Does The Church Want People Who Don't Believe In The Book Of Mormon?

[cinepro]

John Dehlin recently posted this on his FB feed:

 

 

 

 

Memo to the believing Mormon world:

 

Concluding that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are not scientifically credible as translations of ancient records does not make one anti-Mormon.

 

One can still believe that Mormons are good people, that the LDS church does good things, and one can even affirm another's decision to remain active LDS -- whilst still acknowledging that: 1) there is literally not one credible non-LDS scientist on the planet who considers the Book of Mormon to be scientifically credible on any level (i.e., archaeologically, genetically, linguistically, geographically), and 2) that the Book of Abraham papyrus doesn't event mention Abraham....anywhere (according to the LDS church's own position).

 

If I am in error, please provide evidence.

 

Most importantly, please stop referring to people as anti-Mormon simply because they are open/honest about their conclusions, based on their understanding of the scientific record.

 

Let me be clear, this discussion isn't about whether Dehlin is correct (I understand him to be saying that the Book of Mormon is not historical).

 

What I want to know is whether or not the Church, as you understand it, is interested in having people who openly agree with him (about the Book of Mormon not being historical) to be "active members"?  Should it be?

 

What would happen if you had a Gospel Doctrine class with 10% of the people who didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or even the New Testament)?  How about 20%?  Or 50%?  At what point does it become unacceptable?

 

In the past, it has been taught "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."  And this has been closely linked to the historicity of the Book of Mormon; if it isn't "true" (including historically), then the rest of the truth claims of the Church involving Joseph Smith and Priesthood authority are on very shaky ground.

 

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)?  And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?

Edited January 6, 2015 by cinepro

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record...

 

 

Sure -- so long as that person is an uneducated young child,

or a senile oldster, or a person with diminished mental capacity.

 

I think that even a member who was found worthy and ready for

baptism, might be admitted, still holding some silent reservations

over the origins of the standard works -- so long as that person

remained open to receiving continued counsel and guidance.

 

But what about a General Authority, of the B. H. Roberts level,

who openly questions such things -- and who hints at them

in writings prepared for possible future publication?

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

UD

 

ps -- Of course, in Community of Christ, I saw it every day...

[JAHS]

There's always room for them at church if they really want to be there, but perhaps not in the temple.

[The Nehor]

all Dehlin says is that one can not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and still say LDS are good people. That does not mean I want the non-believer in the Book of Mormon teaching my Sunday School class, teaching my nieces or nephews, leading Young Men and Young Women outings, or (Heaven help us) trying to counsel someone going through spiritual difficulties.

[stemelbow]

John Dehlin recently posted this on his FB feed:

 

 

 

 

 

Let me be clear, this discussion isn't about whether Dehlin is correct (I understand him to be saying that the Book of Mormon is not historical).

 

What I want to know is whether or not the Church, as you understand it, is interested in having people who openly agree with him (about the Book of Mormon not being historical) to be "active members"?  Should it be?

 

What would happen if you had a Gospel Doctrine class with 10% of the people who didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or even the New Testament)?  How about 20%?  Or 50%?  At what point does it become unacceptable?

 

In the past, it has been taught "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."  And this has been closely linked to the historicity of the Book of Mormon; if it isn't "true" (including historically), then the rest of the truth claims of the Church involving Joseph Smith and Priesthood authority are on very shaky ground.

 

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)?  And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?

meh..considering the social pressure many members feel we simply wouldn't know if some sitting amongst now are literal believers or not. I really don't have a problem with Dehlin's views on this, to be honest.

It's the lessons from the scriptures that can be important, even if some of them are ridiculously bad. Some dude in class might be sitting there not really caring if the BoM is historical or not, but also feel some amount of inspiration while talking about King Benjamin's sermon. He might actually have something to contribute that would benefit the rest of us.

Then again, I've pretty much discarded the term anti-Mormon since my mission, and am not really dogmatic about withholding the term Mormon from those who are fundamentalists and such.

[Buckeye]

John Dehlin recently posted this on his FB feed:

 

 

 

 

 

Let me be clear, this discussion isn't about whether Dehlin is correct (I understand him to be saying that the Book of Mormon is not historical).

 

What I want to know is whether or not the Church, as you understand it, is interested in having people who openly agree with him (about the Book of Mormon not being historical) to be "active members"?  Should it be?

 

What would happen if you had a Gospel Doctrine class with 10% of the people who didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or even the New Testament)?  How about 20%?  Or 50%?  At what point does it become unacceptable?

 

In the past, it has been taught "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."  And this has been closely linked to the historicity of the Book of Mormon; if it isn't "true" (including historically), then the rest of the truth claims of the Church involving Joseph Smith and Priesthood authority are on very shaky ground.

 

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)?  And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?

 

With the normal caveat that "the church" is not a monolith, I think the traditional line has been all or nothing because, on net, allowing for middle-way Mormons leads to a greater number of traditional-belief Mormons becoming middle-way than the other way around. Whether because middle-way belief is more convincing, or because it is just easier and people tend to go towards easy lessons, by allowing members to openly question the historicity of the BOM/BOA/First Vision/etc the result tends to be that those issues get set aside so the class can focus on something everyone agrees upon.

 

I call this the "least common denominator" principle of GD. I already see it with some (minor) historical issues. In most adult sunday school lessons on the flood, Job, Jonah, etc., either the teacher begins by dismissing the importance of historicity or the class quickly agrees to talk about other things once there is any dispute. Once the door is open to merely questioning the historicity of the BOM, the same thing will happen. The overriding governing principle of most every class I've been is it this: No Contention. And because for most Mormons, disagreement = contention, the second principle becomes: No Disagreement; We will only discuss things that every can nod their head about.

 

That said, the internet is changing things. It's one thing to say "no open disagreement" within the chapel. It's another to say "you can't blog about your disagreements."

[Uncle Dale]

...That does not mean I want the non-believer in the Book of Mormon teaching my Sunday School class...

 

Which brings to mind an old, somewhat racist query, often invoked

in cases where a person might be "good" in some ways, but is found

to be unacceptible in some other way:

 

"Would you want your sister marrying one of them?"

 

Somewhere, in past years, I recall reading something like this:

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words,

>and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their

>sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and

>shall not come into my Father's kingdom...

 

What happens to the eternal future of a faithful LDS lady, whose

husband (though he was once baptized) nowadays has decided

to "believe not" upon the "words" of the topmost leaders of the

Church, and who has told his wife that he can henceforth never

believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture, this side of the veil...

 

???

 

UD

[stemelbow]

all Dehlin says is that one can not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and still say LDS are good people. That does not mean I want the non-believer in the Book of Mormon teaching my Sunday School class, teaching my nieces or nephews, leading Young Men and Young Women outings, or (Heaven help us) trying to counsel someone going through spiritual difficulties.

Shoot. I wouldn't mind any of that. In fact, I'd suggest that we think any of the above is something to fear is perhaps the problem, moreso than this Dehlin fellow.

I wouldn't doubt that there is an unbeliever who could teach me my Book of Mormon better than many of the believers teach me each week. I also wouldn't doubt there are plenty of unbelievers who could provide great benefit to my nieces and nephews moreso than the believers that are currently trying to do so, etc, etc.

[ELF1024]

What would be the point of being LDS; if you really didn't believe in one the basic tenants of the Church? Is the LDS Church simply a Sunday and one night a week social club?

 

 

 

Most importantly, please stop referring to people as anti-Mormon simply because they are open/honest about their conclusions, based on their understanding of the scientific record.

 

The understanding of men is consistently changing and being revised due to new discoveries. To say that the current climate does not support the facts surrounding the Book of Mormon does not mean that it never will. After all, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, flies come from rotting meat, and disease is caused by bad blood have all been things that men of science have agreed upon in the past.

[The Nehor]

Which brings to mind an old, somewhat racist query, often invoked

in cases where a person might be "good" in some ways, but is found

to be unacceptible in some other way:

 

"Would you want your sister marrying one of them?"

 

Somewhere, in past years, I recall reading something like this:

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words,

>and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their

>sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and

>shall not come into my Father's kingdom...

 

What happens to the eternal future of a faithful LDS lady, whose

husband (though he was once baptized) nowadays has decided

to "believe not" upon the "words" of the topmost leaders of the

Church, and who has told his wife that he can henceforth never

believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture, this side of the veil...

 

???

 

UD

She is fine. Her covenants still hold. Someone who marries outside of the temple....maybe not so okay. A guy like me in his 30s and not married because he can find many women he would marry and many who would marry him but the Venn diagram never seems to meet up.......possibly damned.

[stemelbow]

What would be the point of being LDS; if you really didn't believe in one the basic tenants of the Church? Is the LDS Church simply a Sunday and one night a week social club?

And what if that is what the Church is to some people? Shall we toss them out on the cabooses or something?

 

 

The understanding of men is consistently changing and being revised due to new discoveries. To say that the current climate does not support the facts surrounding the Book of Mormon does not mean that it never will. After all, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, flies come from rotting meat, and disease is caused by bad blood have all been things that men of science have agreed upon in the past.

True, but whose to say the whole process of teaching us through revelation is not without it's own faults. There are plenty who think the earth was flooded globally, that polygamy can be ordained of God, that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal world...and all that.

[The Nehor]

Shoot. I wouldn't mind any of that. In fact, I'd suggest that we think any of the above is something to fear is perhaps the problem, moreso than this Dehlin fellow.I wouldn't doubt that there is an unbeliever who could teach me my Book of Mormon better than many of the believers teach me each week. I also wouldn't doubt there are plenty of unbelievers who could provide great benefit to my nieces and nephews moreso than the believers that are currently trying to do so, etc, etc.

I would mind it very much. How can I expect someone teaching the Book of Mormon to take it seriously if they do not believe it? We have terrible teachers in the Church but in your solution the cure is worse than the disease. When I was a teacher full-time in Sunday School I thought I taught well. I had a crisis of confidence in God and my lessons veered less to the spiritual and more to treating it like literature. A few members loved it and thanked me. They were (and I mean no malice by this) the faithless and those who preferred the secular to the spiritual in almost everything. A faithful friend after a few weeks of this teaching asked me what was wrong. Not if anything was wrong, she knew something was. I was not spiritually feeding the class; and if I failed there it really does not matter how interesting the lesson was.

Taking it further would you want a Bishop counseling you who did not really believe much of what he was saying? A Stake President leading a stake purely as an administrative function? A Mission President who does not believe that the gospel is vital to salvation? An Apostle? I do not see that as a problem. I see the lack of integrity of someone trying to spiritually lead people who does not believe it as possibly one of the worst forms of hypocrisy. The scriptures come down hard on leaders who not only do not enter into heaven but also do not lead or even prevent others from entering.

[Duncan]

I knew a lady that once gave a talk in church and said that she had been praying since 1968 to know if the Book of Mormon was true and it had been well over 20 years before she got an answer but in the meantime she couldn't say it was true but by the same token she couldn't say it wasn't true either

Edited January 6, 2015 by Duncan

[Mars]

I knew a lady that gave once and she said that she had been praying since 1968 to know if the Book of Mormon was true and it had been well over 20 years before she got an answer but in the meantime she couldn't say it was true but by the same token she couldn't say it wasn't true either

 

I admire her forthright admission.

[thesometimesaint]

I personally welcome anyone whom is interested in, wants to believe, does believe, to sit with me on the front row of the Chapel in Sacrament Meeting. it is quite another thing for someone whom has no interest in, doesn't want to believe, and/or doesn't believe, to be a member of good standing in the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

I personally welcome anyone whom is interested in, wants to believe, does believe, to sit with me on the front row of the Chapel in Sacrament Meeting. it is quite another thing for someone whom has no interest in, doesn't want to believe, and/or doesn't believe, to be a member of good standing in the church.

What about someone who used to believe, wants to believe, but no longer believes?

[thesometimesaint]

What about someone who used to believe, wants to believe, but no longer believes?

 

As I said I'm fine with someone who simply wants to believe. Though I do think that some Callings do require a bit more commitment to the restored Gospel than just desire to believe.

 

SEE Baptismal Questions

http://www.lds4u.com/Discussions/Interview.htm

[Nevo]

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)?  And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?

Is there room for someone who questions whether the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses are actual records of Abraham and Moses? I hope so. David Holland, in a comment made a few weeks ago on Daniel Peterson's blog, lamented "a cultural tendency [in the Church] to shrink the amount of space we afford people to work out their faith and salvation." I hope there can be a place in the Church for people who question, who do not (yet) have a strong spiritual and/or intellectual conviction of the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Moses, or the parchment of John). Some people may never find that certainty in this life.

 

Should such individuals be in positions of authority and influence, teaching classes and whatnot? Not necessarily. As Paul put it, "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Corinthians 14:8 ). Church leaders and teachers—especially of youth—should not give an uncertain sound. But I think allowances should be made for the weakest of the Saints as long as they are not harming the rest of the flock.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Nevo

[HappyJackWagon]

As I said I'm fine with someone who simply wants to believe. Though I do think that some Callings do require a bit more commitment to the restored Gospel than just desire to believe.

 

SEE Baptismal Questions

http://www.lds4u.com/Discussions/Interview.htm

So you are good with the hopeful agnostic sharing a pew. But what about teaching, bearing testimony, leading YW activities, serving as a financial clerk, EQ President, etc?

[stemelbow]

I would mind it very much. How can I expect someone teaching the Book of Mormon to take it seriously if they do not believe it?

Many such non believers can and do. There is plenty to learn from others. I'd say we ought to accept that principle, learn to embrace the truth no matter from whence it comes.

We have terrible teachers in the Church but in your solution the cure is worse than the disease.

I'm not proposing a cure for the bad teaching. I'm just saying I can imagine a circumstance in which a non believer might be better at teaching the Book of Mormon than many a believer. All I'm saying is it's possible, not that it's going to happen, or that we need non believers teaching us in Church.

When I was a teacher full-time in Sunday School I thought I taught well. I had a crisis of confidence in God and my lessons veered less to the spiritual and more to treating it like literature. A few members loved it and thanked me. They were (and I mean no malice by this) the faithless and those who preferred the secular to the spiritual in almost everything. A faithful friend after a few weeks of this teaching asked me what was wrong. Not if anything was wrong, she knew something was. I was not spiritually feeding the class; and if I failed there it really does not matter how interesting the lesson was.

You can be both spiritual and treat it like literature.

Taking it further would you want a Bishop counseling you who did not really believe much of what he was saying?

uh...you mean like most bishops I've had? Believers often seek counseling from those who aren't members at all because they need professional help and as has been the case all too often, their bishops attempt at counseling was terrible.

A Stake President leading a stake purely as an administrative function?

Sheesh. I'm just saying it's good to have non believers amongst us. I'm not advocating non believers should be leading the congregation or something.

A Mission President who does not believe that the gospel is vital to salvation? An Apostle? I do not see that as a problem. I see the lack of integrity of someone trying to spiritually lead people who does not believe it as possibly one of the worst forms of hypocrisy. The scriptures come down hard on leaders who not only do not enter into heaven but also do not lead or even prevent others from entering.

Well you took my contribution in a way I did not intend. To gladly welcome non believers among us does not argue that we should call atheists to be our mission presidents.

[stemelbow]

I knew a lady that gave once and she said that she had been praying since 1968 to know if the Book of Mormon was true and it had been well over 20 years before she got an answer but in the meantime she couldn't say it was true but by the same token she couldn't say it wasn't true either

Well it sounds like to some here we should have sent her packing long ago. You can't be a Mormon and not believe this stuff. You just can't.

[thesometimesaint]

So you are good with the hopeful agnostic sharing a pew. But what about teaching, bearing testimony, leading YW activities, serving as a financial clerk, EQ President, etc?

 

I was an Agnostic before I joined the Church. I believe there is a place for anyone whom wants it. Bear a testimony to what you have a testimony of. IE; Love your spouse, kids, desires for the Gospel, etc.. I do believe formal Callings in the Church should be limited to members of the Church. I'm a bit more flexible with unofficial callings. IE; A temporary substitute SS teacher is a possibility.

[mormonnewb]

I would mind it very much. How can I expect someone teaching the Book of Mormon to take it seriously if they do not believe it? We have terrible teachers in the Church but in your solution the cure is worse than the disease. When I was a teacher full-time in Sunday School I thought I taught well. I had a crisis of confidence in God and my lessons veered less to the spiritual and more to treating it like literature. A few members loved it and thanked me. They were (and I mean no malice by this) the faithless and those who preferred the secular to the spiritual in almost everything. A faithful friend after a few weeks of this teaching asked me what was wrong. Not if anything was wrong, she knew something was. I was not spiritually feeding the class; and if I failed there it really does not matter how interesting the lesson was.

Taking it further would you want a Bishop counseling you who did not really believe much of what he was saying? A Stake President leading a stake purely as an administrative function? A Mission President who does not believe that the gospel is vital to salvation? An Apostle? I do not see that as a problem. I see the lack of integrity of someone trying to spiritually lead people who does not believe it as possibly one of the worst forms of hypocrisy. The scriptures come down hard on leaders who not only do not enter into heaven but also do not lead or even prevent others from entering.

 

Agreed.  Bishops, SPs, GAs, etc. should be TBMs.  It would be somewhat insane for a prophet to not believe in the Restoration or continuing revelation.

 

However, as for teachers, I'm not so sure that the skeptical wouldn't make the best teachers.  The very best Bible course that I've ever taken on iTunes U was given by a gay agnostic professor.  He knew the history of 1st century Judea so well that he was able to put the NT in context.  Also, as a non-believer, he saw things that a believer might just gloss over (the differing accounts of Jesus' birth, resurrection, etc.)  Also, he was just irreverent enough to keep it interesting.  However, he wasn't so dismissive of the Bible narrative that, as a believer in the divinity of Christ, I was offended.  The same could be true of a SS, EQ, RS, YM or YW teacher, provided that they don't openly express their disbelief in fundamental LDS truth claims or disagreement with fundamental Church doctrines.  As I remind myself before I teach EQ, people didn't come to the Church of Mormonnewb but to the LDS Church, and as a result, they came to learn what the LDS Church teaches.

 

As for "spiritually feeding" the class, it comes back to milk and meat.  In my view, it's not very "meaty" to just get up in class and say, "I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true because I KNOW it's true."  I think it's meatier to be able to "give a reason for your hope" of the truth of the BoM, Restoration, etc.  After all, isn't that what each of the faithful people on this board have done?  In fact, they've built up enough of a foundation in the stability of their beliefs that they don't crumble when they discover that one of their pillars is faulty (i.e., that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of the papyrus).  With many other solid pillars of belief, it's much easier to rebuild a supporting narrative (i.e., that the BoA was an inspired work) without having the whole structure of belief crumble and then having to rebuild from the ground up.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)?  And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?

 

The question is not really whether there is room for those with doubts in the Church. Of course there is! The question becomes one of why certain 'doubters' want to remain in the Church. A recent post on another website took me to one of Dehlin's Facebook comments in which he argued that it is fundamentally dishonest to tell someone that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are true when the evidence actually leaves no room for that kind of belief. At that point, I think one has to wonder if it isn't a person's entire purpose to 'fundamentally change the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"'.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

Agreed.  Bishops, SPs, GAs, etc. should be TBMs.  It would be somewhat insane for a prophet to not believe in the Restoration or continuing revelation.

 

However, as for teachers, I'm not so sure that the skeptical wouldn't make the best teachers.  The very best Bible course that I've ever taken on iTunes U was given by a gay agnostic professor.  He knew the history of 1st century Judea so well that he was able to put the NT in context.  Also, as a non-believer, he saw things that a believer might just gloss over (the differing accounts of Jesus' birth, resurrection, etc.)  Also, he was just irreverent enough to keep it interesting.  However, he wasn't so dismissive of the Bible narrative that, as a believer in the divinity of Christ, I was offended.  The same could be true of a SS, EQ, RS, YM or YW teacher, provided that they don't openly express their disbelief in fundamental LDS truth claims or disagreement with fundamental Church doctrines.  As I remind myself before I teach EQ, people didn't come to the Church of Mormonnewb but to the LDS Church, and as a result, they came to learn what the LDS Church teaches.

 

As for "spiritually feeding" the class, it comes back to milk and meat.  In my view, it's not very "meaty" to just get up in class and say, "I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true because I KNOW it's true."  I think it's meatier to be able to "give a reason for your hope" of the truth of the BoM, Restoration, etc.  After all, isn't that what each of the faithful people on this board have done?  In fact, they've built up enough of a foundation in the stability of their beliefs that they don't crumble when they discover that one of their pillars is faulty (i.e., that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of the papyrus).  With many other solid pillars of belief, it's much easier to rebuild a supporting narrative (i.e., that the BoA was an inspired work) without having the whole structure of belief crumble and then having to rebuild from the ground up.

The skeptical can teach in that way but the day our Sunday School classes become more about the culture of 1st century Judea then they do the gospel is the day we need to disband them no matter how entertaining or interesting they are. That is not the meat of the gospel. It is, at best, in the suburbs of Zion offering recreation. Recreation is good but it does not save.....and man do I wish it did.

I disagree that a testimony is the milk of the gospel. This board exists for those who make these issues and things a hobby. They can strengthen or destroy faith but most of the time they are neutral. I do not think the meat of the gospel has to do with staying faithful to the basics of the gospel in spite of church history. That seems more like milk to me. The stuff you feed to a babe until it is strong enough to stomach meat or to the sick who need to heal before they can handle meat. The meat are the steps you take to sanctify yourself in preparation for a glorious resurrection. While a knowledge of Joseph Smith's polygamy will not hurt that search it is also unlikely to help.