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

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

Having served as a gospel doctrine teacher, I might want such a person removed from my class if he were insufferably disruptive, unless his behavior changed. And I would expect the bishop to be the one to do it.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

I get what you're saying, Rongo.

 

Even in my current calling as ward choir director -- ostensibly a rather pedestrian and benign role -- I've recently seen myself overreaching a bit and have had to take myself in hand.

 

Now, if such a thing can happen to me, one with a self-perception of being onboard with "reduce and simplify'' -- I definitely see how it can occur with others as well.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

 

Again, I agree.

 

But my point is that when a problem or issue gets very large or widespread, we look to the general authorities for guidance.  That guidance also helps provide some amount of desired consistency throughout the church administration.  Do you not agree with that?

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, I agree.

 

But my point is that when a problem or issue gets very large or widespread, we look to the general authorities for guidance.  That guidance also helps provide some amount of desired consistency throughout the church administration.  Do you not agree with that?

I think I agree with President Packer who, at a meeting I attended in connection with a regional conference years ago, told a large congregation of local priesthood leaders (and I'm paraphrasing here as best I can remember), "We keep telling you that you have the authority and tools to solve many problems on your own, but for some reason, you don't believe us."

[rockpond]

I think I agree with President Packer who, at a meeting I attended in connection with a regional conference years ago, told a large congregation of local priesthood leaders (and I'm paraphrasing here as best I can remember), "We keep telling you that you have the authority and tools to solve many problems on your own, but for some reason, you don't believe us."

 

Then why don't they get rid of all the handbooks?

[stemelbow]

Then why don't they get rid of all the handbooks?

Well handbooks are tools, so he would include that as part of the tools.

But, I do look forward to the day when we are more able to make more local decisions without having to await approval from higher ups.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well handbooks are tools, so he would include that as part of the tools.

But, I do look forward to the day when we are more able to make more local decisions without having to await approval from higher ups.

I was about to respond to rockpond's question, but I can't improve on this. Thank you.

[HappyJackWagon]

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?

 

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?

I don't understand the quick dismissal.

 

Joseph thought he was translating the words of Abraham that were written by his own hand on the papyrus. Apologists come up with explanations for what "written by his own hand" really meant, but it seems clear Joseph believed the statement to be very literal. Of course we know that the writings on the scroll do not match Joseph's translations. Was he wrong about the source? It seems so. The church even acknowledges that the words of Abraham may not have been on the scrolls.

 

So Joseph also thought he was translating an ancient native american record. Isn't it possible he was wrong about the source of the BoM just as he was the BoA?

[Michael Sanders]

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).

Agree. Sometimes people are very overzealous in pleading their cause and proselytizing certain views often in inappropriate settings. We've all met that sometimes well-meaning (or not) church member who has a short list of private interpretations, grievances, or pet theories that come up in nearly every discussion or every time they get a microphone or occupy the pulpit. These "truths" which are viewed as being neglected by the authorities or the church (whether past or present) and if adopted or complied with would somehow act as a "key" to unlock certain things if everyone else would just get on board.

Ever met someone like that?

I've always been fond of the English puritan church leader Richard Baxter (1615-1691) who wrote concerning the misguided zeal that has the potential to poison all our "prayers and discourses" as we claim to be actuated by the Spirit of God. Joseph Smith once said that there is no greater deception, than for a man to think he is being actuated by the Spirit of God when he is not (paraphrase).

From "The Practical Works of Richard Baxter": http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41633/41633-h/41633-h.htm

"I know those that would draw you into such a contentious zeal, will tell you, that their cause is the cause of God, and that you desert him and betray it, if you be not zealous in it: and that it is but the counsel of flesh and blood which maketh you pretend moderation and peace: and that it is a sign that you are hypocrites, that are so lukewarm, and carnally comply with error: and that the cause of God is to be followed with the greatest zeal and self-denial. And all this is true, if you but be sure that it is indeed the cause of God; and that the greater works of God be not neglected on such pretences; and that your zeal be much greater for faith, and charity, and unity, than for your opinions. But upon great experience, I must tell you, that of the zealous contenders[67] in the world, that cry up "The cause of God, and truth," there is not one of very many, that understandeth what he talks of; but some of them cry up the cause of God, when it is a brat of a proud and ignorant brain, and such as a judicious person would be ashamed of. And some of them are rashly zealous, before they have parts or time to come to any judicious trial. And some of them are misguided by some person or party, that captivateth their minds. And some of them are hurried away by passion and discontent. And many of the ambitious and worldly are blinded by their carnal interests. And many of them, in mere pride, think highly of an opinion, in which they are somewhat singular, and which they can, with some glorying, call their own, as either invented by them or that, in which they think they know more than ordinary men do. And abundance, after long experience, confess that to have been their own erroneous cause, which they before entitled the cause of God. Now when this is the case, and one crieth, Here is Christ, and another, There is Christ; one saith, This is the cause of God, and another saith, That is it; no man that hath any care of his conscience, or of the honour of God and his profession, will leap before he looketh where he shall alight; or run after every one that will whistle him with the name or pretence of truth or a good cause. It is a sad thing to go on many years together in censuring, opposing, and abusing those that are against you, and in seducing others, and misemploying your zeal, and parts, and time, and poisoning all your prayers and discourses, and in the end to see what mischief you have done for want of knowledge, and with Paul to confess, that you were mad in opposing the truth and servants of God, though you did it in a zeal of God through ignorance. Were it not much better to stay till you have tried the ground, and prevent so many years' grievous sin, than to escape by a sad repentance, and leave behind you stinking and venomous fruit of your mistake? and worse, if you never repent yourselves. Your own and your brethren's souls are not so lightly to be ventured upon dangerous, untried ways. It will not make the truth and church amends, to say at last, I had thought I had done well. Let those go to the wars of disputing, and contending, and censuring, and siding with a sect, that are riper, and[Pg 51] better understand the cause: wars are not for children. Do you suspend your judgment till you can solidly and certainly inform it, and serve God in charity, quietness, and peace; and it is two to one, but you will live to see the day, that the contenders that would have led you into their wars, will come off with so much loss themselves, as will teach them to approve your peaceable course, or teach you to bless God that kept you in your place and duty."

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[rockpond]

Well handbooks are tools, so he would include that as part of the tools.

But, I do look forward to the day when we are more able to make more local decisions without having to await approval from higher ups.

 

From a practical perspective (I'm currently in a calling where we use Handbook 1), we go to the handbook when we are unsure of an answer.  Does it always give us the needed answer?  No.  Do we still rely on inspiration to guide our actions?  Yes.

 

But the handbooks provide guidance from those with more experience and with the mantel of leading the church as a whole.

 

All I'm saying is that if the issue of unorthodox/non-literal belief among active members became large enough, don't you think some guidance from the general authorities would be prudent?  I'm honestly shocked at the amount of push-back I am receiving on this idea.  I really didn't think it would be controversial.

[Calm]

It is not recording sacrament meeting I see as problematic as our ward does it for shut ins, though just audio; it is videoing people, especially children without their knowledge and placing it on the Internet. That is totally wrong IMO and if I was aware of someone being allowed to do it, I would be angry about the potential danger it might cause.

If people want to allow their kids to put stuff up so be it or do it themselves but some parents and kids are more careful and they have a right to feel safe at church and not wonder if someone is secretly taking their picture. I have known people whose kids were kidnapped or molested. A police officer shared the info that Mormon kids are considered sweet targets because they are seen as more innocent and pure than the general population. Utah attracts a lot of creeps from other states or at least used to when I first heard this. I tend to be very proactive about protecting children from harm.

Perhaps the Biahop asked if he had recorded without permission and he confirmed it.

[stemelbow]

From a practical perspective (I'm currently in a calling where we use Handbook 1), we go to the handbook when we are unsure of an answer.  Does it always give us the needed answer?  No.  Do we still rely on inspiration to guide our actions?  Yes.

 

But the handbooks provide guidance from those with more experience and with the mantel of leading the church as a whole.

 

All I'm saying is that if the issue of unorthodox/non-literal belief among active members became large enough, don't you think some guidance from the general authorities would be prudent?  I'm honestly shocked at the amount of push-back I am receiving on this idea.  I really didn't think it would be controversial.

nah..you make a decent enough point on that. I was just commenting in that handbooks are surely seen as tools. Perhaps an updated handbook will be in order if that issues demand it.

[Avatar4321]

I guess that depends. Are they actively teaching the Book of Mormon isn't true? Cause no we don't need that.

people can question all they want. The only way to get an answer is ask the Lord

[Hamba Tuhan]

Given current trajectories, I think we'll arrive at the day when there just isn't enough ecclesiastical leader time to continue discussing it on a case-by-case basis.  I think local leaders will look to our general authorities for more global answers.

 

I'm suggesting that the ratio of people who lack the same literal/orthodox beliefs will increase.

 

I'm just saying that as the problem grows, some more global church level guidance be given.

 

But my point is that when a problem or issue gets very large or widespread, we look to the general authorities for guidance.

 

All I'm saying is that if the issue of unorthodox/non-literal belief among active members became large enough, don't you think some guidance from the general authorities would be prudent?  I'm honestly shocked at the amount of push-back I am receiving on this idea.  I really didn't think it would be controversial.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you come across as almost hopeful that 'non-literal belief' will grow and that this phenomenon will force the prophets to act. Tell us, what sort of 'guidance' are you so keenly hoping for?

[rockpond]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you come across as almost hopeful that 'non-literal belief' will grow and that this phenomenon will force the prophets to act. Tell us, what sort of 'guidance' are you so keenly hoping for?

 

No, I am not hopeful of that because it creates problems for the church that I dearly love.  But I do see it as somewhat inevitable.

 

I hope that the guidance will be to allow for ways to keep people in the church, even when a literal belief eludes them.

[BCSpace]

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"?

 

The Church wants everyone to accept the BoM and BoA as historical because that is not only the official doctrine, but speaks to the very truth claims of the Church (more so seemingly the BoM, but the BoA also because it is scripture).

 

The Church has an absolute zero tolerance on any member not accepting the BoM and BoA as historical but not necessarily in a disciplinary sense (though not believing can keep you from callings, priesthood advancement, TR, etc.).  Rather, if you don't believe, you will continue to be taught and encouraged to believe and receive a spiritual witness to that effect until you do believe or until you decide to leave, or until you die.

 

The Church generally does not care too much about all the various semantics are on what a translation is, or the details of translation, that some details might be figurative, and where you stand on those.

 

But otherwise, yes, there is no middle ground.

[theplains]

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.

 

Romans 15:15-16 says, "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some

sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the

minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the

Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost".

 

I have a different take.

 

Assuming your interpretation, this would make Paul the High Priest to the Gentiles and Peter the

High Priest to the Jews. We (both men and women) are ministers of the new covenant, but this

does not mean we are high priests [see 2 Corinthians 3:3-8].

 

If you have a greek-english translation, the greek word for minister (Romans 15) and high priest

(Hebrews 13:11) are not the same.

 

 

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.

 

 

Biblically speaking, only Aaronic priests could serve in the temple. The LDS Church has

allowed this for any lineage I think.  Hence it could not restore what did not exist in the New

Testament church; for the disciples did not participate in any ordinances in the temple.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

The term 'high priest' is not found in those passages in Revelation or D&C.  But I can

understand how people have a habit of inserting words when they are not there in the

first place.

 

According to D&C 102:1, "This day a general council of twenty-four high priests assembled

at the house of Joseph Smith, Jun., by revelation, and proceeded to organize the high

council of the church of Christ, which was to consist of twelve high priests, and one or three

presidents as the case might require".

 

Here we have a general council of 24 high priests organizing a high council of 12 other high

priests.  According to verse 7, seven councilors can appoint other high priests.  In the end,

you have an innumerable number of high priests. Definitely not a restoration of the New

Testament church.

  

Revelation 20:6 - "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the

second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign

with him a thousand years".

 

No where does the Bible say the 144,000 rule with Christ for 1,000 years.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

[mormonnewb]

I don't understand the quick dismissal.

Joseph thought he was translating the words of Abraham that were written by his own hand on the papyrus. Apologists come up with explanations for what "written by his own hand" really meant, but it seems clear Joseph believed the statement to be very literal. Of course we know that the writings on the scroll do not match Joseph's translations. Was he wrong about the source? It seems so. The church even acknowledges that the words of Abraham may not have been on the scrolls.

So Joseph also thought he was translating an ancient native american record. Isn't it possible he was wrong about the source of the BoM just as he was the BoA?

Is it also possible that JS could have been wrong about the source of the BOM, but still "right" in his translation? At least, in the sense that he MISTAKENLY came upon a work of great truth and value?

This might sound silly but this has been the formula for many breakthroughs in science. The scientist started from a faulty premise but ended up "stumbling upon" some great truth. The same is true in business.

As we all know, the Post-It Note was created by a scientist intent on creating a super adhesive. He did just the opposite. Yet, 3M had good sense to not dismiss the scientist as some "charlatan" or "fraud." Instead, they took what was beautiful, righteous and of good report (or however the phrase goes) and created a BILLION dollar product line.

Perhaps, those of us in the non-literal category could do the same. And the best part is that we don't need anyone's "permission" to do so. We can simply bear testimony about the truths contained IN scripture (even when we can't bear testimony to its literal or historical truth).

And I know this is easier said than done (which probably explains why I'm much better at typing it than I am at living it).

[sethpayne]

 

 

But otherwise, yes, there is no middle ground.

 

Why is there middle ground on evolution, pre-Adamites, the BoA, and a global flood but not the BoM?

[Michael Sanders]

Biblically speaking, only Aaronic priests could serve in the temple. The LDS Church has allowed this for any lineage I think. Hence it could not restore what did not exist in the New

Testament church; for the disciples did not participate in any ordinances in the temple

Jim,

All "priests" are "levites" or from the tribe of Levi, but not all "levites" are "priests." The "priests" were chosen from the posterity of Aaron. The "levitical priesthood" is NOT the "Aaronic Priesthood" as you seem to suggest. The Aaronite high priest was of the tribe of Levi---being a descendant of Aaron and his assistants were the "levites." Numbers 18 clarifies some of these distinctions.

The divisions among the Levitical tribe consisted of 1) Aaron and his lineage which were the *priests* and Aaronite "high priest*---these were descended from Levi's son Kohath and formed the "priesthood" (See Leviticus 8-9) 2) Non-Aaronite descendents of Kohath were responsibly for the most sacred parts of the tabernacle/temple (See Numbers 3:27-32; 4:4-15; 7:9) but are not called "priests" but "levites" to my knowledge 3) Another division consisted of the descendants of Levi's other two sons Gershon and Merari who were given even lesser duties (See Numbers 3:21-26, 33-37) who also are never referred to as "priests".

What you seem to be confusing is the Aaronite Office of High Priest in Ancient Israel (comprised of Aaron's descendants from within the tribe of Levi) with the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek which was "without beginning of days or end of years" and existed before the mosaic economy was introduced.

They have various designations in the scriptures like "sons of Aaron" and "sons of Moses". In fact, Adam, Enoch, Jared, Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Jethro, etc... were all possessors of the high priesthood after the order of the Son of God. Moses received the high priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro which is traced back to our first father Adam when it was conferred upon him.

The epistle to the Hebrews is merely attempting to demonstrate the superiority of this priesthood to that of the Aaronite or Levitical priesthood which had remained. It is not saying that Christ is our great high priest and therefore there is no need for this office (of high priest), it is merely comparing, contrasting, and demonstrating how Christ was a literal fulfillment of the duty of the High Priest in ancient Israel (which there is now no need of an Aaronite High Priest for the ultimate and eternal sacrifice had been given) in reconciling man to God. Just because Jesus is called our "great high priest" does not eliminate the need for the "high priesthood" which he restored and pre-existed before the mosiac legislation, in like fashion, just because he is called "the High Priest and Apostle of our profession (Heb 3:1)" does not negate the need for Apostles. Neither does it make null and void the office of Bishop when he is called the "Bishop of our souls" in 1 Peter 2:5.

"Biblically speaking..." of course.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 9, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[Michael Sanders]

Is it also possible that JS could have been wrong about the source of the BOM, but still "right" in his translation? At least, in the sense that he MISTAKENLY came upon a work of great truth and value?

Except this completely denies the scriptural-historical record. We either accept their testimony or we don't - trying to "hedge our bets" for whatever reason and distort the story to fit our understanding does irreparable damage to the narrative. Usually whenever we try to ride two horses we end up falling off of both of them!

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[The Nehor]

Is it also possible that JS could have been wrong about the source of the BOM, but still "right" in his translation? At least, in the sense that he MISTAKENLY came upon a work of great truth and value?

 

In this scenario who was Moroni? I assume he was not the last writer of the fictional book returned from beyond the grave......

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism while the Book of Abraham teaches polytheism . The Book of Mormon adheres to the teachings found in The Creeds of the 4th and 5th century .

[The Nehor]

The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism while the Book of Abraham teaches polytheism . The Book of Mormon adheres to the teachings found in The Creeds of the 4th and 5th century .

then why hasn't the rest of the Christian canonized the Book of Mormon?

[canard78]

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).

 

It would be a shame if it ever got to that. It would be nice to think that a diverse set of views were welcome.

 

Having said that, back in 2013 I spoke with my branch president at the time he called me as branch mission leader. I explained that there were a lot of things I no longer believed and that I would feel able to teach (in Gospel Principles, which I was also going to be the teacher of). He told me that as long as I focused on teaching the things I do believe he didn't mind. We agreed a set of "rules" (which I proposed:

 

- I would use the Gospel Principles manual and aim to quote from at least 1/4 of the content in the manual

- I would use additional resouces to support the lesson, but only on the condition that they were either the teachings of General Authorities or taken from LDS.org/other official LDS manuals and publications.

- I wouldn't teach things I didn't believe to be true but I would focus on things I could, in good conscience, teach

 

I kept notes of all my lessons here:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/A%20thoughtful%20gospel%20principles

 

My favourite lessons were the one of Scriptures (where we discussed the idea of a fullness being different to a completeness) and also The Creation (where we had a healthy discussion of religion vs science... the mission president turned up for that one, which was fun!). I struggled with the Prophets one, due to personal perspectives, and had to work really hard to stay withing my set of "rules."

 

The lessons got a very good response. Attendance increased and several investigators really responded positively to it.

 

I completely accept that if I had proactively taught the things I did NOT believe that the branch president and participants in the lesson would have taken a different view.

 

My branch president's line was: "You're always welcome here, even with those different views and disbelief in certain doctrines or teachings. I'd simply prefer it if you kept those particular views to yourself."