Finding "New Spirituality In The Book Of Mormon"

[mfbukowski]

As well, it's not something to 'join'.

But indeed that is what you appear to be making it.

[wayfarer]

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 material for 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.

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?

I wish you would read my post before responding. I answered your question in my post. I see both a lack of evidence, as well as tangible (but not sufficient) evidence to question its historicity. Certainly, the worldview original held by LDS that all native americans were Lamanites is no longer remotely tenable.

My point in the above post is that it seems to be God's will that the Book of Mormon NOT be proven by tangible evidence. I don't believe that it is necessary to believe it to be historically true (in terms of the existence of the characters). If god revealed through Joseph Smith an extended allegory, then so be it -- the more important question is, "Did it come from God?"

And if the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity were not enough for us to get the point (that revelation is the Way), then let's talk about the Book of Abraham. In the BoA, the evidence is absolute that the scroll (at least containing the facsimile), is not in any way a translation of what Joseph said it was. Apologists can and will beat their heads against this all day long, for years...but it's just not the case that the Papyrus inscriptions as reflected in the BoA on the facsimiles or in the text have anything to do with Abraham's writings in his own hand.

Each of us has to face the matter: it's either all true or "the biggest fraud in history". Well, I choose something in the MIddle Way here: It's called "revelation from god", in the grand tradition of all scripture. Can god create scripture from an ordinary funerary scroll? Absolutely! Can God take the raw materials of legends and divine teachings within the head of Joseph Smith an create scripture? Absolutely!

Again, while I reject Pryce's characterization of lying or delusion, I completely agree that a non-literal approach leads to new spiritual insights. To know that God can reveal his word through defective beings says that God can do mighty works through you and me.

[go_utes01]

I wish you would read my post before responding. I answered your question in my post. I see both a lack of evidence, as well as tangible (but not sufficient) evidence to question its historicity. Certainly, the worldview original held by LDS that all native americans were Lamanites is no longer remotely tenable.

My point in the above post is that it seems to be God's will that the Book of Mormon NOT be proven by tangible evidence. I don't believe that it is necessary to believe it to be historically true (in terms of the existence of the characters). If god revealed through Joseph Smith an extended allegory, then so be it -- the more important question is, "Did it come from God?"

And if the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity were not enough for us to get the point (that revelation is the Way), then let's talk about the Book of Abraham. In the BoA, the evidence is absolute that the scroll (at least containing the facsimile), is not in any way a translation of what Joseph said it was. Apologists can and will beat their heads against this all day long, for years...but it's just not the case that the Papyrus inscriptions as reflected in the BoA on the facsimiles or in the text have anything to do with Abraham's writings in his own hand.

Each of us has to face the matter: it's either all true or "the biggest fraud in history". Well, I choose something in the MIddle Way here: It's called "revelation from god", in the grand tradition of all scripture. Can god create scripture from an ordinary funerary scroll? Absolutely! Can God take the raw materials of legends and divine teachings within the head of Joseph Smith an create scripture? Absolutely!

Again, while I reject Pryce's characterization of lying or delusion, I completely agree that a non-literal approach leads to new spiritual insights. To know that God can reveal his word through defective beings says that God can do mighty works through you and me.

All fine. As long as you are open to the understanding that a historical narrative also allows for different and important spiritual insights. Also, I believe you could find the one insight you list without the BOM being non-historical - either way, Joseph Smith, Moses, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Moroni (if you view them as real), Thomas Monson etc. were/are not perfect beings. I think there is enough evidence or lack of evidence for and against historicity and divinity that no definitive empirical answer is possible (and I agree that this is probably intentional), which allows everybody to accept or reject the BOM (either its historicity or its divinity) on faith, based on personal revelation.

[mfbukowski]

Each of us has to face the matter: it's either all true or "the biggest fraud in history". Well, I choose something in the MIddle Way here: It's called "revelation from god", in the grand tradition of all scripture. Can god create scripture from an ordinary funerary scroll? Absolutely! Can God take the raw materials of legends and divine teachings within the head of Joseph Smith an create scripture? Absolutely!

Honestly, as I see it here, the problem is that you think that revelation must be in the "middle" between truth and something less than truth, without really seeing that revelation CAN indeed be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth- just not scientifically verifiable truth. It is not scientifically verifiable that God exists or that the person Jesus of Nazareth saved us from our sins, or precisely which mound of ruins was what we know as "Zarahemla".

But by no means does it mean that statements about these religious beliefs are less than "true" in any way whatsoever - as fully justified religious beliefs.

Once you realize that the truth is multifaceted and is based on context, there IS no need for a "middle way"- because there is no middle!

[wayfarer]

mfb, so if you have a problem with:

literal history----Revelation------------------------------------------------------------------fiction.

then let's just say that terms like "literal history" and "fiction" ought to be placed in the trash bucket, and we're left with:

Revelation.

[mfbukowski]

mfb, so if you have a problem with:

literal history----Revelation------------------------------------------------------------------fiction.

then let's just say that terms like "literal history" and "fiction" ought to be placed in the trash bucket, and we're left with:

Revelation.

Not totally sure what you are saying with all those lines above- I prefer full sentences to counting the dashes and trying to figure if there is significance there, but I have no problem with using "revelation" instead of "history" where the context calls for it.

The BOM is revealed truth. How's that? Is it true? Of course!

[Calm]

I think he means revelation is on the spectrum between fiction and literal history, but I don't know if he is showing by placement where he would place revelation as close to a literal history....and what that means for him (that there is a little fiction mixed into literal history when it comes to revelation).

[wayfarer]

I think he means revelation is on the spectrum between fiction and literal history, but I don't know if he is showing by placement where he would place revelation as close to a literal history....and what that means for him (that there is a little fiction mixed into literal history when it comes to revelation).

A rep point or you! you got it. i hadn't thought about the last phrase, but now that you mention it, i think "revelation" often does have a little fiction mixed in it...or at least both d&c section 1 and Paul the apostle would say so.

[mfbukowski]

I think he means revelation is on the spectrum between fiction and literal history, but I don't know if he is showing by placement where he would place revelation as close to a literal history....and what that means for him (that there is a little fiction mixed into literal history when it comes to revelation).

Thanks for the attempted translation- that makes sense!

[mfbukowski]

A rep point or you! you got it. i hadn't thought about the last phrase, but now that you mention it, i think "revelation" often does have a little fiction mixed in it...or at least both d&c section 1 and Paul the apostle would say so.

Sigh.

Calling something "fiction" means that we know what the "reality" is which opposes it to "fiction". Check the reality, nope the story's different- then it's fiction

How do we check the reality in revelation?

[mathonihah]

I wish you would read my post before responding. I answered your question in my post. I see both a lack of evidence, as well as tangible (but not sufficient) evidence to question its historicity. Certainly, the worldview original held by LDS that all native americans were Lamanites is no longer remotely tenable.

The idea that the native Americans are “Lamanites” is not just an LDS “world view,” but stated so in the D&C. You either have to question the revelation or question the science. You choose to question the revelation; I prefer to question the science.

My point in the above post is that it seems to be God's will that the Book of Mormon NOT be proven by tangible evidence. I don't believe that it is necessary to believe it to be historically true (in terms of the existence of the characters). If god revealed through Joseph Smith an extended allegory, then so be it -- the more important question is, "Did it come from God?"

But then, what do you do with the categorical statement in the D&C that the Book of Mormon is “true”? You either have to question the revelation, or the archaeological/historical evidence. You choose to question the former; I question the latter.

And if the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity were not enough for us to get the point (that revelation is the Way), then let's talk about the Book of Abraham. In the BoA, the evidence is absolute that the scroll (at least containing the facsimile), is not in any way a translation of what Joseph said it was. Apologists can and will beat their heads against this all day long, for years...but it's just not the case that the Papyrus inscriptions as reflected in the BoA on the facsimiles or in the text have anything to do with Abraham's writings in his own hand.

Same as above.

Each of us has to face the matter: it's either all true or "the biggest fraud in history". Well, I choose something in the MIddle Way here: It's called "revelation from god", in the grand tradition of all scripture. Can god create scripture from an ordinary funerary scroll? Absolutely! Can God take the raw materials of legends and divine teachings within the head of Joseph Smith an create scripture? Absolutely!

But again, how do you reconcile that with the categorical statement in the D&C that the Book of Mormon is true; or with other declarations in scripture that God cannot lie? It is not just that he does not or will not lie; but that he cannot lie. If what you are thinking is true, then he has been telling an awful lot of fibs.

I respect your desire as a believer to resolve an obvious dilemma; but I dispute your suggestion that yours is the only logical or reasonable resolution to it. Your solution to a conflict between science and revelation is to accept the science and question the revelation. To me the reverse is the case. But that depends on how strong your faith is in the revelation, as well as how good is your understanding of the science. The truth is that science is not as infallible as you think it is, nor revelation as questionable. Revelation, if genuine, is infinitely more reliable than science.

There is also a difference between the position of a non-believing, non-LDS scholar who doesn't believe in any kind of revelation, and comparing the Bible and the BoM concludes that both are equally “inspirational” (from his point of view); and that of a confessed believer in revelation who is at the same time torn between the two. The position of the first is consistent; that of the second is not.

Edited February 21, 2013 by mathonihah

[wayfarer]

Sigh.

Calling something "fiction" means that we know what the "reality" is which opposes it to "fiction". Check the reality, nope the story's different- then it's fiction

How do we check the reality in revelation?

Are you saying that "revelation" as expressed in our language, scripture, and teachings of the Church is exactly correct and completely reflective of the eternal mind and will of the Lord? Is there any possibility in your mind that revelation can be, at least in part, wrong?

[wayfarer]

The idea that the native Americans are “Lamanites” is not just an LDS “world view,” but stated so in the D&C. You either have to question the revelation or question the science. You choose to question the revelation; I prefer to question the science.

with respect to an empirical claim that native Americans are the "Lamanites", if that claim is not valid scientifically, that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim, then I do reject it. I do not believe, in the least, that revelation is superior to science in a methodology for validating empirical claims. I also do not believe in the least that "Faith" requires me to accept a claim that is proven to be false by any means. Faith, by Alma's definition, must be applied to something that is at least possibly 'true'.

Flat out, absolutely, positively, I do not accept the authority of prophetic claims on empirical matters that are sufficiently proven to be implausible based upon empirical facts.

Just so we're clear here.

But again, how do you reconcile that with the categorical statement in the D&C that the Book of Mormon is true; or with other declarations in scripture that God cannot lie? It is not just that he does not or will not lie; but that he cannot lie. If what you are thinking is true, then he has been telling an awful lot of fibs.

Are you saying that the declarations of scripture are always and forever 100% literally accurate? God may not lie (although in the book of Abraham he justified Abraham in doing so), but do you think that man always gets it exactly right?

I respect your desire as a believer to resolve an obvious dilemma; but I dispute your suggestion that yours is the only logical or reasonable resolution to it.

I am in no way whatsoever saying that mine is the only resolution for it. Not by any means.

Your solution to a conflict between science and revelation is to accept the science and question the revelation.

false. It all depends upon what we're talking about. If revelation says that man can never set foot on the moon, and man sets foot on the moon, the facts have proven that the revelation was wrong. That's the way empirical claims work -- they can be measured with facts, and as I noted above, I do not accept prophetic authority on empirical claims when the facts show otherwise.

Science cannot tell me what to do, however, to be saved, exalted, or a righteous member of the Church. I absolutely accept revelation as the means to know such things, and science is moot.

To me the reverse is the case. But that depends on how strong your faith is in the revelation, as well as how good is your understanding of the science. The truth is that science is not as infallible as you think it is, nor revelation as questionable. Revelation, if genuine, is infinitely more reliable than science.

First, you mischaracterize my thinking -- you don't know it in the least, so please don't presume to do so. Second, I am completely aware of the limits of science as well as the limits of religion.

There is also a difference between the position of a non-believing, non-LDS scholar who doesn't believe in any kind of revelation, and comparing the Bible and the BoM concludes that both are equally “inspirational” (from his point of view); and that of a confessed believer in revelation who is at the same time torn between the two. The position of the first is consistent; that of the second is not.

so be it. I categorically reject your statement above. Faith and our trials in life require us to grapple what is the truth. Revelation requires us to "study it out in our minds" as well as seek inspiration and spiritual confirmation. Your suggestion that revelation alone is sufficient and superior to factual inquiry (science) is as vacant as the spirit without the body. It cannot act -- it cannot lead to advancements in our understanding. Alma 32 requires us to test out the things we believe -- as well, we were given a charge to learn through our own experience to distinguish good and evil, and not simply to partake of a given dogmatic tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If it works for you to place an absolute priority on revelation as the means to learn empirical claims, then please go ahead. I won't. I think I have made that eminently clear.

[mathonihah]

Are you saying that "revelation" as expressed in our language, scripture, and teachings of the Church is exactly correct and completely reflective of the eternal mind and will of the Lord? Is there any possibility in your mind that revelation can be, at least in part, wrong?

Revelation as expressed in “our language,” dictated by the prophet, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and declared to be scripture, and canonised, can never be wrong, in part or as a whole—meaning doctrinally wrong. It doesn't mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it; it means that it cannot teach incorrect doctrine. It is infallible as a source of correct doctrine.

[wayfarer]

It is infallible as a source of correct doctrine.

CFR

Edited February 21, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

Are you saying that "revelation" as expressed in our language, scripture, and teachings of the Church is exactly correct and completely reflective of the eternal mind and will of the Lord? Is there any possibility in your mind that revelation can be, at least in part, wrong?

What standard would use to determine if it could even be termed "right" or "wrong"? As opposed to what? It is what it is!

It's never a question of "what is" it's only ever a question of how we know what is! Since I was about 6 years old I have asked "How do you know that"? about everything I have ever learned. For me that is the only question!

We know that it is true because God reveals it to us personally. The experience itself is "properly basic" in that doubting the experience would be like doubting my own existence or all the experiences I have ever had in my life. It would be like saying that I had never seen the sun shine, or that other people exist. Of course no sane person doubts those kind of things- one has to believe them in order, literally, to live and feed oneself, etc.

But do we ever know that every word- or any word is the "mind and will of God?" Never! All we know is that we have had the experience of God giving us a testimony. Do we know that Joseph used the "correct" words to express what he- Joseph- even meant? No!

In a sense one gets to the point where all of this is taken as suggestions for belief which the individual has to do Alma 32 type "experiments" to verify for himself the sweetness of the gospel. We each have to re-construct the whole of it in our own understanding. It has to become part of US- and we become part of it.

There is no way to judge if any of it is right or wrong except in a Moroni 10:5 and an Alma 32 sense. That's it. No more is possible!

[CA Steve]

Revelation as expressed in “our language,” dictated by the prophet, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and declared to be scripture, and canonised, can never be wrong, in part or as a whole—meaning doctrinally wrong. It doesn't mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it; it means that it cannot teach incorrect doctrine. It is infallible as a source of correct doctrine.

So are the Lectures on Faith an infallible source of correct doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

Flat out, absolutely, positively, I do not accept the authority of prophetic claims on empirical matters that are sufficiently proven to be implausible based upon empirical facts.

You have a lot more faith than I can muster about "empirical facts". They seem to change at least as much as revelations do. Now how many planets are there this week? I keep forgetting.

[wayfarer]

What standard would use to determine if it could even be termed "right" or "wrong"? As opposed to what? It is what it is!

It's never a question of "what is" it's only ever a question of how we know what is! Since I was about 6 years old I have asked "How do you know that"? about everything I have ever learned. For me that is the only question!

We know that it is true because God reveals it to us personally. The experience itself is "properly basic" in that doubting the experience would be like doubting my own existence or all the experiences I have ever had in my life. It would be like saying that I had never seen the sun shine, or that other people exist. Of course no sane person doubts those kind of things- one has to believe them in order, literally, to live and feed oneself, etc.

But do we ever know that every word- or any word is the "mind and will of God?" Never! All we know is that we have had the experience of God giving us a testimony. Do we know that Joseph used the "correct" words to express what he- Joseph- even meant? No!

In a sense one gets to the point where all of this is taken as suggestions for belief which the individual has to do Alma 32 type "experiments" to verify for himself the sweetness of the gospel. We each have to re-construct the whole of it in our own understanding. It has to become part of US- and we become part of it.

There is no way to judge if any of it is right or wrong except in a Moroni 10:5 and an Alma 32 sense. That's it. No more is possible!

did you and i just switch bodies and i answered my own question under your identity? i couldn't agree more...even if i were to write the words.

[mfbukowski]

Revelation as expressed in “our language,” dictated by the prophet, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and declared to be scripture, and canonised, can never be wrong, in part or as a whole—meaning doctrinally wrong. It doesn't mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it; it means that it cannot teach incorrect doctrine. It is infallible as a source of correct doctrine.

This is actually a tautology if you think of it

Canonized doctrine cannot be wrong because we define what is right or wrong by canonized doctrine!

Edit: Therefore I suppose one could say that canonized doctrine is always right! It's all just words!

Edited February 21, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mathonihah]

CFR

“And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

“And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.” (1 Nephi 15:23–24)

That is a declaration of the infallibility of the word of God. If the word of the Lord was not (doctrinally) infallible, it could not accomplish that purpose. Here is another:

“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:4)

[mfbukowski]

did you and i just switch bodies and i answered my own question under your identity? i couldn't agree more...even if i were to write the words.

You better watch out! Maybe you are no longer "middle way"!

You get to define yourself the way you want, you know!

[mathonihah]

This is actually a tautology if you think of it

Canonized doctrine cannot be wrong because we define what is right or wrong by canonized doctrine!

Canonization is not the key; the fact that it is the word of God and scripture is the key.

[mfbukowski]

Canonization is not the key; the fact that it is the word of God and scripture is the key.

But how do you know that?

We are back to Moroni 10 and Alma 32!

You know it is the word of God because it is canonized and God has told you the church is true!

[mathonihah]

But how do you know that?

We are back to Moroni 10 and Alma 32!

You know it is the word of God because it is canonized and God has told you the church is true!

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is the word of God, not because it is canonized. There are non-canonized material which I know to be the word of God; and there are canonized material which I know isn't the word of God. I knew that D&C 137 and 138 were true scripture long before they were canonized, and treated them as such. Likewise, there are uncanonized revelations in existence today which I consider and know to be the word of God. Canonization is important, however, because we trust the vehicle though which it is made, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is God's authorized representative on earth to make that determination; and for the purpose teaching the Church, that is the authorized and recognized canon that should be used. The Church as the Lord's official representative on earth has the divine mandate to declare what is canon and what is not. I can determine what is scripture by the Holy Spirit, but I cannot determine what is the canon. Only the Church has the power and authority from God to do that, and make it binding on the whole Church.