Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[Boanerges]

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.

 Good point, I'm certainly a stage 5, and such would explain why others may not be able to see things from my point of view (while yet others can).

[Boanerges]

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.

 

This is absolutely correct. I read Christ saying we must believe in him and be baptized. While the appendages are not bad by any means, they also only support the main point. It is far too easy to become like the scribes, cheif priests and Pharisees if we lose focus on the central theme - that Jesus is the Christ.

[smac97]

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."

It is not within our province to make a judgment on this point. It is your SP's call.

I note, however, that on the one hand you say that you "don't know that the BoM is historical," that this is what you told your stake president, and that this is you being "completely honest" on this issue. But in the very next sentence you move well beyond the claim that you "don't know that the BoM is historical" to declaring that you are "not believing in a literal, historical context for the BoM."

I think there are big differences between "I don't know that the BoM is historical" and "I do not believe in a literal, historical context for the BoM."

 

One can choose to be faithful in practice but that same person may/will not have the ability to choose his beliefs.

I disagree. Belief is a matter of choice. We are not compelled to believe or disbelieve.

 

I agree, however, that a person can choose to be faithful in practice while still working on one's testimony.  That's what we are all doing.  But if we have damned up our testimony with a rejection of essential doctrines (such as rejecting The Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his successors) . . . well, we'd have work to do.

 

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.

The pharisees argued about trivialities. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not a triviality. The prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and all of his successors is a not a triviality.  The testimony of God Himself about the plates is not a triviality.  In the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, we read:

That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, 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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things.

The historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought requires nothing less than a rejection of the Three Witnesses, a rejection of their testimony about the plates, an angelic visitation, and even the very voice of God testifying about those plates being "a record of the people of Nephi . . . the Lamanites . . . (and) the people of Jared."

 

The historicity of The Book of Mormon is not a pharisaical nitpick, not when it has been testified to by God himself.

 

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.

You are paraphrasing Joseph Smith here, right? He said this: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

Let's break that down a bit:

1. Joseph Smith pronounced the principle you are declaring. The same Joseph Smith which, according to the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought, is a fraud and a charlatan. I obviously can't speak for you, but I cannot reconcile A) relying on one statement from Joseph Smith to B) sustain a position that discredits and undermines the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

2. Joseph Smith said "“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets..."  Joseph Smith testified of The Book of Mormon as a translation of a historical, ancient text, a testimony which is necessarily rejected by the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought.  Joseph Smith was not referring solely to Jesus Christ, but to "the testimony of the Apostles and prophets" concerning Jesus Christ.  Joseph Smith viewed as a unified whole what you are trying to divide: Belief in Jesus Christ and prophetic/apostolic testimonies by which we learn of Jesus Christ.  

 

3. I do not think we can splice and dice belief in this way.  We cannot claim belief in the Restored Gospel while rejecting the very prophet through whom it was given.  The historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought requires not only a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, but also a rejection of Joseph Smith for what he claimed to be.

 

4. If the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought can be deployed to gut the Restored Gospel of its essential truth claims, then wouldn't it also be deployed to undermine the essential truth claims of Jesus Christ and His Atonement?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited October 14, 2014 by smac97

[ERayR]

 Good point, I'm certainly a stage 5, and such would explain why others may not be able to see things from my point of view (while yet others can).

 

I appreciate your point of view. I am here to say that it is not the only point of view.

[CV75]

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.

Belief is good enough for now, but as Alma 32 teaches, we can hope or expect it to grow into knowledge (spiritual knowledge).

 

Since people understand history and prophets differently, we can start with believing (or “no more than desire to believe”) that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are (whatever we think they are or aren’t), what the Lord wants them to be—this is part of remembering “how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men” and the beginning of spiritual knowledge According to Moroni 10:3.

 

Without having seen the podcast, I’ve simply tried to answer your other questions.

[smac97]

I appreciate your point of view. I am here to say that it is not the only point of view.

 

I recognize that.  There is the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM point of view, and then there is the other one.  But simply stating that there are multiple points of view on a subject does nothing to bolster the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM point of view.

 

But let me be clear: I am not condemning those who hold this view (though I would likely be very critical of those who evangelize this point of view to others).  I hope we are all on a journey of faith together.  I have expressed my views and my defense of the historicity of The Book of Mormon and the importance of that historicity.  I recognize that others have an alternative point of view.  I have not seen it well-defended, or even defended or explained much at all.  But I hope those who currently adhere to it will continue in studying The Book of Mormon.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

 

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 above

Yep. 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

 

 

> 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.

 

I won't speak to your testimony.  I was not referring to you when I said "I don't see how a person can honestly answer that question (no. 3 in the TR interview) in the affirmative while rejecting The Book of Mormon."  I was speaking generally about people who reject The Book of Mormon.  That said, I disagree that "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days" has - as you put it - "nothing to do with the Book of Mormon."

 

> 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.)

 

Again, I was not referring to you.  For myself, I could reconcile a rejection of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon with a belief in the Restored Gospel revealed *through* Joseph Smith, and the fulness of which is in The Book of Mormon.  That's my point of view.

 

> 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.

 

I do not subscribe to an all-or-nothing approach to historicity.  Some portions of the Bible are or may be figurative.  But this approach breaks down when you come to the Big Questions.  We cannot be dismissive of the historicity of Jesus Christ.  The moral of *his* story is *not* the same if it is fictional.

 

> 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.

 

The Title Page to The Book of Mormon, which you are suggesting written by Joseph Smith or one of his collaborators and fraudulently passed off as an ancient writing, is "inspired?"

 

The "mistakes of men" in The Book of Mormon reference not the mistakes of the fictional people referenced in the text, but instead reference . . . what?  The mistakes of Joseph Smith?

 

Joseph did not lie?  So when he reported an angelic visitation of a resurrected Nephite named Moroni - a person you are suggesting never existed - was Joseph Smith deluded/insane?

 

Joseph did not lead "anyone astray?"  He showed others the gold plates - plates which either nonexistent or were a fraud - and told others that they were an ancient record.  If he was not lying or leading people astray when he was doing this, then what was he doing?  Where did he get the plates?  Or if no plates ever existed, then what are we to make of the witnesses to them?  Did they all lie?  Repeatedly?  Through the remainder of their lives?  Or were they all collectively deluded/insane?

 

These conundrums barely scratch the surface of the pile of flaws inherent in the historicity-is-irrelevant-to-the-BOM school of thought.

 

> I'm sorry that you cannot accept another point of view.

 

To be clear, I can't accept it *for myself* or for those within my stewardship.  I can accept that other members of the Church have this point of view.  I think it's a profoundly wrong point of view, and I feel no obligation to give it equal validity to the point of view espoused by The Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith and all of his successors, by the doctrines of LDS Church, and by the Spirit.  Nevertheless, if I were to reject everyone in the Church except those who agreed with me on every facet of the Restored Gospel, I'd be one lonely dude.  So I don't.

 

> 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.

 

As I said previously: "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.'"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited October 14, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

I appreciate your point of view. I am here to say that it is not the only point of view.

The question posed in the thread title is this: "Is belief in the Book of Mormon as history important?"

 

As I see it, Smac has made a strong case that it is indeed important.

[smac97]

The question posed in the thread title is this: "Is belief in the Book of Mormon as history important?"

 

As I see it, Smac has made a strong case that it is indeed important.

 

I think this thread has done more than that: It has exposed the "historicity is irrelevant" position as a pretext, as a cover for the position that is really being argued for: a rejection of the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

 

I don't think anyone in the Church would find fault with someone who is struggling with the question of the historicity of The Book of Mormon, any more than we would find fault with someone who is working on the question of whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  But once that person moves from posing and grappling with the question "Is Jesus Christ the Son of God" to A) answering it negatively (i.e. "No, Jesus was not the Son of God, but was just an ancient Jew with some good ideas") and B) evangelizing this rejection of Christ's divinity to others in the Church, well . . . that would become a problem.  

 

Likewise, if someone moves from posing and grappling with the question "Is The Book of Mormon a miraculous translation by Joseph Smith from ancient historical plates about real people" to A) answering it negatively (i.e. "No, The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and Joseph Smith lied and/or was deluded about the whole thing") and B) evangelizing this rejection to others in the Church, well . . . that would become a problem.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited October 14, 2014 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I disagree. Belief is a matter of choice.

Can you share an example of something you chose to believe. Again, this is making a choice to believe something that does not naturally seem believable to you. If you naturally believe it you are not choosing. You may choose to Trust  or choose to have Faith but you can choose to believe something that naturally seems wrong to you. I'm open to an example that proves me wrong but at best, "choosing" to believe would be nothing more than becoming accustomed to something you think would be beneficial while discarding your own personal assessment, kind of like acquiring a taste for disgusting brussle sprouts. I can choose to accept that they are good for me and I might even choose to have faith that they are good for me by eating them on occassion. I may even develop a taste for them that doesn't make me gag when I put it in my mouth, but I can't force my brain to believe that they taste good.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ is essential but how can you have any faith in the temple ordinances without having any faith in the word of the person through which they were revealed?

 

I exercise in the principles the temple ordinances teach, not in the ordinances themselves. The ordinances are vehicles for teaching God's truths. So I can learn and accept the truth that families can be together forever while simultaneously NOT believe that every word of the ordinances were dictated precisely from the mouth of God. I can have faith in the truth that worthiness is required to enter into God's presence and I can grow by making and keeping covenants with God even if the ordinances are merely the vehicle for teaching.

[theplains]

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.

 

Could such 'faithful' Latter-day Saints also reject the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus visited the 

Nephites?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Gervin]

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.

 

I believe one has to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet in order to be an adherent.  He claimed he was a prophet.  

I'm trying to recollect ... the difference between a genius and a prophet?

Likewise, one has to believe that the Book of Mormon is historical. Or, at least, the framework that includes Christ's visit.  Otherwise, why go to the trouble of writing an American based Biblical backstory except to start your own church?  

Edited October 14, 2014 by Gervin

[mfbukowski]

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,

-Smac

This post misses the whole point here.

 

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE JESUS IS A HISTORICAL PERSON WHO WAS THE SON OF GOD WHO SUFFERED AND DIED TO SAVE ME FROM MY SINS.

And I have a testimony of that- the Holy Ghost has testified to me that it is true.

 

I'll stop yelling now, the problem is that I have said this many times before and no one seems to understand my point.

 

I also know that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God and is an inspired scripture revealed to Joseph Smith AND that it is in fact a story of ancient people who historically lived on this continent.  And  I have a testimony also that that is true. 

 

LEARNING THAT WAS A PIVOTAL POINT IN MY LIFE.

 

But here's the deal that it seems is too subtle for some to understand

 

None of those beliefs/bits of knowledge can be proven.  None.  Nada.  Nix.  Zippo.  Zilch.  Goose egg.  Zero.

 

I have FAITH that my knowledge is correct.  One cannot weigh the atonement, we don't get a gold stamp to prove we are "saved" we don't get a passport to the celestial kingdom or a stamp on our temple recommend.  NOBODY CAN KNOW that objectively- meaning that one can show it to another and have the other know as well as the one showing it- that it is true.

 

THAT BEING THE CASE, it is the BELIEF, on faith, that saves us, NOT EVIDENCE.

 

So there is a distinction between HAVING FAITH IN THE HISTORICITY of all these issues and the totally unreasonable, black-and white demand that if these events never happened, the gospel is false.

 

The fact is that ALL BELIEVERS ONLY HAVE FAITH ANYWAY, SO THE DEMAND FOR HISTORICITY IS ILLUSORY.

 

You can talk yourself blue in the face PRETENDING that historicity is important but in reality is is not.  The very fact that your fervent belief in historicity cannot ultimately be "proven" shows the point perfectly.

 

So I gladly join the throng who believe in the historicity of all this, but I guess I am the only one here to understands that it is the BELIEF in historicity that makes the profound difference in my life that the gospel makes, not the illusion that historic "evidence" justifies any spiritual belief, any more than evidence justifies any moral belief.

 

It just doesn't.

 

I suppose the rest of you are fooling yourselves.

 

We will never know anything about reality except what we believe it to be.   That is true in science as much as it is in religion.  I suppose that might be a different discussion, but it isn't really.  Once you get that, your life changes.

[The Nehor]

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.

I have to admit I would leave the church if I had reached that conclusion. The corollary would be that our apostles and prophets are trapped in perpetual spiritual adolescence. Why would anyone want them as leaders?

The apostles are very welcoming to those who struggle with their faith but they unambiguously declare the Book of Mormon to be historical and encourage all to gain a testimony of that fact. You will not hear much from them about how doubters are further along in their faith.

[mfbukowski]

I have to admit I would leave the church if I had reached that conclusion. The corollary would be that our apostles and prophets are trapped in perpetual spiritual adolescence. Why would anyone want them as leaders?

The apostles are very welcoming to those who struggle with their faith but they unambiguously declare the Book of Mormon to be historical and encourage all to gain a testimony of that fact. You will not hear much from them about how doubters are further along in their faith.

It has nothing to do with doubting at all.

 

You just do not understand the distinction between "having a testimony that the Book of Mormon is historical AND spiritually true" and having objective evidence that the Book of Mormon is historical.

 

They have that testimony, you have that testimony, I have that testimony.

 

Objective evidence that it is historical?  Possible that there might be some.  Objective evidence that Jesus is the Christ?  Impossible.

 

Don't undercut the GA's like that- they don't deserve it.  They're not in the goofy business of philosophical distinctions.  Few others are.  Sorry that I happen to be one who is in that goofy business.   It's my brain's fault- not theirs. 

 

Understanding distinctions between beliefs is not the same as doubting either one of them.

Edited October 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

It has nothing to do with doubting at all.

You just do not understand the distinction between "having a testimony that the Book of Mormon is historical AND spiritually true" and having objective evidence that the Book of Mormon is historical.

They have that testimony, you have that testimony, I have that testimony.

Objective evidence that it is historical? Possible that there might be some. Objective evidence that Jesus is the Christ? Impossible.

Don't undercut the GA's like that- they don't deserve it. They're not in the goofy business of philosophical distinctions. Few others are. Sorry that I happen to be one who is in that goofy business. It's my brain's fault- not theirs.

Understanding distinctions between beliefs is not the same as doubting either one of them.

I was not talking about objective evidence. Not sure how this is a response to anything I said. Is this revenge for me doing the same thing to you at some point? Edited October 14, 2014 by The Nehor

[UtahTexan]

I think this thread has done more than that: It has exposed the "historicity is irrelevant" position as a pretext, as a cover for the position that is really being argued for: a rejection of the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

 

I don't think anyone in the Church would find fault with someone who is struggling with the question of the historicity of The Book of Mormon, any more than we would find fault with someone who is working on the question of whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  But once that person moves from posing and grappling with the question "Is Jesus Christ the Son of God" to A) answering it negatively (i.e. "No, Jesus was not the Son of God, but was just an ancient Jew with some good ideas") and B) evangelizing this rejection of Christ's divinity to others in the Church, well . . . that would become a problem.  

 

Likewise, if someone moves from posing and grappling with the question "Is The Book of Mormon a miraculous translation by Joseph Smith from ancient historical plates about real people" to A) answering it negatively (i.e. "No, The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and Joseph Smith lied and/or was deluded about the whole thing") and B) evangelizing this rejection to others in the Church, well . . . that would become a problem.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I would take issue with your statement that my post was a pretext of anything.  I asked the question in my heart.  I am not arguing for the rejection of anything.  I have been very clear in what I am about.  

 

I also have not argued with anyone who claims the Book of Mormon is historical.  I could certainly make my points and counterpoints....but the issue would become a debate.  That is not my intent.

 

Nor will I say "I know the Book of Mormon is false".  I can't.  I do not know that.  I do not BELIEVE it is true...but I hold the position that it COULD be.  I simply do not, at this time, see any support using any of the sciences that the things happened that claim to have happened.  And, if we do not know where it happened, how can we be sure it is history?  However, though I do not believe it to be true, unlike many non-Mormons, I truly want it to be true.

 

So, to say my initial post was a pretext is simply not true.

 

Perhaps I should I should have objected as arguing facts not in evidence

[UtahTexan]

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.

 

Thank you

[UtahTexan]

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

 

I appreciate posts like this

[UtahTexan]

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. 

 

Yes...I did.  I have heard TWO interviews of of these folks and their new book....

[UtahTexan]

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

 

 

That sounds a bit judgmental.  I could care less what people think.  When I became LDS at the age of 23, my family and friends left me.  My girl friend broke up with me.  I did not care.

 

It has nothing to do with sidestepping ridicule.  It has everything to do with reason and testimony.

[mfbukowski]

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. 

Yes, I think you are beginning to see this.  It will strengthen your faith immeasurably if you can.

 

One can accept on faith and believe whole-heartedly that the BOM is "historical"- that a man named Nephi and his father Lehi did all the things described in the BOM and yet admit that there is no proof that the spiritual aspects are "true"- AND YET BELIEVE BOTH WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

 

That's step one.

 

Once you truly understand that these beliefs cannot ever in principle be proven, because they are spiritual beliefs, and spiritual beliefs cannot be proven objectively, you will realize that Brigham - if indeed that is his quote- was right!

 

What changes your life is what you believe in- what you know is certain, whether or not someone else thinks it is certain- because all he has is his belief- his interpretation of evidence-  that it is NOT certain.

 

So all I do on this thread is try to point that out.  I am certain the BOM is historical- "certainty" is a strong belief which we no longer doubt.  I could be certain that the sun will come up tomorrow morning, but guess what?  An asteroid could hit at midnight, or who knows what else.

 

But certainty about the Book of Mormon is not based on objective "evidence"- because none could possibly exist which would prove the spiritual principles therein.

 

Spiritual principles are not proven by objective evidence- they are proven by the spirit.

 

The reality is we can never really know "objectively" either way, because objectivity relies on human interpretation of evidence-  and the testing proceedure, how the question is asked, etc-  so the choice is ours what we choose to believe in a large degree even with objective evidence.  Some believe in the big bang, some do not.  Some say it is a certainty, others say it is not.  We get to choose in our own minds- NOTHING in life is undisputed "fact"- there are two sides to everything of importance.

 

In fact, I see the demanders of historicity in spiritual matters as the doubters, who have a very vulnerable point of view! 

 

My view is impervious to silly attacks from history, and my testimony is utterly unshakeable by the alleged "proofs" of men.

 

Nothing can disprove my testimony because God himself has told me the truth.

 

And because of that I am a "doubter"???   How ridiculous can you get??

Edited October 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

Belief is good enough for now, but as Alma 32 teaches, we can hope or expect it to grow into knowledge (spiritual knowledge).

 

Since people understand history and prophets differently, we can start with believing (or “no more than desire to believe”) that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are (whatever we think they are or aren’t), what the Lord wants them to be—this is part of remembering “how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men” and the beginning of spiritual knowledge According to Moroni 10:3.

 

Without having seen the podcast, I’ve simply tried to answer your other questions.

 

Interesting approach...thank you

[mfbukowski]

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.

 

Those who take the historicity IS relevant approach to the Book of Mormon, are, I think, overly concerned about "conformity" to the popular philosophies of men, that all religious beliefs must be proved by logic and history.

 

The Book of Mormon and its claims for itself are.... embarrassing for some.  Rather than endure the ridicule that may come from accepting that the only way one can know the Book is true is through a testimony from God, people choose to sidestep that ridicule by re-defining it into something compatible with the philosophies of men, something logical and scientific, something more palatable, more vanilla, more mundane.