What happened to the David O. McKay and BOM historicity thread?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see it anymore. 

And when I click on a notification that sheilaUK gave me a rep point in it, I get an error message saying I "don't have permission to view this content." 

Have I been thread banned? How would I know it if I had?

[clarkgoble]

Me too

[JulieM]

How does an entire thread vanish?  Weird....

[6EQUJ5]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see it anymore. 

And when I click on a notification that sheilaUK gave me a rep point in it, I get an error message saying I "don't have permission to view this content." 

Have I been thread banned? How would I know it if I had?

I am thread blocked too.

[The Nehor]

Clearly the forum is possessed. Who is up for a good old fashioned exorcism?

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I am thread blocked too.

It's not even in the list of topics anymore (from my view of the discussions).

Maybe Benjamin asked to have his thread removed?

Edited August 8, 2017 by JulieM

[6EQUJ5]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Clearly the forum is possessed. Who is up for a good old fashioned exorcism?

It is a mystery to me how you are still single.

[ksfisher]

It's been disappeared. 

[smac97]

Same here.  And I had just finished a fairly long and substantive post, too.  Bummer...

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It is a mystery to me how you are still single.

Well, last time I was engaged there was an exorcism involved at the end (true story!) so I suspect the whole exorcism thing is not melting the hearts of the good daughters of Israel.

Maybe I should take up a different hobby like origami or Enochian magic.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  And I had just finished a fairly long and substantive post, too.  Bummer...

As though almost all of your posts aren't long and substantive. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

I made a couple mistakes in starting that thread, and after sending a message to the forum moderator it was decided that it was best to just take the whole thing down.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  And I had just finished a fairly long and substantive post, too.  Bummer...

Smac, I did read your post and I'll be responding. Maybe right in this thread would be appropriate.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Smac, I did read your post and I'll be responding. Maybe right in this thread would be appropriate.

I'm not sure it posted.  Did it include a critique of Van Wagoner's sources relative to the August 8, 1844 "Succession Crisis" meeting?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it posted.  Did it include a critique of Van Wagoner's sources relative to the August 8, 1844 "Succession Crisis" meeting?

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh no, sorry. I meant the previous one directed towards me.

 

MODERATOR: I'm checking into this.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it posted.  Did it include a critique of Van Wagoner's sources relative to the August 8, 1844 "Succession Crisis" meeting?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would love to read your critique on that subject.  Maybe start a new thread with it?

Edited August 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

Why delete the entire thread, locking it seems like the standard practice.  Oh well... 

[Darren10]

The disappearance of the David O. McKay thread is as mysterious as the Nibley who divulged family privied information to Elder McKay. 

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why delete the entire thread, locking it seems like the standard practice.  Oh well... 

Indeed, there was probably some horrible secret in that thread someone needed to hide. Knowledge so terrible it could drive the knower mad. Perhaps it is best that it be hidden away for all eternity.....

[Tom N]

Yesterday I found out about this thread. I am the Tom Nibley of whom so much has been written in this tempestuous teapot. I told a story from my life to illustrate a point, but I didn't speak clearly enough and the shock value of the story overrode the message.

The story: Dad spoke with David O. McKay about writing a book that would show that the BOM was historically accurate as to it's time and setting in the ancient middle east and can therefore be considered a truly historical record, to which Pres. McKay (although this probably took place before he was president of the church, he would have been president of the twelve) replied, "But Joseph Smith wrote the BOM".

The message: If you don't ask the right questions you don't get the right answers, no matter who you are or what your position and/or calling. And if you don't ask any questions at all you're stuck with whatever someone happened to tell you whether they know what they're talking about or not. 

Some in this forum have expressed shock that McKay 'questioned the BOM'. But what I was trying to say was that he apparently didn't question a version of the source of the BOM that was popular (exactly how popular and among whom I can't really say) at the time. That version stated that the BOM was inspired fiction, something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, The Chronicles of Narnia, etcetera, telling stories that were made up, but bore testimony of  the teachings of Jesus and could strengthen testimonies without having to be considered accurate history. To realize how wildly foreign and exotic the settings of both the Bible and the BOM are one only has to look at the many paintings over the centuries that portray Christ, the prophets and apostles in medieval dress appropriate to the time and place of the artist, but nothing like what was actually worn by the ancients (which we all know from Junior Sunday School presentations to have been bathrobes with dish towels on the heads, and don't tell me that that isn't true, because I saw it in church!). Art work depicting BOM themes are often based on Aztec or Inca artifacts that may or may not have any relation to the BOM. They are, along with written works like Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series, and etcetera, inspired fiction.

In my opinion what happened was that McKay was presented for the first time with a question that he had never considered before. I deeply believe that He had a profound testimony of the message of the BOM, that Jesus is the Christ and that God will keep covenant with Israel. But he hadn't really thought deeply about how the BOM came into being. Remember that from the beginning of the restoration the message that excited people was that the church of the New Testament had been restored. And so it was to the Bible one must look for evidence of what the church was all about. In the Journal of Discourses speakers will refer to "The scriptures and the Book of Mormon" thereby putting them in different classifications. With the BOM in second place. Joseph Smith said, "I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in he Bible. If I do, I think there are so many overwise men here, that they would cry 'treason' and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, loc. 4892, kindle edition.) He told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, but he seldom quote from it. So the focus of study in the church was at the time of the referenced story, and had been for decades, the Bible.

Now, probably for the first time (my opinion, no one need take it as fact) Bro. McKay was confronted with the possibility that there might be solid historical and geographical evidence that the BOM came from where it claimed to have come from. And when he examined that evidence, undoubtedly with both study and prayer, he accepted that evidence with enough conviction that he commissioned An Approach to the Book of Mormon to be the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for 1957.

So the lesson is: Ask the right questions and look at all the evidence you can before you make up your mind. But then, there will always be more evidence than you can obtain, and more will come forth. So we would be wise to heed Joseph's admonition, "Had I inspiration, revelation and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to there homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something". (Teachings, loc 4491)

[Gray]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

How does an entire thread vanish?  Weird....

It sailed into the Bermuda Triangle!

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Tom N said:

Some in this forum have expressed shock that McKay 'questioned the BOM'. But what I was trying to say was that he apparently didn't question a version of the source of the BOM that was popular (exactly how popular and among whom I can't really say) at the time. That version stated that the BOM was inspired fiction, something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, The Chronicles of Narnia, etcetera, telling stories that were made up, but bore testimony of  the teachings of Jesus and could strengthen testimonies without having to be considered accurate history. To realize how wildly foreign and exotic the settings of both the Bible and the BOM are one only has to look at the many paintings over the centuries that portray Christ, the prophets and apostles in medieval dress appropriate to the time and place of the artist, but nothing like what was actually worn by the ancients (which we all know from Junior Sunday School presentations to have been bathrobes with dish towels on the heads, and don't tell me that that isn't true, because I saw it in church!). Art work depicting BOM themes are often based on Aztec or Inca artifacts that may or may not have any relation to the BOM. They are, along with written works like Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series, and etcetera, inspired fiction.

Tom,

Thanks so much for coming on the board and sharing this.  I think it really helps to better understand our history and the reasons that events may have developed that formed the course of this history.  I find it fascinating how influential the past 75 years have been with respect to ancient origins of the BoM teaching.  I'm from generation X, and I would have never thought for a moment that there was ever a time where earlier generations of Mormons wouldn't have believed in the BoM in a very literal and historical sense.  But I've learned through study of history that perspectives change over time, and what you describe as a default kind of paradigm sounds very plausible to me.  Especially with how this could help to explain why there was less emphasis on the BoM in earlier times.  

It also shows how influential the writings of your Dad have been.  My Dad is a huge fan of Hugh's work and has read about everything he's published multiple times.  

Thanks for contributing!  

Edited August 8, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Johnnie Cake]

After Reading Tom Nibley's post...I've deleted my post.  I believe he provided a measured response...not for why the thread was deleted but for how President McKay's worldview evolved.

BTW, I was at President McKay's boy hood home last night...coincidence? I think not...

Edited August 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, Tom N said:

Yesterday I found out about this thread. I am the Tom Nibley of whom so much has been written in this tempestuous teapot. I told a story from my life to illustrate a point, but I didn't speak clearly enough and the shock value of the story overrode the message.

The story: Dad spoke with David O. McKay about writing a book that would show that the BOM was historically accurate as to it's time and setting in the ancient middle east and can therefore be considered a truly historical record, to which Pres. McKay (although this probably took place before he was president of the church, he would have been president of the twelve) replied, "But Joseph Smith wrote the BOM".

The message: If you don't ask the right questions you don't get the right answers, no matter who you are or what your position and/or calling. And if you don't ask any questions at all you're stuck with whatever someone happened to tell you whether they know what they're talking about or not. 

Some in this forum have expressed shock that McKay 'questioned the BOM'. But what I was trying to say was that he apparently didn't question a version of the source of the BOM that was popular (exactly how popular and among whom I can't really say) at the time. That version stated that the BOM was inspired fiction, something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, The Chronicles of Narnia, etcetera, telling stories that were made up, but bore testimony of  the teachings of Jesus and could strengthen testimonies without having to be considered accurate history. To realize how wildly foreign and exotic the settings of both the Bible and the BOM are one only has to look at the many paintings over the centuries that portray Christ, the prophets and apostles in medieval dress appropriate to the time and place of the artist, but nothing like what was actually worn by the ancients (which we all know from Junior Sunday School presentations to have been bathrobes with dish towels on the heads, and don't tell me that that isn't true, because I saw it in church!). Art work depicting BOM themes are often based on Aztec or Inca artifacts that may or may not have any relation to the BOM. They are, along with written works like Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series, and etcetera, inspired fiction.

In my opinion what happened was that McKay was presented for the first time with a question that he had never considered before. I deeply believe that He had a profound testimony of the message of the BOM, that Jesus is the Christ and that God will keep covenant with Israel. But he hadn't really thought deeply about how the BOM came into being. Remember that from the beginning of the restoration the message that excited people was that the church of the New Testament had been restored. And so it was to the Bible one must look for evidence of what the church was all about. In the Journal of Discourses speakers will refer to "The scriptures and the Book of Mormon" thereby putting them in different classifications. With the BOM in second place. Joseph Smith said, "I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in he Bible. If I do, I think there are so many overwise men here, that they would cry 'treason' and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, loc. 4892, kindle edition.) He told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, but he seldom quote from it. So the focus of study in the church was at the time of the referenced story, and had been for decades, the Bible.

Now, probably for the first time (my opinion, no one need take it as fact) Bro. McKay was confronted with the possibility that there might be solid historical and geographical evidence that the BOM came from where it claimed to have come from. And when he examined that evidence, undoubtedly with both study and prayer, he accepted that evidence with enough conviction that he commissioned An Approach to the Book of Mormon to be the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for 1957.

So the lesson is: Ask the right questions and look at all the evidence you can before you make up your mind. But then, there will always be more evidence than you can obtain, and more will come forth. So we would be wise to heed Joseph's admonition, "Had I inspiration, revelation and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to there homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something". (Teachings, loc 4491)

Thanks, Tom for adding context and details. This story struck a chord with me. President Mckay is one of my LDS heroes, so to see that it may have been possible, at least in his time, to flourish in the church while not taking the BOM as history gave me an example to look up to. If he could do it, even just temporarily, I can do it too.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

I 100% agree with Tom that what question we ask determine what we think.

That said, I remain a bit skeptical here simply because it seems hard to believe McKay hadn't considered these issues given the turmoil over historicity in the 30's in the CES. That's not to say McKay might not have been persuaded by McMurrin, O. C. Tanner or someone else during that period as someone else suggested. Just that I'm not sure the "ask the right questions" makes sense contextually given the debates that were raging at the time.

Edited August 8, 2017 by clarkgoble