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

[The Nehor]

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.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.You can be both spiritual and treat it like literature.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.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.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.

By all means they should attend but they are not fully involved and should not be put in as if they were short of divine guidance to do so which does happen.

In regards to bishops I clearly meant spiritual counseling about the state of your soul. If someone needs therapy they can seek it wherever they need to.

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

I agree that delving into Nauvoo polygamy or that time JS cheated in a poker game (just testing your faith there) doesn't build a strong testimony.  However, having an understanding 1st century Judea can be faith-affirming, particularly in relation to the LDS claim of being the restored Church.  In fact, how does one KNOW that we are like the original church unless we have an understanding of what the original church was like?

 

Likewise, as we study Christ's parables, how do we understand them if we don't know the context of their day?  For example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son carries even greater weight when one has an understanding of Jewish custom of the day.  For the father to run out to meet his boy isn't like it would be in the 21st century when everyone has two or three (unused) gym memberships.  Jewish patriarchs of that age did NOT run.  It was beneath their status.  Children ran.  Women might run.  But men of that status had too much dignity for running.  So for the father to run out to meet his son shows just how much our HF loves us and how when we are truly repentant, he will meet us halfway.  Even more, the father embraced his filthy and shabbily dressed son.  Once again, this would have been shocking for those in that day, but it demonstrates just how eager HF is for our return and how we will be embraced as His children (even before we have gotten clean and righteous).  To me, this isn't the milk of the Gospel, it is the meat.  And the informed exegesis is the seasoning that makes it that much more delicious.

[Guest]

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"?

I think the Church would want people to remain in hopes that they regain their testimony of the BoM, or any other doctrine they are struggling with. This because the love them.

[Guest]

I agree that delving into Nauvoo polygamy or that time JS cheated in a poker game (just testing your faith there) doesn't build a strong testimony.  However, having an understanding 1st century Judea can be faith-affirming, particularly in relation to the LDS claim of being the restored Church.  In fact, how does one KNOW that we are like the original church unless we have an understanding of what the original church was like?

 

Likewise, as we study Christ's parables, how do we understand them if we don't know the context of their day?  For example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son carries even greater weight when one has an understanding of Jewish custom of the day.  For the father to run out to meet his boy isn't like it would be in the 21st century when everyone has two or three (unused) gym memberships.  Jewish patriarchs of that age did NOT run.  It was beneath their status.  Children ran.  Women might run.  But men of that status had too much dignity for running.  So for the father to run out to meet his son shows just how much our HF loves us and how when we are truly repentant, he will meet us halfway.  Even more, the father embraced his filthy and shabbily dressed son.  Once again, this would have been shocking for those in that day, but it demonstrates just how eager HF is for our return and how we will be embraced as His children (even before we have gotten clean and righteous).  To me, this isn't the milk of the Gospel, it is the meat.  And the informed exegesis is the seasoning that makes it that much more delicious.

Where and what are you reading that a loving father would not run to or embrace his son...no mater how ragged his son. Righteous father's are just that fathers first and Patriarchs second. What have you be reading that would lead you to this error. Also we do not need you to make insulting comments about Joseph to test our faith. It has already started, your anti-Mormon behavior of which I warned. You are leaving the faith and it is already happening.

 

Personal slurs questioning another's faith = thread ban

[mormonnewb]

Where and what are you reading that a loving father would not run to or embrace his son...no mater how ragged his son. Righteous father's are just that fathers first and Patriarchs second. What have you be reading that would lead you to this error. Also we do not need you to make insulting comments about Joseph to test our faith. It has already started, your anti-Mormon behavior of which I warned. You are leaving the faith and it is already happening.

You are seeing what you want to see. Do you really think I was trying to insult JS by making an unproven allegation, which I acknowledged immediately as being untrue? Furthermore, of all the things that JS has been accused of, this is the mildest allegation EVER. If I'm an anti-Mormon, I'm not really good at it.

[Nevo]

Where and what are you reading that a loving father would not run to or embrace his son...no mater how ragged his son. Righteous father's are just that fathers first and Patriarchs second. What have you be reading that would lead you to this error.

 

Mormonnewb is correct. Numerous commentators have remarked on this aspect of the parable. For example:

• "[v.20, 'his father...ran']: a most unusual and undignified procedure for an aged oriental even though he is in haste" (Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 3rd rev. ed. [London: SCM Press, 1972], 130).

   

• "The father runs to meet the son—an outlandish behavior, as emphasized by many interpreters. According to tradition, the 'way' a man walks 'shows what he is' (Sir 19:30), and therefore a dignified man does not run. We must imagine here a prominent person wearing a long robe. In order to run, he must pull up the robe, exposing his legs, which would have been considered shameful in Semitic culture. Even in a gentile Greco-Roman context, a 'proud man' makes slow steps" (Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 78).

   

• "Respected older men avoided running because it was viewed as shameful to show one's legs and to appear so undignified" (Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008],126).

[theplains]

However, having an understanding 1st century Judea can be faith-affirming, particularly in relation to the LDS claim of being the restored Church.  In fact, how does one KNOW that we are like the original church unless we have an understanding of what the original church was like?

 

 

The office of high priests did not exist in the original church. In the Old Testament, only

one high priest existed at a time. When he died, another took his place. You cannot

restore an office of plural holders which didn't exist in the New Testament church. Jesus

is our only High Priest. See Hebrews 7,8,9.

 

Regards,

Jim

[mormonnewb]

Where and what are you reading that a loving father would not run to or embrace his son...no mater how ragged his son. Righteous father's are just that fathers first and Patriarchs second. What have you be reading that would lead you to this error. Also we do not need you to make insulting comments about Joseph to test our faith. It has already started, your anti-Mormon behavior of which I warned. You are leaving the faith and it is already happening.

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating my point. In modern times, it is no big deal for a father to run out to hug his child. What righteous father wouldn't, right? However, the people to whom Jesus taught would not have seen it that way? They would have marveled at the thought of a father loving his child THAT much.

And this is why informed exegesis is so valuable. It turns a ho-hum detail into one of great significance and it shows that HF doesn't love His children as any righteous father would. He loves His children enough to "debase" himself by running after them. And in the trinitarian view, HF loves us so much that He was willing to eschew His celestial glory and to come down to earth, wrap Himself in flesh and .... Sorry about that. The Baptist preacher in me was coming out for a second.

To me, this is MEAT. To truly understand the stories as the Master told them to his audience and to understand how it ALL comes full circle to Calvary. For there, on the cross, hung our Lord and Savior ... oops, sorry, I got carried away again.

[readstoomuch]

Historicity is different than inspired to me. I don`t automatically expect them to be equivalent. There are also degrees of historicity. Take horses or other anachronisms. Either horses have not been found in the correct fossils or perhaps the word meant an animal that looks like a horse or is ridden like a horse. Does believing in the historicity of the BOM mean that you have to agree 100% that there were horses in the New World before the 1500`s or else? If you have to believe 100% of a certain definition, then the definition shape how many are labeled as believers.

[carbon dioxide]

 

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"?

I have room for someone who may not currently believe the book of Mormon to be a historical record because they struggle with certain aspects.   It is the closed minded people who not only do not believe but go one step further and oppose the Book of Mormon and declare it false.  To openly deny is far worse than not believing.  As long as one is willing to keep their mind open, there is always room.

[sunstoned]

Where and what are you reading that a loving father would not run to or embrace his son...no mater how ragged his son. Righteous father's are just that fathers first and Patriarchs second. What have you be reading that would lead you to this error. Also we do not need you to make insulting comments about Joseph to test our faith. It has already started, your anti-Mormon behavior of which I warned. You are leaving the faith and it is already happening.

Your post is the one that is insulting. Did you bother to read the posting in context with this thread.  The comments about running was in context of the social norms of 1st century Judea as reported by a professor.  

[The Nehor]

I agree that delving into Nauvoo polygamy or that time JS cheated in a poker game (just testing your faith there) doesn't build a strong testimony.  However, having an understanding 1st century Judea can be faith-affirming, particularly in relation to the LDS claim of being the restored Church.  In fact, how does one KNOW that we are like the original church unless we have an understanding of what the original church was like?

Most saints do not even ask the question or picture our sacrament meeting with tunics instead of suits. This is not ideal but it does little harm and I am not sure it helps.

Likewise, as we study Christ's parables, how do we understand them if we don't know the context of their day?  For example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son carries even greater weight when one has an understanding of Jewish custom of the day.  For the father to run out to meet his boy isn't like it would be in the 21st century when everyone has two or three (unused) gym memberships.  Jewish patriarchs of that age did NOT run.  It was beneath their status.  Children ran.  Women might run.  But men of that status had too much dignity for running.  So for the father to run out to meet his son shows just how much our HF loves us and how when we are truly repentant, he will meet us halfway.  Even more, the father embraced his filthy and shabbily dressed son.  Once again, this would have been shocking for those in that day, but it demonstrates just how eager HF is for our return and how we will be embraced as His children (even before we have gotten clean and righteous).  To me, this isn't the milk of the Gospel, it is the meat.  And the informed exegesis is the seasoning that makes it that much more delicious.

We understand them by the power of the Holy Ghost. Exegesis conveys some understanding but the Holy Ghost changes our core being. And at the risk of being harsh you just announced you were leaving. If we carry the analogy forward the meat is the stuff you choke on and not the stuff you find congenial. If that parable truly hits you why are you going back to the swine and the husks? Basically, I would urge you to stay.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think the church welcomes all, but good luck getting a temple recommend if you don't believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith being a true prophet.

[Cinnamon Bear Head]

Wow, synchronicity. 

 

A few months ago I invited the Elders to make their best pitch about the restored gospel. I was curious as to how they would teach an apostate, atheist exmo using rational arguments and real evidence. We set up ground rules that we all agreed on and started the experiment. One such rule was that as a skeptic I must remain open. They chose to teach strictly from the BoM in the first phase and I evaluated the book solely on its own terms. I recorded my feelings and prayed often. 

 

I will spare the details, although I want to shout my full experience from the tallest structures, and report that I feel very, very strongly that the BoM is a true book. I do not believe the literal interpretation is the point, indeed the BoM does not make that claim. The principles we have teased out are wonderful. 

 

I bear testimony that the truths and principles (I have a list) are correct ones that have brought me to a state I find difficult to describe. I have felt the spirit when reading, pondering, and praying. I have adopted them into my life and pray regularly. I cannot deny the feelings and enrichment. I am excited and meet constantly with the elders. 

 

I do not believe in god, supernaturalism, metaphysics, or Nephites according to the literal interpretation. 

 

Last week I went to church for the first time in years. I was excited to talk about the philosophy and principles in the BoM and the gospel. The lesson was on fasting and I was entranced, but felt stifled, Why? I was the only person (excluding the elders) in the class who was not slumped over and staring at the floor or dozing. Why did no one else apparently care? No idea, but I did. If someone with a testimony and is burning to know more, but is currently not blessed with belief is unequal to those who do believe but zone out, then that is very sad.

 

We have this is common, a testimony in the truth of the gospel. The details are just part of the mists. Talk to me about Christ and the atonement. Insisting on Nephites is pointless. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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"?

 

I have never had a problem with the openly expressed opinions of Sterling McMurrin, whom I admired a great deal, even if he claimed the Book of Mormon to be fiction.  However, Professor McMurrin was never so reckless as to claim that he was an expert on the Book of Mormon and to go on to make fatuous statements about its place among non-Mormon scholars. John Dehlin, on the other hand, who is working on a graduate degree, has never shown the slightest interest in scholarly self-restraint in speaking on matters about which he knows nearly nothing.  He speaks loosely about "evidence," but fails completely to provide any on his own.  Those of us who spend time actually studying such matters are astonished at his hybris.  We discuss such matters regularly on this board -- yet where is Dehlin?  Does he ever bother to read scholarship on such matters?  Does he participate in online discussions?  Why is it that his interviews evince not the slightest indication of familiarity with hard facts?

 

Still and all, Elder Holland has spoken publicly about the acceptable place for a whole range of misfits within the Mormon communion.  McMurrin himself was never threatened with excommunication, and (so far as I  know) neither has Dehlin.  Even excommunicants I know take part in Mormon social activities, and are quite welcome.  That does not mean that a large segment of the Mormon community has become heretical or disbelieving.  It is only an indication of breadth and love in that community, and trust that many who sit on the margins may at some point be part of full fellowship with the Saints.

 

I have had good relations with quite a few vociferous anti-Mormons, some of whom are no longer with us (and I miss them).  I welcome their comments on what they see and understand about Mormonism.  I learn a great deal about my own faith thereby.  I hope all of us do.  As Mike Quinn has said:  "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

[Robert F. Smith]

The office of high priests did not exist in the original church. In the Old Testament, only

one high priest existed at a time. When he died, another took his place. You cannot

restore an office of plural holders which didn't exist in the New Testament church. Jesus

is our only High Priest. See Hebrews 7,8,9.

 

Regards,

Jim

Not so, Jim.  Paul claims in Romans 15:16 to be a leitourgos Apriest, minister@ of Jesus Christ, and that he was appointed to a specific hierourgounta Apriestly duty@ (NJB, NAB, REB, TEV, NIV; cf. IV Macc 3:20).  He may well have considered this merely part of the diaconate of early Christianity, analogous to the levitical function in Jewish practice, but it is a priestly function nonetheless, and it continues within Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Mormonism.

 

As to how many “chief priests” (Acts 5:24) there may be at any one time:  There were two top High Priests in Jesus’ time, only because one was retired.  Such a one headed the Sanhedrin  However, there were many chief priests, and there was always a chief priest in charge of each “course,” Zacharias famously being the priest apparently in charge of the course of Abia when he was struck dumb with the news from an angel that he would have a son named John (Lk 1:5-59).  Such “priests” are lineal descendants of Aaron, and are termed kohen, kohanim.  However, that term has also been used to designate non-Israelite priests, such as Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses and priest of Midian (Ex 18:1), Potiphera, the father-in-law of Joseph, the Egyptian priest of Heliopolis (Gen 41:45,50),and Melchizedek himself.  Thus, the Hebrew term kohen can designate an official of nearly any priesthood.

 

Whether you accept the traditional Melchizedek priesthood of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Mormonism may well depend on how you feel about the "sacred deposit of the faith" in one instance, or about revelatory restoration in the other.  Moreover, the 144,000 servants of God (Jona 1:9 LXX) who serve in his Temple and before his throne arrayed in white (Rev 7:3,14-17) are the High Priests of God who reign with him for a thousand years and forever (Rev 20:6, 22:3-6, D&C 76:54-70, 77:11). 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Even excommunicants I know take part in Mormon social activities, and are quite welcome.

 

We have a brother who attends our ward most weeks who was excommunicated about 20 years ago, so it's not just social activities.

[intra]

 To openly deny is far worse than not believing.  

 

Open rebuke is better than secret love.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

(Proverbs 27:5-6) 

who's a better companion?

an honest man who's been deceived?

or someone with real knowledge, but who is a liar? 

[intra]

As to how many “chief priests” (Acts 5:24) there may be at any one time:  There were two top High Priests in Jesus’ time, only because one was retired.  

no. 

 

there were two called "high priest" during Jesus days because the Romans appointed a puppet to the top of the Sanhedrin. the high priest under Moses' law was high priest for life, he retires only by dying. this is why Jesus Christ has never been removed as priest and never will be; He lives forever. 

the Roman authority did not respect this law. Annas should have high priest for life, but Valerius Gratus deposed him and set up Caiphas as high priest in AD 15. orthodox Jewry still recognized Annas and not Caiphas, but in the eyes of Rome and occupied Jerusalem, Caiphas was priest (see: Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 18) 

human rules don't overturn the truth of God. the Lord Jesus Christ lives forever and is High Priest now and forever, and His priesthood cannot be removed so cannot ever have need of "re-institution"  

 

[stemelbow]

By all means they should attend but they are not fully involved and should not be put in as if they were short of divine guidance to do so which does happen.

In regards to bishops I clearly meant spiritual counseling about the state of your soul. If someone needs therapy they can seek it wherever they need to.

Well I'm not sure what you're saying then.

The questions in the OP say,

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?

If a nonbeliever should be in GD class then I'm not sure where you were going with your previous comments. Sounded to me like people were saying we should toss people right out the building if they aren't really believers. The OP is saying should we let them be "Active members" and sit in GD class. Not should we let them be our MPs.

[The Nehor]

no. 

 

there were two called "high priest" during Jesus days because the Romans appointed a puppet to the top of the Sanhedrin. the high priest under Moses' law was high priest for life, he retires only by dying. this is why Jesus Christ has never been removed as priest and never will be; He lives forever. 

the Roman authority did not respect this law. Annas should have high priest for life, but Valerius Gratus deposed him and set up Caiphas as high priest in AD 15. orthodox Jewry still recognized Annas and not Caiphas, but in the eyes of Rome and occupied Jerusalem, Caiphas was priest (see: Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 18) 

human rules don't overturn the truth of God. the Lord Jesus Christ lives forever and is High Priest now and forever, and His priesthood cannot be removed so cannot ever have need of "re-institution"  

Why would you be High Priest for life? Aaron set a bad precedent then because he stepped down and let his son take over and lived several years afterwards.

[rockpond]

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"?

 

This is a great question that the church (leadership at all levels and members alike) will have to answer.

 

It seems to be a large part of the reason Dehlin is facing disciplinary action.

 

Currently, we don't require belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (based on it not being a TR question).  But generally non-believers remain silent.  I think that we need to find room for those people that allows them to also be open about their feelings as long as they wish to continue being a part of the faith community.

[sethpayne]

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

 

Belief has nothing to do with commitment to the Gospel.

 

If faith and a desire to believe is acceptable to Christ then I'm not sure why any of us should set a different standard.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a great question that the church (leadership at all levels and members alike) will have to answer.

 

It seems to be a large part of the reason Dehlin is facing disciplinary action.

 

Currently, we don't require belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (based on it not being a TR question).  But generally non-believers remain silent.  I think that we need to find room for those people that allows them to also be open about their feelings as long as they wish to continue being a part of the faith community.

At what point does being "open" about their unbelief become the teaching of false doctrine, a potentially harmful offense that, last I heard, makes one subject to Church discipline?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

This is a great question that the church (leadership at all levels and members alike) will have to answer.

 

It seems to be a large part of the reason Dehlin is facing disciplinary action.

 

Currently, we don't require belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (based on it not being a TR question).  But generally non-believers remain silent.  I think that we need to find room for those people that allows them to also be open about their feelings as long as they wish to continue being a part of the faith community.

 

That is always the question. Why belong to any organization you don't believe in?

 

We all have our personal questions about the Gospel, and our role in it. Questions aren't the problem. It is a problem when we use our membership in the Church to lead others astray.

 

I'm a bit of a sticker when it comes to historicity. While not a literalist I do believe there really were Nephites. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our restored religion, and failure to accept its Truth Claims does present serious problems for a TR applicant.

SEE TR question. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?