Jump to content

Claim the Book of Mormon is “inspired fiction” & still be exalted to Celestial Kingdom?


Choose You This Day!  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Grant Hardy (FAIR Presentation)

    • I’m LDS and I believe Grant Hardy is WRONG—among other things, one must affirm belief in historical “Nephites” to inherit the Celestial Kingdom
      4
    • I’m LDS and I believe Grant Hardy is RIGHT—one can believe the Book of Mormon contents to be “inspired fiction” and still inherit the Celestial Kingdom
      19
    • I’m LDS & and this poll makes me uncomfortable and/or I think the pollster is incompetent, doesn't understand Mormonism, etc.
      7
    • I’m not LDS
      8


Recommended Posts

Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll. 

What do you think? 

--Erik

Edited by Five Solas
Patty, not Paddy - so embarrassed!
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Did Grant Hardy actually say that one could believe the BofM to be inspired fiction and still be exalted?  I don't recall the quote, and I was there.  Perhaps you could give us the verbatim quotation.  Otherwise your questions are based on a false claim -- unless you believe that a fictional claim is as good as a true one, and therefore any unscientific poll would be just as valid.  How about it, Erik.  Did you think this through?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I'm just relying on the previous thread, Robert.  No, I wasn't there (Utah doesn't suit me, I only go there for family reasons).  But please feel free to make a contribution to my thread by citing whatever words you may have heard on the subject. 

--Erik

Link to post

I cannot answer the poll as there is not an option for me.

Quote

Affirm belief in historical “Nephites” to inherit the Celestial Kingdom is NOT a requirement.

One can believe the Book of Mormon contents to be “inspired fiction” and still inherit the Celestial Kingdom

Believing what God and his prophets have said about the Nephites is.
Joseph Smith met Moroni.  Therefore I either believe Joseph was lying or Moroni was a historical character.

I do believe that following the gospel restored by Joseph Smith (including his visions and revelations) is a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom. 
So doubting his visitation from the very historical Moroni (and Moses, and Elijah, and Christ) and implying a deceit to him or by him could be a bar to the Celestial Kingdom.

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

I voted for the third option, even though it doesn't really fit my thoughts that great.  

In my view though, in this life we can believe the BOM is historical or not and I don't think that will impact our salvation if we are sincere and desire to keep our covenants with the Savior.  However, I don't think that anyone will inherit the Celestial kingdom while still affirming an untruth.  Therefore, if the BOM is in fact true, no one will believe that it's not in the Celestial kingdom.  They will have learned the truth sometime after death and modified their beliefs accordingly.

I guess that anyone who had ever heard of the Book of Mormon and Moroni but not believe would have cause for serious reflection for a paradigm shift if he or she were to actually meet Moroni in the next life, which leaves me with the question as to just who those in spirit prison will see and will be taught by in that sphere.

Glenn

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I guess that anyone who had ever heard of the Book of Mormon and Moroni but not believe would have cause for serious reflection for a paradigm shift if he or she were to actually meet Moroni in the next life, which leaves me with the question as to just who those in spirit prison will see and will be taught by in that sphere.

Glenn

To be sure... 

;0)

And you might take it back one step further and challenge your own assumption concerning "spirit prison"--a Mormon construct, although some say it's borrowed from the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.  Either way, it's not Biblical (an "intermediate state" is not easily reconciled with Hebrews 9:27).

--Erik

Edited by Five Solas
parenthesis
Link to post
55 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I guess that anyone who had ever heard of the Book of Mormon and Moroni but not believe would have cause for serious reflection for a paradigm shift if he or she were to actually meet Moroni in the next life, which leaves me with the question as to just who those in spirit prison will see and will be taught by in that sphere.

Glenn

The spirit world is an imaginary realm where cartoon characters, like Popeye the Sailor and SpongeBob SquarePants, seem to preach the gospel to spirits who believe they really do exist, though in reality they are nothing more than figments of imagination that exist only in God's mind. While there these imaginary spirits, who think they exist but actually don't, frequently break into song singing the following words:

"Let me take you down cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields, NOTHING IS REAL, and nothing to get hung about..."

Edited by Bobbieaware
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The spirit world is an imaginary realm where cartoon characters, like Popeye the Sailor and SpongeBob SquarePants, seem to preach the gospel to spirits who believe they really do exist, though in reality they are nothing more than figments of imagination that exist only in God's mind. While there these imaginary spirits, who think they exist but actually don't, frequently break into song singing the following words:

"Let me take you down cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields, NOTHING IS REAL, and nothing to get hung about..."

I'm not sure what your post has to do with anything, Bobbieaware.  But as thread author--let me make Tom Waits in reply:

"You'll go waltzing Mathilda with me..." 

Enjoy!

--Erik

Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4. Rejection of BOM as Scripture = Rejection of Christ

Many people who believe in Christ do not accept the Book of Mormon. 

Link to post

If I were stranded on a deserted island and a Book of Mormon (without chapter headings, introductions, or modern annotations) fell from the sky, I think I would probably give it several thousands of readings. I'd probably have no clue where the setting was, I'd have some decent guesses based on mentions of elephants, horses, steel, silk etc., but wouldn't worry that much about it. Why would it matter?

Since I'm on a deserted island, I'd have nothing better to do than read and pray as the book recommends, and if I received a confirmation of its truthfulness I'd do my best to abide by the teachings. I'd hope that would be enough to be worthy of salvation.

To be honest, I'd be pretty frustrated if I were rescued by Mormon missionaries who insisted that the Book of Mormon was a historical account of Hebrews in the New World. Odd, after thousands of readings I didn't find that claim anywhere in the book, and I never concluded it was a book about America, but now all the sudden my salvation is dependent on that belief?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Many people who believe in Christ do not accept the Book of Mormon. 

A valid point.  I was referring to those within the LDS paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Did Grant Hardy actually say that one could believe the BofM to be inspired fiction and still be exalted?  I don't recall the quote, and I was there.  Perhaps you could give us the verbatim quotation.  Otherwise your questions are based on a false claim -- unless you believe that a fictional claim is as good as a true one, and therefore any unscientific poll would be just as valid.  How about it, Erik.  Did you think this through?

Please give us your opinion on the question regardless of what Grant Hardy said, to ask this plainly. Robert do you believe a fully worthy orthoprax member who publicly announces they do not believe in a historical BoM, and remain with that disbelieve be Exalted in the Celestial Kingdom?

Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I voted for the third option, even though it doesn't really fit my thoughts that great.  

In my view though, in this life we can believe the BOM is historical or not and I don't think that will impact our salvation if we are sincere and desire to keep our covenants with the Savior.  However, I don't think that anyone will inherit the Celestial kingdom while still affirming an untruth.  Therefore, if the BOM is in fact true, no one will believe that it's not in the Celestial kingdom.  They will have learned the truth sometime after death and modified their beliefs accordingly.

Do you believe there is no orthodoxy in the Mormon Church?  Do you follow the Nuanced Mormonism where its all about orthopraxy?

Link to post
6 minutes ago, salgare said:

Please give us your opinion on the question regardless of what Grant Hardy said, to ask this plainly. Robert do you believe a fully worthy orthoprax member who publicly announces they do not believe in a historical BoM, and remain with that disbelieve be Exalted in the Celestial Kingdom?

Changing the goal posts yet again, I see, salgare.  You have no shame.  An honest man would want to know why the poll questions are formulated with Grant Hardy making a declaration.  You don't care.  Your only purpose here is to sow discord and confusion, so that everyone can be like you.

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

Changing the goal posts yet again, I see, salgare.  You have no shame.  An honest man would want to know why the poll questions are formulated with Grant Hardy making a declaration.  You don't care.  Your only purpose here is to sow discord and confusion, so that everyone can be like you.

No, I did not ask/give the poll question.  My question, that inspired the poll did not mention Grant Hardy.  But I see you are going to continue to insult me.  Is that because you dare not answer the question?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, salgare said:

No, I did not ask/give the poll question.  My question, that inspired the poll did not mention Grant Hardy.  But I see you are going to continue to insult me.  Is that because you dare not answer the question?

No.  It is simply because I've got your number and know what your stated intentions are.  You have no real interest in actual discussion here, only in making a mockery of honest engagement with the issues.  I'd like to see you repent and become an honest man.

Link to post

How much of the Bible is historical and how much is inspired fiction? Was there a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses? Was there a Daniel, an Isaiah , a Malachi ? Was there a Christ, a Peter, a Paul? Was there a creation, a flood, a Sodom ?

As for the OP , we are told one cannot be saved in ignorance. Exaltation will take place after much is revealed and not upon entering paradise. Also , I don't believe that spirit prison is a purely Mormon construct.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm just relying on the previous thread, Robert.  No, I wasn't there (Utah doesn't suit me, I only go there for family reasons).  But please feel free to make a contribution to my thread by citing whatever words you may have heard on the subject. 

--Erik

The speech and the subsequent Q&A were recorded and will presumably be placed on the FairMormon website.  Maybe we can go over the matter then.  In the meantime, it might be well to simply ask the question, rather than attributing such a position to Grant Hardy.  I already summed up what Hardy had to say here on this board recently, on page 1 of http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67909-grant-hardys-presentation-on-the-book-of-mormon/ .

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  It is simply because I've got your number and know what your stated intentions are.  You have no real interest in actual discussion here, only in making a mockery of honest engagement with the issues.  I'd like to see you repent and become an honest man.

Thank you for not insulting me as much this time Robert.  Actually I mostly come to keep up on new issues.  Perhaps you notice I really don't hang around much and for too long.  Same is true for the trailer park actually.  It sounds to me like the Grant Hardy talk is quite significant for those here that support [insert non offensive label here] Mormonism and I'm interested to see the opinions here. 

 

 

Link to post

What about Alma 32?

Isn't the desire to believe the idea?

Do you think anyone gets converted because they heard Jesus walked on water...or the idea in which the story represents?

If literalness is the only way, most of us might as well hang it up.

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 Metis_LDS
      I am not a conspiracy kind of person.  I had a thought the other day that if you really believe the Book of Mormon you cannot state the following:                    All conspiracy theories are false.
    • By Fair Dinkum
      Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.
      Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.
      Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.
      If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.
      Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.
      In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

      Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

      Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

      Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

      One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

       
      Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.
      This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.
      <-------- Not King Benjamin

    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...