- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
i have been pondering the implications of BofM being made up, plagiarized, or otherwise stolen, created or NOT a real historical record. so for a moment, let’s assume this is not just a possibility, but a reality. JS stole it, or pieced it together from other books, etc. the question i ask is, does it take away from its worth and value? i felt betrayed, on instinct. gut reaction. but now, i am not so sure. on the surface, i would think, anything created on a lie cannot be of god. but take its partner, the bible. what are some of its weaknesses? many authors. many translators. multiple languages, cultures, time periods… whole books left out because of agendas. monks in monasteries translating it with specific ideologies, perspectives etc..
and on and on and on… for long time. and all done by biased people, with varying degrees of authority, inspiration and skill. and then through all those glasses, and oh so darkly, people in this dispensation–with varying degrees of authority, bias and skill … see through their glasses darkly.. and interpret.
i am suddenly amazed any virtue got through at all. and no longer amazed this book of books spawned wars, attempted genocides, crusades, inquisitions…. you get the idea.
now take JS. young man. inspired and direct by revelation. and (again, making an assumption here) possibly pieces BofM together from other sources, including other written works at the time that specified similar ideas of god’s people in america… and was attending churches as part of this religious revival … and wrote some maybe… and blah blah.
however it happened, it was not a pure historical record NOR was it an accurate spiritual record of a real people in ancient times.
but, god revealed to a young boy and he produced, however he did it, the book of mormon.
so, again the question: is it possible for such a wonderful, inspired work from god to man to be predicated upon a lie?
or would that make god a liar and then cease to be god? or do the ends justify the means? and in light of how the bible came to us in modern times, perhaps the ends do indeed justify the means.
mrtoad4u wrote:so, again the question: is it possible for such a wonderful, inspired work from god to man to be predicated upon a lie?
or would that make god a liar and then cease to be god? or do the ends justify the means? and in light of how the bible came to us in modern times, perhaps the ends do indeed justify the means.
Thinking about this too much makes my brain hurt. All I know is that King Benjamin’s sermon, for me, makes up for all the questions so for now I just leave it at that.
Quote:so for a moment, let’s assume this is not just a possibility, but a reality.
I’d rather not. I don’t like to assume anything and then focus solely on that assumption. I’d rather discuss issues in a way that allows everyone to share their thoughts about those issues.
You’re new here, toad, so please understand I’m smiling as I type this comment.
There’s a HUGE difference between “inspired lie” and “inspired fiction” and “inspired, non-historical record”. We can discuss whether or not we believe the Book of Mormon is inspired and how that affects its value and worth, regardless of any other aspect, but I don’t like to pigeon-hole something into the worst possible wording and then discuss only that characterization.
So, my own view about whether or not the Book of Mormon is inspired and how that affects its value and worth:
I believe deeply that it is inspired and can stand next to the Bible as “the word of God” (the way I define that phrase). I choose to see it as what it claims to be (and, interestingly, NOT what Joseph assumed it to be, in some cases). I don’t see it as a lie or the product of an intentional lie – but I am totally open to circumstances that would make it “inspired fiction”. No matter that aspect, it is of great value and worth to me.
We’ve talked about this overall issue in multiple threads in the past. I will find a few of the longer threads and bump them up for you to see how others have addressed your general questions in the past.
I think it maintains its worth if it’s not wholly true. But to deal a bit with what Ray said above — one could argue that JS thought it was inspired, while still reserving personal judgment as to whether it actually WAS inspired or not. That way we are not necessarily painting Joseph Smith as a proactive liar. Look at it similar to the way the great author John Milton wrote
Paradise Lost— if you’re familiar with that book. It’s the story of Adam and Eve and the fall written in a poetic style. John Milton swore up and down it was inspired. He claimed he would wake up in the morning with full passages already pre-formed in his head and if you asked him, he would say it was inspired. But was it? Who knows. So, rather than pinning its value on whether it’s origins or claims are entirely factual, relate to the BoM the strength of its ideas and concepts in helping you understand good principles to live by. Relate to it as a possible myth that is loaded with nuggets of wisdom, while maintaining the idea that it
mightbe true, or might not. For me, with this perspective, it has great worth. I can’t measure whether it has greater or lesser worth than a historical record that is wholly inspired of God as the foundation of the restoration, but to me, it still has great value because of the ideas it contains. And guess what, I believe I have gotten closer to God from reading the Book of Mormon than any other book. Honestly. And the whole while, maintaining that it may, or may not be literally true. If I can draw an analogy…I keep hearing the story of the man walking the beach that is covered in thousands of starfish that have been beached. They can’t move and are dying in the sunglight due to lack of hydration. The man walks up to one of them and throws it back into the sea, saving its life. His friend says “why do you bother, there are thousands of these, you’re hardly making a difference”. To which the starfish-thrower says, pointing to the one he just threw into the ocean “It mattered to that one”.
Is this story true? We don’t know. It could be an urban myth. But it is loaded with motivational ideas that help people serve individuals even when the total dent they make in human suffering is very small. So, in that sense, the story has great value even if it isn’t true as it motivates a person to do go, and puts service in a highly motivating perspective.
If we were just talking about the BofM then I think it does not matter it is an actual history or inspired fiction. If you find value in it then it works for you. My problem is it is not just a book. It leads to so many other things. It leads to obedience to the church, temples, tithing, the WofW and a whole host of things in the modern church. So in my mind it is critical to determine what it is to the best of our ability. If it is as it claims then the church is likely true, if it is fiction then the church is not what it claims to be. Cadence wrote:If it is as it claims then the church is likely true, if it is fiction then the church is not what it claims to be.
And for me, it’s not so bad if it isn’t what it claims to be anymore. In fact, it’s a bit of a relief. The tension I used to feel that originated from the things that bothered me is not nearly as big an issue as it used to be. If you stop believing that it’s literally as everyone says, it becomes a lot easier to put the sometimes nonsensical behavior of local leaders in perspective, to put the blights on our history in perspective, and to claim the freedom to define your relationship with the church more confidently. In a way, it can be quite liberating.
And I have to confess, learning to relate to the church on a new set of terms, with a new perspective is like a rebirth….perhaps that’s another meaning to the term “born again”?
Quote:learning to relate to the church on a new set of terms, with a new perspective is like a rebirth….perhaps that’s another meaning to the term “born again”?
I do believe, SD, that, ultimately, being born again is all about being a child of God and Christ in a very personal way – and I think that happens fully when we maintain communal allegiance and support / service but find our own faith, understanding and vision. We then turn around and help others find their own faith, understanding and vision – even when they differ slightly or significantly from ours. It’s serving simply for the sake of helping in whatever way is possible, not with an ultimate agenda in mind – other than that person’s joy and peace.
I know how heterodox that is in the minds of so many members, but it absolutely is in line with a lot of things that are taught in General Conference, for example. Elder Wirthlin, Pres. Uchtdorf, Pres.Monson and others often talked and continue to talk about service just for service’s sake. Yes, we have responsibilities to our religious community and “tribe” – but we also have this over-arching theology that teaches us we are part of a global, eternal, universal religious community and family (tribe). With that foundation, our ultimate responsibility is to everyone, not the small subset who are members of our Church.
How does that relate to the topic of the post? I actually think it does, since accepting the Book of Mormon as inspired can lead to an internalization of King Benjamin’s speech, for example – or to a desire to protect others from harm – or a belief in the uniquely Mormon universality of the family of God – or any number of other beliefs that are incredibly important, imo.
It certainly isn’t a given – an automatic cause and effect, but it is there as a real possibility.
SilentDawning wrote:Cadence wrote:If it is as it claims then the church is likely true, if it is fiction then the church is not what it claims to be.
And for me, it’s not so bad if it isn’t what it claims to be anymore. In fact, it’s a bit of a relief.
exactly. well said to all. and to comment on both cadence and silentdawning, trying to fit those 2 things together, or reconcile them in some way is what i am thinking about.
because in my absolutist training and tendency, its that all or nothing, in or out mentality from my whole life that instinctively needs it to be true or false. so if not true, then all is lost or something. it occurs to me that i may spend the rest of my life fighting every instinct i have to need absolutes.
but it is also a relief, as SD said. a huge one. anachronisms abound in it. and i suppose that is part of what allows it to be of value to so many, with so many perspectives. because it can be interpreted for so many things. so many needs i have.
and it has helped me. and i do feel something when i read it. i do find meaning and value.
yet the idea of a god who may possibly be allowing or even encouraging me to be misled is fascinating to me. but maybe that too is the genius of it? to use even that as a tool to teach me new truths.
thanks, y’all.
Cadence wrote:My problem is it is not just a book. It leads to so many other things. It leads to obedience to the church, temples, tithing, the WofW and a whole host of things in the modern church.
It doesn’t have to lead to all those things, in part or as a whole. It only leads to those things because we choose (or choose not) to connect the dots that way. There are hundreds of thousands of “Mormons” that don’t connect the dots from the Book of Mormon to obedience to the LDS Church headquartered in SLC (i.e. fundamentalists, reorganized, etc.)
And then there are all us something-less-than-literalists who also break those connections down.
Cadence wrote:So in my mind it is critical to determine what it is to the best of our ability. If it is as it claims then the church is likely true, if it is fiction then the church is not what it claims to be.
If it’s not historically real, then it isn’t what some people claimed it to be. “The Church” is an abstract concept. It has no mouth or brain. It can not speak to claim anything.
mrtoad4u wrote:the question i ask is, does it take away from its worth and value? i felt betrayed, on instinct. gut reaction. but now, i am not so sure.
That is a common and justified reaction — to feel betrayed or let down. It wasn’t what you thought it was. That is an understandable reaction.
mrtoad4u wrote:on the surface, i would think, anything created on a lie cannot be of god. but take its partner, the bible. what are some of its weaknesses? many authors. many translators. multiple languages, cultures, time periods… whole books left out because of agendas. monks in monasteries translating it with specific ideologies, perspectives etc..
Oh … it’s far worse than that, historically speaking. I would argue with anyone that the Book of Mormon, even with all the controversies we talk about here, is still FAR more coherent and complete as a “holy book” than the Bible. Read some Bart Ehrman books or listen to the MS podcast interview I did with Jared Anderson.
The Book of Mormon has a fairly coherent and consistent theology. We know who the author was. There has been a clear and well-documented transmission from 1830 to the present. We know all the changes that were made and why. We have the original manuscripts. From a purely technical / historical / textual viewpoint, the BoM is a far more reliable source document for Mormonism than the Bible is for Christianity.
mrtoad4u wrote:or would that make god a liar and then cease to be god? or do the ends justify the means? and in light of how the bible came to us in modern times, perhaps the ends do indeed justify the means.
Holy Books are what they are. I see them as a fairly consistent genre of literature. They all tend to have very similar problems. They all have very fascinating value and benefits to the people who build religious communities around them. I don’t think they say that much about God as a liar or teller of truth. They contain truth. They contain truths that human beings (prophets) tried to describe to other human beings through stories and experiences.
They are inspired by God … just not in the way we might have thought before we started partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Brian Johnston wrote:Cadence wrote:If it’s not historically real, then it isn’t what some people claimed it to be. “The Church” is an abstract concept. It has no mouth or brain. It can not speak to claim anything.
See, for me, the church is very tangible. it is the Church Handbook of Instructions, the correlated lesson manuals, the culture, and the pressures it places through its existence on the behavior of individuals…so, to say it’s simply an abstract concept is a misnomer in my view.
on the other other hand, a person has a certain amount of control over how much the force we call the church acts on the person. There will be times I think when we do things we would rather not do due to church influence, but I’m not convinced it’s quite as expansive as most people believe, particularly if you live outside of the Mormon belt.
you rock, brian. thanks. you’re always enlightening to read. if it wasn’t sacrilege, i’d say you’re a magnificent, pagan god. the best kind. then again, maybe its not sacrilege. i mean, depending on the time of day, relative humidity, and sun-spots, i may or may not be polytheistic ….
thanks, brother.
mrtoad4u wrote:so, again the question: is it possible for such a wonderful, inspired work from god to man to be predicated upon a lie?
or would that make god a liar and then cease to be god?
I was just just struck by the idea that the Book of Mormon teaches that God could cease to be God (see Alma 42). I’m not aware of other scriptures that teach that idea.Pretty cool you are using Book of Mormon teachings in your evaluation!
I’m not sure what my point is, other than to make you aware of how much the Book of Mormon has taught you.
Sometimes in order to learn more, we need to get outside of our Mormon environment in order to look and evaluate Mormonism. Reminds me of the old saying:
Quote:We don’t know who invented water…but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t the fish.
For what its worth, I think you’re still swimming in the BOM as the Word of God. That’s not a criticism.
mrtoad from Boise, This is going to sound very simple & nieve. That’s the kind of guy I am.
When I was investigating the Church & taking the missionary discussions, I did everything the Missionaries asked me to do. Than I went to my (old) church (Methodists) & compared. I asked the questions: where do you feel the HG? When you read the BoM, do you feel the HG? Do you feel the same when you read the Bible? I read the discourses of BY & asked the question, do you feel the same when you read the words of JS?
So, when I was baptised, I received my answers. I have never asked the questions again.
For me, I find value & worth in the standard works of the Church. I have difficulty applying them sometimes.
I know there are going to be many surprises in the next life. For now I’ve received my answers on this topic.
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:mrtoad from Boise,
This is going to sound very simple & nieve. That’s the kind of guy I am.
When I was investigating the Church & taking the missionary discussions, I did everything the Missionaries asked me to do. Than I went to my (old) church (Methodists) & compared. I asked the questions: where do you feel the HG? When you read the BoM, do you feel the HG? Do you feel the same when you read the Bible? I read the discourses of BY & asked the question, do you feel the same when you read the words of JS?
So, when I was baptised, I received my answers. I have never asked the questions again.
For me, I find value & worth in the standard works of the Church. I have difficulty applying them sometimes.
I know there are going to be many surprises in the next life. For now I’ve received my answers on this topic.
Mike from Milton.
I really don’t think it’s that simple and naive except in concept. Likewise I attended a great many religions among my friends (after my OD who were all very welcoming of me to attend thier service even with no firm interest. I came away enlightened with some very interesting concepts and truths I wish we’re taught or taught more in ours but there were always other things that didn’t sit well with me at all. Through it all I remembered my “spiritual experiences” or experiences of the “holy ghost” more so in the LDS service regardless of the “historical or accuracy” of the scriptures. I came back to the LDS church of my own free will because it had the closest to my values that I could fit int my life. But I still take other things I learned from my friends and apply them to my life. I guess I worked backwards a coursing to most people. I didn’t join the church to listen to people tell me what morals were. Mine were already firmly established based on a “has what I have done effected people in a negative or positive way”. I joined the church because it fit my morals most closely. Sometimes I am at odds with what is taught and it gets “odd” or uncomfortable for me as I squirm in my chair at what I hear and seeing what has resulted from it in my life. But still I love most the values placed forth within to be the easiest to affirm with. Of I had to choose a government, society or church were I would have to “affirm everything” I would be one nomad wayfaring soul. Such is life. infinite possibilities, endless progression and mystery.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.