Affirmation Issues A "read The Book Of Mormon" Challenge To Its Members

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58237617-180/book-mormon-challenge-affirmation.html.csp

Starting this week, more than 100 LDS believers have accepted the challenge to read a chapter a day from the faith’s signature scripture, the Book of Mormon.

At this pace, they will complete the entire text in 239 days.

What makes this challenge different, though, is that it was issued not by LDS Church headquarters but from Affirmation, a support group for gay Mormons that many church members presume is opposed to the faith.

The instructions on Facebook for reading together are clear: Read a chapter every morning as part of your routine; think about it; say a prayer; and, if you want, share your thoughts with the group.

This is not the place to debate LDS history or to discuss the Book of Mormon text, organizers says, "from a scholarly, apologetic or critical point of view."

"Our approach is studying it for spiritual and personal growth," Affirmation President Randall Thacker writes in an email, "versus ‘Is the book true?’ ’’

I find this encouraging. I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity, so Mr. Thacker's approach of reading it "for spiritual and personal growth . . . versus 'Is the book true?'" seems flawed from the outset. But who knows what could happen. I truly hope some good comes of this effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58237617-180/book-mormon-challenge-affirmation.html.csp

I find this encouraging. I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity, so Mr. Thacker's approach of reading it "for spiritual and personal growth . . . versus 'Is the book true?'" seems flawed from the outset. But who knows what could happen. I truly hope some good comes of this effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree somewhat... I find some Taoist writings valuable in terms of growth as a person, even though I believe they are only the result of observation of the human condition.

[smac97]

I disagree somewhat... I find some Taoist writings valuable in terms of growth as a person, even though I believe they are only the result of observation of the human condition.

What I said was "I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts..."  The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly.  As President Hinckley put it (speaking broadly of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling): "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

I have found value in all sorts of books, and music, and movies, and so on. But the value of The Book of Mormon is, for me, on a vastly different and higher plane than these. That value is, due to both the message and the messages historicity, "remarkable."

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

What I said was "I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts..."  The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly. 

 

There are some who still view it as another testament of Jesus Christ and disbelieve in it's historicity.  They believe it was inspired of God and is a testimony of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.  I am not discounting the historicity of the BOM, however, I do believe that there is value in reading it and following it's precepts, and that it still can have significant impact and inspire people to come unto Christ even if they disbelieve in it's historicity.  The value of the text is manyfold.  While it's primary purpose is to testify of Christ, I believe that the testimony is valid whether it was inspired by prophets of old or prophets of new (Joseph Smith).  Another significant and applicable value is the "precepts" taught therein.  In this case, the historicity does not add to or diminish from the value of the principles.  We don't need the stories to be true for the values to have impact in our lives.  If we live them, we will reap the same blessings wether the stories are true or not. 

 

Mr. Thacker's approach of reading it "for spiritual and personal growth . . . versus 'Is the book true?'" seems flawed from the outset.

 

I agree with Thacker's approach personally.  If we are reading the BOM to discover if it is historically true or not instead of for spiritual and personal growth, then we are missing out on the whole purpose and point of the text. 

[Senator]

Good for them.

 

I personally don't see a need to criticize their approach.

[smac97]

There are some who still view it as another testament of Jesus Christ and disbelieve in it's historicity.

Yes, I recognize that. And as deeply flawed as that position is, I welcome such persons in fellowship in the Church.

That said, my view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture. I don't think that a coherent good faith argument can be made otherwise. Consider the following (emphases added):

Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I agree with these sentiments.

They believe it was inspired of God and is a testimony of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.

A testimony of Jesus Christ that is entirely predicated on a lie? A fraud? My mind cannot reconcile that.

I am not discounting the historicity of the BOM, however, I do believe that there is value in reading it and following it's precepts, and that it still can have significant impact and inspire people to come unto Christ even if they disbelieve in it's historicity.

Well, you raise a good point. Joseph Smith stated that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by (The Book of Mormon) precepts, than any other book."

The value of the text is manyfold.  While it's primary purpose is to testify of Christ, I believe that the testimony is valid whether it was inspired by prophets of old or prophets of new (Joseph Smith).  Another significant and applicable value is the "precepts" taught therein.

The problem with this position is that it makes the Gospel too convenient. It allows us to reject precepts we don't like.

In this case, the historicity does not add to or diminish from the value of the principles.

I disagree. See the quotes above from Elder Oaks and Kent Jackson. I think historicity is integral to meaningful acceptance of The Book of Mormon, of Joseph Smtih, and of the Restored Gospel generally.

We don't need the stories to be true for the values to have impact in our lives.  If we live them, we will reap the same blessings wether the stories are true or not.

Do you take a similar approach to the New Testament? "We don't need the stories (about Jesus Christ being born, about His status as the Son of God, about His ministry, about His suffering at Gethsemane and on the Cross, and about His death and resurrection) to be true for the values to have impact in our lives?"

I cannot believe that rejecting Jesus Christ would have no effect on the blessings we receive through the Restored Gospel. As Elder Oaks put it: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

I agree with Thacker's approach personally.

I can understand that.

If we are reading the BOM to discover if it is historically true or not instead of for spiritual and personal growth, then we are missing out on the whole purpose and point of the text.

I agree. I don't think we should read it to discover its historicity "instead of" for spiritual and personal growth. In my view, The Book of Mormon is not intended as a history. It's intended as a second testament to Jesus Christ. Historicity is not a separate question, but an integral one to the overall question of whether The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

Good for them.

 

I personally don't see a need to criticize their approach.

I did not intend to criticize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sky]

I commend what Affirmation is doing here.  In fact, I felt inspired to join them.  

 

As far as the historicity of the Book of Mormon is concerned, I think some of them believe it is historical and some of them don't.  I personally believe the book is historical.  But the historicity of the book is not the main focus of what they are doing.  The focus is on spiritual and personal growth, and that is something we all could use.  So I say to just be grateful that they are even doing this in the first place - and just leave it at that.

 

    

[mfbukowski]

What I said was "I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts..."  The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly.  As President Hinckley put it (speaking broadly of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling): "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

I have found value in all sorts of books, and music, and movies, and so on. But the value of The Book of Mormon is, for me, on a vastly different and higher plane than these. That value is, due to both the message and the messages historicity, "remarkable."

Thanks,

-Smac

Based on this criterion, then, the bible is of more value than the D&C, all the conference addresses, the temple, and all the teachings of the restoration, because it is clearly "historic"?

[mfbukowski]

The value must be in the teachings, or any old book is as good as any other.

[Avatar4321]

I see absolutely nothing wrong encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon. It's hard to get people to do sometimes.

[ERayR]

I disagree somewhat... I find some Taoist writings valuable in terms of growth as a person, even though I believe they are only the result of observation of the human condition.

 

I find some of my mechanics utterances valuable in terms of growth as a person but they don't speak to my soul the way the Book of Mormon does.  The Book of Mormon affects me so deeply is precisely because I believe in it completely, including its historicity.  Without that belief it simply becomes "gems for the day" like Taoist writings or my mechanic's little gems. , Some of which are excellent.

[ERayR]

I agree with Thacker's approach personally.  If we are reading the BOM to discover if it is historically true or not instead of for spiritual and personal growth, then we are missing out on the whole purpose and point of the text. 

 

One doesn't read the Book of Mormon to discover if it is historically true you get that as a revelation.

[ERayR]

I see absolutely nothing wrong encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon. It's hard to get people to do sometimes.

 

Agreed and if they are sincere the revelation comes.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I find some of my mechanics utterances valuable in terms of growth as a person but they don't speak to my soul the way the Book of Mormon does.  The Book of Mormon affects me so deeply is precisely because I believe in it completely, including its historicity.  Without that belief it simply becomes "gems for the day" like Taoist writings or my mechanic's little gems. , Some of which are excellent.

 

So you agree with me then.

[rockpond]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58237617-180/book-mormon-challenge-affirmation.html.csp

I find this encouraging. I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity, so Mr. Thacker's approach of reading it "for spiritual and personal growth . . . versus 'Is the book true?'" seems flawed from the outset. But who knows what could happen. I truly hope some good comes of this effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Parables aren't necessarily true historic events but they still teach true principles, right?  That said, I agree that it is tough to find value in the Book of Mormon without believing that the people involved actually exist.  I think that's why translation and historicity issues are such a big deal when it comes to faith crises.

 

ETA:  I think that the Affirmation community consists of people over the entire spectrum of Mormonism... from traditional belief to non-believing "cultural" Mormons.  That's probably why the Affirmation President was discouraging members from focusing on whether or not the Book is true.

Edited July 30, 2014 by rockpond

[smac97]

Based on this criterion, then, the bible is of more value than the D&C, all the conference addresses, the temple, and all the teachings of the restoration, because it is clearly "historic"?

IMO, the Bible's historicity is not as intricately interwoven with its status as scripture as compared to the link between the historicity and the scriptural status of The Book of Mormon. The same goes for the D&C.

That's my view, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

 

So you agree with me then.

 

I agree with smac97.  While I find other utterance valuable they are not remarkably so.

[smac97]

Parables aren't necessarily true historic events but they still teach true principles, right?

Yes, I concede that the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is immaterial to its spiritual value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejected the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.

Can you perhaps agree that historicity is an essential component of some, but not all, facets of Mormonism?

 

That said, I agree that it is tough to find value in the Book of Mormon without believing that the people involved actually exist.  I think that's why translation and historicity issues are such a big deal when it comes to faith crises.

Yep. Without historicity, The Book or Mormon is just another of many well-intentioned, but ultimately unnecessary, texts (unnecessary in an eschatological sense).

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 30, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

I see absolutely nothing wrong encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon. It's hard to get people to do sometimes.

Would you agree with something like this: "I encourage you to read The Bible, only you don't need to concern yourself with its claims regarding the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. You can gain insights from The Bible, but these insights have no more significance than similar precepts to be gained from The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars novelizations. Whether the events described in these texts does not matter one bit."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Can you perhaps agree that historicity is an essential component of some, but not all, facets of Mormonism?

 

Yes.  Absolutely.

 

Yep. Without historicity, The Book or Mormon is just another of many well-intentioned, but ultimately unnecessary, texts (unnecessary in an eschatological sense).

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call it ultimately unnecessary without historicity.  One could still receive a spiritual witness of the principles taught within the book without believing that the characters really existed (or really visited the American continent).

[smac97]

I commend what Affirmation is doing here.  In fact, I felt inspired to join them.  

 

As far as the historicity of the Book of Mormon is concerned, I think some of them believe it is historical and some of them don't.  I personally believe the book is historical.  But the historicity of the book is not the main focus of what they are doing.  The focus is on spiritual and personal growth, and that is something we all could use.  So I say to just be grateful that they are even doing this in the first place - and just leave it at that.

You are probably right. Reading the text and seeking spiritual guidance about it and from it will generally be a valuable exercise, even if a person reads it without reaching a determination as to its historicity. That would, I think, need to come later.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

I think I see what's going on here.

 

Affirmation is starting a subversive campaign to get people to associate daily reading of The Book of Mormon with being "gay".  If they succeed, then everyone who regularly reads The Book of Mormon can be accused of engaging in homosexual behavior.  

 

 Pretty sneaky.

Edited July 30, 2014 by cinepro

[CA Steve]

I do not think that one can compare the historicity of the Bible with that of the Book of Mormon, at least when it comes the LDS church. Many people can accept that parts of the Bible are myths and parts are historically accurate. One does not have to throw out the resurrection of Christ with the story of the flood. In my opinion this is not true about the Book of Mormon. It is either all historical or none of it is. When it comes to the LDS church, in my opinion, the ramifications of an ahistorical  Book of Mormon undermine the claims of the church much more than believing that parts of the Bible are mythical.

[rockpond]

I do not think that one can compare the historicity of the Bible with that of the Book of Mormon, at least when it comes the LDS church. Many people can accept that parts of the Bible are myths and parts are historically accurate. One does not have to throw out the resurrection of Christ with the story of the flood. In my opinion this is not true about the Book of Mormon. It is either all historical or none of it is. When it comes to the LDS church, in my opinion, the ramifications of an ahistorical  Book of Mormon undermine the claims of the church much more than believing that parts of the Bible are mythical.

 

Well, the single sourcing of the Book of Mormon (compiled by Mormon, handed off to Moroni) along with the basic narrative does tend to lead toward a requirement that it is all historical or not at all.  But, it does not mean that a 1,000 year history carved into metal plates by a number of different people must be viewed as historically accurate.

 

I think that if an ahistorical Book of Mormon undermines the claims of the church then it is because we (the church) have created such a dependency.