Elder Cook #LDSDevo 9-Sept from Nauvoo

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

So to you it’s not really a “good answer” unless it amounts to you having carte blanche to preach and advocate at church whatever heretical view strikes your fancy. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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?

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?

No, I don't need validation.  But based on others' experiences here in my stake, I fear that expressing such a viewpoint outside of a trusted circle of friends could cause me to lose my recommend.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

How does a one sided history be “true to the participants” when it paints certain participants as clear bad guys and others as heroes?  What about William Law or Oliver Cowdery or Thomas Marsh.  How true was this newly crafted narrative to these participants?  Answer, it wasn’t.

The narrative history was written as a hagiography, would never be published by a reputable university press, and wasn’t even attempting to show a balanced approach to history.  It’s goal in the preface was to be inspiring to current church members, the audience of the publication.  Of course pretty much anyone in the world who might read it would instantly understand this, except for a few apologists who want to assert a wild claim that this narrative was balanced scholarship.  

Find me a balanced history written by another conservative religious organization about their founding story, I doubt that you would expect to find one.  I certainly don’t.  Yet you believe that our LDS church is some exception to the rule.  This church is the one church willing and capable of honest and balanced reflective history writing about itself, while other organizations aren’t.  Really mind boggling...

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So to you it’s not really a “good answer” unless it amounts to you having carte blanche to preach and advocate at church whatever heretical view strikes your fancy. 

I didn't say preach and advocate.  Try not to twist my words if you are going to respond to me. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I fear that expressing such a viewpoint outside of a trusted circle of friends could cause me to lose my recommend.

I have a hard time believing that such a viewpoint in isolation could cause anyone to lose a temple recommend. I clearly have no idea if that is the case in certain outlying stakes or not. It certainly hasn't been my experience or observation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Really mind boggling...

Quoting myself:

Quote

I don't expect you to believe me any more this time than last time ...

Rage on, bro! 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quoting myself:

Rage on, bro! 

Maybe I'm missing something here, so help me understand. Is it ok for an LDS member to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, so help me understand. Is it ok for an LDS member to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Define 'OK'. Is it OK for a Catholic to have doubts about transubstantiation?

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Define 'OK'. Is it OK for a Catholic to have doubts about transubstantiation?

Good question and comparison. Technically, no. Transubstantiation is a dogma of the faith, which means that it requires assent.

However, we do not have anything like temple recommend interviews. No one checks up on a Catholic's beliefs, unless they start teaching them, printing them, etc. And even then there is a lot of leeway (most bishops don't care and look the other way unless one is a priest or religious, and sometimes even then).

Could an LDS believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and get a temple recommend? Could an LDS teach and publish that the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and avoid censure?

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, so help me understand. Is it ok for an LDS member to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Yes.  I know many active and faithful, good Mormons who do not believe the Book of Mormon is historically true, but that it is still scripture and contains the word of God.  It seems more and more are believing this too from what I see.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, JulieM said:

Yes.  I know many active and faithful, good Mormons who do not believe the Book of Mormon is historically true, but that it is still scripture and contains the word of God.  It seems more and more are believing this too from what I see.

It seems times are changing from when I first starting looking into Mormonism 8-10 years ago. Or maybe I just had Mormons introduce me to your faith that misrepresented some ideas. It seemed pretty dogmatic that Joseph Smith actually translated golden plates that were a historic record of the Nephites et al. All my time on this board it has seemed that the non-historical Book of Mormon crowd were a tiny minority that were looked down upon by faithful Mormons.

Has that changed?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could an LDS believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and get a temple recommend?

The topic of the Book of Mormon isn't even addressed in a temple recommend interview.

Quote

Could an LDS teach and publish that the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and avoid censure?

That would depend on what was written and for what intent, in my opinion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

All my time on this board it has seemed that the non-historical Book of Mormon crowd were a tiny minority that were looked down upon by faithful Mormons.

Has that changed?

I don't personally think so.

But that doesn't mean there is some kind of Inquisition targeting otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints whose current beliefs run in that direction.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It seems times are changing from when I first starting looking into Mormonism 8-10 years ago. Or maybe I just had Mormons introduce me to your faith that misrepresented some ideas. It seemed pretty dogmatic that Joseph Smith actually translated golden plates that were a historic record of the Nephites et al. All my time on this board it has seemed that the non-historical Book of Mormon crowd were a tiny minority that were looked down upon by faithful Mormons.

Has that changed?

I’m seeing it evolve and change.  I know of many active members who’ve learned there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically  factual.  At first their faith was somewhat shaken, but many stay and now believe it’s inspired fiction or scripture.  I serve with a few faithful sisters who believe this.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't personally think so.

So my impressions from a decade ago that the Book of Mormon's historicity were part and parcel of the Mormon package were wrong?

That's not a rhetorical question; I'm seriously trying to understand your position. Because (and you have to know this) that the historicity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's translation of them has been seriously put forward as a truth claim of your church.

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m seeing it evolve and change.  I know of many active members who’ve learned there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically  factual.  At first their faith was somewhat shaken, but many stay and now believe it’s inspired fiction or scripture.  I serve with a few faithful sisters who believe this.

The Catholic Church has allowance for ideas to evolve, though the reasoning is always that the evolution is led by the Holy Spirit and that nothing dogmatic is changing, just our understanding of it (hence ecumenical councils and infallible papal pronouncements). However, those changes are always said to be further clarifications, not outright contradictions.

Is this your view of what is happening in the Mormon church? Or do you think it is a greater change, a disavowal of previously held dogmatic beliefs? (I know dogma is a technical term in the Catholic Church -- think of it as something that a believer is required to believe).

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's not a rhetorical question; I'm seriously trying to understand your position.

You asked, 'Has that changed?'

To which I responded, 'I don't personally think so'. In other words, no, I don't think anything has changed. The Church still teaches that the Book of Mormon is an account of real people, and the vast majority of engaged Latter-day Saints, including me, believe that.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You asked, 'Has that changed?'

To which, I responded, 'I don't personally think so'. In other words, no, I don't think anything has changed. The Church still teaches that the Book of Mormon is an account of real people, and the vast majority of engaged Latter-day Saints, including me, believe that.

You added to your post after I quoted.

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But that doesn't mean there is some kind of Inquisition targeting otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints whose current beliefs run in that direction.

What do you mean by this? Do you believe these people are wrong but are unfairly being treated?

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church has allowance for ideas to evolve, though the reasoning is always that the evolution is led by the Holy Spirit and that nothing dogmatic is changing, just our understanding of it (hence ecumenical councils and infallible papal pronouncements). However, those changes are always said to be further clarifications, not outright contradictions.

Is this your view of what is happening in the Mormon church? Or do you think it is a greater change, a disavowal of previously held dogmatic beliefs? (I know dogma is a technical term in the Catholic Church -- think of it as something that a believer is required to believe).

I think beliefs are evolving and changing in order for members to remain active in the church.  Their beliefs are altered and I know many simply don’t believe it’s the only true church, but a very good organization led by men inspired by God.  It’s becoming more main stream Christianity and I’ve had discussions with other ward leaders who believe this is what our new Prophet is directing the church towards (ie. the new emphasis on the name).

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you believe these people are wrong but are unfairly being treated?

No. I'm sorry I'm apparently unclear. Despite the Church's teachings, I see no evidence that otherwise faithful Saints who currently believe the Book of Mormon may not be historical are being targeted in any way. I think this is exactly analogous to your example of priests looking the other way re attitudes towards transubstantiation.

ETA: Julie is giving you her perspective on this topic, but I strongly disagree with most of what she has said about the Church somehow 'mainstreaming'. There are certainly people in the Church like rockpond and those Julie has described. They are not the majority by any stretch, and rockpond, at least, seems to know that he is on the fringes of orthodoxy.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I think beliefs are evolving and changing in order for members to remain active in the church.  Their beliefs are altered and I know many simply don’t believe it’s the only true church, but a very good organization led by men inspired by God.  It’s becoming more main stream Christianity and I’ve had discussions with other ward leaders who believe this is what our new Prophet is directing the church towards (ie. the new emphasis on the name).

If this is true, this would be a major change from the Mormonism I was introduced to.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m seeing it evolve and change.  I know of many active members who’ve learned there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically  factual.  At first their faith was somewhat shaken, but many stay and now believe it’s inspired fiction or scripture.  I serve with a few faithful sisters who believe this.

“That there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual” is, of course, a falsehood, and if indeed they have, as you say, “learned” this, they have been misled. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“That there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual” is, of course, a falsehood, and if indeed they have, as you say, “learned” this, they have been misled. 

Not from what they’ve read (in discussing it with them).  What evidence are you referring to?

(This isn’t a topic I’m well read on, but I’ve not read of any physical remnant or evidence found.)

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“That there’s no evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual” is, of course, a falsehood, and if indeed they have, as you say, “learned” this, they have been misled. 

You are stating the beliefs of Mormonism as I know it. I tend to believe you as being representative of the LDS church, just as I would believe those who would deny the idea that "transubstantiation is now optional" in the Catholic Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No. I'm sorry I'm apparently unclear. Despite the Church's teachings, I see no evidence that otherwise faithful Saints who currently believe the Book of Mormon may not be historical are being targeted in any way. I think this is exactly analogous to your example of priests looking the other way re attitudes towards transubstantiation.

ETA: Julie is giving you her perspective on this topic, but I strongly disagree with most of what she has said about the Church somehow 'mainstreaming'.

As do I.

The notion that President Nelson’s renewed emphasis on the proper, revealed name of the Church is with an eye toward making it more “mainstream” is altogether foreign to my understanding. That strikes as the opposite of his intent.