Elder Cook #LDSDevo 9-Sept from Nauvoo

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Indeed it would be.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Hamba Tuhan seems to be saying that, even though they are not targeted for censure, there are those who are faithful that believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him (please clarify if I am). Can one be a faithful LDS and believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical?

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Well, I do see it changing and evolving for some.  Not all, of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Thanks for understanding me. I regard myself as typically orthodox in my acceptance of what we used to call “Mormonism” but is now more properly referred to as the restored gospel of Christ or the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hamba Tuhan seems to be saying that, even though they are not targeted for censure, there are those who are faithful that believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him (please clarify if I am). Can one be a faithful LDS and believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical?

Yes. I serve with some.  And there are a few faithful members who believe this who post here.

Some will say “no” though.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, JulieM said:

Well, I do see it changing and evolving for some.  Not all, of course.

Maybe it is the difference from the doctrinally inclined and the pragmatically inclined? (Mark, I know that is a philosophically charged term, but..  )

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes 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. 

For what it's worth, I don't know of any 'evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual'. I don't even know, really, what that phrase means. After all, the Book of Mormon itself doesn't even identify a single location outside of Jerusalem and part of the Arabian Peninsula.

What raised my interest is the claim, as you noted, that people are just learning this. What evidence do they think we previously had? Accepting the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be has, literally from the beginnings of its translation, been an act of faith, strongly influenced for many by their personal interactions with the divine on this topic. In my case, it has included a heavy dose of personal experience both reading the book and living by its precepts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can one be a faithful LDS and believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical?

Well, define 'faithful'. You'll note that in each of my posts I've used the phrase 'otherwise faithful'.

I don't know if there's an analogy in Catholicism, but I think many of us Saints are comfortable with the fact that people grow in their beliefs. Of course, we often hope they'll grow towards a more orthodox understanding, but even when they don't seem to be, we understand that they may do so later. And we understand that one can believe many things right whilst holding some incorrect beliefs.

We're not really into throwing the sincere (including the sincerely mistaken) out of our synagogues.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hamba Tuhan seems to be saying that, even though they are not targeted for censure, there are those who are faithful that believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him (please clarify if I am). Can one be a faithful LDS and believe that the Book of Mormon isn't historical?

I think such a one would find himself at odds with some of the fundamental and broadly accepted doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What the consequences of that might be would depend on the circumstances. There may well be no observable consequences at all. Or there might be, depending upon how vocal that person was in promulgating this view, especially in Church meetings and classes. It is my understanding that the Church has never tolerated the teaching of false doctrine, whatever it might be.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.)

This is not the place to give you a crash course in evidences for Book of Mormon historicity. But there is plenty on the FairMormon web site. Here's a good place to start.

I'm not saying the evidence is incontrovertible. Hamba is quite right in saying that acceptance of the authenticity of the book is ultimately a matter of faith and personal divine revelation. But what evidence there is is strong enough to keep the question open, in my opinion. So to declare that there is "no evidence" is quite wrong, and, I reiterate that those who think so are misled.

 

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think such a one would find himself at odds with some of the fundamental doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What the consequences of that might be would depend on the circumstances. There may well be no observable circumstances at all. Or there might be, depending upon how vocal that person was in promulgating this view, especially in Church meetings and classes. It is my understanding that the Church has never tolerated the teaching of false doctrine, whatever it might be.

That is definitely fair enough and aligns with my own understanding of religious truth. My own Church has its own difficult history (which, though terrible, should also be understood in the context of its times, without dismissing the terribleness of it all). 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not the place to give you a crash course in evidences for Book of Mormon historicity. 

Ok.  From what I’ve read I agree with Hamba:

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For what it's worth, I don't know of any 'evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual'.

Unless you want to actually list some?

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

That is definitely fair enough and aligns with my own understanding of religious truth. My own Church has its own difficult history (which, though terrible, should also be understood in the context of its times, without dismissing the terribleness of it all). 

I have great respect for the Catholic faith, though I will hasten to acknowledge that I am not well-schooled in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  From what I’ve read I agree with Hamba:

 

 

This may be a matter of semantics, or what Hamba (and you, for that matter) define as "evidence." But I believe the material that I linked to on FairMormon is persuasive, enough so that I would reject out of hand the assertion that there is "no evidence" to support Book of Mormon historicity. That, to me, is at least as foolish as saying there is no good argument against Book of Mormon historicity.

Among the most compelling evidences, in my view, is the testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. A venerable scholar who just a few days ago passed away, Richard Lloyd Anderson, devoted a great deal of time and energy in establishing the veracity of these witnesses. He put his findings in a seminal volume called "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses"

In recent days, Daniel C. Peterson in a blog post characterized Professor Anderson as being "too sincere to be a deceiver and to intelligent to be self-deceived."

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This may be a matter of semantics, or what Hamba (and you, for that matter) define as "evidence." But I believe the material that I linked to on FairMormon is persuasive, enough so that I would reject out of hand the assertion that there is "no evidence" to support Book of Mormon historicity.

 

I’ve personally seen no evidence (I have read what’s at the link you’ve posted).  But I haven’t quit looking! 

I’m open to the belief it’s not historically factual. I’m still reading more about it though.

I do believe that a lot has to come down to just having faith it’s true history without any physical evidence.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  From what I’ve read I agree with Hamba:

 

 

I wonder if you and he mean the same thing though.  

Hamba, perhaps you can clarify.  What do you think of the work of Brant Gardner and others to place at least some of the BoM in a certain place and time in the far past while allowing for other parts to be more modern (not sure I am putting that right, but hopefully it is close enough)?

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have great respect for the Catholic faith, though I will hasten to acknowledge that I am not well-schooled in it.

Thank you. I know this is a tangent (so indulge me all, for just a moment), but I do think it is sometimes hypocritical when Catholics attack Mormons over LDS history without acknowledging our own sometimes problematic history. There are, of course, apologetic positions for us to take, which I feel are appropriate and satisfactory. But it is good to understand, appreciate, and respect another's faith, especially if we disagree with it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hamba, perhaps you can clarify.  What do you think of the work of Brant Gardner and others to place at least some of the BoM in a certain place and time in the far past while allowing for other parts to be more modern (not sure I am putting that right, but hopefully it is close enough)?

I haven't read it. But my impression from what's been said on this board is that it's an attempt to address an issue I don't actually share.

I fall squarely into the 'What would historical evidence for the Book of Mormon even look like?' camp. Until we can answer that question, then we don't even know what we're talking about.

As far as scholarly attempts to place the Book of Mormon into various geographical spaces in the New World, I find them interesting but not compelling.

As a trained historian, I do find interesting textual clues all through the book. It reads just like a piece of contact literature (which is what I did my entire PhD research in). I don't find this compelling either, though, because in many cases those same characteristics could have another cause.

I've concluded that God doesn't intend for people (or maybe just for me?) to be compelled to accept the Book of Mormon by 'evidence'. And I'm fine with that since I think an alternative epistemology works smashingly in these kinds of cases.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I haven't read it. But my impression from what's been said on this board is that it's an attempt to address an issue I don't actually share.

I fall squarely into the 'What would historical evidence for the Book of Mormon even look like?' camp. Until we can answer that question, then we don't even know what we're talking about.

As far as scholarly attempts to place the Book of Mormon into various geographical spaces in the New World, I find them interesting but not compelling.

As a trained historian, I do find interesting textual clues all through the book. It reads just like a piece of contact literature (which is what I did my entire PhD research in). I don't find this compelling either, though, because in many cases those same characteristics could have another cause.

I've concluded that God doesn't intend for people (or maybe just for me?) to be compelled to accept the Book of Mormon by 'evidence'. And I'm fine with that since I think an alternative epistemology works smashingly in these kinds of cases.

You get my rep point just for saying "smashingly"

(and maybe perhaps for your ideas, too...)

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have great respect for the Catholic faith ...

I do too. One of my devout Catholic friends came 'round for Family Home Evening with me and the Elders Monday, and we ended up discussing how the RC Church here is losing its moral authority and how this will have negative impacts on society at large. I personally want all Christian churches to be thriving and successfully teaching Christian principles right now, but especially those like the Catholics who are doing all they can to fend off the world.

Because of my work, I got a very personal meeting with our archbishop a couple of months ago. He knows he and his fellow travelers are in our local government's cross-hairs. I feel really bad for him and the whole faith community. Another friend of mine is a 'progressive' Catholic who seems to be reveling in all of this. I'm not impressed with people who are keen to dance upon the ashes of their own household.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I haven't read it. But my impression from what's been said on this board is that it's an attempt to address an issue I don't actually share.

I fall squarely into the 'What would historical evidence for the Book of Mormon even look like?' camp. Until we can answer that question, then we don't even know what we're talking about.

As far as scholarly attempts to place the Book of Mormon into various geographical spaces in the New World, I find them interesting but not compelling.

As a trained historian, I do find interesting textual clues all through the book. It reads just like a piece of contact literature (which is what I did my entire PhD research in). I don't find this compelling either, though, because in many cases those same characteristics could have another cause.

I've concluded that God doesn't intend for people (or maybe just for me?) to be compelled to accept the Book of Mormon by 'evidence'. And I'm fine with that since I think an alternative epistemology works smashingly in these kinds of cases.

Would you agree that evidence may be serviceable in that, for some people it helps keep the question open so that they don't feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand as they are proceeding on their faith journey toward a  personal interaction with the divine as regards the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Would you agree that evidence may be serviceable in that, for some people it helps keep the question open so that they don't feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand as they are proceeding on their faith journey toward a  personal interaction with the divine as regards the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

Oh, I think there are all kinds of things that keep the question open, including some 'evidences', but I'm not sure I'd label anything we have as 'evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual'. I'm not even certain that people who use that phrase even know precisely what they mean by it.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thank you. I know this is a tangent (so indulge me all, for just a moment), but I do think it is sometimes hypocritical when Catholics attack Mormons over LDS history without acknowledging our own sometimes problematic history. There are, of course, apologetic positions for us to take, which I feel are appropriate and satisfactory. But it is good to understand, appreciate, and respect another's faith, especially if we disagree with it.

Some of us Latter-day Saints are wont from time to time to quote the late Krister Stendahl, a theologian and clergyman in the Swedish state (Lutheran) church, who urged us all to find beauty in other faith traditions (he called it "holy envy") and not to succumb to the temptation to compare our best with their worst.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Oh, I think there are all kinds of things that keep the question open, including some 'evidences', but I'm not sure I'd label anything we have as 'evidence that the Book of Mormon is historically factual'. I'm not even certain that people who use that phrase even know precisely what they mean by it.

What I mean by it is simply that it is what it purports to be: an authentic, albeit spiritual, record of an actual civilization. That it is not, as some capitulators are so eager to believe, "inspired fiction."

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I mean by it is simply that it is what it purports to be: an authentic, albeit spiritual record of an actual civilization. That it is not, as some capitulators are so anxious to believe, "inspired fiction."

As you know, I reject the 'inspired fiction' descriptor as well, but then I really don't think we have any solid 'evidence' to the contrary. Without the very personal experiences I've had, I'd not be inclined to accept the Book of Mormon as what it purports to be. Even in my acceptance of the book over the course of many years, I've always just bracketed a number of issues about who, when and where. Then I had an experience last year that I never could have expected and which cleared up the who for me. Fantastic stuff, this faith journey!

In my opinion, each time a person comes to accept the Book of Mormon, it's a miracle of the first order.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan