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

[Michael Sanders]

Look, I can't turn on and off belief. I hope and I apply the precepts in my life. I pray and study. I am open, begging for god to show himself. I have faith. I am disappointed that coming to Christ with a broken heart and a contrite spirit isn't good enough to be in "good standing". What's the point of the gospel? The path to perfection and salvation. Am I supposed to get excited about a Nephite or the better way. Holy crap, my faith isn't in Noah, or Adam, or Nephi, or Joseph Smith. It is in Christ. Where is Bukowski when I need him.

And I don't think anyone is disparaging you for these things. A true "broken heart and contrite spirit" is an acceptable sacrifice. And I doubt anyone would recommend placing your faith in flesh as opposed to Christ. But at what point does the work of the church languish if no one believes its teachings? How would a Christian denomination fare over time if they abandoned the bible? Taught that is was mythical (we have examples of this), that Christ was just a good man, the records are not what they purport to be but make us feel good, the resurrection never happened it was all delusion? As Joseph once said:

"Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none."

I think this is one of the reasons for the provision in Section 20 which instructs the priesthood concerning converts that they "are to have sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding" previous to them being confirmed members of the church "so that all things may be done in order.". Far too often are people baptized into various faiths without true belief in their principles or knowing what manner of covenant they are making. But I cannot imagine baptizing someone into the church who wanted to just "believe in Christ" and dismiss all the other things he caused to happen. Isn't rejecting his works tantamount to rejecting him?

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Michael Sanders]

But the Book of Abraham didn't come forth as JS claimed and the church recognizes and offers multiple possibilities. Does that mean the BoA is built upon lies or simply built upon joseph's misunderstanding.

The coming forth of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not comparable.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[HappyJackWagon]

The coming forth of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not comparable.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Would you like to explain why?

 

Joseph created a narrative around the origins of an ancient document and the production of the BoM. You're saying that must be exactly as he said or he is a liar.

 

Joseph also created a narrative about the origins of an ancient document and the production of the BoA. You're saying that I can't compare the two? Why not? If his narrative about the BoA is not fully correct, yet we accept it, why couldn't the same be done for the BoM?

[Michael Sanders]

As Mike Quinn has said: "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

Or C.S. Lewis' derivation on the theme:

"If ours is an examined faith, we should be unafraid to doubt. If doubt is eventually justified, we were believing what clearly was not worth believing. But if doubt is answered, our faith has grown stronger. It knows God more certainly and it can enjoy God more deeply." - C. S. Lewis

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 8, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand how church discipline is administered.  But you missed my point...

 

I'm suggesting that the ratio of people who lack the same literal/orthodox beliefs will increase.  As that happens, dealing with it on a case by case basis becomes increasingly difficult for local lay leaders.  I see them turning to the general authorities for more of a policy statement on how to deal with it (if that policy doesn't come from the GA's even before the question can be posed -- it's possible they are already considering it based on Dehlin's case).

I don't think I did miss your point.

 

You seem to be calling for greater centralized control over local administrative responsibilities. I'm saying that's not necessarily how the Lord runs His Church. Stake and ward leaders -- the holders of priesthood keys for their individual congregations -- already have access to revelation from God for their individual ministries. I've never been a bishop or a stake president, but I understand the guidelines have already been given on matters of Church discipline and, say, such things as the definition of teaching false doctrine as it constitutes grounds for penalties to be imposed by the Church. With such guidelines, it is up to the local priesthood leaders to exercise their best judgment and to access the revelation from God to which they are entitled.

 

In short, I don't see the need for another edict or policy statement or what-have-you from Salt Lake City on this matter. If in the tumultuous years to come, more and more of the members of the Church become casualties to the influence of the great and abominable church, well, the superstructure is already in place to deal with that.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Yes, and there is also Lavina Fielding Anderson, excommunicated more than 20 years ago, who has continued to attend Church and who plays the piano in her Relief Society meetings.

[The Nehor]

Or C.S. Lewis' derivation on the theme:

"If ours is an examined faith, we should be unafraid to doubt. If doubt is eventually justified, we were believing what clearly was not worth believing. But if doubt is answered, our faith has grown stronger. It knows God more certainly and it can enjoy God more deeply." - C. S. Lewis

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

As much as a I love Lewis I believe his faith in human reason was more then a little excessive.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

But then that takes us back to the question why Sterling McMurrin was never disciplined for his regular public statements that the Book of Mormon is fiction.  Are some members more equal than others?

[Scott Lloyd]

But then that takes us back to the question why Sterling McMurrin was never disciplined for his regular public statements that the Book of Mormon is fiction.  Are some members more equal than others?

Perhaps he should have been. Some local leaders, no doubt, carry out their duties imperfectly. Yet the principle remains the same, and I don't see that the Lord is going to alter it just because now and then and here and there some don't perform their work as they should.

 

Was McMurrin given a temple recommend after he began to say and write publicly that the Book of Mormon is fiction? (Sincere question. I'm not well-enough acquainted with the facts to know.) Being denied a temple recommend would, in my view, be a rather grave penalty.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Recently we were advised to not let a certain man come to our meetings on Sundays. He's a weird kid (I call him kid but he's in his early 30s and lives with is mom). He's been showing up and it's been suspected that he's recorded scenes from sacrament on his phone, which I kinda doubt. He's sat by me a time or two and while he's using his phone I haven't seen him video'ing anything. So as we discussed it, I objected, "let him come. he's not hurting anything". The priesthood quorums set out to schedule men to sit by all the doors of the building. Lock the doors and let people in as they come. But if he came, don't let him in. I was scheduled to do it, "ah too bad I have to teach that hour". This went on for weeks without the guy showing up. One week he finally decided to come again. Just as he was walking towards the building the EQP drove into the parking lot. He got out and ran in to talk to the bishop (let's just say people are afraid to confront this kid). "he's here...he's here...what shall we do?" The bishop went out to see him, greeted him kindly and asked him not to come back. Behind the bishop was a crew of other men and leaders looking intimidating. The kid left. We haven't seen him since, at least not at Church.

We got rid of that unbeliever, we did. Although, I admit, I don't feel a bit good about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

But the Book of Abraham didn't come forth as JS claimed and the church recognizes and offers multiple possibilities. Does that mean the BoA is built upon lies or simply built upon joseph's misunderstanding.

Just because the LDS Church leaders recognize multiple possibilities does not mean that the BofA did not come forth as Joe Smith said it did.  We have discussed this question extensively on this board, and I have yet to find a problem with Joe Smith's description of how the BofA came to be.  The misunderstandings (and there are many) come from people who don't really understand the history or content of the BofA.  How is that different from the frequent misunderstandings one encounters on the origin or the Book of Mormon?

[Mars]

stemelbow: Soooooo...  that was just it?  He was simply an unbeliever and the leadership - more than just one guy, it sounds like - decided to gang up on him for no other reason than his disbelief and the accusation that he was recording Sacrament?

 

I kinda find that hard to believe.

 

The following anecdote is slightly embellished for the fun of story telling and edited for brevity: We had a mentally unstable fella in our ward in Logan, once upon a time.  He would stop taking his meds and start getting really anxious while sitting in the pew.  Once, he got so antsy that he began to call the people around him to repentance.  He wouldn't be quiet or calm down.  He wouldn't respond to people asking him simple questions.  He just raising his voice louder and louder and telling people they needed to repent.  The Bishop didn't ask him to stop coming back, but during a ward council that option was heavily discussed because - surprise - no one was a mental health professional and no one was equipped to handle him.  Had the Bishop asked this guy to please not return, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been borne of a "get the square peg out of here!  We can't handle no different people!"

 

But that's me...

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................   

We got rid of that unbeliever, we did. Although, I admit, I don't feel a bit good about it.

The Holy Spirit is talking to you, stemelbow.  Maybe, if you feel up to it, go see the "kid" and invite him to Church.  Bring him in and have him sit with you.  It will be good for him and you, and for the Church.  However, if you pray about it and the Holy Spirit says "no," then forget about it.

[stemelbow]

stemelbow: Soooooo...  that was just it?  He was simply an unbeliever and the leadership - more than just one guy, it sounds like - decided to gang up on him for no other reason than his disbelief and the accusation that he was recording Sacrament?

 

I kinda find that hard to believe.

Don't believe it then. I don't care. I gave you a summary, of course there is more to it. The guy lives by me. He's weird, as I said. He doesn't believe and has told me and others several times. He's been invited to come many times and has come, over the years. But for some reason they thought he was recording meetings and putting it up on the internet. His mom never said so. She's really embarrassed by him, because everyone knows him, so she prefers not to talk about him with Church members. I know absolutely they don't know where on the internet it's been posted, if it has. They don't know why he'd do it. They only know he has expressed his unbelief, comes in support of his mom, sometimes, and is, as they'd characterize, "anti-Mormon". But he sits quietly and doesn't make a scene.

He's surely got mental issues. Surely he does. This past summer my son was mowing the neighbors lawn and he started yelling and pointing at my son. My son turned off the mower, not knowing who he was, took out his music plugs, and asked, What? He yelled more obscenities and threatened by teenage son. he walked away and my son resumed his work.

I don't like that one bit. If I didn't know he was mentally unstable I'd take more of an issue with it. But I know him. He's not going to hurt my kid. He may talk like he would, but he won't.

he's never done anything like that in Church, although once he did get up in Sacrament, more than 5 years ago, and told everyone he didn't believe anymore. But that was it.

[stemelbow]

The Holy Spirit is talking to you, stemelbow.  Maybe, if you feel up to it, go see the "kid" and invite him to Church.  Bring him in and have him sit with you.  It will be good for him and you, and for the Church.  However, if you pray about it and the Holy Spirit says "no," then forget about it.

The whole ward is committed to not letting him in, whether I'm sitting with him or not. I've sat with him in the past. And the whole ward, at least those in leadership, already know I disagree with them on this.

[rockpond]

I don't think I did miss your point.

 

You seem to be calling for greater centralized control over local administrative responsibilities. I'm saying that's not necessarily how the Lord runs His Church. Stake and ward leaders -- the holders of priesthood keys for their individual congregations -- already have access to revelation from God for their individual ministries. I've never been a bishop or a stake president, but I understand the guidelines have already been given on matters of Church discipline and, say, such things as the definition of teaching false doctrine as it constitutes grounds for penalties to be imposed by the Church. With such guidelines, it is up to the local priesthood leaders to exercise their best judgment and to access the revelation from God to which they are entitled.

 

In short, I don't see the need for another edict or policy statement or what-have-you from Salt Lake City on this matter. If in the tumultuous years to come, more and more of the members of the Church become casualties to the influence of the great and abominable church, well, the superstructure is already in place to deal with that.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying here.  But when a problem becomes large enough, I think it is appropriate to look to the next level up for guidance.  Isn't that what they are there for?  I'm not suggesting that local church discipline/ministry be given up.  I'm just saying that as the problem grows, some more global church level guidance be given.  It's the same reason the CHI has grown and grown.

[Mars]

Don't believe it then. I don't care. I gave you a summary, of course there is more to it. The guy lives by me. He's weird, as I said. He doesn't believe and has told me and others several times. He's been invited to come many times and has come, over the years. But for some reason they thought he was recording meetings and putting it up on the internet. His mom never said so. She's really embarrassed by him, because everyone knows him, so she prefers not to talk about him with Church members. I know absolutely they don't know where on the internet it's been posted, if it has. They don't know why he'd do it. They only know he has expressed his unbelief, comes in support of his mom, sometimes, and is, as they'd characterize, "anti-Mormon". But he sits quietly and doesn't make a scene.

He's surely got mental issues. Surely he does. This past summer my son was mowing the neighbors lawn and he started yelling and pointing at my son. My son turned off the mower, not knowing who he was, took out his music plugs, and asked, What? He yelled more obscenities and threatened by teenage son. he walked away and my son resumed his work.

I don't like that one bit. If I didn't know he was mentally unstable I'd take more of an issue with it. But I know him. He's not going to hurt my kid. He may talk like he would, but he won't.

he's never done anything like that in Church, although once he did get up in Sacrament, more than 5 years ago, and told everyone he didn't believe anymore. But that was it.

 

It's your version of the story that I object to.  Your last part about "hey we got rid of that unbeliever" ascribes motives to the decision of asking him not to come back.  It's as if the leadership's only reasoning was "Hey we don't want a believer here in our midst!"

 

The motivations of the leadership in your ward as you present them are what I disbelieve.  Not the actual events.

 

Do you think the leaders in your ward who asked the young man not to come back would object your characterization of their demeanor, motivations, and desires?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Mars

[stemelbow]

It's your version of the story that I object to.  Your last part about "hey we got rid of that unbeliever" ascribes motives to the decision of asking him not to come back.  It's as if the leadership's only reasoning was "Hey we don't want a believer here in our midst!"

 

The motivations of the leadership in your ward as you present them are what I disbelieve.  Not the actual events.

 

Do you think the leaders in your ward who asked the young man not to come back would object your characterization of their demeanor, motivations, and desires?

I did not say the leaderships' motive is to get rid of an unbeliever. I just said that is what happened. I think their motive is a little more clear in the rendition I gave--they don't want someone recording sacrament meeting and putting it on the net. Why? Beats me. But they are afraid it's happened or is going to happen.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't disagree with what you are saying here.  But when a problem becomes large enough, I think it is appropriate to look to the next level up for guidance.  Isn't that what they are there for?  I'm not suggesting that local church discipline/ministry be given up.  I'm just saying that as the problem grows, some more global church level guidance be given.  It's the same reason the CHI has grown and grown.

Has it grown? My perception in more recent years has been the opposite: many disparate manuals and guidebooks being consolidated together in one two-volume handbook (Handbook 1 for priesthood leaders and Handbook 2 directed more generally to leaders of auxiliary organizations and such).

Edited January 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Has it grown? My perception in more recent years has been the opposite: many disparate handbooks and guidebooks being consolidated together in one two-volume handbook (Handbook 1 for priesthood leaders and Handbook 2 directed more generally to leaders of auxiliary organizations and such).

 

What was the total page count 25 years ago?  50 years ago?  I'm not sure either of us know.

 

When I open my LDS gospel library app and go to the Leadership section there are 18 titles.

[Scott Lloyd]

What was the total page count 25 years ago?  50 years ago?  I'm not sure either of us know.

 

When I open my LDS gospel library app and go to the Leadership section there are 18 titles.

There was a "reduce and simplify" movement in Church administration a decade or two ago. Maybe things are getting out of control again. But not to the point of where Church headquarters is micromanaging the duties of individual stake and ward leaders -- not that I see, anyway.

[rongo]

I think the pendulum is swinging the other way now, Scott. I'm a big fan of "reduce and simplify" (President Packer is a big proponent of this), but I see a lot of "mission creep" back to lots of meetings, instructions, procedures, etc. 

 

I've noticed an incremental creep back from "preserve time for families" and "activities should be simple and not have heavy time and money costs" to "we need to have lots of elaborate extravaganzas and super activities to save our youth."

[rongo]

Our branch president banned one of our investigators from setting foot inside the building on my mission (with our full support). He began propositioning several sisters in the branch, and the branch president told him that we would get the police if he ever came in the building (the police station was right across the street from the chapel).

 

He came to church with the other elders' mentally-ill eternal investigator. She contacted government officials to try and get them to turn off the satellites because the rays were bouncing off walls and giving her headaches. She had a restraining order against her stemming from following a couple home and asking for her daughter back (she had had an abortion as a teenager, but became convinced that her daughter had lived, and believed the the daughter with the couple was actually hers. She thanked them for taking care of her but wanted her daughter back).

 

He came to church in a tuxedo. He and the lady investigator started up a help group (with newspaper ads) that read, in English: "VOICE. We can help." We taught him the first discussion, and he wanted the priesthood so he could start baptizing people in the lake in the park. He stated that he was Jesus reincarnated and that his new mission was to save the world through his art and music. We promptly stopped teaching him after this eventful first discussion, and his first time at church ended with him propositioning several women, and telling them that they would not be able to resist him. 

 

We fully agreed with and supported the ban on coming to church. He was a disruptive and disturbing influence, his profound mental illness notwithstanding.

[canard78]

Our branch president banned one of our investigators from setting foot inside the building on my mission (with our full support). He began propositioning several sisters in the branch, and the branch president told him that we would get the police if he ever came in the building (the police station was right across the street from the chapel).

He came to church with the other elders' mentally-ill eternal investigator. She contacted government officials to try and get them to turn off the satellites because the rays were bouncing off walls and giving her headaches. She had a restraining order against her stemming from following a couple home and asking for her daughter back (she had had an abortion as a teenager, but became convinced that her daughter had lived, and believed the the daughter with the couple was actually hers. She thanked them for taking care of her but wanted her daughter back).

He came to church in a tuxedo. He and the lady investigator started up a help group (with newspaper ads) that read, in English: "VOICE. We can help." We taught him the first discussion, and he wanted the priesthood so he could start baptizing people in the lake in the park. He stated that he was Jesus reincarnated and that his new mission was to save the world through his art and music. We promptly stopped teaching him after this eventful first discussion, and his first time at church ended with him propositioning several women, and telling them that they would not be able to resist him.

We fully agreed with and supported the ban on coming to church. He was a disruptive and disturbing influence, his profound mental illness notwithstanding.

Which is all a little different to the OP's question of whether someone who believes the BoM is a modern creation.

[rongo]

I know. But some of the discussion turned to the propriety of banning or preventing *anyone* from coming to church. 

 

What if a person were habitually and combatively disruptive in propounding views that the Book of Mormon is a modern creation? I could see that hypothetically requiring possible banning action (depending on the circumstances).