Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

The Nehor · October 15, 2014

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.

Oh, you are using historicity in a more restricted sense then I was, referring to the practice of studying it. I was using the blunt definition of "did it actually happen". I consider the former about the Book of Mormon an idle hobby and the latter as critical. I also have a mostly spiritual witness. While there is fun in playing with historical data to find the Book of Mormon it is shaky ground. The evidence turns towards you and then turns against you. Anyone who bases their testimony on the evidence of a historical event as nebulous as the Book of Mormon will find themselves jumping from a sense of surety to doubt, then to disbelief, and then perhaps begin again.

I do not think studying American history is necessary. I do think a conviction that the Book of Mormon describes real events is vital.

Tacenda · October 15, 2014

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.

Did you and someone else that replied to me, miss "or the highway"? Meaning there is no room for unbelief, and I don't believe the First Presidency think this, they are beyond the 3rd stage I believe, or those that have voiced a big tent approach, to hold even the unbelievers of the BoM's historicity. Edited October 15, 2014 by Tacenda

The Nehor · October 15, 2014

Did you and someone else that replied to me, miss "or the highway"? Meaning there is no room for unbelief, and I don't believe the First Presidency think this, they are beyond the 3rd stage I believe, or those that have voiced a big tent approach, to hold even the unbelievers of the BoM's historicity.

I wouldn't encourage those who doubt to leave. I would encourage them to figure it out. I doubt one can truly partake of the gospel's joy if you see the keystone of the religion as a parable or metaphor. If they are undecided by all means stay. I just wouldn't encourage anyone to park "betwixt and between".

VideoGameJunkie · October 15, 2014

I'm going to find the golden plates and dig them up. Just thought you should all know. Anyway, where does the doubt of historical accuracy for the Book of Mormon come from? Is it the Native American - Jew ancestry link? There's a lot of cool stories that make sense if it really happened and it's really hard for an 1800s guy to make it all up.

mfbukowski · October 15, 2014

Oh, you are using historicity in a more restricted sense then I was, referring to the practice of studying it. I was using the blunt definition of "did it actually happen". I consider the former about the Book of Mormon an idle hobby and the latter as critical. I also have a mostly spiritual witness. While there is fun in playing with historical data to find the Book of Mormon it is shaky ground. The evidence turns towards you and then turns against you. Anyone who bases their testimony on the evidence of a historical event as nebulous as the Book of Mormon will find themselves jumping from a sense of surety to doubt, then to disbelief, and then perhaps begin again.
I do not think studying American history is necessary. I do think a conviction that the Book of Mormon describes real events is vital.

The conviction is vital as long as one does not think that it "really happening" doesn't make the spiritual content "true". I think that is where the confusion comes in.

A person could have a conviction that a man named Jesus died on a cross in 33 AD, and still not think that person was the savior, but the belief he is the savior, which cannot be shown historically to be true, is what makes one a Christian.

Ultimately the saving power of the beliefs is what changes lives, not the history. If it's in the head and not the heart, fergitaboutit.

Only what's in the heart makes the difference.

Tacenda · October 15, 2014

MF wins the prize, ding, ding, ding!! The one for stage 6!!! ETA: I'm really just starting to understand these stages. But really appreciate the thinking with your heart comment, maybe in order to keep the faith, my opinion anyway.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Tacenda

mfbukowski · October 15, 2014

I'm going to find the golden plates and dig them up. Just thought you should all know. Anyway, where does the doubt of historical accuracy for the Book of Mormon come from? Is it the Native American - Jew ancestry link? There's a lot of cool stories that make sense if it really happened and it's really hard for an 1800s guy to make it all up.

The doubts come from the interpretations of men. Some scholars see the ruins of the Maya and don't see the possibility that those were also "Nephites". So the world at large follows that instead of our interpretation. In a very small nutshell, that's is

mfbukowski · October 15, 2014

MF wins the prize, ding, ding, ding!! The one for stage 6!!! ETA: I'm really just starting to understand these stages. But really appreciate the thinking with your heart comment, maybe in order to keep the faith, my opinion anyway.

That was the key for me. When you understand that reality is perceived by the heart in religious matters, and nowhere else, and that in this context that is just as valid as empirical observations in science, THAT is when you get to where you need to be. That is William James, that is Pragmatism as a philosophy. It is phenomenology as understood in Europe.

It's like morality, being in the heart. There is no proof possible about how we define murder as wrong, but we all know it with certainty. Where do we know that? Not in our heads, but in our hearts. All our heads do in these cases is confuse the issue. Look at capital punishment. Confusion. Both sides rationalize their positions. Abortion gives us the same problem.

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

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.

Please show me where in this podcast you speak of that it was stated that belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet is uneccesary. I believe that holding Joseph as a prophet is absolutely necessary.

The 15 points are as follows

1) EVERY LEADER SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH NEW GOSPEL TOPICS ARTICLES AND CHURCH WEBSITES SUCH AS MORMONANDGAYS.ORG

All should be aware of the dynamic changes the Church has made in its approach to its own history along with many of its policies. How the Church views is past approaches to those who are gay, the Book of Abraham and how it came to be, how the Book of Mormon was Translated, past Doctrines on why blacks could not have priesthood….. all have been revisited and revised in the past few years. Old viewpoints and stances in many cases are incorrect, outdated and offensive. The only way to implement new approaches is to be aware of them.

2.) RECOGNIZE THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY THAT IS IN THE GOSPEL

Many in the Church see the gospel in a black and white way. For them it is easy to define the lines that are set. In reality many Doctrines are more nuanced than that. The 10% of what that tithing is paid on is up to the member (gross, net, surplus). Whether one believes in Evolution or what age the Earth is up to the member. How figurative or allegorical one believes many of the bible stories to be is up to the member (ex: the creation and the Garden), Was the flood local or Global, was there humans before Adam and Eve – are much more complex issues than many at first thought had assumed.

3.) ALLOW “FAITH, HOPE AND BELIEF” TO HAVE AS MUCH ROOM AS “KNOWING”

We have culturally created an environment where the only acceptable testimony is to “Know”. We have taught that an appropriate testimony uses the words “I Know”. But this is incorrect by modern Church teachings. Elder Holland stated recently in his talk “Lord I believe” that “I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.” While in the Church we emphasize Moroni 10:3-5 and James 1:5 which speak of pure knowledge coming from God, we also must validate Alma 32 which says that for some their testimonies are based more on the fruit of principles and less on historical facts. We also have D&C 46:13-14 which says that the gift of faith varies from person to person and how one’s faith operates varies based on how God distributes his gift. D&C 109:7 and 88:117 also declare that “not all have faith” and yet is talking about those who are worthily part of the fold and participate fully in the gospel.

4.) MAKE AN EFFORT TO HELP WARDS GET RID OF FOLK DOCTRINE AND SPECULATION

Many members learned a very rigid Mormonism that had answers for every question when in reality they are incorrect. Many of these “Folk Doctrines” are still alive today and unfortunately create barriers to faith when new truth is discovered. Some of these include (The Doctrine is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Evolution must absolutely be false, That Christ was absolutely born on April 6th, that there was absolutely no death before a literal fall in a literal Garden upon the entire earth, that Soda Pop is against the letter of the Law of the Word of Wisdom, that blacks couldn’t have Priesthood prior to 1978 because they were less valiant or that they had the mark of Cain, being Gay is a choice, and that interracial marriage is sin.

Unfortunately many of these were even taught by leaders at one time or another but each is nowhere to be found in the official Doctrine of the Church and as Elder Uchtdorf said in his talk “Come Join With us” that “And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. “ So we will have to get comfortable with our leaders making mistakes and recognize that we will need to let some of those mistakes go.

5.) PUT SOMEONE OUT FRONT WHO DOUBTERS CAN TRUST AND WILL OPENLY TALK TO

Many of those who lose faith are experiencing an anguish similar to losing a loved one to death. There is loss, anger, sadness, angst, depression, worry about the future, etc…. They are afraid to talk to their leaders and their family. This fear is twofold – one: we have culturally placed a negative stigma on doubt. Doubters are seen as “less than” the other members who “know” and that will result in inappropriate judgment and ridicule or diminishing of one’s questions and concerns. Two: they worry that if they express their doubts they may hurt the testimony of those they talk to. For this reason, most remain silent (studies have been done and this can be validated) In order to open up they need someone out front who empathizes, understands, and who can bear their burden with them while also offering a path back. This is in my mind crucial.

6.) DON’T TEACH OR ENCOURAGE BLIND OBEDIENCE

We often teach a “follow the Brethren even if they are wrong” mentality and even add at times “you will be blessed for it”. While this issue is complex and there are times when it is best to follow a leader even when you disagree, I would be very careful of such. There are simply too many instances of exceptions to this that to insist on this as an absolute simply misses the mark.

Rather we should encourage something similar to what Elder Uchtdorf taught in his CES fireside “What is Truth” when he said – “Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth. Brigham Young said: “I am … afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates.”

7.) DISTINGUISH AND HELP MEMBERS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CULTURE AND DOCTRINE.

Again this is a complex issue. Most members assume all Church teachings are “true” Doctrine. This can be historically shown to be a false assumption. In fact two Leaders have addressed this directly.

Elder Christofferson stated in his talk “The Doctrine of Christ” that “At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

Elder Anderson then followed this up with more clarification in the next General Conference with a quote from the talk “trial of your faith” when he said “A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. “ —– AKA – when in doubt, we should stick to basics

8.) HELP MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THAT LEADERS ARE FALLIBLE AND HAVE MADE MISTAKES THEREBY CREATING A REALISTIC EXPECTATION THAT WON’T SET THEM UP FOR A LETDOWN

Taking the quotes above about what is Doctrine and the one earlier where Elder Uchtdorf acknowledges mistakes into consideration, we ought teach members a realistic expectation of apostles and prophets. That while they have been called to a holy office and calling, they are imperfect mortal men, and that while they are a source for truth, it is God through the Holy Ghost who is the ultimate source. (For by the power of the Holy Ghost, you may know the truth of all things Moroni 10:5) By teaching this you teach a realistic expectation that can be lived up to.

9.) DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE INFORMATION THE DOUBTER HAS LEARNED HAS COME FROM ANTI-MORMON SOURCES

When one is confronted by a member who has discovered difficulties in Church history and theology – the first response is to assume they have read such from Anti-Mormon sources. The second assumption is to assume that the information are simply lies. While some material out there is intentionally false and deceptive, Most information that causes questions is to some extent true and found directly in LDS sources such as Brigham Young’s “Journal of Discourses”, Elder McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, and in other valid sources. While the questions another brings up may be new to you or may seem preposterous based on your current understanding, you should be prepared for new information that is true, that doesn’t fit your current understanding. Elder Uchtdorf spoke of this when he said in the “What is Truth” Fireside – “We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.”

10.) DO NOT ACCUSE THE DOUBTER OF SINNING OR THAT HIS PROBLEMS WOULD BE FIXED BY PRAYING MORE OR READING MORE SCRIPTURES. DO NOT ACCUSE THOSE WHO LOSE FAITH AND LEAVE OR WHO ARE THINKING OF LEAVING OF BEING TARES AMONGST THE WHEAT OR LESS THAN IN ANY WAY. WHILE ON SOME RARE OCCASSIONS SOME OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MAY BE TRUE, THEY ARE THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. INSTEAD MAKE ROOM FOR THE DOUBTER TO BELONG AND FEEL INCLUDED.

Elder Uchtdorf said it best in his talk “Come Join With Us” when he stated

“One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave? Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.”

He then followed up with a Christlike invitation when he stated “To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here. Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result. Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?” It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true. “ “Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!”

Lastly a quote from Joseph F Smith – “”Members of the Mormon church are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the Church. If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from him. But so long as a man believes in God and has a little faith in the Church organization, we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the Church though he may not believe all that is revealed.”

11.) ENCOURAGE TRUTH SEEKING, ENCOURAGE QUESTIONS… EVEN TOUGH ONES, VALIDATE CONCERNS RATHER THAN MINIMIZING

Again I will simply share quotes from Church Leaders

What we should encourage -

“Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth.” – Elder Uchtdorf

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” – Brigham Young

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. – Joseph Fielding Smith

12.) TEACH MEMBERS NOT TO EXPECT THE CHURCH TO TEACH ALL CHURCH HISTORY AND INFORMATION. WE SHOULD EACH BE EXPECTED TO LEARN BEYOND THE THREE HOUR BLOCK AND DISCOVER TRUTH OUTSIDE OF CHURCH.

If members believe that the Church will teach them all the available history and theology within the Church, they will be set up for a letdown. There is much of our history that is not covered in a Church setting (ex: polygamy). Many members feel deceived when they discover they have gone decades without knowing some of the undiscussed facts of our history. This feeling of deception causes a loss of trust and becomes a quick slope to a loss of faith. We need to help members see that Church is in place to serve a certain purpose and that while all things are not discussed or covered, that each member is welcome to learn outside of the Church’s setting and materials.

13.) HELP LEADERS RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE WHO ENCOUNTER MAJOR DOUBTS CAN’T GO BACK TO THEIR OLD WAY OF PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER. RATHER THEY MUST MOVE FORWARD AND REBUILD THEIR FAITH IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

Once one has been opened up to the complexity and nuance of our faith’s history, theology, and Doctrine one can never go back to the way things were. Rather they have to be permitted to take their faith apart and put it back together in a way that works. It will look different, it will seem strange to others, and yet it will be real to them. If others try to force them back to an old paradigm, they will feel as though there is little or no place left for them within our faith and they will likely leave. It will be uncomfortable for others to accept this person’s new faith, but if we want any hope of helping them, then we need to step outside our comfort zone.

14.) FOCUS ON EMPATHY AND NOT HAVING AN ANSWER TO EVERY QUESTION. WE MUST MOVE BEYOND THINKING MORMONISM ANSWERS AL THE QUESTIONS.

Elder Marlin Jensen (former seventy and former Church historian) said when speaking about high number of members losing faith in our day and how we need to interact with them – “when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he’ll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn’t know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, ‘Get in line and don’t question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.’ And that isn’t helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what’s brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.”

15.) FAMILY AND WARD DYNAMICS – FRIENDS, CHURCH MEMBERS, AND FAMILY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS RATHER THAN SHUN OR WITHDRAW. NO ONE SHOULD DIVORCE OVER THIS ISSUE.

Encourage members to continue to love and support their spouses and family members who lose faith. One who holds hope should be encouraged to participate fully. As Elder Uchtdorf said, even those that have doubts should “Come Join with us” I think there are enough couples in every ward and stake going through this that it may merit at least a brief statement in a stake conference. Couples should be encouraged to stick together if one spouse goes through a faith transition (as long as there are not other deeper issues as well). Perhaps a sister in the stake could give a talk about how she was able to help her marriage thrive despite the fact that her spouse left the church. I think this would go a long way.

Many feel they must choose between their Church and their unbelieving spouse when one spouse stops believing– This should never be the case.

1st Corinthians 7:12 –15 hits on this issue.

12 If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

Additionally, I really hope Bill didn't say that belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet wasn't essential. That is troubling. It is not only essential, it is critical. I don't think (in fact I am pretty darn sure) that this is not what the GAs mean when they talk about big tents and such.

I didn't. Would love the quote where I did. I would find my clone and have a talk with him.

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

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

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

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

For the record while I have my doubts I do hold the BOM as historical and while I want room for those who don't I find that position untenable myself personally.

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

By the way, the episode (unedited I might add is here)

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/09/15-ways-to-help/

Feel free to listen and see if I propose throwing Joseph under the bus.

Edited October 15, 2014 by DBMormon

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

Lastly, I fully expected a few here to assume the quote was accurate and throw me under the bus. It didn't happen. That didn't go unnoticed.

Edited October 15, 2014 by DBMormon

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

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.

Country Boy, Outside of my worry that you quoted me incorrectly in the bolded above, I am glad the episode was of worth. I think if the Church locally and generally adopted these 15 points, that Faith crisis would be diminished over these kinds of issues for a large chunk of those currently affected. Please know there are others who struggle and I hope you find a safe space to explore your faith and specifically your assumptions.

Tacenda · October 15, 2014

Lastly, I fully expected a few here to assume the quote was accurate and throw me under the bus. It didn't happen. That didn't go unnoticed.

What! You didn't notice my quote DB?! I had your back.

ETA: Way back on post #50. Edited October 15, 2014 by Tacenda

Robert F. Smith · October 15, 2014

.............................................
.................................................. While there is fun in playing with historical data to find the Book of Mormon it is shaky ground. The evidence turns towards you and then turns against you. Anyone who bases their testimony on the evidence of a historical event as nebulous as the Book of Mormon will find themselves jumping from a sense of surety to doubt, then to disbelief, and then perhaps begin again.
...............................................................................................................

A stark and perhaps frightening claim, Nehor, but which is not borne out in practice. None of the professional anthropologists I know who make the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon have apostatized, and don't seem likely to do so. On the other hand, none of them is so monomaniacal as to base a testimony only upon secular historical evidences. They exhibit a balance of both spiritual and secular claims.

However, you speak quite glibly about the nebulosity of the historical nature of the the Book of Mormon, and a sequence of surety to doubt to disbelief for anyone who bases his testimony on secular historical evidences. Have you actually observed such a sequence in practice? Do you actually know such people?

My own view on the secular evidences is presented online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . Do you find my comments nebulous? Do they tend to lead from surety to doubt, and finally to disbelief?

UtahTexan · October 15, 2014

Country Boy, Outside of my worry that you quoted me incorrectly in the bolded above, I am glad the episode was of worth. I think if the Church locally and generally adopted these 15 points, that Faith crisis would be diminished over these kinds of issues for a large chunk of those currently affected. Please know there are others who struggle and I hope you find a safe space to explore your faith and specifically your assumptions.

It was not my intent to misquote, I apologize. I was listening to it in my car and guess I misheard it. I had no ill will.

The Nehor · October 15, 2014

A stark and perhaps frightening claim, Nehor, but which is not borne out in practice. None of the professional anthropologists I know who make the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon have apostatized, and don't seem likely to do so. On the other hand, none of them is so monomaniacal as to base a testimony only upon secular historical evidences. They exhibit a balance of both spiritual and secular claims.

However, you speak quite glibly about the nebulosity of the historical nature of the the Book of Mormon, and a sequence of surety to doubt to disbelief for anyone who bases his testimony on secular historical evidences. Have you actually observed such a sequence in practice? Do you actually know such people?

My own view on the secular evidences is presented online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . Do you find my comments nebulous? Do they tend to lead from surety to doubt, and finally to disbelief?

I doubt those anthropologists based their testimony solely or even mostly on historical evidence. I did know one guy whose belief swung like a pendulum based on what articles on history he had read most recently. I doubt people like him are common but they do exist.

Boanerges · October 15, 2014

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

Well, then it's a good thing for me I am under the stewardship of a very loving and understanding stake president and bishop and not you. (I admit that I am closer to and more open with the SP than the bishop, but the bishop does know of my general views on the BoM.) Quite frankly "leadership roulette" can play a big part in a faith crisis and whether or not someone leaves the church - by choice or otherwise. For the record, my previsous SP was also aware of my stance on the BoM, and also did not have a problem with me having a temple recommend - in fact, he encouraged me to get a new one.

And to save space and effort, in relation to another post of yours: I do not evangelize my position, and I certainly do have the opportunity to do so if I desired. If someone asks, and I feel it is a sincere question with some need to know (that is, not being nosey, having me cast pearls, or attempting to engage in potentially contentious debate) then I share what I feel is right to share with that individual at that time. As you are well aware, the TR questions require only a yes or no answer - and that's all I usually give now, but I have explained some of my views in more detail and I have had some good discussions as a result. Likewise, if a struggling member asks me about something troubling him or her, my SP has given me the go ahead to share that not everything is as black and white as it seems and go into some detail about beliefs - very much like Bill Reel's ideas (and I do use Bill's stuff and credit him for it). I tell them up front that I cannot answer their questions and the answers I have work for me - but they must find their own answers. It works for me to believe the BoM was translated by the gift and power of God - whether it is a parable or historically accurate or a mix of both (or something else all together) does not matter to me (and apparently this does not matter to my judges in Israel).

In order to return to him, Jesus asked me to believe in him, repent, be baptized, recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. Those are his words in the New Testament and in the AoF. He did not ask me to believe in the BoM in order to return to Him. Repentance and enduring are ongoing processes on which I (like everyone else) am working, the others I have completed.

Kevin Christensen · October 15, 2014

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.

On the other hand, "cause to believe" that falls short of perfect knowledge and absolute proof is still relevant to faith, which, by definition, falls short of perfect knowledge and absolute proof. Alma actually encourages experiments on a portion of the word, checking to see what grows, whether the results of experiments happen to expand the mind, enlarge the soul, have fruitful outcomes, and provide future promise. With all of that, the knowledge is not perfect. I think you set up a binary, either/or set of choices that leaves out what to me is the most attractive and viable possibility.

Does a willingness to experiment upon the word demonstrate faith, or a lack of faith? Does a willingness to tolerate some unresolved issues show faith, or a lack of faith? Does a refusal to perform certain experiments show faith, or a lack of faith?

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.

My own spiritual testimony came first. But one of the reasons that I still trust that experience is because my subsequent experiments upon the word have been rewarding, mind expanding, soul-enlarging, unexpectedly fruitful (Barker's First Temple Theology, anyone? None of us saw that coming.), and rich in future promise. If I mention that Kuhn and Alma teach the same values for paradigm choice, is that a reliance on the philosophies of men? Is Kuhn vanilla and mundane?

That is not perfect knowledge. Not a reliance on secular proof and approval. And it is not Deism, or Positivism either.

One of the main issues is that the Book of Mormon does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Some people are better readers than others. Sure, Michael Coe and John Dehlin mocked the Book of Mormon because of the lack of evidence they saw for iron arrowheads and brass helmets, but frankly, the fact that the Book of Mormon does not mention those things means that their mockery is more than a little ironic. Just whose ignorance and folly is on display in such cases? There is no single test or evidence that proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. There are always networks of assumptions involved, and limited information relative to the questions it raises. But we can explore which explanation is better. Which set of comparisons casts the most light on the text? If I really love the text, do I read it against the assumptions of my own culture, or do I treat it as something with a context that I cannot take for granted, but must make an effort to explore? If Nephi was a person who stood in some real place, if I put myself in that place, will I be able to see what he saw? And if I do, how might that change what I see when I read?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited October 15, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

mfbukowski · October 15, 2014

On the other hand, "cause to believe" that falls short of perfect knowledge and absolute proof is still relevant to faith, which, by definition, falls short of perfect knowledge and absolute proof. Alma actually encourages experiments on a portion of the word, checking to see what grows, whether the results of experiments happen to expand the mind, enlarge the soul, have fruitful outcomes, and provide future promise. With all of that, the knowledge is not perfect. I think you set up a binary, either/or set of choices that leaves out what to me is the most attractive and viable possibility.Does a willingness to experiment upon the word demonstrate faith, or a lack of faith? Does a willingness to tolerate some unresolved issues show faith, or a lack of faith? Does a refusal to perform certain experiments show faith, or a lack of faith? My own spiritual testimony came first. But one of the reasons that I still trust that experience is because my subsequent experiments upon the word have been rewarding, mind expanding, soul-enlarging, unexpectedly fruitful (Barker's First Temple Theology, anyone? None of us saw that coming.), and rich in future promise. If I mention that Kuhn and Alma teach the same values for paradigm choice, is that a reliance on the philosophies of men? Is Kuhn vanilla and mundane?That is not perfect knowledge. Not a reliance on secular proof and approval. And it is not Deism, or Positivism either.One of the main issues is that the Book of Mormon does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Some people are better readers than others. Sure, Michael Coe and John Dehlin mocked the Book of Mormon because of the lack of evidence they saw for iron arrowheads and brass helmets, but frankly, the fact that the Book of Mormon does not mention those things means that their mockery is more than a little ironic. Just whose ignorance and folly is on display in such cases? There is no single test or evidence that proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. There are always networks of assumptions involved, and limited information relative to the questions it raises. But we can explore which explanation is better. Which set of comparisons casts the most light on the text? If I really love the text, do I read it against the assumptions of my own culture, or do I treat it as something with a context that I cannot take for granted, but must make an effort to explore? If Nephi was a person who stood in some real place, if I put myself in that place, will I be able to see what he saw? And if I do, how might that change what I see when I read?FWIWKevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA

Kevin, I agree fully and thanks for your wisdom.

Some perhaps did not notice that that post of mine you quoted was ironically quoting smac's previous post. I used his sentences and plugged in my words with the intent of using his argument to reverse its meaning.

DBMormon · October 15, 2014

It was not my intent to misquote, I apologize. I was listening to it in my car and guess I misheard it. I had no ill will.

No offense taken Country Boy. But I must chuckle becasue I get enough flack for what I do say that I prefer not to get any for what I didn't say.

Edited October 15, 2014 by DBMormon

smac97 · October 15, 2014

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.

My comments on this issue are not contingent upon what can or cannot be "proven." My comments on this issue pertain to position taken Latter-day Saints as to the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Whether such historicity can be "proven" is another issue.

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.

I have not been speaking of 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.

I strongly disagree that this position is "totally unreasonable." Many prophets and apostles have pretty much stated that the Gospel requires Joseph Smith to have been telling the truth about The Book of Mormon and the other essential claims of the Restoration, and that if he was not telling the truth, then the Church is a fraud:

Gordon B. Hinckley: "It (the First Vision) either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."
Ezra T. Benson: "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."
Ezra T. Benson: "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."
Ezra T. Benson: "Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception."
Jeffrey R. Holland: "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 ... 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."
Joseph Fielding Smith: "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."

The historicity of The Book of Mormon (by "historicity" I use the term in the macro "Lehi was a real person, and so where his descendants" kind of way, rather than an "Every single word in The Book of Mormon is a perfectly accurate and objective historical account" kind of way) is inextricably linked to its status as scripture, such that to reject the former is to reject the latter. Sooner or later the folks in the historicity-is-irrelevant school of thought (or in the The-Book-of-Mormon-is-fictional-but-inspired school of thought) will, I think, find that a testimony based on such a sandy, false foundation will not stand.

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

I could not disagree more with any statement in this thread. The demand for the historicity of Jesus Christ is essential. If he is a fictional character, then he was never born, never grew up, never received the priesthood, never performed miracles, never taught saving truths, never suffered at Gethsemane and on the Cross, never died, never resurrection, and never worked out a perfect atonement for the sins of the world. Without historicity, our belief system is a massive lie and deception, and Jesus Christ is no more significant than an ancient self-help guru, with no more authority or prominence than Anthony Robbins or Dale Carnegie.

Historicity matters. The difference between truth and lies matters.

You can talk yourself blue in the face PRETENDING that historicity is important but in reality is is not.

I strongly disagree. The historicity of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non basis for meaningful belief in Him. The historicity of The Book of Mormon is the sine qua non basis for meaningful belief in it. Without historicity, Jesus Christ was just an ancient Jew with some interesting ideas, and The Book of Mormon is nothing but a 19th century curiosity.

"Historicity" is the difference between what is real and what is not. Let me illustrate with a handy dandy parable:

A man, Jerry, is out on his boat for a fishing trip on a large lake is capsized by choppy waters. The water is cold, and Jerry realizes he will not last long without help. Then along comes Mike in another boat, sees Jerry, and calls out: "Hey, do you need help?"

"Yes!" cries Jerry, "Please throw me a life preserver! I am close to drowning!"

"Sure thing!" responds Mike "I just graduated from mime school, and I have been working on a routine involving throwing a life preserver to a drowning man, so this is a great opportunity for me. Let me get warmed up..."

"Wait, what?" yells Jerry. "I need help! Please, just throw me a life preserver!"

"Sure! Sure! Here you go!" says Mike. And with that, Mike launches into a mime routine where he picks up an imaginary life preserver and goes through the motions of throwing this imaginary object into the water near Jerry.

"There you are!" calls Mike. "Good as gold! Just grab onto it!"

"What are you doing?" screams Jerry. "I need a life preserver! A real one! You have one in your boat, I can see it behind you! Just grap it and throw it to me, please!"

"Yes, I have a real one," responds Mike "But you don't really need it. Your demand for a real life preserver is illusory, because I have already given you an imaginary one. And an imaginary one is just as good as a real one, right?"

"Are you nuts?" yells Jerry. "How can an imaginary life preserver help keep me from drowning?"

"Now you are are just being totally unreasonable, friend. You don't need a real life preserver when that imaginary one is floating right next to you! It's the power of positive thinking, man! So imagine that the imaginary one will keep you afloat, and it will! Stop pretending that having a real life preserver is important, because in reality it is not. So just grab onto the imaginary one I already threw you and you'll be right as rain!"

"But an imaginary life preserver is no help to me at all, can't you see that?" cries Jerry.

"Wow, you are one unreasonable dude," says Mike. "I guess I am the only one here to understand that it is the BELIEF in the life preserver that makes the profound difference in your life, not the illusion that a REAL life preserver would give you."

The discussion would have continued, except that Jerry by this point had no more strength, slipped under the waves, and drowned.

"Oh, that poor fool," murmurs Mike. "Why couldn't he realize that there is no difference between an imaginary life preserver and a real one?"

The very fact that your fervent belief in historicity cannot ultimately be "proven" shows the point perfectly.

I do not understand this statement.

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.

You are hung up on what can be proved and what cannot. I am not talking about this, nor I think is anyone else. We all agree that accepting The Book of Mormon's historicity requires faith and cannot be "proven."

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.

That's a deep thought. I'll ask my friend Jerry about it. Oh wait, he drowned...

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · October 15, 2014

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.

My comments on this issue are not contingent upon what can or cannot be "proven." My comments on this issue pertain to position taken Latter-day Saints as to the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Whether such historicity can be "proven" is another issue.

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.

I have not been speaking of 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.

I strongly disagree that this position is "totally unreasonable." Many prophets and apostles have pretty much stated that the Gospel requires Joseph Smith to have been telling the truth about The Book of Mormon and the other essential claims of the Restoration, and that if he was not telling the truth, then the Church is a fraud:

Gordon B. Hinckley: "It (the First Vision) either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."
Ezra T. Benson: "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."
Ezra T. Benson: "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."
Ezra T. Benson: "Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception."
Jeffrey R. Holland: "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 ... 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."
Joseph Fielding Smith: "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."

The historicity of The Book of Mormon (by "historicity" I use the term in the macro "Lehi was a real person, and so where his descendants" kind of way, rather than an "Every single word in The Book of Mormon is a perfectly accurate and objective historical account" kind of way) is inextricably linked to its status as scripture, such that to reject the former is to reject the latter. Sooner or later the folks in the historicity-is-irrelevant school of thought (or in the The-Book-of-Mormon-is-fictional-but-inspired school of thought) will, I think, find that a testimony based on such a sandy, false foundation will not stand.

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

I could not disagree more with any statement in this thread. The demand for the historicity of Jesus Christ is essential. If he is a fictional character, then he was never born, never grew up, never received the priesthood, never performed miracles, never taught saving truths, never suffered at Gethsemane and on the Cross, never died, never resurrection, and never worked out a perfect atonement for the sins of the world. Without historicity, our belief system is a massive lie and deception, and Jesus Christ is no more significant than an ancient self-help guru, with no more authority or prominence than Anthony Robbins or Dale Carnegie.

Historicity matters. The difference between truth and lies matters.

You can talk yourself blue in the face PRETENDING that historicity is important but in reality is is not.

I strongly disagree. The historicity of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non basis for meaningful belief in Him. The historicity of The Book of Mormon is the sine qua non basis for meaningful belief in it. Without historicity, Jesus Christ was just an ancient Jew with some interesting ideas, and The Book of Mormon is nothing but a 19th century curiosity.

"Historicity" is the difference between what is real and what is not. Let me illustrate with a handy dandy parable:

A man, Jerry, is out on his boat for a fishing trip on a large lake and is capsized by choppy waters. The water is cold, and Jerry realizes he will not last long without help. Then along comes Mike in another boat, sees Jerry, and calls out: "Hey, do you need help?"