Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[UtahTexan]

It is not important to know if it is true, though I assume it is. It is just as wrong as questioning the Bible. It is fruitless. When you question are you trying to find a way to get off the hook for your sin? What is your objective?  The more important question is to ask ourselves is: how can I use the lessons taught in both books to more fully please God?

 

One of the things that podcast said that too many Mormons believe that when person questions, it is because they have sinned.....that is simply not true.

 

One can doubt or have a faith crisis for many other reasons than sin.  

[Tacenda]

One of the things that podcast said that too many Mormons believe that when person questions, it is because they have sinned.....that is simply not true.

One can doubt or have a faith crisis for many other reasons than sin.

So true, many just had broken shelves. Not their faults the church had some information that wasn't very apparent that only surfaced since the internet age. How could those doubters be blamed? Now what they do after their shelves break is a different story.

I think religion is all manmade, but God adopts those churches that hit the mark, or those people. And feel the LDS people sure can and do hit the mark.

[Boanerges]

When I returned to church activity after my own faith crisis I used the temple recommend questions as a guide for what made me worthy. This made sense to me since they are the recognized standard of worthiness. Studying the questions and examining my own beliefs I soon realized that nowhere do the questions ask if one believes in the Book of Mormon. Likewise they don't directly ask about Joseph Smith, although it could be argued the question about the restoration is about Joseph Smith. The latter question wasn't a problem - I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, although a flawed individual. I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical record, but I do believe that like the Old Testament it does provide valuable teachings. I don't believe the Old Testament is completely historical or literal, either. That doesn't mean it's not the word of God - the parables of Jesus were also not literal, but they are of value and they are the word of God. The Book or Mormon, Old testament, and parables are all very similar in my mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................  

The Church and the gospel ask more then Socrates ever did.

..................................................  

The Socratic method is to ask hard questions, something which Hugh Nibley noted is generally absent among BYU students.  Of course, he received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of California, where hard questions are de rigeur.

 

Be it noted, however, that the Socratic method got Socrates a death sentence, as it has for many a journalist worldwide in recent years.

[EllenMaksoud]

One of the things that podcast said that too many Mormons believe that when person questions, it is because they have sinned.....that is simply not true.

 

One can doubt or have a faith crisis for many other reasons than sin.  

We need to ask ourselves, "How does my personal psychology influence my belief"? As Westerners, most of us are not aware of valid views in the rest of the world, especially the Middle East. I would be interested to hear from a Jewish scholar how it is that they manage to ignore the heritage of Ishmael, and what they think of him? In my past, the Jews were spoken of as "Gods chosen people", so how is it that they ignore their own brother?

 

I don't have any snotty answers about the BoM. It is as plausible as the Bible. There are also many so called un-cannonized works, some in Mormon theology. Do they have value in a scholarly study? Maybe the most important thing is less how JS lived but how we are inspired to live?  Some of us love to blame our ancestors for our own weaknesses. I rather doubt that God will see that as a serious defense.

[thesometimesaint]

The Book of Mormon is the key stone of our religion. Everything is dependent on JS being a prophet of God giving us that book.

[Boanerges]

The Book of Mormon is the key stone of our religion. Everything is dependent on JS being a prophet of God giving us that book.

This statement is absolutely false. While black and white thinkers would like us all to believe it is true, it is not. Besides, that's not what the question is - the question is does one have to believe the book to be a story of history? Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has nothing to do with that - it could indeed all be a parable (or more correctly a large set of parables) but still be the word of God.

[cinepro]

This statement is absolutely false. While black and white thinkers would like us all to believe it is true, it is not. Besides, that's not what the question is - the question is does one have to believe the book to be a story of history? Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has nothing to do with that - it could indeed all be a parable (or more correctly a large set of parables) but still be the word of God.

 

Sorry, but I agree with smac97, TSS and the others who point out that pretty much every claim made by Joseph Smith and the Church regarding the doctrines, priesthood authority etc. eventually lead back to a literal, historical Book of Mormon.

 

Certainly, you can remain a member of the Church if you have your doubts about the historicity of the BoM, but I suspect if you actually said, in public and repeatedly, that you firmly believed the BoM wasn't "historical", and that Lehi, Nephi, Ammon, Alma and the rest never actually existed, you would face excommunication.

 

The day may come when the Church is more flexible on this issue, but it will take decades of gradual shifts in emphasis and word-redefinitions, far more than what we have seen with the Book of Abraham.

 

Obviously, an ahistorical BoM doesn't mean that Mormons aren't great people (by and large we are), or that the Church has some awesome teachings about honesty and hygiene (we do), or that City Creek isn't a beautiful mall (it is).  But the Church aspires to be far more than that, and claims to be much more than that.  And those aspirations and claims all lead back to a real angel named Moroni, and a real set of plates telling a real story about real people.  Which is pretty much the definition of "historical".

Edited October 13, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

This statement is absolutely false. While black and white thinkers would like us all to believe it is true, it is not. Besides, that's not what the question is - the question is does one have to believe the book to be a story of history? Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has nothing to do with that - it could indeed all be a parable (or more correctly a large set of parables) but still be the word of God.

 

Without JS being a prophet of God he wouldn't have translated those plates. Without the Book of Mormon we're just another Christian sect. Just look what happen to the CoC when they walked away from it.

[Bob Crockett]

Certainly, you can remain a member of the Church if you have your doubts about the historicity of the BoM, but I suspect if you actually said, in public and repeatedly, that you firmly believed the BoM wasn't "historical", and that Lehi, Nephi, Ammon, Alma and the rest never actually existed, you would face excommunication.

 

 I'm not sure about that.  There are several public figures who express the view of an unhistorical Book of Mormon.   

 

Van Hale is the most significant person I know.  Yet he is a dedicated member of the Church as far as I can tell.

 

Bill Reel has said several times on several other boards that the Church should accept people who don't believe in a historical Book of Mormon.   I'm not sure Bill has come out and said that HE doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as history. But, even that isn't significant enough in my view to warrant anything other than a denial of certain callings -- like Gospel Doctrine instructor or instructor of the youth.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

 I'm not sure about that.  There are several public figures who express the view of an unhistorical Book of Mormon.   

 

Van Hale is the most significant person I know.  Yet he is a dedicated member of the Church as far as I can tell.

 

Bill Reel has said several times on several other boards that the Church should accept people who don't believe in a historical Book of Mormon.   I'm not sure Bill has come out and said that HE doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as history. But, even that isn't significant enough in my view to warrant anything other than a denial of certain callings -- like Gospel Doctrine instructor or instructor of the youth.

 

Question #2 of the baptismal question would argue against that.

1. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

[cinepro]

 I'm not sure about that.  There are several public figures who express the view of an unhistorical Book of Mormon.   

 

Van Hale is the most significant person I know.  Yet he is a dedicated member of the Church as far as I can tell.

 

Bill Reel has said several times on several other boards that the Church should accept people who don't believe in a historical Book of Mormon.   I'm not sure Bill has come out and said that HE doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as history. But, even that isn't significant enough in my view to warrant anything other than a denial of certain callings -- like Gospel Doctrine instructor or instructor of the youth.

 

People who have radio shows are exceptions to the rule. But everyone else.

[Bob Crockett]

 

Question #2 of the baptismal question would argue against that.

1. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

 

I think people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical (Van Hale) or who teach others that that is acceptable (Bill Reel) tend to be hair splitters and wouldn't see it that way.

[Ahab]

I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help".

One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough.

It's a good step in the right direction when someone believes something is true WHEN IT IS TRUE, but to believe something is true when it is false is not a good thing, so to avoid being wrong about what we believe we need some way to know the difference about what is true and what isn't.

Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet.

Critical to what, or in what way?

Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain.

That should apply when people have faith, too, I suppose, even when we have faith that somebody is wrong.

All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when.

Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.

Decide for yourself. I prefer to know what is true and what isn't, even though I can enjoy fictional stories.

[UtahTexan]

I loved being a missionary. I loved being LDS.  I lost my testimony and did not believe I could keep my callings.  When I discussed my issues, I was ridiculed and made to feel like I was going to hell.  Mind you, this was 1989, and things may have been different then.

 

I never stopped loving God.

 

I am not sure if I will ever have a testimony in the B of M or that Joseph was a prophet.  But, there is so much I miss and love about being LDS.

 

Am I destined to always be on the fringe looking in?  Should I just finally let go and walk away for good?

 

I have fasted and prayed for years with no answer.  Is no answer, by itself, an answer?

 

i don't know.

 

So, here I sit.  Reading....occasionally commenting, sometimes asking.

 

Meanwhile, I am reading my missionary journal (this is the 30-year anniversary of my mission).  In fact, 30 years ago today, I was still at the MTC.

 

I sure seemed to have a testimony back then......

[Silhouette]

This statement is absolutely false. While black and white thinkers would like us all to believe it is true, it is not. Besides, that's not what the question is - the question is does one have to believe the book to be a story of history? Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has nothing to do with that - it could indeed all be a parable (or more correctly a large set of parables) but still be the word of God.

Regarding your statement that the Book of Mormon is not the keystone of our religion, Ezra Taft Benson says it is, along with many other prominent LDS personages. I Googled: "Why is the Book of Mormon the keystone of our religion," and many sites popped up referencing this statement.

I have been taught this in various classes on many occasions during my years as a member of this Church, including instructors drawing an archway and explaining that the "keystone" is the Book of Mormon. I don't think it comes solely from "black and white thinkers", especially since it has been promoted by a Prophet.

As far as I know, based on what I've been taught all these years, the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our faith is pretty much standard throughout the Church.

[Tacenda]

I loved being a missionary. I loved being LDS. I lost my testimony and did not believe I could keep my callings. When I discussed my issues, I was ridiculed and made to feel like I was going to hell. Mind you, this was 1989, and things may have been different then.

I never stopped loving God.

I am not sure if I will ever have a testimony in the B of M or that Joseph was a prophet. But, there is so much I miss and love about being LDS.

Am I destined to always be on the fringe looking in? Should I just finally let go and walk away for good?

I have fasted and prayed for years with no answer. Is no answer, by itself, an answer?

i don't know.

So, here I sit. Reading....occasionally commenting, sometimes asking.

Meanwhile, I am reading my missionary journal (this is the 30-year anniversary of my mission). In fact, 30 years ago today, I was still at the MTC.

I sure seemed to have a testimony back then......

You are not alone CB, there are thousands like you, and many more that aren't vocal at all about it I'm sure, they are the ones I worry the most about. But there is something to this religion that keeps a lot of us in. And that something will hopefully become clearer with each passing day, month or year.

[Boanerges]

Regarding your statement that the Book of Mormon is not the keystone of our religion, Ezra Taft Benson says it is, along with many other prominent LDS personages. I Googled: "Why is the Book of Mormon the keystone of our religion," and many sites popped up referencing this statement.

I have been taught this in various classes on many occasions during my years as a member of this Church, including instructors drawing an archway and explaining that the "keystone" is the Book of Mormon. I don't think it comes solely from "black and white thinkers", especially since it has been promoted by a Prophet.

As far as I know, based on what I've been taught all these years, the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our faith is pretty much standard throughout the Church.

So because this is what you've been taught all your life means ti's absolutely true and no one can be a true believing, active temple recommend holder without believing the Book of Mormon? That's where it falls apart, because such is possible. I'm not saying it's not central to the religion and it is part of what sets us apart from the rest of Christianity, and in that sense it is a keystone. It is not necessarily a keystone to faith, belief in Christ, or entering heaven or exaltation.

 

By the way I thought your statement "I Googled it" was pretty funny!

[Ahab]

I loved being a missionary. I loved being LDS. I lost my testimony and did not believe I could keep my callings. When I discussed my issues, I was ridiculed and made to feel like I was going to hell. Mind you, this was 1989, and things may have been different then.

I never stopped loving God.

I am not sure if I will ever have a testimony in the B of M or that Joseph was a prophet. But, there is so much I miss and love about being LDS.

Am I destined to always be on the fringe looking in? Should I just finally let go and walk away for good?

I have fasted and prayed for years with no answer. Is no answer, by itself, an answer?

i don't know.

So, here I sit. Reading....occasionally commenting, sometimes asking.

Meanwhile, I am reading my missionary journal (this is the 30-year anniversary of my mission). In fact, 30 years ago today, I was still at the MTC.

I sure seemed to have a testimony back then......

Sounds to me like one thing should be obvious to you. What you need is an assurance from God, which in religious vernacular is what we refer to as faith. Not convincing yourself, but relying on the assurances he can give you.

Do you believe you or someone else can get faith from God? If you believe it is possible, that's one baby step that will help you to get it Like the apostle Paul wrote about or had someone else write for him in Hebrews chapter 11, God does reward those who diligently seek him by giving them a testimony through faith.

Maybe what you should be reading right now is a lot more scripture instead of some of the posts on this message board.

[Silhouette]

So because this is what you've been taught all your life means ti's absolutely true and no one can be a true believing, active temple recommend holder without believing the Book of Mormon? That's where it falls apart, because such is possible. I'm not saying it's not central to the religion and it is part of what sets us apart from the rest of Christianity, and in that sense it is a keystone. It is not necessarily a keystone to faith, belief in Christ, or entering heaven or exaltation.

By the way I thought your statement "I Googled it" was pretty funny!

Well, I Googled it before responding because I wanted to make sure I got my facts straight

[WysteriaBlue]

Hugs to you Country Boy...

I'm so glad you didn't lose your faith in God completely nor forget the loving comfort and mercy of connection.

I'm glad you are here and asking and listening and searching honestly for faith and commitment and compassion.

Good luck,

wb

[Kevin Christensen]

I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions".  The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help".

 

One of the points was that it is not important to "know".  "Belief" is good enough.

Look at Alma 32 and his interesting contrast between those who want to "know" and those who based their faith on "cause to believe." Alma clearly favors "cause to believe."

 

Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet.

I wrote about this at length a while back. "Determining What is Real?"

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/139-66-70.pdf

 

Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain.

Last year I reviewed a rather tedious and dense volume called "Deconstructing Mormonism" in which the author claimed that the very existence of Mormons caused him pain. We can't please everyone, nor can we validate every position as equally true and relevant.

What we believe is real binds us in ways that metaphors and symbols don't. And what is binding about metaphors and symbols is how well they point to what is real.

 

All 15 points were really good.  Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when.

 

Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him?  I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.

I've had some discussions with Bill over the years, including an interview last year, and earlier some exchanges during his crisis of faith, some of which he later told me were helpful.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited October 14, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[UtahTexan]

Sounds to me like one thing should be obvious to you. What you need is an assurance from God, which in religious vernacular is what we refer to as faith. Not convincing yourself, but relying on the assurances he can give you.

Do you believe you or someone else can get faith from God? If you believe it is possible, that's one baby step that will help you to get it Like the apostle Paul wrote about or had someone else write for him in Hebrews chapter 11, God does reward those who diligently seek him by giving them a testimony through faith.

Maybe what you should be reading right now is a lot more scripture instead of some of the posts on this message board.

 

First, I have a TON of faith.  In God.  What I do NOT have is faith is Joseph.  I have no testimony in Joseph.  I have unlimited Testimony of God.

 

As to your comment about me reading the Scripture.  I read the Bible daily.  Sometimes more than one a day.  I study.  I pray.  Your comment seemed a tad presumptuous.

 

Just sayin

[UtahTexan]

Look at Alma 32 and his interesting contrast between those who want to "know" and those who based their faith on "cause to believe." Alma clearly favors "cause to believe."

I wrote about this at length a while back. "Determining What is Real?"

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/139-66-70.pdf

 

Last year I reviewed a rather tedious and dense volume called "Deconstructing Mormonism" in which the author claimed that the very existence of Mormons caused him pain. We can't please everyone, nor can we validate every position as equally true and relevant.

What we believe is real binds us in ways that metaphors and symbols don't. And what is binding about metaphors and symbols is how well they point to what is real.

I've had some discussions with Bill over the years, including and interview last year, and earlier some exchanges during his crisis of faith, some of which he later told me were helpful.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

FWIW?

 

I will read the link, thank you

[Tacenda]

First, I have a TON of faith.  In God.  What I do NOT have is faith is Joseph.  I have no testimony in Joseph.  I have unlimited Testimony of God.

 

As to your comment about me reading the Scripture.  I read the Bible daily.  Sometimes more than one a day.  I study.  I pray.  Your comment seemed a tad presumptuous.

 

Just sayin

Have you listened to the latest Mormon Discussions Podcast Fiona and Terryl Givens?  In it they mention a quote by Brigham Young where before he'd even met Joseph Smith, he said that it didn't matter what kind of man Joseph was, he could be a womanizer (my words, can't remember the exact words), etc. and it wouldn't matter.  What matters is if the message he brought to the world was of God.  Thought that might help, it sure helped me.  Just listened for the first time just now on a walk.  Boy, I'm so impressed with those that help those like us.  They are indeed a Godsend! 

 

ETA:  Also, Bill Reel, aka DBMormon mentioned he still believed the Book of Mormon was historical.  Maybe this has been mentioned already, but wanted to share. 

Edited October 13, 2014 by Tacenda