"room For All Levels Of Belief" Sacrament Meeting Talk

[Robert F. Smith]

Major problems with that approach, saying it IS human OR divine, because humans ARE divine.

It seems no one sees it both ways at once, and THAT is the problem. Either we believe that or we don't

True enough, although Bokovoy is putting all of us on notice (without explicitly saying so there) that mainstream scholarship is every bit as dangerous for the Bible as it is for the Books of Mormon or Abraham, and many find that very difficult to digest.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

True enough, although Bokovoy is putting all of us on notice (without explicitly saying so there) that mainstream scholarship is every bit as dangerous for the Bible as it is for the Books of Mormon or Abraham, and many find that very difficult to digest.

 

This goes to the incarnational view of scripture. Just like some have the incarnational view that Christ was both fully God and fully human, we can look at scripture as being both fully God and fully human. In other words, it is both god given but also fallible (subject to human weakness).

Edited May 9, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Bobbieaware]

This goes to the incarnational view of scripture. Just like some have the incarnational view that Christ was both fully God and fully human, we can look at scripture as being both fully God and fully human. In other words, it is both god given but also fallible (subject to human weakness).

I would read with intense interest if you could find a sampling of verses from the Book of Mormon that demonstrate the human fallibility of which you speak. And I'm requesting passages that demonstrate actual human error where the doctrines and principles of the gospel are incorrectly understood and stated. The validity of your thesis should be fairly easy to demonstrate if, as you say in your post, half of the Book of Mormon's contents are the result of human fallibility and weakness, This should be an interesting exercise because, as I'm sure you already know, the prophet Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book on earth. But please do understand that I make this request respectfully -- I'm not trying to play "gotcha." Rather, I'm just genuinely interested to see if you can demonstrate your point.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I would read with intense interest if you could find a sampling of verses from the Book of Mormon that demonstrate the human fallibility of which you speak. And I'm requesting passages that demonstrate actual human error where the doctrines and principles of the gospel are incorrectly understood and stated. The validity of your thesis should be fairly easy to demonstrate if, as you say in your post, half of the Book of Mormon's contents are the result of human fallibility and weakness, This should be an interesting exercise because, as I'm sure you already know, the prophet Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book on earth. But please do understand that I make this request respectfully -- I'm not trying to play "gotcha." Rather, I'm just genuinely interested to see if you can demonstrate your point.

I think you're being serious though I can't comprehend your position that the Book of Mormon is infallible. Or maybe you don't understand the definition of infallible. I'm not sure.

I'm not going to look up BoM passages where the writers, such as Mormon, ask the readers not to blame the weaknesses in the record on God. Instead, I'll just share this one tiny little quote from the Book of Mormon title page.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ"

I take this to mean that there are mistakes in the book but they are the mistakes of men. Does that concept concern you for some reason?

Being the "most correct book" doesn't mean it's perfect which is what it would be if it is infallible.

[mfbukowski]

I would read with intense interest if you could find a sampling of verses from the Book of Mormon that demonstrate the human fallibility of which you speak. And I'm requesting passages that demonstrate actual human error where the doctrines and principles of the gospel are incorrectly understood and stated. The validity of your thesis should be fairly easy to demonstrate if, as you say in your post, half of the Book of Mormon's contents are the result of human fallibility and weakness, This should be an interesting exercise because, as I'm sure you already know, the prophet Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book on earth. But please do understand that I make this request respectfully -- I'm not trying to play "gotcha." Rather, I'm just genuinely interested to see if you can demonstrate your point.

This approach leads nowhere. One would have to include the Bible in the study. But then how do we define what constitutes correct? what is the standard for correct doctrine?

Joseph's point was that it is more correct than the Bible.

And its doctrine does differ from the Bible.

With no other standards for correctness, we just need to follow the spirit.

Essentially each of us recreates the scriptures for ourselves.

Edited May 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

True enough, although Bokovoy is putting all of us on notice (without explicitly saying so there) that mainstream scholarship is every bit as dangerous for the Bible as it is for the Books of Mormon or Abraham, and many find that very difficult to digest.

Exactly. And perhaps that is the first step in what needs to happen for everyone's testimony in regard to the question of historicity.

[Bobbieaware]

I think you're being serious though I can't comprehend your position that the Book of Mormon is infallible. Or maybe you don't understand the definition of infallible. I'm not sure.I'm not going to look up BoM passages where the writers, such as Mormon, ask the readers not to blame the weaknesses in the record on God. Instead, I'll just share this one tiny little quote from the Book of Mormon title page."And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ"I take this to mean that there are mistakes in the book but they are the mistakes of men. Does that concept concern you for some reason?Being the "most correct book" doesn't mean it's perfect which is what it would be if it is infallible.

I stated no position; I just simply asked you to make an attempt to validate your position. if your thesis is correct, then the validity of your position should be fairly easy to demonstrate. After all, a solid 50 percent of the Book of Mormon's, according to your statement, is of man and not God. So where are the errors. Just three will sufice. And remember (correct me if I'm wrong), it says IF there are mistakes, not that there are mistakes.

[Robert F. Smith]

I stated no position; I just simply asked you to make an attempt to validate your position. if your thesis is correct, then the validity of your position should be fairly easy to demonstrate. After all, a solid 50 percent of the Book of Mormon's, according to your statement, is of man and not God.

Some might assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon is of man, not God, simply because (although inspired) it was written, composed, edited, copied, dictated, written down, and typeset completely by men, many of whom we can specifically name.  At each point in the sequence there was opportunity for error, and we can actually point to some of those errors.  There would naturally be many more that we cannot know about.

 

So where are the errors. Just three will sufice. And remember (correct me if I'm wrong), it says IF there are mistakes, not that there are mistakes.

 

Jerald & Sandra Tanner would immediately accommodate you with their famous book, 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1996).  The Tanners pounced on some of these changes as specifically doctrinal, such as the change from the 1830 edition "mother of God" to "mother of the son of God" (I Ne 11:18), or "the Eternal Father" to "the Son of the Eternal Father" (I Ne 11:21) in the 1837 edition.

 

Another sort of error can be blamed on the 1830 typesetter for Alma 11:18-19, the verses of which he reversed due to homoeoarcton (same beginning).

 

Another error was committed by an ancient Book of Mormon scribe/copyist at Alma 13:12-16.  The current sequence is in the Original Manuscript, and was only pointed out recently by Grant Hardy.  While engraving metal plates, one could not erase mistakes, so that the ancient scribe skipped a verse (by homoeoteleuton, same ending) and only noticed his error a few verses later.  The correct sequence should be Alma 13:12,16,13-15.  There are many more examples of this "no erasures" problem in the Book of Mormon, as pointed out by the late Mary Lee Treat: See Dennis Heater's summary online at  http://www.quetzalarchaeology.org/ old-site/QC-Issue2.pdf .

[Bobbieaware]

Some might assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon is of man, not God, simply because (although inspired) it was written, composed, edited, copied, dictated, written down, and typeset completely by men, many of whom we can specifically name. At each point in the sequence there was opportunity for error, and we can actually point to some of those errors. There would naturally be many more that we cannot know about.

Jerald & Sandra Tanner would immediately accommodate you with their famous book, 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1996). The Tanners pounced on some of these changes as specifically doctrinal, such as the change from the 1830 edition "mother of God" to "mother of the son of God" (I Ne 11:18), or "the Eternal Father" to "the Son of the Eternal Father" (I Ne 11:21) in the 1837 edition.

Another sort of error can be blamed on the 1830 typesetter for Alma 11:18-19, the verses of which he reversed due to homoeoarcton (same beginning).

Another error was committed by an ancient Book of Mormon scribe/copyist at Alma 13:12-16. The current sequence is in the Original Manuscript, and was only pointed out recently by Grant Hardy. While engraving metal plates, one could not erase mistakes, so that the ancient scribe skipped a verse (by homoeoteleuton, same ending) and only noticed his error a few verses later. The correct sequence should be Alma 13:12,16,13-15. There are many more examples of this "no erasures" problem in the Book of Mormon, as pointed out by the late Mary Lee Treat: See Dennis Heater's summary online at http://www.quetzalarchaeology.org/ old-site/QC-Issue2.pdf .

Thank's Robert. Since the Book of Mormon states more than once that Jesus Christ IS the eternal God, I see no doctrinal error in saying that Mary is "the mother of God." Whether it's said Jesus Christ is God or the Son of God, it's all the same to me. In fact, I believe it's highly likely the original translation is the correct one, but in their wisdom the church leaders believed it was better to to have the Book of Mormon declare Mary was the mother of the Son of God so as to avoid the Book of Mormon being unintentially identified with Catholicism.

As for the other mistakes you cite, they are merely errors of writing and and not the kind of false teachings that spring forth from the minds of uninspired men. But I believe the Book of Mormon is wholly inspired of God because, as the Lord has said, "whether it be by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same." I am one who chooses to see God working through inspired men, rather than seeing men left largely in the dark but who occasionally just happen to get things right. This is especially true with the Book of Mormon, which I perceive to be so filled with truth and heavenly light that, for me, there is no discernable darkness in it all. That's why I'm still waiting to be shown an example of glaring doctrinal error on its pages.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[ksfisher]

Some might assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon is of man, not God, simply because (although inspired) it was written, composed, edited, copied, dictated, written down, and typeset completely by men, many of whom we can specifically name.  At each point in the sequence there was opportunity for error, and we can actually point to some of those errors.  There would naturally be many more that we cannot know about.

 

 

Jerald & Sandra Tanner would immediately accommodate you with their famous book, 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1996).  The Tanners pounced on some of these changes as specifically doctrinal, such as the change from the 1830 edition "mother of God" to "mother of the son of God" (I Ne 11:18), or "the Eternal Father" to "the Son of the Eternal Father" (I Ne 11:21) in the 1837 edition.

 

Another sort of error can be blamed on the 1830 typesetter for Alma 11:18-19, the verses of which he reversed due to homoeoarcton (same beginning).

 

Another error was committed by an ancient Book of Mormon scribe/copyist at Alma 13:12-16.  The current sequence is in the Original Manuscript, and was only pointed out recently by Grant Hardy.  While engraving metal plates, one could not erase mistakes, so that the ancient scribe skipped a verse (by homoeoteleuton, same ending) and only noticed his error a few verses later.  The correct sequence should be Alma 13:12,16,13-15.  There are many more examples of this "no erasures" problem in the Book of Mormon, as pointed out by the late Mary Lee Treat: See Dennis Heater's summary online at  http://www.quetzalarchaeology.org/ old-site/QC-Issue2.pdf .

 

Your link doesn't take me to a pdf, but to the Book of Mormon Foundation homepage.  I don't see the pdf you are referring to on the site.  Could you double check things please.

[cinepro]

The talk would have been even better if the choir had sung this song beforehand:

 

[Gray]

Major problems with that approach, saying it IS human OR divine, because humans ARE divine.

It seems no one sees it both ways at once, and THAT is the problem. Either we believe that or we don't

 

Well, I agree with you there, but of course I think what it means for humans to be divine is an open question.

 

But I think Borg is saying that the Bible was not produced by a discrete omniscient deity giving a first person account of His wisdom for humankind to quote directly and disseminate. But rather that the Bible is entirely a human production, however divine (or not) you views humans to be. It's an earthly text that is aimed at heaven, rather than the other way around.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I stated no position; I just simply asked you to make an attempt to validate your position. if your thesis is correct, then the validity of your position should be fairly easy to demonstrate. After all, a solid 50 percent of the Book of Mormon's, according to your statement, is of man and not God. So where are the errors. Just three will sufice. And remember (correct me if I'm wrong), it says IF there are mistakes, not that there are mistakes.

 

Reread the post. You clearly didn't understand it.

[bluebell]

But rather that the Bible is entirely a human production, however divine (or not) you views humans to be. It's an earthly text that is aimed at heaven, rather than the other way around.

If the scriptures are not also a heavenly text aimed at humans then they aren't of much worth to us.

[Gray]

If the scriptures are not also a heavenly text aimed at humans then they aren't of much worth to us.

 

I don't believe that they are (in the way that I think you mean), but I still find them valuable. 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

All there are is questions and questions and

How do I get out of this soup?

 

 

I just have two questions. Where are we going, and what am I doing in this hand-basket?

[stemelbow]

If the scriptures are not also a heavenly text aimed at humans then they aren't of much worth to us.

That'd mean, if the scriptures were not, that all texts are of not much worth. But that can't be. We're supposed to read from even the best books, most of which can't be considered canonical scripture. Ah well, I think Gray and I agree, for the most part, on what the scriptures are, though. I haven't seem them as being any more magical than other fine works of literature. As both inspire, which is exactly what God needs--more means to inspire us.

[hope_for_things]

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book on earth. But please do understand that I make this request respectfully -- I'm not trying to play "gotcha." Rather, I'm just genuinely interested to see if you can demonstrate your point.

 

Was Joseph speaking as a prophet or a man when he made that statement?  Doesn't everything come down to personal discernment and faith.  

[bluebell]

That'd mean, if the scriptures were not, that all texts are of not much worth. But that can't be. We're supposed to read from even the best books, most of which can't be considered canonical scripture. Ah well, I think Gray and I agree, for the most part, on what the scriptures are, though. I haven't seem them as being any more magical than other fine works of literature. As both inspire, which is exactly what God needs--more means to inspire us.

 

I see a difference between inspiration and revelation.  Both are important.  

[stemelbow]

I see a difference between inspiration and revelation.  Both are important.

Ehhh..both come from God, as messages to help us understand and do what He needs of us. Not sure there's that much of a difference. A non-LDS can be inspired to help another. An LDS person who feels inspired to help another calls it revelation.

[ksfisher]

 I haven't seem them as being any more magical than other fine works of literature. As both inspire, which is exactly what God needs--more means to inspire us.

 

If this was true then we should have authors coming out every other year with great literature that leads people to Christ.  We should all be praying to receive a testimony of the truthfulness of gospel found in Shakespeare, Virgil, ****ens, and Austen.  We should toss out that "chloroform in print" that we study every four years in gospel doctrine and be reading Tom Sawyer instead.  

 

note: apparently the author of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol cannot be mentioned on this board

Edited May 11, 2015 by ksfisher

[Gray]

If this was true then we should have authors coming out every other year with great literature that leads people to Christ.  We should all be praying to receive a testimony of the truthfulness of gospel found in Shakespeare, Virgil, ****ens, and Austen.  We should toss out that "chloroform in print" that we study every four years in gospel doctrine and be reading Tom Sawyer instead.  

 

note: apparently the author of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol cannot be mentioned on this board

 

I'd be delighted if Huckleberry Finn were canonized. 

[mfbukowski]

Well, I agree with you there, but of course I think what it means for humans to be divine is an open question.

 

But I think Borg is saying that the Bible was not produced by a discrete omniscient deity giving a first person account of His wisdom for humankind to quote directly and disseminate. But rather that the Bible is entirely a human production, however divine (or not) you views humans to be. It's an earthly text that is aimed at heaven, rather than the other way around.

Look,  I don't know why, but it seems to me that when we get into this we abandon our common sense.

 

Is God the author of confusion?  Yes or no?

 

Are there ambiguities in the scriptures which cause confusion?  Yes or no?

 

Did God take a pen in his hands, and someone see it floating around writing words on a page with no visible hand guiding it?   Yes or no?

 

Did human fingers write those words?   Did they pass through a human brain?

 

Are they written in a human language, or worse, several human languages, and are they translated by humans from those several languages in which they were written?

 

Is each step in that process fraught with peril of losing some of the "original meaning" assuming that the "original meaning" was actually written by God himself??

 

Were the scriptures in fact written by human beings who were "inspired" (what does that mean?  definition please....) by God to write what they thought God was telling them to write?  Could those humans have been wrong, or by using the imperfect human language they were taught, maybe have gotten some of the finer points confused by the ambiguity of human language itself?

 

These are just a FEW of the questions anyone with common sense would ask, in my most humble opinion.

 

And FINALLY- WHO is it exactly who has to personally answer these questions for themselves to even read the scriptures and figure out how to apply them in our lives?

 

WHO is the final judge in each person's life about whether or not the path they have chosen was indeed inspired by GOD?

 

Is that person fallible?

 

So to me it is clear that one has a perfect God speaking in human mush language and using human mush brains to get out his word in an imperfect world with imperfect translations all to be interpreted by each of our own human mush brains which are full of prejudice, and preconceived "knowledge of the truth" which may or may not be anywhere close to "THE TRUTH".

 

And worse, I think that anyone who believes the "scriptures are God breathed" needs to answer all these questions before making that assertion, or the assertion is on its face totally unreasonable.

 

Does that kind of sum it up?

[stemelbow]

If this was true then we should have authors coming out every other year with great literature that leads people to Christ.  We should all be praying to receive a testimony of the truthfulness of gospel found in Shakespeare, Virgil, ****ens, and Austen.  We should toss out that "chloroform in print" that we study every four years in gospel doctrine and be reading Tom Sawyer instead.  

 

note: apparently the author of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol cannot be mentioned on this board

Reminds me of the notion of the non-organized Church on earth--the Church of the First Born--those who are considered by God to be faithful, perhaps, but do not necessarily belong to the LDS Church. The graph I was always shown on this was a venn diagram where the LDS Church and the Church of the First Born overlap representing the few chosen. Some as I recall would suggest that the portion of the LDS Church that is not part of the Church of the First born is quite a bit larger than those of the Church of the First born.

A little rusty in my mind, though. Isn't discussed very often. But if having any truth, it'd suggest quite clearly that revelation is had by many outside the Church and, if so, that revelation comes from sources other than our canonical works, at least potentially.

[mfbukowski]

I just have two questions. Where are we going, and what am I doing in this hand-basket?

Yeah, I miss that poster too.