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

[Boanerges]

I'm afraid I can't help you CD. My world is apparently far less black and white than yours. I  see through a glass darkly (or a mirror dimly in other translations) just as the rest of us do. Apparently you are not able to comprehend outside the box of your own way of thinking, your own point of view, or your own biases. That's fine with me, I don't dislike you any less and I believe God still loves both of us equally. However, I would probably not frequent your Sunday School class were you the Gospel Doctrine teacher.

For clarity's sake, I never said Joseph Smith's visitations by Moroni were fake, I said I believe that he believed he saw and spoke with Moroni. I believe Joseph Smith about that and I believe him about the first vision (whether he saw one personage, two personages, or many personages). I also did not say that Joseph Smith lied about the plates. Please do not put words in my mouth or present things I did not say as my words or beliefs.

My stake president (and his counselor who actually does my interviews) does know I don't believe most scripture to be literal, but they don't know that because it has come up in recommend interviews, they know it because I'm pretty open about it among those I know and trust. I don't preach that from the pulpit because it's not my place to do that, however I am aware that there are many who don't believe Jonah actually lived in a fish's belly for three days, or that donkeys can talk while there are also some who absolutely believe Jonah did and donkeys can (at least one donkey).

For what it's worth, my testimony is of the Gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Outside of that not much matters. I came to answer the question in the original post which is "Does anybody else believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction." I answered that question (yes). The post itself postulates two followup or related questions. "Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?" I also answered that question (yes). " For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative?" I have not fully answered that question, perhaps because I haven't reconciled Moroni - but I also don't feel the need to because I believe the BoM to be the word of God in the same way I believe the Bible to be the word of God (as far as it is translated correctly, and from what I know it's not that badly translated).

I don't think it's my bishop's or stake president's job or place to judge whether I have a testimony, and I don't think they care to. They have both heard me bear testimony on numerous occasions. As to temple recommend interviews, I answer the questions yes or no as required and as appropriate. Perhaps your leaders ask different questions than mine, although I thought they were standard and were to be adhered to as written. I have heard my stake president say more than once that the temple recommend questions are very carefully worded and that we should not read anything into them and the reason for that is because Our Heavenly Father wants as many of His children as possible to enjoy the blessings of the temple. In those recommend interviews my leaders do not ask me if I believe the Book of Mormon to be true or anything like that. They also don't ask me if I believe in polygamy, support gay marriage, or pray every day.

On occasion (like yesterday) my stake president asks people if they will meet with me because I have (his words) "some different perspectives" based on experiences I have had. We sometimes go on those visits together, I sometimes go alone or with another leader like a bishop or home teacher. Sometimes, about half the time actually (like yesterday), the individuals refuse. I no longer have to explain to him the reason for that is because they have not yet "come to themselves" (see Luke 15). On the occasions we have gone together he has never questioned or refuted anything I have said, nor have the bishops or others. I don't think you should presume to think that my bishop or stake president think the same way you do, because they obviously don't and I love them both dearly (although sometimes I try to avoid the bishop in social settings because he has the gift of gab ).

That said, I'm not going to engage your badgering any further, I have said my piece. Since you seem to have a penchant for putting words in my mouth, please don't construe that to mean I won't further comment on this thread - I simply won't respond to you (except perhaps to correct words you put in my mouth).

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boanerges

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Monster said:

I see a coincidence here and there supporting a literal BofM, yet there is overwhelming evidence it is not what it claims, at least from a historical perspective.

I couldn't agree more with you on this statement.  IMO, the lack of DNA, archaeological and linguistic evidence to support the BoM as a historical narrative is, in fact, overwhelming.  

[Kevin Christensen]

I have for several decades argued that is should be possible for a person to commit to LDS culture while seeing Book of Mormon as fiction.  (See Paradigms Crossed in RBBM 7:2 and "On Wagging the Dog" in Sunstone, for instance.)  It's a matter of what Alma 32 describes as taking even a portion of the word and exercising even a particle of belief.

However, I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is not fiction, and that the arguments made for a fictive Book of Mormon do not present a superior or appealing paradigm as measured against what Kuhn describes as criteria that are not paradigm-dependent.  For instance, on this thread we had a claim that there is no evidence of oceanic migrations.  One might wonder if the argument would be more or less persuasive it had had continued, "especially not in this peer-reviewed non-LDS journal" on "Scientific Evidence For Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages"?

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

And I noticed that back in New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study in the early 1950s, Nibley pointed out that Medieval scholars dealing with the mountains of documents that triggered the Renaissance discovered that the best way to test the historicity of documents was to assume they are authentic and place in the context they claim for themselves.  He pointed out that Book of Mormon skeptics typically fall into the approach that their long experience taught them was unreliable.  That is, assume a document is false and defend the conclusion it by means of what ever superficial parallels are handy.  Even back then, Nibley pointed out that Paul is not totally original, but often quotes other thinkers, though he does not always tells us that that is what he is doing.  And of course, both Paul and Moroni report conversations with people who knew Jesus and had records of prophetic writings that we do not, and even both reported face to face conversations with Jesus.  So the notion that Paul and Moroni might have obtained similar information does not strike me as worrisome.  Welch's work on the Hebrew background of the Sermon on the Mount struck me as eye-opening as well.

On the notion of parallels, I've found the work of Alan Goff and Ben McGuire to be particularly enlightening, particularly in dealing with people like Palmer, Brodie, Metcalfe, Grunder, and Vogel others who claim that they have found clear evidence of borrowing by a magpie Joseph.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/benm/

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/alan-goff/

I've also read things like Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell, and have considered, as an English major, just how common parallels are in literature, as well as history.  That is one of the lessons of Jeff Lindsay's comparisons with Leaves of Grass and the Moon landing.  Not all parallels are created equal.  McGuire and Goff provide examples of better theory and method and more persuasive and enlightening results.

For me, an approach based on historicity continues to be testable, comprehensively and coherently powerful, fruitful, and promising. 

Personally, my own questions led to many wonderful and unexpected resolutions.  Comparisons with Margaret Barker's work have been one of the most rewarding, but there is more to it than that in my personal experience (NDE comparisons, type scenes, etc.), and I remain impressed at the range of insights and surprises generated by literally hundreds of LDS thinker with a wide range of specialist knowledge.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[canard78]

On 13/11/2016 at 0:55 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

There are some who believe the same of the Bible. Simply put, you will not be able to reman an active member, because you have no firm foundation underneath you. Therefore you, or any who reject the writings found in scripture, reject the Prophets and Apostles who received revelation and wrote the words, which are so easily being dismissed. 

Mormonism is a high-demand religion and, as such, probably needs a high level of commitment and certainty to meet the level of demand. 

There could be other certainties that holds someone "in" but I would agree that in the long term, believing the BoM to be fictional would make attendance difficult to sustain. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I'm afraid I can't help you CD. My world is apparently far less black and white than yours. I  see through a glass darkly (or a mirror dimly in other translations) just as the rest of us do. Apparently you are not able to comprehend outside the box of your own way of thinking, your own point of view, or your own biases. That's fine with me, I don't dislike you any less and I believe God still loves both of us equally. However, I would probably not frequent your Sunday School class were you the Gospel Doctrine teacher.

This is not a SS class.  Perhaps you should consider the Social Hall forum.

Quote

For clarity's sake, I never said Joseph Smith's visitations by Moroni were fake, I said I believe that he believed he saw and spoke with Moroni. I believe Joseph Smith about that and I believe him about the first vision (whether he saw one personage, two personages, or many personages). I also did not say that Joseph Smith lied about the plates. Please do not put words in my mouth or present things I did not say as my words or beliefs.

If I put words in your mouth, it is because you yourself refuse to clarify your logic.

You are hiding behind "JS believed he spoke to Moroni".  Was Moroni a fictional or real character.  Did he write on the plates?  Did those plates actually exist?

If the visit of Moroni was a fake vision, that Moroni really did not exist, how can we then beiieve in the FV== JS believed he saw Christ, but did it happen in reality, or was it also fiction?

I am not putting words in your mouth.  I am asking for clarification.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Boanerges]

On 11/12/2016 at 7:55 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

There are some who believe the same of the Bible. Simply put, you will not be able to reman an active member, because you have no firm foundation underneath you. Therefore you, or any who reject the writings found in scripture, reject the Prophets and Apostles who received revelation and wrote the words, which are so easily being dismissed. 

 

20 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Mormonism is a high-demand religion and, as such, probably needs a high level of commitment and certainty to meet the level of demand. 

There could be other certainties that holds someone "in" but I would agree that in the long term, believing the BoM to be fictional would make attendance difficult to sustain. 

I guess I'll have to let you know when I get there. I don't see it on the horizon. My testimony is spiritual, that is the things I believe I believe because the Spirit has either witnessed it to me or because I have chosen to believe despite no spiritual witness. The core of my testimony is that Jesus is the Christ. There is no doubt that the Bible (more so), the Book of Mormon, and living prophets helped me learn of the Savior and eventually gain that Spiritual witness, but they are not the basis of my testimony. The Spirit is the basis of my testimony. In other words, scripture very likely played a role in leading me to gaining a spiritual witness of the Savior, but they are not why I believe. My firm foundation is the witness I have received (although I readily admit that both Jell-o and concrete can be described as firm).

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boanerges

[hope_for_things]

On 11/12/2016 at 5:14 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

Firstly, I would choose different language, I don't like the word fiction when talking about any religious group's scripture.  Would you call the Koran fiction, or the Hebrew Bible?  Of course this doesn't mean that mean that all the events described in the sacred religious writings of religions around the world are accurate factual descriptions of history.

Secondly, I think if members are focused on the historicity of the events in the BoM, that they miss out on the larger spiritual content that has impacted millions of lives.  Now the flip side of that coin is that if members don't engage with the text seriously, and at times even question the moral conundrums within the text, they are misusing scripture.  I like the Adam Miller paradigm where he says something to the effect that we need to all re-translate the scriptures for our own lives and our own time. 

Oh, and the simple answer to your first question is yes, as there is no litmus test on belief in the church.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

You are hiding behind "JS believed he spoke to Moroni".  Was Moroni a fictional or real character.  Did he write on the plates?  Did those plates actually exist?

If the visit of Moroni was a fake vision, that Moroni really did not exist, how can we then beiieve in the FV== JS believed he saw Christ, but did it happen in reality, or was it also fiction?

I'm not Boanerges, but I can give a response coming from a similar view point. Basically, to me the details are blurry. My best guess is there wasn't an ancient native American named Moroni who wrote on plates. I do think that JS saw him in vision, saw the plates in vision, and that others sometimes even shared these visions. There are plenty of documented cases of vision like experiences (many labeled as near-death or out of body experiences), and most evidence points to these visions taking place in the mind of the beholder despite seeming just as real if not more real than the ordinary experience. It is also studied and recognized fact that these vision-like experiences often have life changing positive effects on the beholder. The first vision is actually a great example because it so well fits the patterns of studied visionary experience. JS meets a crisis, is delivered via light, feelings of joy/love, sees beings and communicates with them, comes to consciousness realizing he had actually been unconscious, and after the experience he feels a sense of joy and direction. These are typical elements in documented vision-like experiences.

Were there physical plates? My best guess is that JS believed he was commanded by God to create the plates. I've already suggested this earlier in the thread.

Here is my own question. Why would God play along? Why would he facilitate others sharing these visionary experiences which actually represent a 19th century worldview and not objective reality? I personally believe that this is how God works with human beings. He speaks to us according to our understanding. That's why the creation narrative, which we all take as scripture, is rooted in ancient middle eastern traditions, which many of are pretty easy to reject once we understand the intended meaning (ex. firmament = hard dome to keep out waters with windows that open to let in precipitation and angels), and that rejection can come rather easily and without thought because of the long time displacement between us and the original document.

Finally, I believe this is one reason why continuing revelation is fundamental to a living religion. While experiences of past generation represent evidence that God interacts with his children, we definitely need our own experiences to spiritually direct us in a more modern era.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker
needed a last thought.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

I said it does not mean what the CRITICS think it means.

Principal does NOT mean "majority".  The Nephites could have been considered first in rank or importance because of various aspects -- technology, society, etc.  Thus, the Preface of the BOM is correct as it is written.

You could use this reasoning to a young generation, where i came from, where I was baptized (Switzerland) I did know next to nothing about Native American History and believed in Missionaries telling me exactly that Native Americans were Israelites You can see my roommate here in Switzerland.

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

I said it does not mean what the CRITICS think it means.

Principal does NOT mean "majority".  

Well since Bruce R. McConkie wrote the introduction, let's see what he believed about the Lamanites, he stated:

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. . . . Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D. & C. 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah. (2 Ne. 33:8-10) . . . But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel" 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, I would choose different language, I don't like the word fiction when talking about any religious group's scripture.  Would you call the Koran fiction, or the Hebrew Bible?  Of course this doesn't mean that mean that all the events described in the sacred religious writings of religions around the world are accurate factual descriptions of history.

Secondly, I think if members are focused on the historicity of the events in the BoM, that they miss out on the larger spiritual content that has impacted millions of lives.  Now the flip side of that coin is that if members don't engage with the text seriously, and at times even question the moral conundrums within the text, they are misusing scripture.  I like the Adam Miller paradigm where he says something to the effect that we need to all re-translate the scriptures for our own lives and our own time. 

Oh, and the simple answer to your first question is yes, as there is no litmus test on belief in the church.  

I could rephrase and say that the events/characters in the BoM did not exist and/or take place; or that it is an imaginative story/narrative; or invented, imagined, fabricated; I chose fiction for simplistic reasons. 

IMO, so much within Mormonism is based on foundational truth claims.  A large portion of the Mormon narrative is the belief that the events/people in the BoM actually existed; thus, how JS eventually received the golden plates and met with Moroni, etc.  If the events in the BoM never happened, then that would mean Moroni, Mormon, Alma, Nephi and the list goes on never existed.  That would mean that many groups of people throughout the earth are, in fact, not Lamanite descendants, contrary to what the church claims.  

The historicity of the BoM is important and has great significance because, if these events did not actually take place, then groups of people are misidentifying their true identity/heritage.  For example, DNA for Native Americans points to a migration from Siberia and other parts of Asia, not Israel.  Is it not immoral to tell groups of people their ancestors existed and came from one location, when that is not the case (if they never existed at all)?  IMO, it is taking away from their true identity, especially if the events never occurred at all.  

[Boanerges]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I could rephrase and say that the events/characters in the BoM did not exist and/or take place; or that it is an imaginative story/narrative; or invented, imagined, fabricated; I chose fiction for simplistic reasons. 

 

I usually use the term "non-literal" or something closely related to that. I recognize it is semantics, but it seems less offensive to the true believers.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boanerges

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, Boanerges said:

I usually use the term "non-literal" or something closely related to that. I recognize is semantics, but it seems less offensive to the true believers.

Noted.  I didn't mean anything offensive by using fiction.  😀

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

I could rephrase and say that the events/characters in the BoM did not exist and/or take place; or that it is an imaginative story/narrative; or invented, imagined, fabricated; I chose fiction for simplistic reasons. 

Yes, but can you not see how you immediately offend people by calling their scripture a fiction.  I doubt you use this term when speaking to other religions.  The language we use is important to have thoughtful discussions.  

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, so much within Mormonism is based on foundational truth claims.  A large portion of the Mormon narrative is the belief that the events/people in the BoM actually existed; thus, how JS eventually received the golden plates and met with Moroni, etc.  If the events in the BoM never happened, then that would mean Moroni, Mormon, Alma, Nephi and the list goes on never existed.  That would mean that many groups of people throughout the earth are, in fact, not Lamanite descendants, contrary to what the church claims.  

I don't disagree with you here, but what I'm learning is that this is not a uniquely Mormon phenomenon.  Much of conservative Christianity has this same problem with biblical literalism.  They take the Adam and Eve story (what is obviously allegory) and convert it into a literal historical narrative, same with the flood and many others.  Its essentially a naive approach to scripture that starts with faulty assumptions all over the place.  We see the same with the BoM, and assumptions that Mormon's come by honestly, Joseph Smith and the early leaders perpetuated these flawed assumptions as well,  I see this largely as a response to a movement in the culture away from an actively participating God, and Mormonism and other religious movements during this second great awakening were responding to these cultural religious trends.  

10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The historicity of the BoM is important and has great significance because, if these events did not actually take place, then groups of people are misidentifying their true identity/heritage.  For example, DNA for Native Americans points to a migration from Siberia and other parts of Asia, not Israel.  Is it not immoral to tell groups of people their ancestors existed and came from one location, when that is not the case (if they never existed at all)?  IMO, it is taking away from their true identity, especially if the events never occurred at all.  

I also agree with this and it is a big concern because of the damage we've done to native American's and other indigenous peoples all over the world.  By assigning them a cookie cutter history that isn't their actual heritage, we've in some ways usurped their actual heritage.  This is sad and I agree with you that it is immoral and I'm hopeful that this can change completely in my lifetime.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'm not Boanerges, but I can give a response coming from a similar view point. Basically, to me the details are blurry. My best guess is there wasn't an ancient native American named Moroni who wrote on plates. I do think that JS saw him in vision, saw the plates in vision, and that others sometimes even shared these visions. There are plenty of documented cases of vision like experiences (many labeled as near-death or out of body experiences), and most evidence points to these visions taking place in the mind of the beholder despite seeming just as real if not more real than the ordinary experience. It is also studied and recognized fact that these vision-like experiences often have life changing positive effects on the beholder. The first vision is actually a great example because it so well fits the patterns of studied visionary experience. JS meets a crisis, is delivered via light, feelings of joy/love, sees beings and communicates with them, comes to consciousness realizing he had actually been unconscious, and after the experience he feels a sense of joy and direction. These are typical elements in documented vision-like experiences.

Were there physical plates? My best guess is that JS believed he was commanded by God to create the plates. I've already suggested this earlier in the thread.

Here is my own question. Why would God play along? Why would he facilitate others sharing these visionary experiences which actually represent a 19th century worldview and not objective reality? I personally believe that this is how God works with human beings. He speaks to us according to our understanding. That's why the creation narrative, which we all take as scripture, is rooted in ancient middle eastern traditions, which many of are pretty easy to reject once we understand the intended meaning (ex. firmament = hard dome to keep out waters with windows that open to let in precipitation and angels), and that rejection can come rather easily and without thought because of the long time displacement between us and the original document.

Finally, I believe this is one reason why continuing revelation is fundamental to a living religion. While experiences of past generation represent evidence that God interacts with his children, we definitely need our own experiences to spiritually direct us in a more modern era.

Have you read this essay by Ann Taves, it sounds pretty similar to what you described. 

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf

Why would God play along?  Your assumption is that God is controlling the mystical experiences that people have and directing them to do specific things.  Perhaps not.  I'm not saying God might not be involved in the process, just that whatever humans get out of these experiences, will never be the exact mind and will of deity.  

On your final point, spirituality is different for each individual.  We get into trouble when we try to take personal spiritual experience and turn it into a prescription for belief at an institutional level.  

[Gray]

So I think there are three questions at the heart of this discussion of the Book of Mormon:

1. Is it scripture?
2. Is it ancient?
3. Is it accurate history?

I think it's only the first of those. Many people here believe it is 1 and 2. I think a smaller number of people here think it is all 3. Of all the questions, I think only the first one is really of any importance. 

[Boanerges]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

So I think there are three questions at the heart of this discussion of the Book of Mormon:

1. Is it scripture?
2. Is it ancient?
3. Is it accurate history?

I think it's only the first of those. Many people here believe it is 1 and 2. I think a smaller number of people here think it is all 3. Of all the questions, I think only the first one is really of any importance. 

I agree. I'm all in for number 1 with the caveat that not all scripture is canonized and at the same time not everything published in the  Ensign or said by a General Authority is necessarily scripture. I realize some heads are exploding right now, sorry. Like the spirituality mentioned by Hope-for-things, scripture can be different for different people. Most of the hymns are scripture to me, even some that are not quotes of scripture.

Number 3, definitely not and probably not number 2. But I will reiterate something I said earlier: I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boanerges

[cdowis]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well since Bruce R. McConkie wrote the introduction, let's see what he believed about the Lamanites, he stated:

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. . . . Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D. & C. 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah. (2 Ne. 33:8-10) . . . But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel" 

Lamanite is a generic term, and, as he said, were not only from Lehi but also of  "mixed blood and origin".

The origin of the AmeriIndians is not a doctrinal issue, and subject to research and opinion.  McConkie is simply one of many of those voices.

[cdowis]

44 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

For example, DNA for Native Americans points to a migration from Siberia and other parts of Asia, not Israel.  

You are misinformed.

 

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Monster said:

It is not up to anyone to disprove the BofM. When one makes a claim that something is factual, it is incumbent on that person to provide evidence of such. In all my reading I see a coincidence here and there supporting a literal BofM, yet there is overwhelming evidence it is not what it claims, at least from a historical perspective.

If one choses to find value in its pages i have no issue with that. But to claim it is historical you have to supply more than "a spiritual experience" which experiences are notoriously unreliable for determining factual realities.

The claim for the Book of Mormon is that it was translated by the gift and power of God. I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove that. Rather I am asking those that assert that it is a work of fiction produced by completely natural means to explain some of the anomalies that argue against Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries as the author. I have enumerated a few of those anomalies.  I have no interest in engaging in a back and forth as whether anyone should undertake that task. All I am saying is that until someone can produce a cogent, coherent, and plausible naturalistic explanation, I am completely comfortable with my current beliefs. Beliefs that include angels and plates that had the appearance of gold, and a miraculous means of "translating" producing the text.

Glenn

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Lamanite is a generic term, and, as he said, were not only from Lehi but also of  "mixed blood and origin".

The origin of the AmeriIndians is not a doctrinal issue, and subject to research and opinion.  McConkie is simply one of many of those voices.

Yes, many voices/leaders teaching the same thing about the Lamanites.  Beliefs change though and the introduction was changed to represent the new beliefs (that the Lamanites aren't the "principal ancestors" as previously taught, they are just "among the ancestors").

Do you ever take off your apologist hat and just do some objective thinking?

[churchistrue]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

So I think there are three questions at the heart of this discussion of the Book of Mormon:

1. Is it scripture?
2. Is it ancient?
3. Is it accurate history?

I think it's only the first of those. Many people here believe it is 1 and 2. I think a smaller number of people here think it is all 3. Of all the questions, I think only the first one is really of any importance. 

Very well said.  I agree.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Have you read this essay by Ann Taves, it sounds pretty similar to what you described. 

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf

Why would God play along?  Your assumption is that God is controlling the mystical experiences that people have and directing them to do specific things.  Perhaps not.  I'm not saying God might not be involved in the process, just that whatever humans get out of these experiences, will never be the exact mind and will of deity.  

On your final point, spirituality is different for each individual.  We get into trouble when we try to take personal spiritual experience and turn it into a prescription for belief at an institutional level.  

I have read Ann Taves (I cited her and Dan Vogel up-thread), and I have a sneaking suspicion she's on the right track (If you're hip to the masonic legend of Enoch, there has been a lot of research demonstrating strong correlations between JS' discovery of the plates and the masonic legend. After reading Ann Taves, I also realized that the masonic legend has Enoch seeing plates in vision and then making them, so as it appears the legend highly influenced JS, Enoch's vision and subsequent manufacture may have been an important precedent).

I appreciate your argument that God doesn't control all mystical experience. I actually think very much along the same lines. I think it's possible that the ability to experience the divine/mystical is a function of our brain/body, much like evolution follows natural laws. I believe that revelatory content is significantly shaped by the the receiver's creativity and worldview. 

On your final response to my final point :), I agree that spirituality is personal. However, there are set patterns it appears to fall in, and I find that emulation is part of what allows the average user to become a high achiever. Social settings can, though not always, facilitate said emulation. Spirituality also functions in a group or social setting (some of my favorite moments in early Mormonism take place in groups), which can serve lots of positive purposes, though often has negative consequences as well.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Gray]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

You are misinformed.

 

No, he's correctly informed.

[cdowis]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, he's correctly informed.

National Geographic disagrees with you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

See  Ugo Perefgo's lecture.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis