Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm curious how you read the numerous Book of Mormon explanations of the Atonement and its relation with justice and mercy.

The BoM has multiple theories about Atonement theology, the Alma justice and Mercy dichotomy is not one I find personally uplifting. Actually the who idea of atonement didn't develop until rather late as a Christian theological concept.

This is a concept that I'm still wrestling with honestly, so I haven't come to a model that I find satisfactory for me and my personal theological position right now. I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion. The BoM doesn't tell me much about early Christianity, it tells me about 19th century Christian ideas and Joseph's response to those ideas.

When I said it didn't jive with scripture, I meant all scripture not just the BoM. I think the BoM plays an important role and I'm not ignoring it, I believe there are inspired words contained in its pages. I'm taking a broader look, trying to understand the evolution of these concepts in history and trying to see what's matches with my intellect and my heart. (I will tell you in your mind and your heart). Probably going to take me many more years to develop something that works, maybe a lifetime.

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The BoM has multiple theories about Atonement theology, the Alma justice and Mercy dichotomy is not one I find personally uplifting. Actually the who idea of atonement didn't develop until rather late as a Christian theological concept.

This is a concept that I'm still wrestling with honestly, so I haven't come to a model that I find satisfactory for me and my personal theological position right now. I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion. The BoM doesn't tell me much about early Christianity, it tells me about 19th century Christian ideas and Joseph's response to those ideas.

When I said it didn't jive with scripture, I meant all scripture not just the BoM. I think the BoM plays an important role and I'm not ignoring it, I believe there are inspired words contained in its pages. I'm taking a broader look, trying to understand the evolution of these concepts in history and trying to see what's matches with my intellect and my heart. (I will tell you in your mind and your heart). Probably going to take me many more years to develop something that works, maybe a lifetime.

I too honestly struggled with the idea of the atonement. In fact I became inactive, because I felt I could not honestly say I had a testimony of the atonement in my priesthood interview. I didn't understand it. Now I believe it to be more than something Jesus did for us. I believe it was central to His teachings. To say that the atonement only arose in late Christianity tho, I don't believe is accurate. The Torah speaks of being reconciled to God. I believe when one realizes that the Son did nothing of Himself but that which He had seen the Father do, the true central teaching of the atonement comes to light. Jesus is one with the Father, because He followed the teachings of the Father, and thus was begotten of the Father as His Son as the scriptures say. This scriptural reality is much different from the traditional Christianity you speak of or at least that we know of as preserved in Roman records. I don't personally care if it conflicts with traditional ideas. Traditions have a way of being wrong, as Jesus told the Jews or Pharisees. So I would suggest in your search to understand the atonement to ground yourself in the scriptures rather than worrying about the teachings of traditional Christianity. I hope u r not offended by my suggestion. May I offer peace in your journey.

Bernard Gui · November 22, 2016

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The BoM has multiple theories about Atonement theology, the Alma justice and Mercy dichotomy is not one I find personally uplifting. Actually the who idea of atonement didn't develop until rather late as a Christian theological concept.

This is a concept that I'm still wrestling with honestly, so I haven't come to a model that I find satisfactory for me and my personal theological position right now. I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion. The BoM doesn't tell me much about early Christianity, it tells me about 19th century Christian ideas and Joseph's response to those ideas.

When I said it didn't jive with scripture, I meant all scripture not just the BoM. I think the BoM plays an important role and I'm not ignoring it, I believe there are inspired words contained in its pages. I'm taking a broader look, trying to understand the evolution of these concepts in history and trying to see what's matches with my intellect and my heart. (I will tell you in your mind and your heart). Probably going to take me many more years to develop something that works, maybe a lifetime.

Thank you. I appreciate your quest. I find the book remarkably consistent in its exposition of the theology of opposition, sin, atonement, and the need for a willing and able savior across the span of its writers from Lehi and Nephi through Alma and on to Mormon and Moroni. I don't see it as a reset of early Christianity or a manifestation of 19the century American Protestant revivalism, but as a revelation of God's eternal plan for the welfare of his children that has been in place through eternity.

Best wishes.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I too honestly struggled with the idea of the atonement. In fact I became inactive, because I felt I could not honestly say I had a testimony of the atonement in my priesthood interview. I didn't understand it. Now I believe it to be more than something Jesus did for us. I believe it was central to His teachings. To say that the atonement only arose in late Christianity tho, I don't believe is accurate. The Torah speaks of being reconciled to God. I believe when one realizes that the Son did nothing of Himself but that which He had seen the Father do, the true central teaching of the atonement comes to light. Jesus is one with the Father, because He followed the teachings of the Father, and thus was begotten of the Father as His Son as the scriptures say. This scriptural reality is much different from the traditional Christianity you speak of or at least that we know of as preserved in Roman records. I don't personally care if it conflicts with traditional ideas. Traditions have a way of being wrong, as Jesus told the Jews or Pharisees. So I would suggest in your search to understand the atonement to ground yourself in the scriptures rather than worrying about the teachings of traditional Christianity. I hope u r not offended by my suggestion. May I offer peace in your journey.

Thanks always appreciate hearing the journey of someone else, especially when its hard to talk about these kinds of honest struggles in a church setting. I wish we could, then going to church on Sunday wouldn't be about proving that you agree with the group, but instead more vulnerability could be expressed.

I've been studying only for a few years now, so I'm still pretty new to the whole gambit. What I've learned about scripture is that my surface reading skills in scripture study were grossly inadequate to try and understand the historical context and interpretations of scripture. I was really just misappropriating scriptures to match my contemporary world view. This is common throughout Christianity, and common in Mormonism. Now I'm taking a different approach. I'm studying the works of scholars that I find have interesting things to say about scripture. Many of them aren't Mormon, but some are. Its been fun so far, and sometimes I take it too seriously, so I have to take a step back and remember that living life is much more important than trying to understand the history and theology of generations of Christian thinkers over the years.

Kevin Christensen · November 22, 2016

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The BoM has multiple theories about Atonement theology, the Alma justice and Mercy dichotomy is not one I find personally uplifting. Actually the who idea of atonement didn't develop until rather late as a Christian theological concept.

This is a concept that I'm still wrestling with honestly, so I haven't come to a model that I find satisfactory for me and my personal theological position right now. I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion. The BoM doesn't tell me much about early Christianity, it tells me about 19th century Christian ideas and Joseph's response to those ideas.

When I said it didn't jive with scripture, I meant all scripture not just the BoM. I think the BoM plays an important role and I'm not ignoring it, I believe there are inspired words contained in its pages. I'm taking a broader look, trying to understand the evolution of these concepts in history and trying to see what's matches with my intellect and my heart. (I will tell you in your mind and your heart). Probably going to take me many more years to develop something that works, maybe a lifetime.

As far the Book of Mormon on the Atonement goes, I found this essay by Lorin Hansen to be a game changer for me.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

And of course, there is this

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Which led me in this direction:

Quote

Bridging the Gulf between the Sacrifice of Animals and the Sacrifice of a God

Barker’s The Risen Lord proposes to answer an important set of questions regarding the atonement:

Where in the traditions available to the original disciples in Palestine do we find a belief or a hope that it was a divine being or even the Lord himself who was the atonement sacrifice? The priestly laws of the Old Testament are both complex and obscure on the matter of atonement; the details about lambs and goats are clear enough, but the theology which the rituals expressed is still largely unknown. This must be a major obstacle in any attempt to understand Christian origins because it is a very big step indeed from goats and lambs in the temple to the human sacrifice of one declared to be the Lord, the Son of God. This step is unacknowledged in any account I have read of atonement in the New Testament.⁶⁴

Barker attempts, in The Risen Lord,⁶⁵ to answer these questions, to describe the theology behind the atonement ritual, and to show from that theology the necessity for the atonement of the Son of God. Her answers do make for fascinating reading. But I wish to note here simply that the Book of Mormon treats exactly these issues in discussing the atonement.⁶⁶

After I read this passage in Barker’s book, I read through all of the chapters in the Book of Mormon that discuss the atonement. Personally, I found this to be a powerful and moving experience and I recommend doing so in light of the situation that Barker describes and the questions that she poses. While I will quote only a few of them here, I must also say that every discourse contributes to the overall picture, and that the text repays close and careful study. The Book of Mormon always treats the sacrifices required of the law of Moses as being types, in the similitude of the coming sacrifice of Christ:

Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.⁶⁷

The Book of Mormon prophets explain in detail why it is that the Son of God must perform the atonement:

For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.⁶⁸

Atonement in the Book of Mormon includes, but involves much more than the satisfaction of an objective legal requirement, a paying of justice:

Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.⁶⁹

And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance.⁷⁰

It is characteristic of the Book of Mormon that at-one-ment is accomplished very literally in both the physical sense of the Lord’s condescension (his descent with us, literally becoming one among the children of men, suffering physical experience), and in the spiritual sense of his suffering anguish “for the wickedness and abomination of his people” such that “blood cometh from every pore.”⁷¹ This anguish must have been felt so deeply because of his complete empathy and awareness of all that in us is unholy and contrary to his nature. The pain of atonement beyond the physical trial of the crucifixion is direct consequence of him becoming at one with us. As a result of that oneness, the light of Christ has entered in all of us to “invit[e us] and entic[e us] to do good” and “persuade [us] to believe in Christ.”⁷² When we accept the atonement and repent of our sins, we are filled with his love, with the promise that we can be transfigured to become like him.

Again, in that it contains specific answers to the questions that Barker poses, and does so within the paradigm of the role of the high priest who performs sacrifices in the temple on the Day of Atonement, the Book of Mormon picture dovetails beautifully with the picture Barker describes.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=6

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

pogi · November 22, 2016

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion.

The idea of sacrifice is much older than paganism. The earliest account is with Abel. Sacrifice for sin was practiced by the Israelites as a type of Christ. This is no more clear than in John 1:29 where it says, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Isaac was also type of Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 states:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Gray · November 22, 2016

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think the point to be made is that those of us who submit the Book of Mormon text to standard scientific scrutiny do so using regular peer-reviewed academic articles written primarily by non-Mormon scholars. The reason is quite simple, and Hugh Nibley used to observe: That gives the data "gentile respectability" it would not have if generated by Mormons -- whose beliefs make them highly suspect. Anti-Mormon arguments in that instance are typically arguments against standard, peer-reviewed scholarship. One would hope, therefore, that sound methodology and evidence would prevail in the end, but that is by no means certain in a hostile atmosphere. Mainstream academia is not the problem, but rather that the man on the street who is hostile to Mormonism doesn't understand mainstream scholarship.

I think good scholarship does win out in the end, even against personal biases against religious views. I'm sure those biases do manifest themselves in secular scholarship, but I don't believe they have any lasting effect against a strongly supported theory. The idea that Jesus was not a historical figure, for example, remains a fringe view only supported by a few radical atheists who are in deep denial. Mainstream NT scholars (which include Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc) overwhelmingly support the case for a historical Jesus. Assuming the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, I believe the case could be successful made among the "gentiles."

I understand that LDS scholars are setting out to examine the BOM with an academic lens, but they seem to be only publishing their views in Mormon venues. Am I wrong? What is stopping LDS scholars from taking their research into the mainstream?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Gray

Gray · November 22, 2016

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The BoM has multiple theories about Atonement theology, the Alma justice and Mercy dichotomy is not one I find personally uplifting. Actually the who idea of atonement didn't develop until rather late as a Christian theological concept.

This is a concept that I'm still wrestling with honestly, so I haven't come to a model that I find satisfactory for me and my personal theological position right now. I don't find the idea of Jesus needing to be sacrificed (a pagan concept) to pay for sins as a prospect for my religious devotion. The BoM doesn't tell me much about early Christianity, it tells me about 19th century Christian ideas and Joseph's response to those ideas.

When I said it didn't jive with scripture, I meant all scripture not just the BoM. I think the BoM plays an important role and I'm not ignoring it, I believe there are inspired words contained in its pages. I'm taking a broader look, trying to understand the evolution of these concepts in history and trying to see what's matches with my intellect and my heart. (I will tell you in your mind and your heart). Probably going to take me many more years to develop something that works, maybe a lifetime.

What about this theory of atonement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks always appreciate hearing the journey of someone else, especially when its hard to talk about these kinds of honest struggles in a church setting. I wish we could, then going to church on Sunday wouldn't be about proving that you agree with the group, but instead more vulnerability could be expressed.

I believe the church has recently stated its intent to teach differently. I kind of doubted that based on previous experience of expressing opinions different from that being taught, and really having my feelings hurt, and being made to feel "outcast" but just 2 Sunday's ago I did express my differing opinion in class about 3 Nephi 21, when the teacher said that the servant spoken of was Joseph Smith. I spoke up, and said I disagree - that it is someone else prophesied in D&C 85. To his credit, and probably the church's, he did not try to squelch my voice, but honored it as a differing opinion, and basically that reasonable minds can disagree. Afterwards, I went up to him and assured him I was not trying to be difficult, and that I truly appreciated how he handled my dissenting voice. Now, I don't know where this will go, but I do believe the Lord counseled us to let all those speak in class, that the body as a whole may be edified. Sometimes that may involve a dissenting voice. Now, it may be that dissenters are trying to win people away to follow them, and then in that case, I believe the teacher probably should take the person aside if they persist in trying to either disrupt the class or make continuous dissenting statements. If the person never has positive constructive comments to make, I believe that to be a red flag about their true intentions. In other words I don't believe the teacher should allow all unbridled dissention in class. But yes, I do believe that looking at other sides of the coin, so to speak, can be healthy.

Quote

I've been studying only for a few years now, so I'm still pretty new to the whole gambit. What I've learned about scripture is that my surface reading skills in scripture study were grossly inadequate to try and understand the historical context and interpretations of scripture. I was really just misappropriating scriptures to match my contemporary world view. This is common throughout Christianity, and common in Mormonism. Now I'm taking a different approach. I'm studying the works of scholars that I find have interesting things to say about scripture. Many of them aren't Mormon, but some are. Its been fun so far, and sometimes I take it too seriously, so I have to take a step back and remember that living life is much more important than trying to understand the history and theology of generations of Christian thinkers over the years.

Very honest self assessment. And there is nothing wrong with learning from theologians and scholars who have addressed your questions previously. Sometimes they hit the mark. I have to say that for instance, the "historicist view" of many Protestant theologians concerning Daniel had much to offer to the true meaning of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. This included such great minds as Sir Isaac Newton.

It says much for you that you are seeking to grow in your understanding of the scriptures. I have been doing so my whole life, and they continue to reveal new things to me. When one considers that in Hosea the Lord tells us that He has spoken in similitudes by the mouths of the prophets, one begins to realize that a "surface" reading is not going to help us much in understanding the Lord. Thus, "literal" reading is probably going to lead one off in incorrect conclusions. I believe you are saying this is common in "Mormonism." In response I will say that someone on this board recently called this "Mormon apocrypha" and I feel this term is apropos - in other words I agree. I certainly do not agree with everything all the general authorities have said as recorded in Journal of Discourses or McKonkie's Mormon Doctrine, for instance. I don't believe our Savior Jesus Christ died on this earth for the sins of all those on prior and subsequent earths for instance. This doesn't mean to look for every possible, conceivable reading, but I proffer that in many ways reading the scriptures is like reading a set of statutes. God provides "definitions" for His words within the scriptures, so to understand His words, one must look for and understand his meanings. For instance in Daniel we learn that God is using the term "beasts" for various countries - Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc. See Daniel 7. One simply must understand the symbolism to understand the prophecies - otherwise they will make no sense.

Here is a verse from Proverbs, which I find illuminating on the subject of scriptural interpretation:

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

You are seeking to search out these matters. Do so in prayer, and I believe you will be rewarded with greater understanding and honour from God...my 2 cents.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

What about this theory of atonement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Yeah, this is an interesting one I was reading about in a Bart Ehman book just recently as well. I like parts of it this theory. Sometimes I get overwhelmed with all the different theories and ask myself why. Why do we need to try and explain the purpose of the life and death of Jesus. Why not focus on the moral principles, which this theory does, but then it tries to say that God sent Jesus for this explicit purpose, like we can somehow divine the meaning of the events in the past and specifically connect these events to God's will being manifest.

Sometimes I just want to leave the past alone, and instead of trying to prove that Christianity's central message is X by some proof of what we think God wants, I would rather get everyone together and talk about the morals and principles that we believe best exemplify what is good and ethical, and then call that Christianity. I think this has to do with how entrenched I used to be with following authority that I'm still pushing back on appeals to authority, whether scriptural based or authority figure based.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

49 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As far the Book of Mormon on the Atonement goes, I found this essay by Lorin Hansen to be a game changer for me.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

And of course, there is this

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Which led me in this direction:

Thanks Kevin, those look interesting, I will give them a read. Appreciate the gift of material like this and knowing that it has been important in forming your paradigm is helpful.

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well seeking historical evidence vs signs, I believe are two different things. In the case of the Bible, there is an historical Jerusalem everyone accepts is Jerusalem. There are archaeological evidences which support the Biblical account. That is important for people. Going to visit Jerusalem is not "a sign." It's nothing miraculous, but it helps ground people in the Bible to walk where Jesus walked. I proffer the same is true for the Book of Mormon. If truth seekers were able to visit "the plains of the Nephites," and were able to geographically understand the presentation in the book, I believe it would be immensely helpful to them. Again, to be able to visit the "land of Nephi" is not any miraculous sign, but I believe would definitely help ground not only church investigators, but even members such as Jeremy. This combination of epistemological truths and "rational" philosophy may just prove to be the winning combination.

Well, again I am coming from the philosophical side, so never had a need for historicity, just the conceptual framework. I left Catholicism because I saw all that as useless tradition and legend with no content. For me it is philosophy - and religious experience justified by philosophy.

No wonder others find me weird!

I find Christ in the temple, that is the only physical place.

pogi · November 22, 2016

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sometimes I just want to leave the past alone, and instead of trying to prove that Christianity's central message is X by some proof of what we think God wants, I would rather get everyone together and talk about the morals and principles that we believe best exemplify what is good and ethical, and then call that Christianity

You don't think it important to find out what God wants? By leaving the past alone, what you are proposing is to take Christ out of Christianity. What I am hearing is "forget the Bible, forget scripture, forget about what God wants, and lets decide what is good and ethical for ourselves." That is not called Christianity, that is called secularity.

Quote

I think this has to do with how entrenched I used to be with following authority that I'm still pushing back on appeals to authority, whether scriptural based or authority figure based.

Without authority, you are basically just making stuff up.

Edited November 22, 2016 by pogi

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well, again I am coming from the philosophical side, so never had a need for historicity, just the conceptual framework. I left Catholicism because I saw all that as useless tradition and legend with no content. For me it is philosophy - and religious experience justified by philosophy.

No wonder others find me weird!

I find Christ in the temple, that is the only physical place.

JFYI, I do not find you "weird" at all. I think you know that. I rather admire your pov. But, I would say that you are not "typical." I too converted without feeling a need for historical "evidence." Just the biblical teachings were sufficient to excite and convince me I had found "the truth" or true gospel. This had no more historical context than that provided by spiritual teachings in the Bible. I also became inactive, and came back to the church without any "historical evidence" or context to bolster my return. I did however, have rather large subjective experiences. These are personal, and I largely don't share them. People wouldn't believe me even if I could share them. However, I have seen that most of the arguments against the church are founded in historical contexts. Many say it is all fiction, etc, and just won't open up their minds to the spiritual or gospel truths beyond that point - it is just the way the typical mind works I'm afraid. They are persuaded by the teachings of men rather than the truths of the restored gospel. For such people, if we have some "historical evidence" I believe it will enable them to get by that initial "knee-jerk" reaction that it is all hocus-pocus, and to shy away from learning about the restored gospel. I presume time will tell.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You are seeking to search out these matters. Do so in prayer, and I believe you will be rewarded with greater understanding and honour from God...my 2 cents.

Thanks Rev, your experience in your class especially your approach to the teacher afterwards, shows the kind way that you're interacting with others who may have different views, but you are sensitive to their views. I love your openness to ideas and really appreciate you sharing your experience and your perspectives. I've tried to do this a few times as well, sometimes with success, but others times it hasn't gone well. I'm learning and growing still.

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, this is an interesting one I was reading about in a Bart Ehman book just recently as well. I like parts of it this theory. Sometimes I get overwhelmed with all the different theories and ask myself why. Why do we need to try and explain the purpose of the life and death of Jesus. Why not focus on the moral principles, which this theory does, but then it tries to say that God sent Jesus for this explicit purpose, like we can somehow divine the meaning of the events in the past and specifically connect these events to God's will being manifest.

I do not know if I will help at all here, but for my POV to work, I do accept that justice demands equality. In other words justice demands an eye for an eye. So why didn't Jesus teach to strike back your attacker? Because Jesus was not teaching to exact justice - that is what the Father does to the unrepentant. Jesus was teaching a higher law than justice. Rather than to seek justice, Jesus taught to forgive, and thus to make yourself beneath your offender. To cause them not to want to offend again - to be ashamed of their selfish actions, etc, so as to empathize with others and not to give into selfish emotions such as anger. By these means Jesus seeks to make all men brothers - to make all men one as He prayed in His great intercessory prayer in John 17. By putting Himself beneath all, Jesus can justifiably ask us to do the same - that equality thing again. So again, the atonement was His great teaching. It is all over the scriptures. Love doesn't demand justice. Love forgives until all learn to do so.

JST, Mark 8:37

37 For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; or whosoever will save his life, shall be willing to lay it down for my sake; and if he is not willing to lay it down for my sake, he shall lose it.

1 John 3:16

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Doctrine and Covenants 103:27

27 Let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake; for whoso layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again.
Doctrine and Covenants 103:28

28 And whoso is not willing to lay down his life for my sake is not my disciple.
John 13:37

37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
John 13:38

38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The **** shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
John 15:13

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
John 10:15

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
John 10:17

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Quote

Sometimes I just want to leave the past alone, and instead of trying to prove that Christianity's central message is X by some proof of what we think God wants, I would rather get everyone together and talk about the morals and principles that we believe best exemplify what is good and ethical, and then call that Christianity. I think this has to do with how entrenched I used to be with following authority that I'm still pushing back on appeals to authority, whether scriptural based or authority figure based.

Well, I would proffer this approach has a large danger. It has already been done, and we ended up with Roman Catholicism trying to impose its will on others. The Nicene Council was man's attempt to "get everybody together and talk about the morals and principles" which represented Christianity. And what we got was a top-down dogma that if everyone didn't agree, they were declared "anathema" and essentially booted out of the church. Later that became persecution and even the death sentence for dissenters. One thing I have learned about the gospel is that usually the majority are not correct. I don't see anything to proffer that they will be correct today. If Christianity is a democracy, then this approach may work, but I dare say it won't.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't think it important to find out what God wants? By leaving the past alone, what you are proposing is to take Christ out of Christianity. What I am hearing is "forget the Bible, forget scripture, forget about what God wants, and lets decide what is good and ethical for ourselves." That is not called Christianity, that is called secularity.

No, you misunderstand me. Find the stories about Jesus that include, the moral teachings, the parables, forgiveness, caring for the marginalized in society, pushing back against those that emphasized the letter of the law, pushing back against the tyranny of the state, focusing on the people, warnings about wealth. Pick all the best parts of Christianity, those things that we believe are worth striving for, the things that will help society move forward.

You might not agree with me, but I think thats exactly what the followers of Jesus have done, they have created a narrative that reflects their values and largely imposed that narrative on the man Jesus through the employment of literary devices and theological explanations over the years. And then as generations have continued to evolve those stories, we have reinterpreted most of these concepts differently than they were originally intended and things have continued to develop, offshoot groups upon offshoot groups, all reinterpreting earlier passages and applying different meanings to them.

I believe this is largely what has actually developed over the course of 2000 years of Christian history, you just don't recognize it. I don't think people have conscientiously done this at times. I would love a conscientious assessment of the morals and values that are most important to modern society, and then apply the stories that best articulate these morals, and canonize of those stories and/or develop new ones. Call that Christianity, or call it restoration or revelation, whatever works best.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I would proffer this approach has a large danger. It has already been done, and we ended up with Roman Catholicism trying to impose its will on others. The Nicene Council was man's attempt to "get everybody together and talk about the morals and principles" which represented Christianity. And what we got was a top-down dogma that if everyone didn't agree, they were declared "anathema" and essentially booted out of the church. Later that became persecution and even the death sentence for dissenters. One thing I have learned about the gospel is that usually the majority are not correct. I don't see anything to proffer that they will be correct today. If Christianity is a democracy, then this approach may work, but I dare say it won't.

I'm not sure all the reasons it hasn't worked well in history, perhaps having the government linked with religious was part of the problem. Also, I think whenever people take values and try to turn those values into specific rules, then we get into trouble. Joseph recognized this as well with his dislike of creeds, but over time he created his own creeds. Its tension between the lack of structure and freedom, and the human desires to control and organize. Probably why we'll need to continue to reassess and update our progress all the time.

pogi · November 22, 2016

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Find the stories about Jesus that include, the moral teachings, the parables, forgiveness, caring for the marginalized in society, pushing back against those that emphasized the letter of the law, pushing back against the tyranny of the state, focusing on the people, warnings about wealth. Pick all the best parts of Christianity, those things that we believe are worth striving for, the things that will help society move forward.

What you suggest still requires an appeal to the authority of scripture, so you can't ditch the idea of authority all together, can you?

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You might not agree with me, but I think thats exactly what the followers of Jesus have done, they have created a narrative that reflects their values and largely imposed that narrative on the man Jesus through the employment of literary devices and theological explanations over the years. And then as generations have continued to evolve those stories, we have reinterpreted most of these concepts differently than they were originally intended and things have continued to develop, offshoot groups upon offshoot groups, all reinterpreting earlier passages and applying different meanings to them.

I actually do agree with you here, but I don't see how your proposal would be any different. Essentially, you would be creating a narrative that reflects your personal modern values and largely impose that narrative on the man Jesus. You would be no different or better than any other offshoot group in that regard.

Robert F. Smith · November 22, 2016

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think good scholarship does win out in the end, even against personal biases against religious views. I'm sure those biases do manifest themselves in secular scholarship, but I don't believe they have any lasting effect against a strongly supported theory.

The problem currently is that fake news and phony facts dominate media across the board, which is a major reason that Trump won his election. Even Mark Zuckerberg has finally recognized the problem -- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-plan-to-fight-spread-fake-news-former-employee-speaks-out/ . We can see, for example, the common notion that climate change is nonsense as a perfect indicator of the problem: The evidence and the science made no difference to the general public. It is likely that the fact of climate change will finally be accepted, but only after the Earth has suffered a series major catastrophes. Even then there will be many who remain in denial.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The idea that Jesus was not a historical figure, for example, remains a fringe view only supported by a few radical atheists who are in deep denial. Mainstream NT scholars (which include Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc) overwhelmingly support the case for a historical Jesus.

Of course that is correct, but the true controversy does not concern Jesus' historical existence, but rather his status as the resurrected Son of God, even if he is a famous and influential rabbi.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Assuming the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, I believe the case could be successful made among the "gentiles."

And you base that notion on what experience with "gentiles"? Why would they even give you the time of day on such a question?

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I understand that LDS scholars are setting out to examine the BOM with an academic lens, but they seem to be only publishing their views in Mormon venues. Am I wrong? What is stopping LDS scholars from taking their research into the mainstream?

You might want to examine all of the serious scholarship which has been published by Mormons with Oxford Univ. Press, and other major publishers. Then too, scholars such as John Sorenson, John Tvedtnes, and John Welch have managed to publish some extraordinary materials in mainstream scholarly venues. This has only been possible in venues where overwhelming prejudice has not been in complete control -- and most venues are in fact closed to Mormon scholarship.

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure all the reasons it hasn't worked well in history, perhaps having the government linked with religious was part of the problem. Also, I think whenever people take values and try to turn those values into specific rules, then we get into trouble. Joseph recognized this as well with his dislike of creeds, but over time he created his own creeds. Its tension between the lack of structure and freedom, and the human desires to control and organize. Probably why we'll need to continue to reassess and update our progress all the time.

Well, I would guess because Yeshua is our teacher, and men tend not to understand God, and to get Him wrong. In other words it is all designed so that those who are willing to seek for the answers are the ones who receive them, and receive Jesus, while others go astray. Why? Because God looks for a godly seed. Those who love Him more than the world. So again Christianity is not a democracy. Yeshua is our ruler and our teacher.

Malachi 2:15

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

hope_for_things · November 22, 2016

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

What you suggest still requires an appeal to the authority of scripture, so you can't ditch the idea of authority all together, can you?

I actually do agree with you here, but I don't see how your proposal would be any different. Essentially, you would be creating a narrative that reflects your personal modern values and largely impose that narrative on the man Jesus. You would be no different or better than any other offshoot group in that regard.

The difference in what I'm suggesting is not to try and use the scriptures as authority, I would eschew that idea, and I wouldn't limit it to the current canon, I would be open to new stories, stories from other traditions, etc. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past religious movements, and form something that is flexible with shared values and principles at the core.

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

JFYI, I do not find you "weird" at all. I think you know that. I rather admire your pov. But, I would say that you are not "typical." I too converted without feeling a need for historical "evidence." Just the biblical teachings were sufficient to excite and convince me I had found "the truth" or true gospel. This had no more historical context than that provided by spiritual teachings in the Bible. I also became inactive, and came back to the church without any "historical evidence" or context to bolster my return. I did however, have rather large subjective experiences. These are personal, and I largely don't share them. People wouldn't believe me even if I could share them. However, I have seen that most of the arguments against the church are founded in historical contexts. Many say it is all fiction, etc, and just won't open up their minds to the spiritual or gospel truths beyond that point - it is just the way the typical mind works I'm afraid. They are persuaded by the teachings of men rather than the truths of the restored gospel. For such people, if we have some "historical evidence" I believe it will enable them to get by that initial "knee-jerk" reaction that it is all hocus-pocus, and to shy away from learning about the restored gospel. I presume time will tell.

I think it is how the "typical mind" since Neoplatonism and then since Descartes thinks.

I don't think that is how the ancient Hebrews thought- it is a matter of cultural conditioning which will eventually change. Virtually no philosophers think that way any more and many many in the social sciences either. I think the typical man in the street still does because it is so entrenched in our culture.

The physics analogy I would be that the man in the street is still thinking in terms of atoms bumping into each other like billard balls, and a clockwork universe, while physicists see quantum mechanics and Heisenberg everywhere. Observation itself affects what is "observed".

THAT is the key to it all, and it links directly to that famous Rorty quote below in my siggy I am always referring to. It is the philosophical analog to Heisenberg uncertainty. You cannot take the observer out of the observation.

THAT is not the way the man in the street sees things at all. He sees chairs and tables in the world where I marvel at energy entering my eye/brain and me creating an image of what we call "chairs and tables" out of that random energy.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God....and there was not anything created that He did not create... or words to that effect

And they CALLED the light and the dark "The First Day"

Creation was organized matter, organized and defined by the Word.

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

I know you get it. You get that God's reality is different than what we perceive in the temporal world. God is constantly trying to use temporal things to teach of His reality, and man is constantly stuck in the temporal "world." For instance throughout scripture He uses the "tabernacle" or the "ark" or temple to teach of the heavenly order of things, and man usually only sees a tent or a building... God sees the hosts of heaven He is trying to teach about, and Man sees stars. It is constant throughout scripture.

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I do not know if I will help at all here, but for my POV to work, I do accept that justice demands equality. In other words justice demands an eye for an eye. So why didn't Jesus teach to strike back your attacker? Because Jesus was not teaching to exact justice - that is what the Father does to the unrepentant. Jesus was teaching a higher law than justice. Rather than to seek justice, Jesus taught to forgive, and thus to make yourself beneath your offender. To cause them not to want to offend again - to be ashamed of their selfish actions, etc, so as to empathize with others and not to give into selfish emotions such as anger. By these means Jesus seeks to make all men brothers - to make all men one as He prayed in His great intercessory prayer in John 17. By putting Himself beneath all, Jesus can justifiably ask us to do the same - that equality thing again. So again, the atonement was His great teaching. It is all over the scriptures. Love doesn't demand justice. Love forgives until all learn to do so.

JST, Mark 8:37

37 For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; or whosoever will save his life, shall be willing to lay it down for my sake; and if he is not willing to lay it down for my sake, he shall lose it.

1 John 3:16

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Doctrine and Covenants 103:27

27 Let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake; for whoso layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again.

Doctrine and Covenants 103:28

28 And whoso is not willing to lay down his life for my sake is not my disciple.

John 13:37

37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.

John 13:38

38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The **** shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

John 15:13

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 10:15

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:17

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Well, I would proffer this approach has a large danger. It has already been done, and we ended up with Roman Catholicism trying to impose its will on others. The Nicene Council was man's attempt to "get everybody together and talk about the morals and principles" which represented Christianity. And what we got was a top-down dogma that if everyone didn't agree, they were declared "anathema" and essentially booted out of the church. Later that became persecution and even the death sentence for dissenters. One thing I have learned about the gospel is that usually the majority are not correct. I don't see anything to proffer that they will be correct today. If Christianity is a democracy, then this approach may work, but I dare say it won't.

This works when Justice is seen as a word synonymous with "fairness" and not an entity which makes demands for satisfaction. Again the false view of Justice as an entity demanding satisfaction while the entity Mercy argues against it, is again linked to this idea that if we have a word, it must point to a "thing" outside which is "real". This is called "reification". It does not work well with the Golden Rule at all, as you show, or the Great Commandments to love God and your neighbor.

I think Kevin C has also shown us a better way of seeing it, a few pages back.

Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

Recommended Posts

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content