Jump to content

Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

Professor Peterson posted some interesing information about Grant Hardy's recent FAIR presentation.

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

Can anyone who was in attendance elaborate further on Brother Hardy's presentation?

This sounds like it was a very interesting presentation. Any idea when the transcript will be available? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Professor Peterson posted some interesing information about Grant Hardy's recent FAIR presentation.

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

Can anyone who was in attendance elaborate further on Brother Hardy's presentation?

This sounds like it was a very interesting presentation. Any idea when the transcript will be available? 

where did prof. peterson post this? do tell!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I think the idea of a nonhistorical Book of Mormon is incorrect,

There are many in the Community of Christ who have taken this non-historical position, although they do still regard it as scripture.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There are many in the Community of Christ who have taken this non-historical position, although they do still regard it as scripture.

 

Interesting. I did not know that at all. Is this a recent development?

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Interesting. I did not know that at all. Is this a recent development?

This attitude has been slowly developing over the decades. Also while the LDS Church sees the Bible and Book of Mormon equal in scriptural importance, the CoC emphasize the Bible as the more authoritative scripture. 

Statement from the CoC:
“While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use” (Spencer M. Veazey, 2007, dismissing a proposal that the Book of Mormon's divinity should be reaffirmed. Andrew M. Shields, “Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007,” in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007.).

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

But if the Book of Mormon does not contain real historical events, then people have been deceived. Especially all those
visitors who come to see the Manti Pageant.

Jim

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 8/6/2016 at 3:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Morgan Deane's presentation on August 4, 2016, in Provo, focused on insurgency in the BofM, observing that the BofM has the same flaws as any other legitimate historical source.

Deane pointed out, for example, that Nephite governments were like Greek city-states run by the elites.  When they were weak, that allowed for the rise of so-called "robbers" (Helaman 6 & 11).  Indeed, Deane noted that the victors write the histories which lionize one side and excoriate the other (as pointed out the next day also by Grant Hardy).  Deane cited Edward Luttwak on the consequent praise for the strategy and tactics of the victors as brilliant, even when it wasn't.  So one finds the text declaring the robbers destroyed, even though that was not true -- a recurrent problem whenever local elitists were dissatisfied (and moved by greed for plunder) and were willing to fund social bandits (Robin Hoods) on the margins of society.  Gidianhi, for example, seemed to want only a more egalitarian society with land reform.  Mormon edited everything to fit his spiritual message, thus denying legitimacy to satanic opponents -- who had to be described as lazy & idle, dark & loathesome.  One man's "terrorist" turns out to be another man's "freedom fighter."

Thats a pretty good summary! I'll work on having better slides next time.  ;) I also made some edits about heavy metal armor in the BoM. I hope you all get a chance to watch and find value in it when it comes out. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 8/6/2016 at 2:42 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

Brother Hardy just clarified his position a few minutes ago on that same thread:

"Just to be clear, I said that I believe that for someone who accepts the Book of Mormon as authoritative scripture and strives to live by its precepts, a faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction can be a "saving faith," that is, faith sufficient to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. I think the idea of a nonhistorical Book of Mormon is incorrect, yet in the end, our relationship to Christ and the Church, and the way that we treat others, will be more determinative of our eternal destiny than our opinions about Book of Mormon geography, historicity, and any number of other controversial issues. And I suggested that everyone will be surprised at the Judgment Day by something or other, including me."

This is excellent.  I feel like I could comfortably attend Sunday school in an environment like this.  I think I could get something out of it and uplift others at the same time.  But when the majority of people in class consider my perspectives as a threat to their faith it makes things very difficult.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Hi Jim, I think what Brother Hardy is saying is that people's opinions about geography and historicity can be distractions and are not necessary for our eternal salvation. Sometimes these opinions can become detrimental to our salvation if we let in the spirit of contention, like we've all seen sometimes with the competing geography theory camps.

In the end, what is going to be determinative of our salvation and what is the real meat of the Gospel is if we loved and obeyed God and helped others with all of our heart, time, talents, minds and soul. 

When we apply the doctrine of the Book of Mormon to our daily lives in furtherance of the above, then it matters not whether one views it as inspired fiction, allegory, parable or non-historical. The real power of the Book comes from its teachings and not its history, or nonhistory.

I think that's what Brother Hardy means. Although I could be wrong :)

Do you think this could include discussions about 19th century influences on the BoM, in a Sunday School environment?  I wonder if the paradigm that Brother Hardy explains is something that could realistically work at a Ward and Stake level?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

As a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is largely inspired fiction, I am heartened to hear Grant allow me a place at the table.

Now we can all join hands and wipe out Meldrum and his foul ilk.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now we can all join hands and wipe out Meldrum and his foul ilk.

Don't forget about those evil Malay Peninsula folks, too.  And those disreputable Baja Peninsula theory guys should be wiped out also. :)

Link to post
On 8/6/2016 at 2:30 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

His personal belief is that there were ancient Nephites, probably in Mesoamerica, and that the BofM authors were humans with biases and blindspots.  He sees the NT quotes found therein to be God's intertextual effort.  Moreover, he said, God has a plan and he intervenes in history from time to time.  Yet the notion of inspired fiction is also an adequate concept for some.

 

I wonder who of the semi-public figures will be the first to come out of the closet?

Link to post
43 minutes ago, salgare said:

I wonder who of the semi-public figures will be the first to come out of the closet?

Which closet?  Your comment is a bit dense, which is not at all unusual for you, salgare.  A little clarity would help.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which closet?  Your comment is a bit dense, which is not at all unusual for you, salgare.  A little clarity would help.

Who will be the first TBM to come out of the closet and proclaim they do not believe in a historical BoM.  I suspect many are in the closet

Edited by salgare
Link to post
1 minute ago, salgare said:

Who will be the first TBM to come out of the closet and proclaim they do not believe in a historical BoM.  I suspect many are in the closet

There are always some so-called "true believing Mormons" who eventually apostatize.  That happens, particularly to those who hold rigid and brittle versions of Mormonism.  Inculcating ridiculously infallible, inerrant, and right wing views in some members does them no service and gives them no advantage at all.  Such a pattern of belief will crack and collapse all too quickly, leaving a former member who feels that he was sold a bill of goods.  And he is correct.  Mormon folklore is no substitute for the real thing.  One sees the same pattern among rigid evangelicals.  Such shallow pretend beliefs cannot be sustained over time.

Authentic Mormonism, on the other hand, is dynamic and resilient, able to withstand the buffetings of Satan with fresh equanimity.  The unexamined faith is not worth having, salgare.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By bdouglas
      Two months ago someone from my extended family, Richard (not his real name), left the church.
      “I believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon,” he said.
      I spent an hour or so pushing back on this point. I brought up the complex geography of the BOM (“Fiction writers very rarely invent geography, and when they do it’s a very simple geography”); the language (“Who invents something like Reformed Egyptian? If you’re inventing a story about Jews from 600 BC you have them speaking Hebrew”); the various plates (“Someone could write a whole book on the various plates in the BOM alone, the abridgments, the abridgments of abridgments, the large plates, the small plates, what happened to these plates over the course of a thousand years”); the messiness yet internal consistency of the narrative (“Fiction is not messy, it is tidy, organized. But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction"); etc., etc.
      But it was all to no effect. Richard has never been a reader, and most of what I said––well, it just didn’t register with him.
      But what I said next, did.
      “The Book of Mormon was originally rendered in a language Joseph Smith didn’t know.”
      “What?”
      “The Book of Mormon, the original text that Joseph Smith dictated, was not written in the English of that day. It was not the King James English of the Bible, nor was it the English of Joseph’s day. It was written in Early Modern English, a language which had been out of use for 200 years by 1827. This was a language Joseph Smith did not know and could not have known.”
      Long pause. I’d finally hit on something that Richard could grasp.
      "The presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is proof that Joseph Smith did not produce the book himself," I said.
      Maybe it would be more accurate to say that it is a different kind of proof, one that is easily grasped by someone like Richard, who is not going to respond to other proofs.
      Not that Richard is suddenly going to return to the church. I doubt that he will.
      But the presence of EModE in the BOM, when taken with all of the other proofs, makes it extremely unlikely, really impossible, that JS wrote the BOM.
      P.S. - Tried to edit headline but can't.
    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      At the end of Alma 37, Alma gives his final instructions to his faithful young son Helaman. After encouraging him always to be obedient to God’s commandments and to pray to God continually, Alma uses the Liahona as an object lesson to teach Helaman how to obtain eternal life through following the words of Christ. Using analogy, Alma compares the Liahona, the temporal compass provided by God to Lehi, with the words of Christ, the spiritual guide provided to all by God. In this remarkable passage, Alma, like all good teachers, repeats this image three times, and like a good Nephite teacher, he uses a parallelism to increase the impact.
      Alma employs the alternate parallel form, one of the most common and effective forms of poetic parallelism in the Book of Mormon. It appears hundreds of times. An alternate consists of two or more lines that are repeated in parallel order. The simple alternate form is outlined ABAB. Extended alternates are outlined ABCABC, etc. 
       Alma uses three extended alternates in rapid sequence to instruct his son. 
       A   For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, 
          B   which will point to you 
              C   a straight course to eternal bliss, 
      A   as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, 
           B   which would point unto them 
               C   a straight course to the promised land.
      The A phrase compares the ease of heeding the words of Christ with the ease of looking at the Liahona. The B phrase describes the purpose of A which is to point the course. The C phrase declares the final destination of those who follow A, salvation and arrival at the promised land.
       A   For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, 
         B   by following its course, 
             C   to the promised land, 
      A   shall the words of Christ, 
         B   if we follow their course,
             C  carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
      The A phrase again compares the words of Christ with the Liahona, but in reversed order. The B phrase indicates what we should do with A – follow their directions, and the C phrase gives the destination of those who do B – the promised land and a far better place, eternal life. 
       A   for so was it with our fathers; 
         B    for so was it prepared for them,
            C   that if they would look they might live; 
      A   even so it is with us.
         B   The way is prepared, 
            C   and if we will look we may live forever.
      In this last alternate, Alma personalizes the analogies of the first two. The A phrase compares the Nephite fathers (Lehi and Nephi) with Alma and his son Helaman. The B phrase indicates that God prepared the ways of direction for all of them. The C phrase compares the physical salvation of the Nephite fathers by following the Liahona with the spiritual salvation promised to all of us who will look upon Christ.
      Alma concludes his instructions with another impassioned fatherly plea that his son rise to the greatness of his calling.
      This passage indicates deliberate logical planning on the part of Alma in giving crucial instructions to his son prior to his death. This is what Alma thought would be of most worth to his son - look to Christ. It gives us insight into the Nephite mind, especially that of a powerful and gifted leader. I am so grateful for the Book of Mormon and the beautiful intricacies that await in its pages for us to discover. (Thanks to Donald Parry for his marvelous edition of the Book of Mormon. Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted. Maxwell Institute, 2007).
       Your comments are welcomed. 
       Here is the passage in context.
       
    • By Five Solas
      1. Read the Book of Mormon
      2.  Ask God
      3. With a sincere heart
      4. With real intent
      5. Having faith in Christ
      Failure is not an option, if you believe Moroni.  First, you must read.  Next, you must follow with prayer while meeting his remaining 3 prerequisites.  Then the truth of the Book of Mormon will be manifested to you.  Full stop.
      Therefore if the truth is not manifested, the reason is as plain as the nose on your face: One or more of the prerequisites were not met.  There is no alternate possibility.  "It’s very simple"—as President Trump is fond of saying in his press conferences.
      5 possible ways to fail, and only 5.  So here is a question:  With LDS Church growth stalling and 70+% of millennials going inactive/leaving the LDS Church by age 20 (courtesy of Mormonleaks), which of the 5 do you think represents the greatest challenge?  Or are they all equally challenging?  Or do you think it's some combination of them that present difficulty?
      And while we’re on the question, how exactly does one go about achieving the last three prerequisites?  Would any LDS seriously admonish an investigator to read the Bible first in order to attain “faith in Christ” prior to attempting the Book of Mormon?
      --Erik
      _____________________________________________
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
      --H.L. Mencken
    • By hope_for_things
      Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  
      Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  
      I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  
×
×
  • Create New...