- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m interested in forum thoughts on the BOM. BTW, this is my second brick for anyone reading my first post. 1. BOM is literal and historic, translated from actual physical plates. I think many on this forum don’t take that view.
2. BOM is a great source of inspiration. The source was obviously Joseph Smith but to be treated like literature. Gives inspiration and persuades to life Christ-like life.
3. A huge hoax, thought up by JS to deceive.
Please add other options to my list. My question is the TBM is probably going to go with #1. I have read posts from many of you that feel more comfortable with #2. Help me understand how you can believe it is a great source of true inspiration from God and not be #1?
Well, according to Callister today, number 2 is NOT an option. So if the LDS people believe their own prophets today, it is “every word and phrase” either the word of god, or it’s from the devil. Oh, and btw —- I pick #2 and I just believe that Callister is WRONG. Yes. I believe the prophets are wrong occasionally. See signature line below. 🙂 Why do I think it is inspired of God? The same reason that I think the writings of the Dalia Lama are inspired of god. The same reason that I think the writings of CS Lewis are inspired. The same reason that I think the writings of JRR Tolkein and George Lucus are inspired…….
ElCid wrote:I’m interested in forum thoughts on the BOM. BTW, this is my second brick for anyone reading my first post.4. the Book of Mormon may be a translation of ancient records as Joseph Smith claimed. However, it may not be. Whether it is or not, it has many inspiring passages, and if one chooses to model one’s life after the personal character messages given in that book, they will likely be happier, closer to God, and more at peace with themselves.
Kind of number two. I believe the Book of Mormon to be an inspired work meant to draw people closer to Christ. Whether or not it’s origins are as presented by the authorities of the church holds no significance for me. Similar to the fact that I don’t care whether or not there was actually a guy named Moses who liberated a bunch of people by parting a sea after getting directions from a fire. The message and the context is what counts, not the historicity or origin. So, is the Book of Mormon a divine work that contains records of immigrants to ancient mesoamerica? Eh, I don’t care enough to know. But I do like the fact that it supports other works that track the life of Jesus Christ. Whether or not the BOM is a creative biblical reproduction of an 19th century man, or a divinely gifted primary source is of little significance to me. After all, the more time I waste on that debate, the less time I spend developing good traits and feeding his sheep.
I’m with Silent Dawning on this one. Although whether historical or not, it’s not very well written, IMO. Complex, yes. Good prose, no. Extremes and absolutes don’t seem to pan out much in the messy reality of life as it is lived. It seems unlikely that the traditional Book of Mormon origins story I learned growing up is completely right — the one where every word was spelled out through the Urim & Thumim as Jospeh scanned the gold plates sitting in front of him. Also, there are a lot of problems with the story as-is being set where past people claimed it happened. Impossible? No. Improbable? Yeah, I have to wonder.
After studying the unvarnished history of Joseph Smith and thinking a lot about his life, I seriously doubt he was so cynical as to totally make the whole religion and BoM up for personal gain. It’s not a very good plan. It didn’t turn out so hot, and he ended up dying for his con? Impossible? No. Highly improbable that it was all a cynical con game? Yes. I do believe he was a deeply flawed man, and I mean he had some serious character flaws. But I also find his eclectic absorption of inspiring, diverse religious elements combined with frontier spirit fascinating. At a bare minimum, I agree with Fawn Brodie — that he was a religious genius. That alone deserves some respect and admiration IMO. But I see more than that. I believe that Joseph believed it.
Blake Ostler’s expansion theory seems interesting to me at times. He theorized that Joseph found something, some artifact, perhaps even plates with characters on it. But like the Book of Abraham, he couldn’t read it, and instead it became the inspiration for revelation. He couldn’t tell the difference. Is there a difference actually? Most other holy books out there come into existence in similarly sketchy ways it seems (Bible, Qur’an, etc.).
In the end, I agree with many of the others so far: the message and meaning is greater than the science and history. It isn’t the same as The Lord of the Rings or other inspiring fiction because “scripture” to me is a special class of literature — one that has the audacity of claiming to originate at some level from a super-powerful God being. At a minimum it is myth that is invested with the notion of reality, or having special insights into that nagging realm of the transcendent we so desperately want to wrap our minds around, but can’t quite.
Brian Johnston wrote:At a bare minimum, I agree with Fawn Brodie — that he was a religious genius. That alone deserves some respect and admiration IMO. But I see more than that. I believe that Joseph believed it.
I believe he probably believed most of it. I also wonder if at times he questioned things himself, but was in so deep couldn’t express his true feelings. At times, the MAN showed through, like when he stated how even some great historical figures from religious history hadn’t achieved what he had — keeping a Church together through so much persecution.
Honestly, I think after the religion started getting traction, and he saw the organizational problems such as lack of commitment, and the need to grow the Church, he came out with a lot of doctines and policies that direct behavior toward goals that ensure the perpetuation of this Church he had created — attaching them to personal salvation so they would gain commitment from the members at large.
Here are some examples — eternal marriage necessary for exhalation (ensures people don’t dilute the growth of committed members by marrying outside the religion), plural marriage for only the righteous (creating near instant, large quantities of committed Mormons), strong cultural values regarding obedience to Church leaders. Inspired Church leadership, and obedience to authority — unlike what I see claimed in so many other Churches. Only one true Church. This cultural value that if you’re not happy with how things are going at Church, it’s YOUR FAULT, and the organization is rarely if ever responsible, accountable or at fault. The Church is perfect but the people aren’t (probably not a JS maxim, but symptomatic of the kind of thinking I’m talking about).
All this exists in our church culture today, and I see it as an outgrowth of something that was very important to Joseph Smith — the survival of the Church he created.
We also see it in some of the decisions that later prophets made. In particular, how John Taylor allowed the priesthood men to lose their businesses, be imprisoned, suffer untold hardship so they could continue living the law of plural marriage. It was only when the government threatened to confiscate the assets of the Church, that the revelation to reverse the plural marriage law came to pass.
Yes, there are times I think all things are secondary to self-perpetuation and growth of the entity called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And much of our doctrine evolved to serve that end.
These organizational needs were not obvious at the time JS translated the Book of Mormon. That’s why we have to figure out the disconnect between the claim that the BoM contains “the fulness of the gospel” yet there is no mention of key doctrines such as eternal progression and eternal marriage in it. The commitment of the members was not on Joseph’s mind at the time he spawned the Book of Mormon, so they are absent from the scripture. All he saw was the need for baptism to grow membership, not the need for additional carrots in the form of marrying in the faith, or attending the temple regularly to keep people active.
I think he boxed himself into a corner with the claim it contains the fulness of the gospel; he needed to keep his gospel flexible and open to additional rules and commandments as he encountered roadblocks in growing the organization, but failed to do that with the BoM.
Nonetheless, I still love the book, although I’m having a hard time reading it due to my associating it with some negative experiences in the Church I have trouble shaking. However, it’s quite amazing how much of the objectionable parts of our religion don’t even come to mind when you read that book. Now, the D&C is another story, but the BoM is certainly the least objectionable book and most inspiring to me — only rivalled by the Sermon the Mount.
ElCid wrote:2. BOM is a great source of inspiration. The source was obviously Joseph Smith but to be treated like literature. Gives inspiration and persuades to life Christ-like life.
Variation on this. “The source is NOT obviously Joseph Smith”. The reason I say this is because it makes the matter more interesting. Facts on the ground and physical relics are few, regarding the BoM, but there is something in it which seems to go beyond Smith.
Quote:The same reason that I think the writings of JRR Tolkein and George Lucus are inspired…….
Isn’t George Lucas mostly inspired by $$$?
p.s. Howdy alien! (tips hat)
SamBee wrote:Variation on this. “The source is NOT obviously Joseph Smith”. The reason I say this is because it makes the matter more interesting. Facts on the ground and physical relics are few, regarding the BoM, but there is something in it which seems to go beyond Smith.
I can roll with that …Quote:p.s. Howdy alien! (tips hat)
… and that.
I’m sort of #2 with a few changes. I think the book is bigger than the mind of Joseph Smith. If someone simply wrote it out my view is they would have to be more of a Biblical scholar than Joseph was. I can see divinity in the book, I have no problem calling it scripture, whatever that is worth. I really like what Leonard Arrington said — basically “I don’t care if it’s historical or not.” That is not the main appeal, and it’s not the easily answered part of the question. When I pray regarding its truthfulness I am using a spiritual method to discern spiritual truth. To me it seems kind of nonsensical to use spiritual methods to discern physical truths, I mean how many of us pray to know how to get somewhere? Why use maps or a GPS to find your way if the spirit is a constant guide to physical realities? Who wants to take a flight in an aircraft designed completely by the spirit??
Spiritually, scripturally, yes a true work. Physically, historically — that question can only be answered definitively by scientific historical tools.
Cutting and pasting myself
Quote:With the BoM, yes, there are question marks about its origin, but as someone here said, “if you find a [cute] kitten [abdnoned] in a box, who cares where it comes from”?
Hey… I figured out how to do quotes…. Brian Johnston wrote:In the end, I agree with many of the others so far: the message and meaning is greater than the science and history. It isn’t the same as The Lord of the Rings or other inspiring fiction because “scripture” to me is a special class of literature
My struggle is if we elevate the BOM to “scripture” (maybe define what scripture invidually means) then it is more than just inspirational lit or poetry. For me there seems to be a paradox here that I have been struggling with. I agree that JS had flaws and the whole story of the introduction of the BOM makes my head spin. But I understand that Muslims will accept Jesus as “one” of many prophets? How can you accept Jesus as a prophet and yet dismiss his message? I really struggle with ignoring its history but accepting it as scripture.
If you want to take the BOM as inspirational that leads you to Christ because you read it once and maybe twice just as one of many books in the library then that works for me. Calling it scripture and refering to it again and again as a guide for coming to Christ elevates it in my mind to another category.
cwald wrote:Oh, and btw —- I pick #2 and I just believe that Callister is WRONG.
Not much wiggle room from that talk was there? As he quoted…”that is the genius of the BOM, there is no middle ground. It is either the word of God as professed or it is a fraud”.hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m with Silent Dawning on this one. Although whether historical or not, it’s not very well written, IMO. Complex, yes. Good prose, no.
What did Mark Twain call it – chloroform in print? I have read the stuff from apolgists about Chiasmus in the BOM but I’ll admit I never researched it much. Is there still an honor’s class at BYU “BOM as literature”? Hawkgrrrl, you could probably take that home study
I tip my hat back. I do not believe George Lucus and Tolkein are motivated by $$$. I think they are artists. Money is just the consequence of them being very talented at what they believe in. I think they are men who have a vision and message, and use their talents and arts to spread their particular message to the masses.
I may even put them in the class of “prophet” to be honest.
I think that if we, as an LDS church can say that the founding fathers and Columbus were “inspired” by god — than why not Tolkien and Lucus. They have certainly influenced the world more than any modern LDS prophet has. Yes?
ElCid wrote:But I understand that Muslims will accept Jesus as “one” of many prophets? How can you accept Jesus as a prophet and yet dismiss his message?
I see two responses to this question. For one prophets also speak as human beings, they are not infallible. Sometimes they speak divine wisdom and human interpretation in back to back sentences. Two, Jesus never recorded his message personally. What we have are accounts of what he said. The earliest may be within the century of his death – but it wasn’t a “last week” or even “last decade” sort of recording.
ElCid wrote:cwald wrote:Oh, and btw —- I pick #2 and I just believe that Callister is WRONG.
Not much wiggle room from that talk was there? As he quoted…”that is the genius of the BOM, there is no middle ground. It is either the word of God as professed or it is a fraud”.I simply see Elder Callister as speaking here from his own understanding. While not the way I would word it I think I can get at his meaning. I see the BoM as divine scripture even though I may not see the historicity issue in the same light as him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.