All or nothing thinking regarding the Church

[stemelbow]

Quote

"As a result, if the Book of Mormon can be proved to be man-made, then the Church is man-made,” he said. “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666258/Brother-Tad-R-Callister-Man-made-or-God-given.html

I'm agreeing with some of what he's saying in the linked piece that quotes him.  But this idea (quoted above) is where I want to comment.

I think there could possibly be too much overlap between what is man-made and what is not.  This all or nothing approach is hard to maintain on such grounds, in my view.  For instance the title page of the BoM suggests, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God".  This clearly suggests there are man-made parts in the book as well as things of God. 

The other point is, we don't know the process of the translation.  We don't know how much Joseph's own imprint influenced the resulting text, or if it did at all.  We can only speculate.  If somehow in the process Joseph made a mistake on something, as is his human nature, we wouldn't know.  If any part of the resulting text is not from God, does that do away with Tad R. Callister's either/or suggestion? 

The same goes for the Church.  It is likely, at least, part man-made.  There is no all or nothing about it, in my view.  The Church is many things but it seems clearly at this point, one thing it is not is a perfect rendition managed in every whit by God.  It is human influenced throughout it's work. 

I think this type of thinking has to change in the Church.  We need to be more open and thoughtful, in my view. 

[Gray]

This is the kind of naivete that drives exmormonism. The fundamentalism on both sides is just silly. All scripture is man made. That's kind of the point.

[mnn727]

The statement is not talking about an error in the BoM, or even if its historical, its talking about whether its from God or not. 

If Joseph (or Oliver or someone else)  just made it up, then Joseph was not a Prophet and the Church then is based on lies

However if God gave Joseph the BoM. Whether its 100% accurate/historical, or not makes no difference,  (Its acknowledged that men (Prophets) wrote the BoM), but if God gave it to Joseph (through Moroni) then Joseph was a Prophet and the Church is based on truth.

Edited November 3, 2016 by mnn727

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

The statement is not talking about an error in the BoM, or even if its historical, its talking about whether its from God or not. 

If Joseph (or Oliver or someone else)  just made it up, then Joseph was not a Prophet and the Church then is based on lies

I hear ya.  What I'm suggesting though is, we don't know Joseph's imprint on the text.  If say, any part of the book came from Joseph's conception, maybe to fill in holes or whatever, then part might not have come from God at all.  if say, some part of the text is proven to be made up, as in from Joseph's conception, then according to Callister's position, there'd be no usefulness nor purpose to the whole book.  Yet, that never seems to be how scripture works.  It's all imprinted by man somehow. 

4 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

However if God gave Joseph the BoM. Whether its 100% accurate/historical, or not makes no difference,  (Its acknowledged that men (Prophets) wrote the BoM), but if God gave it to Joseph (through Moroni) then Joseph was a Prophet and the Church is based on truth.

Yes, that's the exact logic I'm disagreeing with, on the grounds I've stated.  We know not what it means to have scripture given of God.  We don't know if that means the man had any part in it's creation.  We know not how that works at all.  It's silly to be so all or nothing, if you ask me. 

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666258/Brother-Tad-R-Callister-Man-made-or-God-given.html

I'm agreeing with some of what he's saying in the linked piece that quotes him.  But this idea (quoted above) is where I want to comment.

I think there could possibly be too much overlap between what is man-made and what is not.  This all or nothing approach is hard to maintain on such grounds, in my view.  For instance the title page of the BoM suggests, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God".  This clearly suggests there are man-made parts in the book as well as things of God. 

The other point is, we don't know the process of the translation.  We don't know how much Joseph's own imprint influenced the resulting text, or if it did at all.  We can only speculate.  If somehow in the process Joseph made a mistake on something, as is his human nature, we wouldn't know.  If any part of the resulting text is not from God, does that do away with Tad R. Callister's either/or suggestion? 

The same goes for the Church.  It is likely, at least, part man-made.  There is no all or nothing about it, in my view.  The Church is many things but it seems clearly at this point, one thing it is not is a perfect rendition managed in every whit by God.  It is human influenced throughout it's work. 

I think this type of thinking has to change in the Church.  We need to be more open and thoughtful, in my view. 

I think you need to be more open and thoughtful by recognizing that his statement doesn't deny overlap between what is man-mde and God-given. I think we all recognize that God works though people, and did through Joseph Smith.

If it can be proven that Nephi (or whoever) made the plates, then the Book of Mormon is God-given.

[Marmonboy]

This "all or nothing" thinking is what drives some out of the Church, IMNSHO. They believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the infallibility of the Lord's servants, etc., and when things are not as they seem for whatever reason, their paradigm collapses and off they go in search of a new one. We've seen it over and over--once someone learns that what their Primary or Seminary teacher told them isn't exactly true, they're gone, some of them becoming the harshest critics of the Church.

[cdowis]

Skousen points out that, between Oliver Cowdery's copying to the printer's manuscript, and the typesetter, there are an average of six errors per page.  And this does not include dictation and transcription errors.

[Boanerges]

11 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

The statement is not talking about an error in the BoM, or even if its historical, its talking about whether its from God or not. 

If Joseph (or Oliver or someone else)  just made it up, then Joseph was not a Prophet and the Church then is based on lies

However if God gave Joseph the BoM. Whether its 100% accurate/historical, or not makes no difference,  (Its acknowledged that men (Prophets) wrote the BoM), but if God gave it to Joseph (through Moroni) then Joseph was a Prophet and the Church is based on truth.

I heard Callister's talk. It's a common, but dangerous, teaching in the church. The problem is that when someone encounters things about Joseph Smith (for example) they didn't know and come to believe he's not a prophet based on that newfound knowledge (and this happened to many when the polygamy essays came out), then the whole thing must therefore be false. That's because the argument has to work both ways - if JS was a prophet, then the BoM is true, TSM is a prophet, etc. BUT if JS wasn't a prophet then all the other things are not true. I really don't believe the gospel is an all or nothing proposition. We aren't given to know all things, and there are many things we don't know (or don't know yet as per AoF 9). I think it's very possible the BoM is not exactly what it's claimed to be (a history of ancient American people) but can nonetheless be "true" in that it brings people closer to God and Christ and that it was inspired "translation" given to JS. It is entirely  possible that JS was a prophet, seer, and revelator but that TSM is not. It's possible JS was a truly inspired prophet in some things and made some things up as he went along.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you need to be more open and thoughtful by recognizing that his statement doesn't deny overlap between what is man-mde and God-given. I think we all recognize that God works though people, and did through Joseph Smith.

If it can be proven that Nephi (or whoever) made the plates, then the Book of Mormon is God-given.

I don't think your last sentence works.  If plates at all, someone had to make them.  who made them might be interesting, but doesn't prove God was a part of it.  It wouldn't even prove God's existence to begin with.

As per the BoM I'd say this to clarify:  The Book is with us today.  if it is possible to prove any part of it to be man-made, then the way Callister words it, we would have to be forced to accept it's not from God.  There's no way to prove God, after all.  On this, his is an all or nothing approach, doesn't help.  it only hurts.  Let's consider a little more.  Say, the Book did not come from God at all.  Say, after written or etched at last to finish by Moroni, it was hid and some other emissary did the work of translation.  Then where are we left?  Can we consider the emissary God?  Did scripture then come from God?  I guess in a round about way, but we wouldn't know. 

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

This "all or nothing" thinking is what drives some out of the Church, IMNSHO. They believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the infallibility of the Lord's servants, etc., and when things are not as they seem for whatever reason, their paradigm collapses and off they go in search of a new one. We've seen it over and over--once someone learns that what their Primary or Seminary teacher told them isn't exactly true, they're gone, some of them becoming the harshest critics of the Church.

This is because they have been taught to believe, follow and obey.  It changes everything.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think your last sentence works.  If plates at all, someone had to make them.  who made them might be interesting, but doesn't prove God was a part of it.  It wouldn't even prove God's existence to begin with.

As per the BoM I'd say this to clarify:  The Book is with us today.  if it is possible to prove any part of it to be man-made, then the way Callister words it, we would have to be forced to accept it's not from God.  There's no way to prove God, after all.  On this, his is an all or nothing approach, doesn't help.  it only hurts.  Let's consider a little more.  Say, the Book did not come from God at all.  Say, after written or etched at last to finish by Moroni, it was hid and some other emissary did the work of translation.  Then where are we left?  Can we consider the emissary God?  Did scripture then come from God?  I guess in a round about way, but we wouldn't know. 

The chain of custody, especially if Nephi were to be identified as an actual, once-living person, would show it to be God-given. So we start with proving that Nephi made the plates, which if proven would show through the chain of custody if we were to document it, that the book is God-given through the man-made process.

My point is Callister isn't saying what you are suggesting he is saying. But I won't repeat how that works.

[stemelbow]

Just now, CV75 said:

The chain of custody, especially if Nephi were to be identified as an actual, once-living person, would show it to be God-given.

I really wish.  Stanford Carmack a couple weeks on this site postulated something similar when he suggested it is extremely likely that the BoM is from God due to the presence of eModE in the resulting text.  It drives me bonkers to think people actually think God's existence is proven by such measures.  If Nephi were identified as an actual person, it'd go a long way to helping to support Joseph's claims about the Book, but it wouldn't know it to be God-given, necessarily. 

Just now, CV75 said:

So we start with proving that Nephi made the plates, which if proven would show through the chain of custody if we were to document it, that the book is God-given through the man-made process.

Have fun on that quest.   

Just now, CV75 said:

My point is Callister isn't saying what you are suggesting he is saying. But I won't repeat how that works.

Alright.  

[Marmonboy]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is because they have been taught to believe, follow and obey.  It changes everything.

But prophets have also taught us to think for ourselves, gain our own testimonies, and "study it out in our own minds." Some people are just born to think in absolutes, not just about religion but in everything. Either America is the best country on earth, or it is the worst type thinking. I'm not explaining this very well, but I think you get my drift.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

"As a result, if the Book of Mormon can be proved to be man-made, then the Church is man-made,” he said. “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666258/Brother-Tad-R-Callister-Man-made-or-God-given.html

I'm agreeing with some of what he's saying in the linked piece that quotes him.  But this idea (quoted above) is where I want to comment.

I think there could possibly be too much overlap between what is man-made and what is not.  This all or nothing approach is hard to maintain on such grounds, in my view.  For instance the title page of the BoM suggests, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God".  This clearly suggests there are man-made parts in the book as well as things of God.

 

I think you are looking at specific minutia but Brother Callister was referring to the big picture.
His statement is completely correct.  So is your understanding that his statement doesn't preclude there from being any errors of men.

The problem comes when we work the errors of men backwards in an attempt (intentional or unintentional) to pick away at the big picture truth.
But I agree with you that there are also times where the average TBM does the same thing in reverse - assumes the big picture correctness make the smaller things without error.
 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I think you are looking at specific minutia but Brother Callister was referring to the big picture.

My stated example of why he's wrong might be considered specific minutia but I think he's wrong in the Big picture as well, as I explained in other posts in this thread. 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

His statement is completely correct.  So is your understanding that his statement doesn't preclude there from being any errors of men.

The problem comes when we work the errors of men backwards in an attempt (intentional or unintentional) to pick away at the big picture truth.
But I agree with you that there are also times where the average TBM does the same thing in reverse - assumes the big picture correctness make the smaller things without error.
 

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666258/Brother-Tad-R-Callister-Man-made-or-God-given.html

I'm agreeing with some of what he's saying in the linked piece that quotes him.  But this idea (quoted above) is where I want to comment.

I think there could possibly be too much overlap between what is man-made and what is not.  This all or nothing approach is hard to maintain on such grounds, in my view.  For instance the title page of the BoM suggests, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God".  This clearly suggests there are man-made parts in the book as well as things of God. 

The other point is, we don't know the process of the translation.  We don't know how much Joseph's own imprint influenced the resulting text, or if it did at all.  We can only speculate.  If somehow in the process Joseph made a mistake on something, as is his human nature, we wouldn't know.  If any part of the resulting text is not from God, does that do away with Tad R. Callister's either/or suggestion? 

The same goes for the Church.  It is likely, at least, part man-made.  There is no all or nothing about it, in my view.  The Church is many things but it seems clearly at this point, one thing it is not is a perfect rendition managed in every whit by God.  It is human influenced throughout it's work. 

I think this type of thinking has to change in the Church.  We need to be more open and thoughtful, in my view. 

President Hinckley made a similar statement in general conference.  And I've heard his statement cited by a number of people as a reason why they left.  They, essentially, took him at his word.

I think it's a dangerous teaching and discourages the kind of nuance that many of us need to make our church membership work.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

But prophets have also taught us to think for ourselves, gain our own testimonies, and "study it out in our own minds." Some people are just born to think in absolutes, not just about religion but in everything. Either America is the best country on earth, or it is the worst type thinking. I'm not explaining this very well, but I think you get my drift.

I kinda do...get your drift.  I am just saying if I study it out in my mind and disagree or receive a conviction that I may disagree with the church...then I am crap out of luck. I will always be wrong.  My testimony had always revolved around what I was taught.  To study out means that I have to deal with conflicting teachings at different times of my life.  Really..there is no black and white..there is just this gray area and on this fence I fell to my own convictions of truth. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If Nephi were identified as an actual person, it'd go a long way to helping to support Joseph's claims about the Book, but it wouldn't know it to be God-given, necessarily.

This statement sounds like black-and-white thinking... If Nephi were proven to be an actual person who made the actual plates, and the chain of custody established, it'd go a long way to helping to support Joseph's claims about the Book, which is that it is God-given through His servants who are men who made the book (and who said so much about themselves)...!

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I really wish.  Stanford Carmack a couple weeks on this site postulated something similar when he suggested it is extremely likely that the BoM is from God due to the presence of eModE in the resulting text.  It drives me bonkers to think people actually think God's existence is proven by such measures.  If Nephi were identified as an actual person, it'd go a long way to helping to support Joseph's claims about the Book, but it wouldn't know it to be God-given, necessarily. 

Have fun on that quest.   

Alright.  

I get Joseph finding the plates may have been by accident, but how would he have accurately known about Nephi's connection to them?

[Maestrophil]

On 11/3/2016 at 11:48 AM, Jeanne said:

I kinda do...get your drift.  I am just saying if I study it out in my mind and disagree or receive a conviction that I may disagree with the church...then I am crap out of luck. I will always be wrong.  My testimony had always revolved around what I was taught.  To study out means that I have to deal with conflicting teachings at different times of my life.  Really..there is no black and white..there is just this gray area and on this fence I fell to my own convictions of truth. 

I can say that for my dad (who is out of the church and at times, quite fierce in decrying the policies, leaders, history etc.), he told me that had his parents and leaders been a little less rigid in presenting everything as "fact" and black and white, he might still be in the church because he would have been equipped with the ability to be fluid in his approach to answering doctrinal issues.  He thinks that is one of the reasons why I am able to stay, I am able to hold a doctrine as plausible while not needing to know it's foundation is 100% "factual" . I am ok with 3 or 4 scenarios of how it 'could' be true coupled with my feelings from the Spirit.  He feels, since the gospel what presented to him as A+B=C, then only that type of answer or evidence would satisfy his dissonance. I love my father and deeply respect his intellect and integrity - and thus, his choice to dissociate from religion.  I understand those who struggle, or even who do not struggle because they have let go of a desire to work hard to make something work that makes no logical sense to them.  Just want those of you who feel that way to know there are many of us active members who, while we may come to different conclusions, do not villianize or condemn those who struggle or leave.

 

 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I can say that for my dad (who is out of the church and at times, quite fierce in decrying the policies, leaders, history etc.), he told me that had his parents and leaders been a little less rigid in presenting everything as "fact" and black and white, he might still be in the church because he would have been equipped with the ability to be fluid in his approach to answering doctrinal issues.  He thinks that is one of the reasons why I am able to stay, I am able to hold a doctrine as plausible while not needing to know it's foundation is 100% "factual" . I am ok with 3 or 4 scenarios of how it 'could' be true coupled with my feelings from the Spirit.  He feels, since the gospel what presented to him as A+B=C, then only that type of answer or evidence would satisfy his dissonance. I love my father and deeply respect his intellect and integrity - and thus, his choice to dissociate from religion.  I understand those who struggle, or even who do not struggle because they have let go of a desire to work hard to make something work that makes no logical sense to them.  Just want those of you who feel that way to know there are many of us active members who, while we may come to different conclusions, do not villianize or condemn those who struggle or leave.

 

 

I respect your thoughts and honor your reply.  Thank you for your comments.  I remember one time (my Dad was very  strict) that my mother said..."if your Dad would just leave me alone...I could really get involved in the church"...I believe this comment speaks as if though we need to do our own travels in this church.  Some use the church to beat us to death and that never works.  Glad that you are happy and accepting.  I could not.  I think God loves us both.

[mnn727]

On 11/3/2016 at 10:31 AM, stemelbow said:

 

Yes, that's the exact logic I'm disagreeing with, on the grounds I've stated.  We know not what it means to have scripture given of God.  We don't know if that means the man had any part in it's creation.  We know not how that works at all.  It's silly to be so all or nothing, if you ask me. 

We know men wrote the BoM, thats a given (Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc) so your position is incorrect.

The golden plates that Joseph received from Moroni - an angel of God, means they were given to him by God, even though men wrote them, God (through his agent Moroni) presented them to Joseph as Scripture.

If God declared them good enough to be presented to Joseph as Scripture, then it make no difference if Nephi or Mormon or one of the other writers got a few things incorrect.

And if God gave them to Joseph, then He made Joseph a Prophet. Thus the Church hangs on that instant in time - Did God give Joseph the BoM or not?

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by mnn727

[mfbukowski]

On 11/3/2016 at 9:04 AM, CV75 said:

The chain of custody, especially if Nephi were to be identified as an actual, once-living person, would show it to be God-given. So we start with proving that Nephi made the plates, which if proven would show through the chain of custody if we were to document it, that the book is God-given through the man-made process.

My point is Callister isn't saying what you are suggesting he is saying. But I won't repeat how that works.

What if Nephi was a fraud?

Eternal regress.  It's personal revelation or nothing.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What if Nephi was a fraud?

Eternal regress.  It's personal revelation or nothing.

Absolutely. But to entertain the premise of the OP, I play along a bit; the point being that Elder Callister isn't saying what the OP is suggesting he is saying.

[mnn727]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What if Nephi was a fraud?

 

It makes no difference if Nephi was a fraud or not if God gave the BoM to Joseph as scripture. Nephi doesn't even need to be real as long as God said that the BoM is scripture.