Ahab Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 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 sayinDeleted. Way too person, Ahab.
The Nehor Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 If one accepts the "Book of Mormon as parable" argument then the whole house of the church collapses. If a prophet transmitting scripture does not know whether what he is giving is a parable or not then nothing is sure. The Doctrine and Covenants could be simple advice given by a hypothetical God like Screwtape advising his nephew. When Jesus told the parable of the sheep and the goats how do we know that he did not mean that we literally should be studying genetic engineering and ways to shift species into sheep to avoid a Pinocchio style transformation into a goat for tossing into hell. If prophets unknowingly speak parables is Tithing not just really a giving of a tenth of your time to a higher cause of your choice? Isn't temple worship just a metaphor for realizing our place in the world without any truth in it? Isn't the law of chastity just advice that should be followed in spirit but not to the letter? Isn't the atonement and repentance just picture images to help us forgive ourselves and find peace with no eternal reward or punishment which only represent our own emotional state? You may have a collection of advice, parables, and philosophies (that would make a Scientologist blush) but you probably don't have a religion at that point and even if you do it is not one I would devote myself to. I might give mild approval to the principles behind it but I wouldn't cross the plains in a handcart for it, give up two years of my life for it, or dedicate my time and efforts to living it totally if that was what I believed was reality. 1
UtahTexan Posted October 14, 2014 Author Posted October 14, 2014 I'll try to be a little more clear. What you need is faith FROM God about all that he has done and said through Joseph. God actually put his stamp of approval, so to speak, on a WHOLE LOT that Joseph did, actually telling him what to do while revealing things to him that he (God) expects us to accept.The Bible is not enough, and your faith in God is not enough either. You're way behind the curve and you need to catch up to what you should already know by now. ok...this is one of the reasons I have stayed away. if I do not believe like you believe, then I do not have enough faith. Well..hogwash. I likely have more faith than you do. But I will not quibble. DBMormon is right. Your approach is all wrong to someone struggling. Thank you 2
Garden Girl Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) The Bible is not enough, and your faith in God is not enough either. You're way behind the curve and you need to catch up to what you should already know by now. Hello CountryBoy...I find it incredible that Ahab thinks himself able to judge your faith in God... Talk about presumptuous... And his comment about you being way behind the curve... and how you need to catch up is not only judgmental, but arrogantly so... What I want to do is pass along some links that were given to me by Don Bradley... the only trouble is I don't know how to post a "link" so I will just have to type out the link... If anyone can convert these to links using these... Kevin?... I'd appreciate help... An audio of Don's talk... "Pillars of My Faith" = https://www.sunstone...-my-faith-2012/ A FAIR podcast... = http://blog.fairmormon...-of-faith-pt-1/ Well... these "look" like links... hope they are... let me know if they're not and maybe someone can help me... GG Edited October 14, 2014 by Garden Girl 2
The Nehor Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) I have unlimited Testimony of God. Then angels should be ministering to you regularly by now. Ask one of them about Joseph Smith and get the whole thing cleared up. You're way behind the curve and you need to catch up to what you should already know by now. And to make sure I offend both sides: The race is not to the swift. Edited October 14, 2014 by The Nehor
Calm Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Hello CountryBoy...I find it incredible that Ahab thinks himself able to judge your faith in God... Talk about presumptuous... And his comment about you being way behind the curve... and how you need to catch up is not only judgmental, but arrogantly so... What I want to do is pass along some links that were given to me by Don Bradley... the only trouble is I don't know how to post a "link" so I will just have to type out the link... If anyone can convert these to links using these... Kevin?... I'd appreciate help... An audio of Don's talk... "Pillars of My Faith" = https://www.sunstone...-my-faith-2012/ A FAIR podcast... = http://blog.fairmormon...-of-faith-pt-1/ Well... these "look" like links... hope they are... let me know if they're not and maybe someone can help me... GG Try these: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/Pillars_Bradley.mp3 http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith need more info on your second if I didn't get it right add-on: I am thinking this one... http://blog.fairmormon.org/2012/11/28/keeping-the-faith-5a-don-bradley-seeing-with-an-eye-of-faith-pt-1/ Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah
Garden Girl Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Thanks Cal...I was trying to provide a link to Don's audio talk... "Pillars of my Faith" The link he gave me is just like I typed it... (the first one),,,The second one I listed matches the blog one you cited.... GG EDIT to Add for Country Boy... I hope you'll try these links... Edited October 14, 2014 by Garden Girl
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 There's no way Joseph Smith could make everything in the Book of Mormon up on his own. Who could make that up at his age in the 1800s with his education level. I firmly believe he was influenced in his works. No way is he that good of a con man.
Calm Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Try this one if you can't see the audio embedded, if this works it goes to a page with a link to the audio:https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pillars-of-my-faith-2012/
Kevin Christensen Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 FWIW? I will read the link, thank you FWIW is For What It's Worth. Best, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA
smac97 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 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. Hmm. I've never thought of a person's position vis-à-vis the historicity of The Book of Mormon being tied to that person's "worthiness." I suppose that the two are related to some extent. 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. I don't think that's right. Question No. 3 states: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?" I don't see how a person can honestly answer that question in the affirmative while rejecting The Book of Mormon. Question No. 7 is also potentially relevant: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" The teachings of the Church regarding The Book of Mormon are, I think, firmly entrenched in it having historicity. So I think that to reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon is to adhere to "teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Likewise they don't directly ask about Joseph Smith, although it could be argued the question about the restoration is about Joseph Smith. I think it would be dissembling to profess belief in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as espoused by the LDS Church while also rejecting the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the central claims of The Book of Mormon (that it is an actual history of actual people and events, actual prophets, an actual visitation by Jesus Christ, etc.). The latter question wasn't a problem - I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, although a flawed individual. Yep. But then, so was Abraham, Noah, Moses, and all the rest. 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. Okay. I cannot square this approach to The Book of Mormon (any more than I could accommodate a belief in Jesus Christ which includes a rejection of Him as an actual being), but I suppose there are those who can. I don't believe the Old Testament is completely historical or literal, either. The question of historicity is not one that requires dealing with absolutist thinking ("completely historical"). 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. So The Book of Mormon can lie about itself, yet still be "the word of God?" Joseph Smith can lie about it, can fabricate plates to dupe so-called "witnesses," etc., and yet it can still be "the word of God?" Rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon is, to me, not compatible with accepting the text as inspired. I think Kent P. Jackson put it well: "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?" Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 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. It's a paraphrase of Joseph Smith: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” History of the Church, 4:461; from instructions given by Joseph Smith on Nov. 28, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.It's also a paraphrase of Gordon B. Hinckley:“Our whole strength rests on the validity of [the first vision]. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud… upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, Oct. 2002)"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, April 2003)It's also a paraphrase of Ezra Taft Benson, as quoted by Jeffrey R. Holland:"Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, 'The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."'Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior' (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19)."To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a 'sudden death' proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=engIt's also a paraphrase of Joseph Fielding Smith:"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. ... If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made ...the Church stands or falls with Joseph Smith."Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:188http://books.google.com/books?id=jSMsAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mormonism While black and white thinkers would like us all to believe it is true, it is not."It" being the necessity of Joseph Smith's prophetic status? Yes, that must be true. It must be. Besides, that's not what the question is - the question is does one have to believe the book to be a story of history?One may as well as "Does one have to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed?"The answer to both questions is, I think, unavoidably "Yes." Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has nothing to do with thatWhether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has everything to do with his prophetic claims about The Book of Mormon. - it could indeed all be a parable (or more correctly a large set of parables) but still be the word of God.No, it couldn't. Kent P. Jackson addresses this issue and hits it out of the park:"What credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical? ... 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?"Thanks,-Smac 1
smac97 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 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? I cannot and will not speak for the Church, or for anyone not within my stewardship. But as to those within my stewardship, I would say "No, you cannot be a true believing, active temple recommend holder without believing The Book of Mormon." It is the keystone of faith in the Restored Gospel, the sine qua non of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. To reject it is to reject what it teaches and implicates about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration, the priesthood, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his successors, the nature of the LDS Church, and so on. That's where it falls apart, because such is possible. Reasonable minds will have to disagree about that, I suppose. Thanks, -Smac 1
BlueDreams Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) 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. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. 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. This has probably been covered, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents as well. I do think belief in the 2 are necessary and that not believing the book is at least semi-historical (if LDS) is difficult to maintain because it reads and presents itself as a people that were actually living somewhere. I don't think it's necessary to believe that everything that happened in the book is 100% accurate or that our understanding of it is either. Mormon and moroni both stated otherwise....that there could be faults. Likewise a belief in JS as a prophet is necessary, though believing that everything he did was 100% right isn't necessary either. I'd also say that having a faith in them doesn't have to be so profound and linear. For me at least both took time to foster. The Book of Mormon came more from my second read than my first....and I don't think it was really about it being historical. I did pray about it at the end, but it was more like a response that would be difficult today for me to separate out as recognizing my own conclusion and an answer from God. It was true because it fed goodness into my heart. And it became more true because I saw the power of it to do the same in a unique and powerful way for others. It was later that I had faith in a number of the events that happened in it. JS was another story. My faith that he was a prophet was not not something I really had until I went on a mission. It was the logical conclusion of all the other things I did have faith in: I believe in degrees of heaven, my patriarchal blessing, the book of mormon, prayer, the temple, prophets and apostles, etc. Because a lot of these were mormon specific it made sense that its source was from a true start. To this day I don't think I have a burning knowledge or anything about him. But his life makes more sense to me if he wasn't an outright fraud and that he sincerely believed what was happening to him was of God. It doesn't mean that everything that he ever said on a religious facet is true. But that in aggregate it is. So for me, I feel I have a strong faith and knowledge of the whole, but the nitty-gritty is up for question, scrutiny, and further "light and truth." We are a faith built, after all, on uncertainty and wanting more understanding of God. So I figure I'm just following one of our core principles . I hope that answered your question.With luv,BD Edited October 14, 2014 by BlueDreams 1
DonBradley Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 While I hold that there were actual ancient Nephites, I think it's quite possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint without believing there were ancient Nephites. I believe Elder Holland has recently commented to the effect that we accept members of the church who don't accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon--that there is room for them. One can argue that it's illogical to disbelieve in ancient Nephites and yet accept the Restoration--that it's either/or: "Either the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the Restoration is false." But what pressing a dichotomy like this does is tries to argue people into accepting ancient Nephites at the possible cost of arguing them out of belief in the Restoration altogether. How is this worth it??? Why would it be so important to have people accept the historical Nephi that we'd want to argue those who don't or feel they can't accept him into rejecting the restored Gospel? I just can't see any value in such an approach. It puts what matters most at the mercy of what matters least. Don 3
bcuzbcuz Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 A few more thoughts: 1. For those who disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon (or who believe it is dismissable), I ask this:Elder Oaks apparently thinks so: "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."So can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.2. Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But they are not "essential" at all. Plenty of people get by just fine without them. All of us will end up in the Kingdom of God, or not, without any regard to these books. But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view: A person in the Rejecting Historicity Camp must state that there was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. So Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary.Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon.No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions.More lies. There were no Lamanites.More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets.From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy."Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up.You get the idea. Reading the Title Page and trying to reconcile it with the I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view is an exercise in futility. It cannot be done. If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then one cannot proceed to affirm the most important of its never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, "that Christ visited the Americas."Thanks,-SmacGood points, excellent, in fact. I reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For clarification, see the above. 1
smac97 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) While I hold that there were actual ancient Nephites, I think it's quite possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint without believing there were ancient Nephites.If by "faithful" you mean "active," then I agree with you.If by "faithful" you mean having a viable, enduring, meaningful belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church, then I do not agree. A person can be active in the LDS Church and yet reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, such activity, such "faith," is not faith in what Jesus Christ claimed Himself to be, but rather faith that He was a good guy, that He taught some nice, useful moral axioms. But that puts Jesus Christ on par with Confucius, Sun Tzu, Anthony Robbins, Stephen Covey, Dale Carnegie, and all any number of people with good ideas and encouraging rhetoric. Helpful in a generalized, feel-good sort of way, but nothing like the Savior of the World.So it is with the idea of being "a faithful Latter-day Saint" while rejecting The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, and what all of Joseph's successors have claimed it to be. The Book of Mormon has some nice things to say, but it does nothing like what it claims: "To the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."Faith in Jesus Christ while rejecting His divinity is empty and ultimately meaningless (unless, of course, it is an interim step on the way toward faith in Him as the Son of God).Faith in The Book of Mormon while rejecting its central claims about itself, rejecting Joseph Smith's claims about it, and rejecting the claims of Joseph's successors about it, is also empty and meaningless (unless it is an interim step toward faith in The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be). I believe Elder Holland has recently commented to the effect that we accept members of the church who don't accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon--that there is room for them.I agree. We are hopefully all working toward the same process described in D&C 50:24: "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."So we can and should accept people who have a flawed perspective on Jesus Christ, but who remain active in the Church and strive to become better people. With time, hopefully they will develop a testimony that Jesus Christ is more than an ancient self-help guru, and that the Church is more than a social club. We should also accept people who have a flawed perspective on The Book of Mormon. Hopefully they too will accept it for what it claims to be.However, I think fellowship cannot continue where a person evangelizes these false perspectives. I do not think that a Latter-day Saint can advocate to others that they can/should reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and still remain in good standing in the Church. I also do not think that a Latter-day Saint can advocate the rejection of the claims of The Book of Mormon, and the concomitant implicated accusations of profound fraud and deceit against Joseph Smith and all of his successors, and still remain in good standing in the Church. One can argue that it's illogical to disbelieve in ancient Nephites and yet accept the Restoration--that it's either/or: "Either the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the Restoration is false." But what pressing a dichotomy like this does is tries to argue people into accepting ancient Nephites at the possible cost of arguing them out of belief in the Restoration altogether. How is this worth it???Yes, I can envision this approach as being too extreme and unnecessarily harsh. But the extreme at the other end of the spectrum is similarly unworkable: An extreme where we tell people that it's feasible to accept the Restored Gospel while rejecting its fundamental truth claims. Such an extreme trivializes the Gospel, strips it of its power, reduces it to a collection of philosophies which are nor more or less useful or valid than any other of the thousands of life philosophies out there.So we're left with advocating something in between these two extremes. Why would it be so important to have people accept the historical Nephi that we'd want to argue those who don't or feel they can't accept him into rejecting the restored Gospel?For the same reason that it is important to have people accept the historical Jesus. Elder Oaks put it well: "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."Acceptance of the Gospel must be based on truth, not lies and deceit. Accepting the Gospel while calling Joseph Smith a fraud and charlatan, and calling the text he claimed to translate from an ancient source a fabrication and a humbug, is no acceptance at all. It is dissembling. It is dishonest. It is a lie. We must accept Jesus Christ for what He claimed to be: the Son of God. We must also accept The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and his successors have claimed it to be. I can accept that these requirements may be met through incremental measures and progress. But we cannot say to ourselves and to our fellow Saints that these requirements need not be met at all. I just can't see any value in such an approach. It puts what matters most at the mercy of what matters least.I see nothing more important than Jesus Christ. That is what matters most. Again, 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."Thanks,-Smac Edited October 14, 2014 by smac97
ERayR Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 While I hold that there were actual ancient Nephites, I think it's quite possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint without believing there were ancient Nephites. I believe Elder Holland has recently commented to the effect that we accept members of the church who don't accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon--that there is room for them. One can argue that it's illogical to disbelieve in ancient Nephites and yet accept the Restoration--that it's either/or: "Either the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the Restoration is false." But what pressing a dichotomy like this does is tries to argue people into accepting ancient Nephites at the possible cost of arguing them out of belief in the Restoration altogether. How is this worth it??? Why would it be so important to have people accept the historical Nephi that we'd want to argue those who don't or feel they can't accept him into rejecting the restored Gospel? I just can't see any value in such an approach. It puts what matters most at the mercy of what matters least. Don My question is: How can one use its precepts as a basis for life directing decisions if it is based on a fairy tale?
Tacenda Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 While I hold that there were actual ancient Nephites, I think it's quite possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint without believing there were ancient Nephites.I believe Elder Holland has recently commented to the effect that we accept members of the church who don't accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon--that there is room for them.One can argue that it's illogical to disbelieve in ancient Nephites and yet accept the Restoration--that it's either/or: "Either the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the Restoration is false." But what pressing a dichotomy like this does is tries to argue people into accepting ancient Nephites at the possible cost of arguing them out of belief in the Restoration altogether. How is this worth it??? Why would it be so important to have people accept the historical Nephi that we'd want to argue those who don't or feel they can't accept him into rejecting the restored Gospel? I just can't see any value in such an approach. It puts what matters most at the mercy of what matters least.DonIf one believes in Fowler's stages of faith, I believe those that say it has to be historically correct or the highway, may be stuck in stage 3.
smac97 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 If one believes in Fowler's stages of faith, I believe those that say it has to be historically correct or the highway, may be stuck in stage 3. Funny, I would say that it's sort of a reverse of stage 3 for those who take the historicity-is-irrelevant approach to The Book of Mormon. Stage 3 is: "'Synthetic-Conventional' faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood) characterized by conformity to religious authority and the development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies." Those who take the historicity-is-irrelevant approach to The Book of Mormon are, I think, overly concerned about "conformity," except not with religious authority, but with popular opinion. The Book of Mormon and its claims for itself are ... embarrassing for some. Rather that endure the ridicule that may come from accepting The Book of Mormon for what it is, these people choose to sidestep that ridicule by re-defining The Book of Mormon into something more palatable, more vanilla, more mundane. Thanks, -Smac
HappyJackWagon Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) 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! Absolutely. You may be playing ecclesiastical roulette but I've been completely honest with the SP in stating I don't know that the BoM is historical. His follow up question was, "do you find falue in the principles taught in the BoM?" I said yes, and he had no problem renewing my TR. So in my case I am able to find value in some of the teachings while not believing in a literal, historical context for the BoM yet still be considered "worthy" to attend the temple, hold callings etc. This is being "faithful" not merely "active." One can choose to be faithful in practice but that same person may/will not have the ability to choose his beliefs. This thread is a good example of how members often draw lines in the sand where the church has not. We become like the pharisees when we do this. Faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement is required for Salvation. Having faith in Joseph Smith or the BoM is not. Faith in Christ is essential and is true religion. Everything else is merely an appendage. Edited October 14, 2014 by HappyJackWagon 1
Kevin Christensen Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Notice that in Alma 32, Alma tells his listeners that if they can give heed to no more than a portion of his words, with a desire to believe as the grounds for beginning the experiment, that is good enough to start. Notice that he not only encourages them to start with a portion, but that he also leaves it to them to select. This is not an "all or nothing," or "my way or the highway" approach. Historicity matters to me personally because of two key portions. First, as I have mentioned, what is real is more binding than what is airily beautiful. And second, as I have written elsewhere, we contextualize a historical Book of Mormon very differently than we contextualize a fiction, inspired or otherwise. The way we contextualize can radically change what we read and therefore understand, and consequently, in some cases, what we subsequently do. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 4
ERayR Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Absolutely. You may be playing ecclesiastical roulette but I've been completely honest with the SP in stating I don't know that the BoM is historical. His follow up question was, "do you find falue in the principles taught in the BoM?" I said yes, and he had no problem renewing my TR. Using that logic I can accept the "Dune" series as scripture. So in my case I am able to find value in some of the teachings while not believing in a literal, historical context for the BoM yet still be considered "worthy" to attend the temple, hold callings etc. This is being "faithful" not merely "active." See above One can choose to be faithful in practice but that same person may/will not have the ability to choose his beliefs. One always has a choice. This thread is a good example of how members often draw lines in the sand where the church has not. We become like the pharisees when we do this. Only if one believes they have the right to dictate others beliefs. That does not validate either one. Faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement is required for Salvation. Having faith in Joseph Smith or the BoM is not. Faith in Christ is essential and is true religion. Everything else is merely an appendage. Faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ is essential but haow can you have any faith in the temple ordinances without having any faith in the word of the person through which they were revealed?
Boanerges Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) I don't think that's right. Question No. 3 states: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?" I don't see how a person can honestly answer that question in the affirmative while rejecting The Book of Mormon. I do indeed have a testimopny that Joseph Smith did see Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as he describes, and I do believe the fullness of the gospel was restored through him in this dispensation, just as it has been restored in prior dispensations. That has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.Question No. 7 is also potentially relevant: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" The teachings of the Church regarding The Book of Mormon are, I think, firmly entrenched in it having historicity. So I think that to reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon is to adhere to "teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I do not support, affliate with, or agree any group or individual whose teachings or practices are conrary to or oppses those accepted by the CoJCoLDS. Participating here, and on another forum (stayLDS) is as close as I come. (My stake president is fully aware of my stance on the Book of Mormon, I hold a temple recommend and a stake calling that requires a TR.)I think it would be dissembling to profess belief in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as espoused by the LDS Church while also rejecting the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the central claims of The Book of Mormon (that it is an actual history of actual people and events, actual prophets, an actual visitation by Jesus Christ, etc.). Adressed aboveYep. But then, so was Abraham, Noah, Moses, and all the rest. My point exactly.Okay. I cannot square this approach to The Book of Mormon (any more than I could accommodate a belief in Jesus Christ which includes a rejection of Him as an actual being), but I suppose there are those who can. Yes, there are those who can do this. I am not alone.The question of historicity is not one that requires dealing with absolutist thinking ("completely historical"). True. I can, for instance, believe that Jonah was an actual prophet who resisted following the Lord's commandment. There's a great moral to the story. I do not believe he lived in a fish for three days, that part is figurative. He could have been on the boat, jumped off, etc., I don't know (and don't care). The moral of the story is the same whether it is all literal, partly literal, or not literal at all.So The Book of Mormon can lie about itself, yet still be "the word of God?" Joseph Smith can lie about it, can fabricate plates to dupe so-called "witnesses," etc., and yet it can still be "the word of God?" The inspired introduction tells us any mistakes are the mistakes of men. I can buy that and find it completely compatible with my point of view. FWIW, I don't think Joseph purposely lied or led anyone astray, but I'm not sure that in modern times we have the same view he did.Rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon is, to me, not compatible with accepting the text as inspired. I think Kent P. Jackson put it well: "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?" I'm sorry that you cannot accept another point of view. Our testimoies differ (as do those of all people) and I'm good with where I'm at. Jospeh Smith was a prophet, Thomas Monson is a prophet, Jesus is the Christ and our Savior and Redeemer, and above everything else I need to love God and love my neighbor. There's more, but I think I get the basic doctrines of the church and have a testimony of them, my judges in Israel seem to agree, and frankly it doesn't matter what you think.Thanks,-Smac Edited October 14, 2014 by Boanerges
Boanerges Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 It's a paraphrase of Joseph Smith: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” History of the Church, 4:461; from instructions given by Joseph Smith on Nov. 28, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.It's also a paraphrase of Gordon B. Hinckley:“Our whole strength rests on the validity of [the first vision]. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud… upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, Oct. 2002)"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, April 2003)It's also a paraphrase of Ezra Taft Benson, as quoted by Jeffrey R. Holland:"Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, 'The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."'Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior' (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19)."To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a 'sudden death' proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=engIt's also a paraphrase of Joseph Fielding Smith:"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. ... If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made ...the Church stands or falls with Joseph Smith."Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:188http://books.google.com/books?id=jSMsAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mormonism "It" being the necessity of Joseph Smith's prophetic status? Yes, that must be true. It must be. One may as well as "Does one have to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed?"The answer to both questions is, I think, unavoidably "Yes." Whether or not Joseph Smith was inspired has everything to do with his prophetic claims about The Book of Mormon. No, it couldn't. Kent P. Jackson addresses this issue and hits it out of the park:"What credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical? ... 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?"Thanks,-SmacI appreciate your point of view. I am here to say that it is not the only point of view.
Recommended Posts