own mythical worldview, his version of scripture, and his knowledge base, enhanced and organized by god. one can argue that such revelation did record the events of an historical people, but there is no guarantee on that. and since the process is revelatory, the proof of authenticity is not sufficient to convince the rational skeptical mind. thus, the book of mormon has to be considered "revealed ascripture" rather than any degree of history, and we should be accepting it upon that basis, and no other.

thus, we should NOT be linking historicity with a testimony of the book of mormon... but rather, we should receive these things and seek a knowledge of HOW they are true for us, through prayer and revelation. it seems as if god has made that the only Way.

Edited February 19, 2013 by wayfarer

[go_utes01]

i think calmoriah's characterization of Drs Midgley's and Hamblin's intent is accurate. the challenge is linking historicity with testimony.

For whatever reason, the tangible, empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon is lacking. Perhaps, if such evidence existed, becoming a Latter-day Saint would be a nobrainer. Enemies if the church justify rejecting the entire message of the Gospel because not just the lack of evidence, but the evidence that it is not historical. Requiring belief in historicity denies entrance into the Kingdom and access to the King's gospel to any who refuse to shut off their critical thinking (skeptical) minds. i am not saying that those here who believe the literal account have turned iff their minds, but if they have been skeptical, some degree of justification has had to occur. This is often too much to ask: believing something to be true (in some material respect) when is proven not to be (in that same material respect) is not faith, according to Alma 32.

the book of mormon may well have had a historical basis, but the method of its transmission was entirely revelatory. understanding that revelation works through the mind and heart means that the raw materia fir the book included joseph's own mythical worldview, his version of scripture, and his knowledge base, enhanced and organized by god. one can argue that such revelation did record the events of an historical people, but there is no guarantee on that. and since the process is revelatory, the proof of authenticity is not sufficient to convince the rational skeptical mind. thus, the book of mormon has to be considered "revealed ascripture" rather than any degree of history, and we should be accepting it upon that basis, and no other.

thus, we should NOT be linking historicity with a testimony of the book of mormon... but rather, we should receive these things and seek a knowledge of HOW they are true for us, through prayer and revelation. it seems as if god has made that the only Way.

Couldn't it be seen as revealed scripture and historical? Are you saying the historicity has been proven false? Or that there is a lack of physical evidence to prove that it is necessarily historical - as you see it?

[mfbukowski]

Bingo! And as long as some do not allow agency and our own way of seeing things, then I choose to differentiate my beliefs in a meaningful way that preserves the essence of the Way while avoiding the extremes.

The problem is that then this becomes your church instead of identifying yourself with the whole church as one. You are separating yourself.

And yes I am looking forward to that diet coke.