Elder Cook #LDSDevo 9-Sept from Nauvoo

[cinepro]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm interested in what you think we should say instead. "Let me be frank. There are no good answers, repeat, no good answers." How is that better than "the worst thing you could say?" I'm not seeing it. Talk about inciting panic in people who are not "gone" yet! 

Something like this:

Quote

  We don’t need to be afraid of it.  Sometimes we will have questions, and those questions may not have answers that we are comfortable with, or that we even know.  In those cases, we need to have faith in the things that we do know, and the things that are good about the Church and gospel.  Learning to deal with these things can be a difficult process, but it is a necessary one.  We need to be willing to change our assumptions and perceptions about figures and events in Church history as we learn more about them.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, a couple more thoughts from the quoted portions of the broadcast in the Dnews article I linked to earlier that I wanted to comment on.  

This part is from Grow in the section on the church and transparency.  I think its important to help people not be afraid of church history.  This message is really for the believers that fear actually learning about history, and in that sense its a good message.  Don't be afraid, there are good answers.  But what this message doesn't say is that some of those good answers don't jive with the correlated narrative at all.  The "good answers" explain how complex and messy the story of the Mormon movement truly is.  It takes the bloom off the rose.  

Does this mean that the church's justification for not more fully engaging in historical transparency is that they are doing it for the good of the members?  Is this a sort of benevolent protecting of people from information, for their own good?  You can't handle the truth!  

My observation about what the brethren know about history is that they haven't truly explored history, that they ultimately are still black and white thinkers, and that they use the church historians as cover for their lack of engagement with historical issues.  These statements are confirming my observation.  Elder Cook wants you to know that you can really trust those endnotes, they are slam dunk historical facts.  No room for interpretation at all.  Unfortunately his views about what constitutes a fact shows how ignorant he is about how history is written.  And he wants you to be ignorant as well, because he is essentially laying out the strategy for coping with the controversies of church history in this short segment.  

Cue the music:  

Because you know I'm about those facts bout those facts, no bias, I'm all about those facts bout those facts, no bias.  I'm all about those facts bout those facts, no bias, I'm all about those facts bout those facts...

I was discussing history with my wife. She has seven siblings. When they meet up if they discuss old times and things that happened when they were kids.

And then the good natured squabbles start." No it wasn't that way at all I didn't do that." Etc.

She understands the nature of "His-story" perfectly well!

They're just simply is no "what really happened."  Each individual has their own version, and sometimes two or three versions all perfectly honestly told as they remember it.

I think that's one reason marriage is so important. If you have been married and had a tiff or two , you know full well " what really happened" is totally debatable. It helps us learn that my truth is not necessarily your truth.

History is just a deep research on everybody's individual versions.

Edited September 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was discussing history with my wife. She has seven siblings. When they meet up if they discuss old times and things that happened when they were kids.

And then the squabbles start." No it wasn't that way at all I didn't do that." Etc.

She understands the nature of "His-story" perfectly well!

They're just simply is no "what really happened."  Each individual has their own version, and sometimes two or three versions all perfectly honestly told as they remember it.

I think that's one reason marriage is so important. If you have been married and had a tiff or two , you know full well " what really happened" is totally debatable

History is just a deep research on everybody's individual versions.

I can accept those times when the accounts of different people don't match.  That's fine.

I think the lack of good answers is in those areas where the events are not disputed but the implications of those events are troubling.

[Jeanne]

I did hear the beautiful music in the beginning..will there be a transcript or a mag that this will be covered?

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can accept those times when the accounts of different people don't match.  That's fine.

I think the lack of good answers is in those areas where the events are not disputed but the implications of those events are troubling.

Troubling due to false expectations, I suppose.

Sterling McMurrin said " I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"

Humans are human.

Time to put off childish things.

 

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was discussing history with my wife. She has seven siblings. When they meet up if they discuss old times and things that happened when they were kids.

And then the good natured squabbles start." No it wasn't that way at all I didn't do that." Etc.

She understands the nature of "His-story" perfectly well!

They're just simply is no "what really happened."  Each individual has their own version, and sometimes two or three versions all perfectly honestly told as they remember it.

I think that's one reason marriage is so important. If you have been married and had a tiff or two , you know full well " what really happened" is totally debatable. It helps us learn that my truth is not necessarily your truth.

History is just a deep research on everybody's individual versions.

Yes, I this is very important to remember.  I was talking about some experiences with my Dad the other day about what some things were like when I was in High School and questioning whether his memory of events was the same as mine or not.  We had agreement on some things, and disagreement on others.  I have certain memories that are stronger than others and my personal confidence in these memories is strong.  But just because my sense of certainty is strong doesn't make my memories any more likely to be accurate, a sense of certainty doesn't have a correlation with accuracy.  

All that being said, there is the discipline of scholarly modern history, and it has methods for evaluating evidence to determine the more likely version of events.  Its certainly not fool proof, but it is better than a monkey throwing darts at a target.  Its also better than just saying all versions of history, all accounts of events are equally ambiguous.  Not every version of events is just as likely to be accurate, no matter how honest that person feels they are being when they describe the event.

I do believe these is some sense of "what really happened", and I think we can get closer to what really happened these days with modern technologies used to record information than what we've ever been able to before.  That said there is a subjective element to individual experiences in a sense that makes them true subjectively for the participant, but I would hesitate to call that "what really happened", or to put forward those subjective experiences in a book as the best explanation of the historical record.  

For example, lets say a group of five individuals were traveling on a train from SLC to San Diego as a group, and on this trip there was a very severe lightning storm, that caused the power to go out and was quite frightening along the way.  Lets say upon arrival that all five people were separately interviewed to ascertain what each person experienced during the storm.  With four of the participants the stories of the lightning storm, the wind and rain and the power outage were very consistent, but one of the participants told a completely different story upon arrival.  During the most intense moments of the storm, this fifth person claims to have been abducted by aliens, and then after the storm was over, returned to the train for the remainder of the trip.  

Now, lets say we are professionally trained historians with access to all five interviews, and we are tasked with writing a record of what happened on that train trip, would it be responsible for us to say that the experiences of the person claiming to have been abducted by aliens during the storm, are just as valid a telling of "what really happened" as the experiences of the other four travelers?  How should we evaluate this evidence?  In this case, there is a disagreement about what happened and its certainly debatable from the perspective of the person that claims to have experienced an alien abduction.  How should we proceed?  Is all the evidence equal?  Are all subjective experiences equally likely to be accurate descriptions of "what really happened"?  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Troubling due to false expectations, I suppose.

Sterling McMurrin said " I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"

Humans are human.

Time to put off childish things.

 

That's your "good answer"?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that we lose people if the best we can do is tell someone who is losing faith in the Church's truth claims that it is their fault for having false expectations.  If that's the best we've got, it makes sense that Elder Cook passed on the tough questions.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I this is very important to remember.  I was talking about some experiences with my Dad the other day about what some things were like when I was in High School and questioning whether his memory of events was the same as mine or not.  We had agreement on some things, and disagreement on others.  I have certain memories that are stronger than others and my personal confidence in these memories is strong.  But just because my sense of certainty is strong doesn't make my memories any more likely to be accurate, a sense of certainty doesn't have a correlation with accuracy.  

All that being said, there is the discipline of scholarly modern history, and it has methods for evaluating evidence to determine the more likely version of events.  Its certainly not fool proof, but it is better than a monkey throwing darts at a target.  Its also better than just saying all versions of history, all accounts of events are equally ambiguous.  Not every version of events is just as likely to be accurate, no matter how honest that person feels they are being when they describe the event.

I do believe these is some sense of "what really happened", and I think we can get closer to what really happened these days with modern technologies used to record information than what we've ever been able to before.  That said there is a subjective element to individual experiences in a sense that makes them true subjectively for the participant, but I would hesitate to call that "what really happened", or to put forward those subjective experiences in a book as the best explanation of the historical record.  

For example, lets say a group of five individuals were traveling on a train from SLC to San Diego as a group, and on this trip there was a very severe lightning storm, that caused the power to go out and was quite frightening along the way.  Lets say upon arrival that all five people were separately interviewed to ascertain what each person experienced during the storm.  With four of the participants the stories of the lightning storm, the wind and rain and the power outage were very consistent, but one of the participants told a completely different story upon arrival.  During the most intense moments of the storm, this fifth person claims to have been abducted by aliens, and then after the storm was over, returned to the train for the remainder of the trip.  

Now, lets say we are professionally trained historians with access to all five interviews, and we are tasked with writing a record of what happened on that train trip, would it be responsible for us to say that the experiences of the person claiming to have been abducted by aliens during the storm, are just as valid a telling of "what really happened" as the experiences of the other four travelers?  How should we evaluate this evidence?  In this case, there is a disagreement about what happened and its certainly debatable from the perspective of the person that claims to have experienced an alien abduction.  How should we proceed?  Is all the evidence equal?  Are all subjective experiences equally likely to be accurate descriptions of "what really happened"?  

Only if your faith includes the notion of "accurate descriptions", implying something independent of human perception.

That is logically impossible for humans, by definition of "human perception".

 Let me know if you figure out how to get outside of human-created perceptions to some invisible reality Beyond sense or what humans know.

 It seems pretty clear to me that humans can only know what humans can know.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's your "good answer"?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that we lose people if the best we can do is tell someone who is losing faith in the Church's truth claims that it is their fault for having false expectations.  If that's the best we've got, it makes sense that Elder Cook passed on the tough questions.

One good answer that people can get through a real honest and detailed study of the history is that the LDS church isn't exclusively favored by God, that no people ever have been.  Couple that with a realization that the whole proposition of a one true church is a phony construct to begin with. 

Another important good answer is that all humans are seriously flawed including early members of the church.  This would come as a shock to many because of how prevalent hero worship has become in the correlated church era.  Unfortunately, this same idolized portrayal is continued in the new narrative history Saints.  Joseph is portrayed in a very hero like way, always calm and measured and valiant in following God.  Not a real person with serious flaws. 

Instead of helping members move away from hero worship, the current church leaders are perpetuating that worship with these sanitized versions of history.  Its sad that the institution is doing this, as its basically perpetuating one of the mistakes of prior generations further into the future, instead of repenting from that mistake in our past and moving forward in a new and positive direction.   

Edited September 11, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Only if your faith includes the notion of "accurate descriptions", implying something independent of human perception.

That is logically impossible for humans, by definition of "human perception".

 Let me know if you figure out how to get outside of human-created perceptions to some invisible reality Beyond sense or what humans know.

 It seems pretty clear to me that humans can only know what humans can know.

This seems like a dodge of my example though.  In practice, if you were a historian that had to write about the history on that train trip, how would you evaluate that evidence to craft as honest of an account of history as possible?  Are you saying the human perceptions of the person who claims to have been abducted by aliens is of equal veracity as the others on the trip?  Put this into real word practice for me, since we're talking about church history and narratives written about it.  How would you evaluate the evidence, is everything equal?  

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's your "good answer"?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that we lose people if the best we can do is tell someone who is losing faith in the Church's truth claims that it is their fault for having false expectations.  If that's the best we've got, it makes sense that Elder Cook passed on the tough questions.

The expectations go back to a simpler time, and simpler people. Our wonderful ancestors were fundamentalist Protestant Christians. And that got into our culture a little bit. I think we never developed a full Mormon culture which is the culture of the Church of Christ. We have been struggling for so long to be seen as Christians.

But what they believed they believed with the fire of the spirit and that is why it has survived. That is why I am LDS today I will never leave.

We just need to modernize our viewpoint a little bit, and make it our own Church of Christ. THE Church of Christ.

We don't need the strange title of "Mormon." We need to be known as the Church of Christ.

I thought the Mormons were some strange sect that made all the Indians Saints.

It had something to do with worshiping Indians or something like that.

I had no clue Mormons even believed in Jesus Christ.

That has to change and a lot with it.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Something like this:

" We don’t need to be afraid of it.  Sometimes we will have questions, and those questions may not have answers that we are comfortable with, or that we even know.  In those cases, we need to have faith in the things that we do know, and the things that are good about the Church and gospel.  Learning to deal with these things can be a difficult process, but it is a necessary one.  We need to be willing to change our assumptions and perceptions about figures and events in Church history as we learn more about them."

This is good as far as it goes, but I'm telling you, for people who have been shaken and feel like they are clinging to flotsam after a shipwreck, being told that they should just focus on the good things that come from the Church is kind of a confirmation of their worst fears --- that we are just one of many churches with good things in them, but no special authority or truth in the foundational stories. 

In my experience, it is better to tell struggling people, as the broadcast people did, that there are good answers, and here are some. People will be brutally honest at that point if they don't find the answers to be good, and then you give good old-fashioned Missionary guide empathy ("I understand why you feel that way, and many others do, too. Here is why this does work for many as well."). You many not "cure" them of their doubt, but you do let them know that you understand, that they have some grounds for their concerns, and that they aren't going to be shouted down or demonized for having them. That goes far if they still have a desire to try to make it work (some don't, and that's okay. We love them, anyway). 

I don't think an approach like "There are no good answers, and those who think that there are have their heads in the sand. Sorry. Just try to find the good things in the Church that are universals of the human condition" is helpful to struggling people. But that's me. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is good as far as it goes, but I'm telling you, for people who have been shaken and feel like they are clinging to flotsam after a shipwreck, being told that they should just focus on the good things that come from the Church is kind of a confirmation of their worst fears --- that we are just one of many churches with good things in them, but no special authority or truth in the foundational stories. 

In my experience, it is better to tell struggling people, as the broadcast people did, that there are good answers, and here are some. People will be brutally honest at that point if they don't find the answers to be good, and then you give good old-fashioned Missionary guide empathy ("I understand why you feel that way, and many others do, too. Here is why this does work for many as well."). You many not "cure" them of their doubt, but you do let them know that you understand, that they have some grounds for their concerns, and that they aren't going to be shouted down or demonized for having them. That goes far if they still have a desire to try to make it work (some don't, and that's okay. We love them, anyway). 

I don't think an approach like "There are no good answers, and those who think that there are have their heads in the sand. Sorry. Just try to find the good things in the Church that are universals of the human condition" is helpful to struggling people. But that's me. 

This approach makes sense the way you describe it, however I wonder if a more open and less certain approach might work better, however I don’t know.

It would be interesting if they could setup tests to determine which approach retained the highest number of members long term.  I’ve often wondered if the strategy you’ve articulated here and that the church seems to agree is the right approach, isn’t a good short term stop gap that retains more members in the short term but might have a larger fallout in the long term.  Just a hunch on my part, but I really don’t know.  

[rongo]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

This approach makes sense the way you describe it, however I wonder if a more open and less certain approach might work better, however I don’t know.

It would be interesting if they could setup tests to determine which approach retained the highest number of members long term.  I’ve often wondered if the strategy you’ve articulated here and that the church seems to agree is the right approach, isn’t a good short term stop gap that retains more members in the short term but might have a larger fallout in the long term.  Just a hunch on my part, but I really don’t know.  

It also really depends on the specific person/audience, and "helpers" need to be able to be "all things to all people," so to say. In other words, one size does not fit all, and experienced people need to be flexible and adapt to the needs of the conversation and situation. Not that they should be spineless and never take a stand or be nailed down on anything, but the best thing is to tailor the approach to the temperament and needs of the audience. 

I've had hostile, very receptive, and everything in between!  Some "outings" are more successful than others, but all you can do is do your best and trust that God will do his part, within their agency. Once one has the approach in mind that they won't "win them all," it's just fun and invigorating to defend the Church and do your best to help people with concerns. The chips will fall where they may. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think an approach like "There are no good answers, and those who think that there are have their heads in the sand. Sorry. Just try to find the good things in the Church that are universals of the human condition" is helpful to struggling people. But that's me. 

One more thought, when I was in the middle of my faith crisis in Oct 2013, Elder Uchtdorf gave his talk about mistakes being made in the past and inviting those of us who struggle to stay involved and that we are still wanted.  The timing of that talk I think in retrospect for me gave me great peace and kept me involved for much longer in an active sense.  

Unfortunately it was just one talk in isolation, and many other negative things have happened since that make it harder for me.  But I’ve often wondered if the church could have continued to progress on the spirit of that talk, opening up about those past mistakes and trying to repent if people like me would be able to feel more comfortable being an active participant.  Of course this approach would have consequences with the more orthodox members too, so I’m again not sure what the net long term outcome would look like.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

One more thought, when I was in the middle of my faith crisis in Oct 2013, Elder Uchtdorf gave his talk about mistakes being made in the past and inviting those of us who struggle to stay involved and that we are still wanted.  The timing of that talk I think in retrospect for me gave me great peace and kept me involved for much longer in an active sense.  

Unfortunately it was just one talk in isolation, and many other negative things have happened since that make it harder for me.  But I’ve often wondered if the church could have continued to progress on the spirit of that talk, opening up about those past mistakes and trying to repent if people like me would be able to feel more comfortable being an active participant.  Of course this approach would have consequences with the more orthodox members too, so I’m again not sure what the net long term outcome would look like.  

I think Rongo's approach is fair and good advice for the church.  Unfortunately, I don't consistent attempts by leadership at the second part of his recommendation:  the empathy piece.

Like you, I was hopeful that President Uchtdorf's Oct 2013 talk would serve as a turning point for the church.  But, that hasn't seemed to happen.  In my stake, expressing that you believe the Brethren could be mistaken about something can cost you your recommend.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can accept those times when the accounts of different people don't match.  That's fine.

I think the lack of good answers is in those areas where the events are not disputed but the implications of those events are troubling.

But historical accounts don't somehow cease being partial and tentative or even disputable just because we didn't get the accounts from different people. These realities are 'baked in', so to speak.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I this is very important to remember.  I was talking about some experiences with my Dad the other day about what some things were like when I was in High School and questioning whether his memory of events was the same as mine or not.  We had agreement on some things, and disagreement on others.  I have certain memories that are stronger than others and my personal confidence in these memories is strong.  But just because my sense of certainty is strong doesn't make my memories any more likely to be accurate, a sense of certainty doesn't have a correlation with accuracy.  

All that being said, there is the discipline of scholarly modern history, and it has methods for evaluating evidence to determine the more likely version of events.  Its certainly not fool proof, but it is better than a monkey throwing darts at a target.  Its also better than just saying all versions of history, all accounts of events are equally ambiguous.  Not every version of events is just as likely to be accurate, no matter how honest that person feels they are being when they describe the event.

I do believe these is some sense of "what really happened", and I think we can get closer to what really happened these days with modern technologies used to record information than what we've ever been able to before.  That said there is a subjective element to individual experiences in a sense that makes them true subjectively for the participant, but I would hesitate to call that "what really happened", or to put forward those subjective experiences in a book as the best explanation of the historical record.  

For example, lets say a group of five individuals were traveling on a train from SLC to San Diego as a group, and on this trip there was a very severe lightning storm, that caused the power to go out and was quite frightening along the way.  Lets say upon arrival that all five people were separately interviewed to ascertain what each person experienced during the storm.  With four of the participants the stories of the lightning storm, the wind and rain and the power outage were very consistent, but one of the participants told a completely different story upon arrival.  During the most intense moments of the storm, this fifth person claims to have been abducted by aliens, and then after the storm was over, returned to the train for the remainder of the trip.  

Now, lets say we are professionally trained historians with access to all five interviews, and we are tasked with writing a record of what happened on that train trip, would it be responsible for us to say that the experiences of the person claiming to have been abducted by aliens during the storm, are just as valid a telling of "what really happened" as the experiences of the other four travelers?  How should we evaluate this evidence?  In this case, there is a disagreement about what happened and its certainly debatable from the perspective of the person that claims to have experienced an alien abduction.  How should we proceed?  Is all the evidence equal?  Are all subjective experiences equally likely to be accurate descriptions of "what really happened"?  

Funny thing is the church is very good at keeping records so these accounts aren't from people trying to remember long ago, they are written in the time frame that it happened. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

All that being said, there is the discipline of scholarly modern history, and it has methods for evaluating evidence to determine the more likely version of events.  Its certainly not fool proof, but it is better than a monkey throwing darts at a target.  Its also better than just saying all versions of history, all accounts of events are equally ambiguous.  Not every version of events is just as likely to be accurate, no matter how honest that person feels they are being when they describe the event.

Mate, you are about 50 years behind the scholarship. Modernity as a construct is mostly dead at this point, and that would certainly include positivist histories. I completed my PhD in history at a university whose history program was at the time ranked fifth globally. I had no association with any professional historians during or after my candidature who subscribe to your view of 'scholarly modern history'. 

The goal that was explicitly taught to me was to craft a narrative that would be most familiar to the participants and faithful to their accounts. I note that this very point was raised by one of the Church historians in the segment of the broadcast that I watched. No doubt that is because s/he (I can't remember which it was) holds a recent-ish PhD in the field. Even this, of course, is an impossible task, and not just because each participant would see things differently or even because a single participant's perspective inevitably shifts over time.

I don't expect you to believe me any more this time than last time, but the histories that the Church is currently producing are in the very mainstream of contemporary historical scholarship and practice.

What you desperately want history writing to be about has been abandoned as a fool's errand.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But historical accounts don't somehow cease being partial and tentative or even disputable just because we didn't get the accounts from different people. These realities are 'baked in', so to speak.

Let me try again, using an example that relates to the broadcast:

The current narrative of the church is that Joseph Smith "translated" most of what we currently have as the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in a hat.

Given that he didn't actually translate the plates delivered to him by Moroni, using the Urim and Thummin that were supposedly preserved for that purpose, why do I, as a church member, have to believe that what we currently hold in our hands as the Book of Mormon is a historical record?  If it wasn't actually translated from a historical document but was, rather, revealed to Joseph Smith, why must it be an actual history of a people who inhabited this continent in the manner and population size that the Book of Mormon claims?

What is the good answer to that question?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why do I, as a church member, have to believe that what we currently hold in our hands as the Book of Mormon is a historical record? ...

What is the good answer to that question?

Good answer? You don't. That may certainly be my preference and the preference of many, but has anyone honestly tried to force you? 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good answer? You don't. That may certainly be my preference and the preference of many, but has anyone honestly tried to force you? 

Great.  Now, let's hear that answer from an apostle.  I believe it would help a lot of members.  Until then, you'll have to pardon my incredulity that such a belief could be expressed in a church class without negative consequences.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Great.  Now, let's hear that answer from an apostle.  I believe it would help a lot of members.  Until then, you'll have to pardon my incredulity that such a belief could be expressed in a church class without negative consequences.

Now you’ve shifted the goal posts. 

The question you asked was why you had to believe the Book of Mormon is s historical record. The answer you got from Hamba is that you personally don’t. 

But now you’re talking about taking the view that it isn’t and then promulgating that undoctrinal view in a Church class. I think the Church would understandably have a problem with people contesting its doctrines within its own classes and meetings. I know I would. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Great.  Now, let's hear that answer from an apostle.

I feel reasonably certain that the apostles share my preference on this topic. Are you genuinely so insecure in your position that you need people to validate it for you even if they don't agree with it?

Quote

Until then, you'll have to pardon my incredulity that such a belief could be expressed in a church class without negative consequences.

And I hope you'll pardon my incredulity, but I've heard this and similar beliefs stated in Church classes heaps of times. I was the ward mission leader until February, and that means I also taught Gospel Principles class. I've had members in that class talk about not really believing the Book of Mormon, having concerns about latter-day prophets, etc. Just three days ago, the wife of a bishopric member spoke up in gospel doctrine class and said she didn't believe Job was even loosely based on a true story. Other people disagreed. I said, audibly, that I didn't care.

Besides the possibly uncomfortable feeling that comes from holding a minority viewpoint, what negative consequences are you so afraid of?

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now you’ve shifted the goal posts. 

The question you asked was why you had to believe the Book of Mormon is s historical record. The answer you got from Hamba is that you personally don’t. 

But now you’re talking about taking the view that it isn’t and then promulgating that undoctrinal view in a Church class. I think the Church would understandably have a problem with people contesting its doctrines within its own classes and meetings. I know I would. 

That's my point.  It's not really a good answer to the question.  It's the answer that you can believe whatever you want just keep it a secret and don't mention it in church.