Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon

[drums12]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I agree with you completely.  I held very fundamentalist, rigid beliefs.  I basically believed in prophetic infallibility.  I read Rough Stone Rolling and that naive faith was shattered.  I've managed to reconstruct a more mature faith.  I think the rising generation (kids coming up in seminary and institute now) will be less prone to such assumptions.  Still, I get a bit uncomfortable whenever i hear that primary song "follow the prophet."   Blind obedience has never been what God wants.  That song seems to teach prophetic infallibility.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, drums12 said:

I agree with you completely.  I held very fundamentalist, rigid beliefs.  I basically believed in prophetic infallibility.  I read Rough Stone Rolling and that naive faith was shattered.  I've managed to reconstruct a more mature faith.  I think the rising generation (kids coming up in seminary and institute now) will be less prone to such assumptions.  Still, I get a bit uncomfortable whenever i hear that primary song "follow the prophet."   Blind obedience has never been what God wants.  That song seems to teach prophetic infallibility.

We all have leaders, drums, and we all follow them to some degree -- political, social, and religious leaders whom we listen to -- but most of us will follow them only so far.  A prophet or pastor has a special appeal, but even there we still have our free agency, and must ask a hard question occasionally about the secular judgment of such a religious figure.  Do we really believe that what he recommends is a good idea?  Should we write a check?  That's where push comes to shove.

Put yourself back around 3 thousand years ago, in the days of Samuel the Prophet, a man who anointed kings, and who even condemned kings to death.  How would you have responded to such blatant political and religious authority?

[drums12]

I think the crux of the issue is seeking our own confirmation.  Generally, I don't think Presidents of the Church, for instance, give any counsel that is likely to cause me much heartburn.  But what if tomorrow President Monson asked me to do something really difficult (to me, plural marriage is a poignant example of such a thing)?  Would I blindly accept?  Not a chance.  But would I be humble enough to really seek in fasting and prayer to know God's will, as did Heber Kimball?  I hope so.

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:35 PM, 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.

 

I wonder how they deal with Moroni.  How does a real Moroni come from a non-historical book?

[carbon dioxide]

A person does not need necessarily need the Book of Mormon or Bible to be saved.  Abraham, Enoch, and many others were saved without ever reading them.  But the scriptures are a vital tool that helps us know the doctrine and practices that are needed to be saved.  One however can't purposely reject the scriptures and be saved.  One can't profess love for God on one hand and declare him to be a liar on the other.  If the Holy Ghost as given a witness that the scriptures are true, that person is then locked in and to declare the BOM not to be historical after that point is probably not a very wise thing to do.

Edited August 9, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.  

Right wing views?  I find this a bizarre statement from you as it would be a left wing liberal TBM that would be tolerable to an ahistorical belief in the BoM and most likely awaiting the time it might be safe to come out of the closet and state that its not only not necessary to have a historical testimony of the Bom, but that they do not believe that it is historical.  It's the right wingers that are going to hold fast to the historical BoM correct?  Are you now saying that it is their 'rigid and brittle versions of  Mormonism" that is the problem?  Will you be one of the first to admit you don't believe in a Historical BoM?

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

Once again I hear you saying that the orthodox right winger is the problem.  So what is holding you back from coming out of the closet and publicly saying you do not support a historical BoM but love the book for its inspired message?

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by salgare

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I wonder how they deal with Moroni.  How does a real Moroni come from a non-historical book?

Perhaps they just choose to ignore him.  I can find no mention of him on their site.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

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

LOL. It is kinda weird that more eyes roll at the Malay model than claims the Book of Mormon is 19th-century inspired fiction.

It either happened in Guatemala or in Joseph's head. No middle ground on this one.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Right wing views?  I find this a bizarre statement from you as it would be a left wing liberal TBM that would be tolerable to an ahistorical belief in the BoM and most likely awaiting the time it might be safe to come out of the closet and state that its not only not necessary to have a historical testimony of the Bom, but that they do not believe that it is historical.  It's the right wingers that are going to hold fast to the historical BoM correct?  Are you now saying that it is their 'rigid and brittle versions of  Mormonism" that is the problem?  Will you be one of the first to admit you don't believe in a Historical BoM?

Once again I hear you saying that the orthodox right winger is the problem.  So what is holding you back from coming out of the closet and publicly saying you do not support a historical BoM but love the book for its inspired message?

What I have been saying here for years (and what Prof Mason said at the FairMormon Conf) is that a childish fairy faith is the most likely to crumble, and that it is precisely the most right wing believers which have rigid and brittle notions who are most likely to founder on the shoals of reality.  I have seen it happen many times.  That may indeed be what happened to you.

Moreover, there is nothing orthodox about those right wingers.  They have conjured up a fearful and narrow version of Mormonism which fits their preconceived infallible and inerrant notions -- notions alien to the restored Gospel.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I made a comment on Dan Peterson's blog that I think has relevance here. I said:

Quote

 

Those who view the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" still must deal with the hard fact that their position is not logically coherent, as the book itself does not purport to be fictional and the account of its coming forth is not presented as fiction.

Furthermore, I can't conceive anyone ever being allowed to propound an "inspired fiction" theory in any sort of official Church venue. It is, quite simply, at odds with the position of the Church.

 

If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.

Eidted to add:

Here's a piece on "The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon".

Edited August 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

I found this old, stinky thing at ZLMB that I thought was rather entertaining.  It was rather interesting to read some of the contributions to the thread, to say to myself, "Hey, that sounds like ..." and to see a familiar alias (not a few of which have migrated over here).  Aaany-way ...

Ladies and gentlemen, I now present this Blast from the Past!

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8154/Van-Hales-statement-of-his-BofM-beliefs?page=#.V6mcpZgrLIU

Ahh, the joys of insomnia!  I think I'll see if I can scare up that "Fireflies" song from Owl City ...  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I found this old, stinky thing at ZLMB that I thought was rather entertaining.  It was rather interesting to read some of the contributions to the thread, to say to myself, "Hey, that sounds like ..." and to see a familiar alias (not a few of which have migrated over here).  Aaany-way ...

Ladies and gentlemen, I now present this Blast from the Past!

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8154/Van-Hales-statement-of-his-BofM-beliefs?page=#.V6mcpZgrLIU

Ahh, the joys of insomnia!  I think I'll see if I can scare up that "Fireflies" song from Owl City ...  

Don't want to wade through the whole thing, so I'll just ask: Did you find any posts from me? I used to post on ZLMB, though, by 2005, I might have grown disenchanted with it (as many of us eventually did) and moved over full-time to the predecessor of this board.

[salgare]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I have been saying here for years (and what Prof Mason said at the FairMormon Conf) is that a childish fairy faith is the most likely to crumble, and that it is precisely the most right wing believers which have rigid and brittle notions who are most likely to founder on the shoals of reality.  I have seen it happen many times.  That may indeed be what happened to you.

Moreover, there is nothing orthodox about those right wingers.  They have conjured up a fearful and narrow version of Mormonism which fits their preconceived infallible and inerrant notions -- notions alien to the restored Gospel.

You seem to have avoided my whole question/point.  I asked who might come out of the closet first.  You played like you had no clue what I was talking about.  When I elaborated who would be the first to publicly proclaim they did not believe in a historical BoM you seem to be bashing the childish fairy faith of right wingers that do hold rigidly to a historic BoM.

Funny part is Scott thumbs up your post and I'd peg him as one of this rigid right wingers?  What do you say Scott, can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be Exalted? 

Might Robert F. Smith be the first to come out of the closet? 

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Wasn't it amazing that Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with Dehlin, Snuffer and Runnells in that whole Swedish Rescue II speech?

 

What is it about BOM geography that makes FAIR-ites see red?

[Five Solas]

17 minutes ago, salgare said:

What do you say Scott, can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be Exalted? 

This will be interesting...

--Erik

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I made a comment on Dan Peterson's blog that I think has relevance here. I said:

If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.

Eidted to add:

Here's a piece on "The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon".

Well someday the hardliners will have to let up a bit.  Until that day we'll continue with the more exclusive and insular environment we foster at Church--I say we because for being active and mostly silent when it comes to my perspective I am in effect helping to support it.  Of course until we're able to let up and open up a bit, we'll continue to shrink our rate of growth while growing our sales force, I suppose.  Something we'll just have to get used to, because the loudest dogmatic voices win out these days.  They are the supported voices and often are, as Scott points out, the ones willing to shout out, and in effect shut out others. 

[Peppermint Patty]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

 

Those who view the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" still must deal with the hard fact that their position is not logically coherent, as the book itself does not purport to be fictional and the account of its coming forth is not presented as fiction.

Furthermore, I can't conceive anyone ever being allowed to propound an "inspired fiction" theory in any sort of official Church venue. It is, quite simply, at odds with the position of the Church.

 

If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.

Scott,

Asserting a historical view of the BoM from a believing perspective might be difficult to understand for some, because of the way they define believing and faithful.  I think Mormons who have an nonhistorical view do not  approach the issue from the perspective as many others define it. In the same way that someone who grows up believing that the earth is 6000 years old, blacks were less valiant, the American Indians were the literal descendants or that there was a literal flood and that Noah's ark really existed but then learns scientific and historical information and has to construct a new narrative and self-understanding about these stories in the Bible, many Mormons have come to realize that the Book of Mormon history is of a similar character.

The Church would not fail if it gave up BoM historicity or developed new approaches to scripture.  No religion has ever stayed completely pure to its founder's ideals, including our Church. Just look at all the changes in the last few years with the Book of Abraham, Essays and the Book of Mormon Introduction Page.  All religions develop over time, especially if the religion truly belongs to God and the community.  Succesful and vibrant religions as a whole must also live in the present to shape itself in ways consistent with evolving and traditional beliefs, needs and structures.

 

I hope this made sense.

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I made a comment on Dan Peterson's blog that I think has relevance here. I said:

If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.

Eidted to add:

Here's a piece on "The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon".

I think this is a case and point example for why discussing the BoM as anything but an ancient historical text, would turn a discussion sideways at the ward/stake level.  Your statement that you would "not abide advocacy in my classroom", shows that you are unwilling to even entertain conversations that don't agree with your sensibilities.  This kind of prideful stubbornness would be antithetical to open conversations where we all learn from each other.  

I'm not asking that the church actively preach for a 19th century influenced text as the one and only explanation for the BoM.  I would just love to see the inclusiveness of discussions where we can consider alternative perspectives about the origins of the BoM at the local level.   

 

[stemelbow]

Seeing as the OP referenced Dr, Peterson's blog I went and read.

I found this comment from Dr. Peterson intriguing as he responded to Shades:

Quote

But there's certainly this: Grant Hardy, while declaring that someone who disbelieves in historical Nephites but nonetheless accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture and orients his life around it and the Gospel, announces his belief in a historical Book of Mormon and doesn't argue against it. David's stance, in recent years anyway, seems a bit more ambivalent. And he's been fiercely critical of those who advocate a historical Book of Mormon.

And, if David has been marginalized from my "circles," it's been, to a considerable extent,by his choice, and I regret it very much.

I think David's view is about as reasonable as we can get.  He seems to go to great lengths to qualify his criticisms of historicity.  I think he's strictly offering his views on historicity and is not in anyway trying to distance himself--unless by saying he's trying to distance himself he's trying to distance himself from personal vendettas and the like. 

I will say that nearly everything I read from him rings true to me.  I mean his presentations feel like he's trying to tickle me or something, but I can't fault him for his views, his criticisms and the way he conducts himself. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Wasn't it amazing that Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with Dehlin, Snuffer and Runnells in that whole Swedish Rescue II speech?

 

What is it about BOM geography that makes FAIR-ites see red?

I've wondered about this too.  My theory is that FAIR perceives their Meso-American model as being on an scholarly high ground and they see the obvious flaws in the Heartland model which they think discredit that explanation.  Ironically they seem to be oblivious to the flaws in the Meso-American model or any ancient origins model for that matter.  

[salgare]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this is a case and point example for why discussing the BoM as anything but an ancient historical text, would turn a discussion sideways at the ward/stake level.  Your statement that you would "not abide advocacy in my classroom", shows that you are unwilling to even entertain conversations that don't agree with your sensibilities.  This kind of prideful stubbornness would be antithetical to open conversations where we all learn from each other. 

 

And yet he thumbs up Robert suggesting just the opposite?

 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I have been saying here for years (and what Prof Mason said at the FairMormon Conf) is that a childish fairy faith is the most likely to crumble, and that it is precisely the most right wing believers which have rigid and brittle notions who are most likely to founder on the shoals of reality.  I have seen it happen many times.  That may indeed be what happened to you.

Moreover, there is nothing orthodox about those right wingers.  They have conjured up a fearful and narrow version of Mormonism which fits their preconceived infallible and inerrant notions -- notions alien to the restored Gospel.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

And yet he thumbs up Robert suggesting just the opposite?

You make a good point.  If Scott agrees with Robert's statement about not holding to a rigid and brittle belief system, why is he too rigid to listen to alternative perspectives about the BoM in a Sunday School class?  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Wasn't it amazing that Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with Dehlin, Snuffer and Runnells in that whole Swedish Rescue II speech?

 

What is it about BOM geography that makes FAIR-ites see red?

I can only speak for myself but I find his business model distasteful.

[salgare]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You make a good point.  If Scott agrees with Robert's statement about not holding to a rigid and brittle belief system, why is he too rigid to listen to alternative perspectives about the BoM in a Sunday School class?  

Perhaps I have pegged Scott wrong.

Scott with a focus on Mormonism only, do you consider yourself:

1. Right wing
2. Left wing
3. Conservative
4. Liberal
5. Orthodox

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by salgare

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I made a comment on Dan Peterson's blog that I think has relevance here. I said:

If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.

Eidted to add:

Here's a piece on "The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon".

Surely you have people with questions in the class..do you discount their thoughts  or discuss openly?