Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's not my intent to talk you out of this way of thinking but I am grateful that my faith is no longer built on that house of cards.  For me, someone can believe in the restoration and believe that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document.

As you wish. I’m mystified that you can do that. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

For example, President Nelson became the new leader of the church before he was sustained. The vote is a formality, only a loyalty pledge.

As a thought exercise, hypothetically speaking, what if President Nelson were set apart, but then rejected by the sustaining vote? There are instances (e.g., discussed by President Smith in the Smoot hearings) where stake presidents were actually rejected in the sustaining, and the frustrated apostle had to select someone else. It's interesting to think about what would happen if something like that were to happen (and the chance of that happening is zero).

However, I can see an analogue between that and HJW's hypothetical about a stake president's decision that is not sustained by the high council. It would certainly bring about a situation that would need to be resolved, lest the high council feel like the stake president was just doing what he wants, regardless. Although he does have the authority to do that. 

I wonder if the Brethren would say (if asked, and if they answered) similarly that they have the full authority to set apart the president without a sustaining, and to have the sustaining later "for ratification purposes only."

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

For example, President Nelson became the new leader of the church before he was sustained. The vote is a formality, only a loyalty pledge.

I'm not sure about that.  I think the sustaining vote had a ratifying effect.

Now, if the body of the Saints had not offered a sufficient sustaining vote (I assume that would be a bare majority), I think there would be cause for concern.

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one would expect the church to be a direct democracy.

I agree.  But I think some folks have a corollary expectation of a "direct" application of Common Consent (that is, that the members of the Church would "directly" function in matters of Church governance and administration in the same way as citizens function in a "direct democracy").

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

People don't run for president. But there is also no common consent - no ability to choose one way or the other,

Not so.  There is an ability to choose.  To sustain or not sustain.

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

a punishment for voting the wrong way,

Well, not really.  Sustaining the leaders of the Church is a precondition for entry to the temple.  There are ways, I think, that a person could cast a dissenting vote and still qualify for the temple.

For example, let's say that a friend of mine deeply dislikes his bishop.  Deeply.  And the bishop knows it.  My friend raises this issue in a TR interview as potentially preventing him from holding a recommend, and the discussion goes something like this:

• Bishop: "Your concern is about the question involving whether you sustain the leaders of the Church?"
• Friend: "Yes."
• Bishop: "And your problem with that question pertains to me only, not to the stake president or the General Authorities?"
• Friend: "Yes.  Just you.  You're the problem."
• Bishop: So you dislike me personally, right?" 
• Friend: "Yes."
• Bishop: "And you disagree with or do not respect some of the decisions I have made while I have been bishop?"
• Friend: "Yes."
• Bishop: "And yet I was still ordained and set apart as the bishop.  Are you able to put aside your personal dislike of me and your disagreements with my decisions and still sustain me in that calling?"
• Friend: "What does that mean?"
• Bishop:  "Do you acknowledge that I function as the bishop of this ward?  That I have the keys to do it?  While I'd like to get along with you personally, I can work with you disliking me as a person.  And I'm not expecting you to agree with all of my decisions, but can you acknowledge that I have the authority to make those decisions?  Can you abide by those decisions even if you don't like them?  Can you 'sustain' me in a generalized, rather than an absolute, way?"
• Friend: (After a long pause) "Yes, I think I could."
• Bishop: "If a problem arises between us, would you come to me to see if we could work it out?  As opposed to speaking ill about me to other members of the ward?"
• Friend: "Yes, I could do that."
• Bishop: "Okay.  If you were to discover some great moral failing on my part, or if you simply felt strongly compelled by the Spirit, I would understand that you could cast a dissenting vote about me at the next ward conference.  But I would hope that simple personal dislike of me, or disagreement with some of the decisions and mistakes I have made, would not be so profound as to keep you from holding a temple recommend and from attending the temple."
• Friend: "Okay.  I'm good with that."
• Bishop: "Okay, then let's do this.  Let's proceed with the Temple Recommend interview.  And with your permission, I would like to contact the stake president and ask him to meet with you to complete the recommend interview process and to review what we've discussed tonight regarding your response to the question about sustaining local leaders.  I would like him to generally be aware of your position, and also understand how we proceeded in the interview process.  Sound good?"
• Friend: "Yes, that's fine."

It's possible.

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

and members are not consulted (even after the fact) about most major doctrinal and structural shifts to the church.

What doctrinal "shifts" do you have in mind?  The OD-2 was pretty big, and the members were consulted about it.

If the Proclamation is someday to be canonized, the members will, I suspect, be consulted about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

It's not my intent to talk you out of this way of thinking but I am grateful that my faith is no longer built on that house of cards.  For me, someone can believe in the restoration and believe that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document.

As you wish. I’m mystified that you can do that. 

Same here.  The "inspired fiction" approach is, in my view, far more house-of-cards-ish than the Church's position.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

He said "children" of samesex persons living in a relationship had to wait until 18.  Your post read like he was referring to those in the relationship as you cut off "children of a" in your following comment.

I apologize to @provoman for misreading that!

Thanks @Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

As you wish. I’m mystified that you can do that. 

Likewise I am mystified at how much you (and others) read into those TR questions. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Likewise I am mystified at how much you (and others) read into those TR questions. 

Not much of a mystery.

Bishop: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

Me: "Well, I believe Joseph Smith was either insane or an outright fraud, or perhaps some combination of both.  I reject his various and extensive statements about the origins and nature of the Book of Mormon.  Either there were no plates, or else Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries fabricated them.  There was no Angel Moroni, because there were no Nephites.  Or Lamanites.  Or any descendants of Lehi.  Lehi never existed.  The Three Witnesses were either mentally insane or profoundly deceived.  I reject their testimony.  The Eight Witnesses were either in on Joseph Smith's fraud, or else were deceived.  I reject the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. And although the Book of Mormon repeatedly and emphatically repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding the book's historicity, and although Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book, I think the book has some good moral aphorisms, so I'll accept them on that basis.  And I am also willing to accept Joseph Smith, fraud/lunatic though he was, as a 'prophet.'  So with these provisos and caveats in place, I will say yes, I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days."

Sorry, I just can't picture myself saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not much of a mystery.

Bishop: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

Me: "Well, I believe Joseph Smith was either insane or an outright fraud, or perhaps some combination of both.  I reject his various and extensive statements about the origins and nature of the Book of Mormon.  Either there were no plates, or else Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries fabricated them.  There was no Angel Moroni, because there were no Nephites.  Or Lamanites.  Or any descendants of Lehi.  Lehi never existed.  The Three Witnesses were either mentally insane or profoundly deceived.  I reject their testimony.  The Eight Witnesses were either in on Joseph Smith's fraud, or else were deceived.  I reject the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. And although the Book of Mormon repeatedly and emphatically repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding the book's historicity, and although Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book, I think the book has some good moral aphorisms, so I'll accept them on that basis.  And I am also willing to accept Joseph Smith, fraud/lunatic though he was, as a 'prophet.'  So with these provisos and caveats in place, I will say yes, I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days."

Sorry, I just can't picture myself saying that.

Silly rabbit!

They just answer, "Yes." Why get pulled out into the weeds when you want to go to your nephew's sealing?

ETA: There are people who really believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, but the Book of Mormon is fiction. This also doesn't work for me (at all), but I should make it clear that there are people who aren't simply lying on their TR interview. I think they get more credit for being open with their leaders and counseling with them about it. I have had people who are afraid that they can't give the "right" answers, and I would say, "Let's talk about it." Sometimes it was something I could approve, and sometimes it wasn't. But, I learned what was in their hearts and minds, and they knew what the standard was.

One unsuccessful one was a husband and wife who wanted to go back to the temple, but their best answer to the testimony of God and Christ questions was "We would like to believe that." We were all on the same page that they would have to be able to truthfully have more faith and belief than that, and needed to work towards that. (They had other profound testimony issues as well, so it wasn't just that).

Edited September 20, 2018 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not much of a mystery.

Bishop: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

Me: "Well, I believe Joseph Smith was either insane or an outright fraud, or perhaps some combination of both.  I reject his various and extensive statements about the origins and nature of the Book of Mormon.  Either there were no plates, or else Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries fabricated them.  There was no Angel Moroni, because there were no Nephites.  Or Lamanites.  Or any descendants of Lehi.  Lehi never existed.  The Three Witnesses were either mentally insane or profoundly deceived.  I reject their testimony.  The Eight Witnesses were either in on Joseph Smith's fraud, or else were deceived.  I reject the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. And although the Book of Mormon repeatedly and emphatically repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding the book's historicity, and although Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book, I think the book has some good moral aphorisms, so I'll accept them on that basis.  And I am also willing to accept Joseph Smith, fraud/lunatic though he was, as a 'prophet.'  So with these provisos and caveats in place, I will say yes, I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days."

Sorry, I just can't picture myself saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nor could I.

But it was just such a thing John Dehlin for a while was encouraging people to do mentally while keeping the mental gymnastics to themselves and responding "yes" to the temple recommend interview question. Dehlin was thus teaching them to lie to themselves as well as their priesthood leaders.

kiwi57 had a term for it that I wish I could remember. It had the word "lexical" in it as I recall. "Lexical deception" or some such thing.

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[lostindc]

Smac, are you okay with the references I provided to your call for references regarding the in-fighting with LDS leadership regarding blacks and the priesthood?  I didn’t see a response and wanted to make sure.

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, having sexual urges is not per se sinful, but you seem to be speaking as if it is.

Yes they are sinful-the Church has been teaching it wrong.

-----------------------------------

1 John 2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Job 31:10 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of the world.

Ephasians 2:Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:³ Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.⁴ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,⁵ Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

James 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Matthew 5: 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

---------------

Scripture after scripture after scripture talks about not lusting abstaining from lust, lust is bad, "looking upon a woman to lust", "looking upon a maid". It talks in very good details about eyes, desires of heart, of the mind, etc. etc. etc.

Are you seriously going to argue that if I as an endowed member who is married have sexual urges (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) towards the very well-endowed pretty 20 something young lady that I'm not committing sin?  Is that the argument you are taking?

If I see her and think "oh she is pretty" that is no sin and there is no sexual component to it. If I think "oh she is hotttttt" and I start to sexualize her that's not a sin?

You are the one who is claiming that sexual urges are not sinful.  It is sinful, it's just we live in such a sex'ed up culture with pornography rampant and men of the Holy Priesthood engaging in such filth they can't see or think straight-which is that it should be obvious the moment I start to sexualize (i.e. lust-b/c that is what sexual desire is- a desire an urge a feeling to have sex with someone who you can't have sex with, i.e. lust) some individual who is not my spouse (and my spouse according to the bible is someone of the opposite sex) is the moment I begin to sin. 

Unless you believe I can go around Church, sexualizing in my mind every woman in relief society and commit no sin???

And someone who is claims they are a homosexual is someone who is proclaiming to the world that they want to have sex with (i.e. have lusts towards) individuals of the same sex . . .how is that not sin?

What if I have a "sexual urge" for a 5 year old child?  According to you, there is no sin in that.  So I can go around Church have sexual thoughts, feelings, inclinations, urges for a 5-year old child, i.e. I can have thoughts about having sex with a child, I can get aroused by a child, but I commit no sin?

I just want to be perfectly clear on what you are really implying by saying a sexual urge is no sin.  You really, really, really need to think through what you are actually implying.

And please note, I'm not comparing anyone to anything nor attacking anyone; I'm simply discussing the logical underpinnings and conclusions of the notion that "sexual urges" are not sin. If this is not a conversation that can be had . . .well I'm not sure what to say then.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not much of a mystery.

Bishop: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

Me: "Well, I believe Joseph Smith was either insane or an outright fraud, or perhaps some combination of both.  I reject his various and extensive statements about the origins and nature of the Book of Mormon.  Either there were no plates, or else Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries fabricated them.  There was no Angel Moroni, because there were no Nephites.  Or Lamanites.  Or any descendants of Lehi.  Lehi never existed.  The Three Witnesses were either mentally insane or profoundly deceived.  I reject their testimony.  The Eight Witnesses were either in on Joseph Smith's fraud, or else were deceived.  I reject the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. And although the Book of Mormon repeatedly and emphatically repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding the book's historicity, and although Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book, I think the book has some good moral aphorisms, so I'll accept them on that basis.  And I am also willing to accept Joseph Smith, fraud/lunatic though he was, as a 'prophet.'  So with these provisos and caveats in place, I will say yes, I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days."

Sorry, I just can't picture myself saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Reductio ad absurdum. 

I thought you wanted to avoid that in these threads. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Reductio ad absurdum. 

I thought you wanted to avoid that in these threads. 

What's wrong with it?

Quote

In argumentation, reductio ad absurdum is a method of refuting a claim by extending the logic of the opponent's argument to a point of absurdity.

https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903

Edited September 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's wrong with it?

https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903

1.  Smac wrote earlier that he didn’t like topics getting reduced to absurdities. 

2.  It isn’t relevant to the point I had made. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Likewise I am mystified at how much you (and others) read into those TR questions. 

I have explained in detail with logic and scripture how I understand them, but your response is simply, “No. You’re wrong.” Could you please explain how one can believe Moroni was a fictious being that Joseph Smith made up or imagined in a prolonged delusion, that the BoM according to all witnesses and prophets is the foundation of the Restoration and is the word of God but that the events in it are made up, delusional, and false, but that if asked if one has a testimony of the Restoration (I assume we agree testimonies are the result of personal revelation by the Holy Spirit), then one can honestly answer in the affirmative that he has a testimony of the Restoration? The same would apply to the Priesthoods, the D&C, succession of the Prophets, and virtually every other restored doctrine. Is the BoM a new witness of Christ if the events in it did not happen?

No comprendo, amigo.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm more than happy for vegetarians to show up at the Pork Council BBQ. I'm even OK if the vegetarian family politely suggest there should be more vegetables on the grill. I'm likewise OK if more vegetables make their way onto the grill, and I'll probably eat some (unless they're those big flat mushrooms that I detest).

What leaves me confused is when the vegetarian parents claim that they and/or their children still feel invalidated or not entirely welcome or marginalised in some way. Or if they point out that whenever they start sharing the benefits of vegetarianism with others, they get funny glances and no one really engages with them. Or that they haven't been invited to serve on the council's executive and therefore feel like second-class participants. Or that the president's welcome didn't specifically remind people that it's OK to come to the BBQ but not eat pork. Etc.

My mental response is always: 'Mate, you're the one who chooses to be a vegetarian at the Pork Council BBQ'.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have explained in detail with logic and scripture how I understand them, but your response is simply, “No. You’re wrong.” Could you please explain how one can believe Moroni was a fictious being that Joseph Smith made up or imagined in a prolonged delusion, that the BoM according to all witnesses and prophets is the foundation of the Restoration and is the word of God but that the events in it are made up, delusional, and false, but that if asked if one has a testimony of the Restoration (I assume we agree testimonies are the result of personal revelation by the Holy Spirit), then one can honestly answer in the affirmative that he has a testimony of the Restoration? The same would apply to the Priesthoods, the D&C, succession of the Prophets, and virtually every other restored doctrine. Is the BoM a new witness of Christ if the events in it did not happen?

No comprendo, amigo.

To answer your question, I’ll share my beliefs:

Though not a literal history, the Book of Mormon is scripture.  It brings me closer to Jesus Christ. It teaches me how to live as a disciple of Christ. I feel the witness of the Spirit in its pages. 

I don’t know the particulars of how it was done, but Joseph Smith brought that to us.  He also restored the gospel that gave us priesthood ordinances such as baptism.  My baptism is a covenant with God that has deep meaning in my life and, like the Book of Mormon, brings me closer to Christ.

So, yeah, even though I don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it’s really easy for me to honestly answer those questions in the affirmative. 

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

Yes they are sinful-the Church has been teaching it wrong.

-----------------------------------

1 John 2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Job 31:10 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of the world.

Ephasians 2:Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:³ Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.⁴ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,⁵ Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

James 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Matthew 5: 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

---------------

Scripture after scripture after scripture talks about not lusting abstaining from lust, lust is bad, "looking upon a woman to lust", "looking upon a maid". It talks in very good details about eyes, desires of heart, of the mind, etc. etc. etc.

Are you seriously going to argue that if I as an endowed member who is married have sexual urges (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) towards the very well-endowed pretty 20 something young lady that I'm not committing sin?  Is that the argument you are taking?

If I see her and think "oh she is pretty" that is no sin and there is no sexual component to it. If I think "oh she is hotttttt" and I start to sexualize her that's not a sin?

You are the one who is claiming that sexual urges are not sinful.  It is sinful, it's just we live in such a sex'ed up culture with pornography rampant and men of the Holy Priesthood engaging in such filth they can't see or think straight-which is that it should be obvious the moment I start to sexualize (i.e. lust-b/c that is what sexual desire is- a desire an urge a feeling to have sex with someone who you can't have sex with, i.e. lust) some individual who is not my spouse (and my spouse according to the bible is someone of the opposite sex) is the moment I begin to sin. 

Unless you believe I can go around Church, sexualizing in my mind every woman in relief society and commit no sin???

And someone who is claims they are a homosexual is someone who is proclaiming to the world that they want to have sex with (i.e. have lusts towards) individuals of the same sex . . .how is that not sin?

What if I have a "sexual urge" for a 5 year old child?  According to you, there is no sin in that.  So I can go around Church have sexual thoughts, feelings, inclinations, urges for a 5-year old child, i.e. I can have thoughts about having sex with a child, I can get aroused by a child, but I commit no sin?

I just want to be perfectly clear on what you are really implying by saying a sexual urge is no sin.  You really, really, really need to think through what you are actually implying.

And please note, I'm not comparing anyone to anything nor attacking anyone; I'm simply discussing the logical underpinnings and conclusions of the notion that "sexual urges" are not sin. If this is not a conversation that can be had . . .well I'm not sure what to say then.

Of course you have every right to reject the teachings of living prophets and apostles. That's no different than the members who think the Brethren are wrong about any other topic. 

I find it quite clear that the scriptures differentiate between sin and weakness. While the needed response to each is the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, one calls for repentance while the other does not. 

I find it incredibly arrogant for someone to claim that anyone who hasn't changed just doesn't want it bad enough.  You can claim you're not attacking anyone, but that is absolutely an attack on the integrity and character of those who have wanted nothing more than to change and did not.

Do you likewise judge anyone who is sick, blind, deaf, suffering from mental illness, or is paralyzed? Surely God has the power to heal them? Are they just lacking sufficient faith? 

Again choosing to reject God's authorized servants on this issue is entirely your prerogative. Many choose their own interpretation of scripture over the words of His messengers. 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, YJacket said:

The Church has already in it's Essays shot itself in the foot in many regards to the above quote-they admit they were wrong in the past, so if they were wrong in the past yet those in the past truly believed they were right, why are they right now even if everyone truly believes they are right? Unless you want to go with the idea that truth is relative only to the time period so that in 50 years from now the Church will put out an essay about how wrong it was that it did xyz in the year 2000.

 

I don't think they shot themselves in the foot.  They simply are recognizing something that always has been true.  That being only Jesus was perfect and prophets are allowed to make decisions and hold views on issue that may not be correct.  This is part of the learning process for us.  If God did not allow the church to make any mistakes, we would have a harder time progressing.  Where God does keep things pretty much centered is true doctrine as established in the scriptures.  Where anyone including an apostle can go wrong is moving beyond what is established in the scriptures to one of speculating. 

[carbon dioxide]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To answer your question, I’ll share my beliefs:

Though not a literal history, the Book of Mormon is scripture.  It brings me closer to Jesus Christ. It teaches me how to live as a disciple of Christ. I feel the witness of the Spirit in its pages. 

I don’t know the particulars of how it was done, but Joseph Smith brought that to us.  He also restored the gospel that gave us priesthood ordinances such as baptism.  My baptism is a covenant with God that has deep meaning in my life and, like the Book of Mormon, brings me closer to Christ.

So, yeah, even though I don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it’s really easy for me to honestly answer those questions in the affirmative. 

 

I guess that is most important.  If you find out in the spirit world that it was history but you did not believe it at this time, you will be a little embarrassed but if you lived by the teachings, that is what is most important.  For me, I have hard time not taking it as history.  For me, if the BOM is not history, it would be pretty disappointing and I would be far less willing to share it with other people despite the teachings.  I prefer non-fiction over fiction in terms of learning things.  Fiction is for entertainment but I am not going to search Harry Potter to find spiritual teachings to live by. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess that is most important.  If you find out in the spirit world that it was history but you did not believe it at this time, you will be a little embarrassed but if you lived by the teachings, that is what is most important.  For me, I have hard time not taking it as history.  For me, if the BOM is not history, it would be pretty disappointing and I would be far less willing to share it with other people despite the teachings.  I prefer non-fiction over fiction in terms of learning things.  Fiction is for entertainment but I am not going to search Harry Potter to find spiritual teachings to live by. 

I have a tough time categorizing it as fiction.  I know that sounds contradictory:  if it isn’t the history of a literal people, than it has to be fiction, right?   I don’t know how to explain it but considering it “fiction” seems to me to be as inaccurate as considering it to be “history”.  For me, it’s scripture and it doesn’t have to fit into any other category.  

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have a tough time categorizing it as fiction.  I know that sounds contradictory:  if it isn’t the history of a literal people, than it has to be fiction, right?   I don’t know how to explain it but considering it “fiction” seems to me to be as inaccurate as considering it to be “history”.  For me, it’s scripture and it doesn’t have to fit into any other category.  

I take it as a history because Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith.  The book is very complex and holds together well.  The Lord bless you for believing it to any degree and applying it's teachings to your life.  I agree with Carbon Dioxide:

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

if you lived by the teachings, that is what is most important

One of the things I love about the Gospel is that the Lord gives us permission to study things out in our minds.  We have a lifetime in this great playground to sort things out and figure out what is true and what is false.  Regardless of what you or I see as true, I believe the most important thing is to live the teachings of the Gospel.  If we do that, I believe the revelation of what is true will come probably sooner rather than later.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

1.  Smac wrote earlier that he didn’t like topics getting reduced to absurdities. 

 

I don't know what you're referring to here, but I smell an out-of-context reference.

Quote

2.  It isn’t relevant to the point I had made. 

So say you.

Reductio ad absurdum** (reduction to absurdity) strikes me as akin to Socratic reasoning whereby questions oblige one to confront the logical implications of his own position.

**With apologies to Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy, who must be close to apoplexy by now with all this Latin being thrown around.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm more than happy for vegetarians to show up at the Pork Council BBQ. I'm even OK if the vegetarian family politely suggest there should be more vegetables on the grill. I'm likewise OK if more vegetables make their way onto the grill, and I'll probably eat some (unless they're those big flat mushrooms that I detest).

What leaves me confused is when the vegetarian parents claim that they and/or their children still feel invalidated or not entirely welcome or marginalised in some way. Or if they point out that whenever they start sharing the benefits of vegetarianism with others, they get funny glances and no one really engages with them. Or that they haven't been invited to serve on the council's executive and therefore feel like second-class participants. Or that the president's welcome didn't specifically remind people that it's OK to come to the BBQ but not eat pork. Etc.

My mental response is always: 'Mate, you're the one who chooses to be a vegetarian at the Pork Council BBQ'.

🤣

Or even worse, when they try to talk the pork consumers at the Pork Council BBQ into becoming vegetarians or demanding equal time for vegetarian advocacy during the after-dinner speeches.

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

To answer your question, I’ll share my beliefs:

Though not a literal history, the Book of Mormon is scripture.  It brings me closer to Jesus Christ. It teaches me how to live as a disciple of Christ. I feel the witness of the Spirit in its pages. 

I don’t know the particulars of how it was done, but Joseph Smith brought that to us.  He also restored the gospel that gave us priesthood ordinances such as baptism.  My baptism is a covenant with God that has deep meaning in my life and, like the Book of Mormon, brings me closer to Christ.

So, yeah, even though I don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it’s really easy for me to honestly answer those questions in the affirmative. 

 

Just curious about what happens when, say, you are asked to teach a Sunday School lesson on the Book of Mormon. Does the assumption underlie your discourse that it is not to be taken literally, but rather, is as Smac put it, a collection of nice aphorisms? See, that would bother me as a member of that class or, even more, if one or more of my children were in the class.