Book of Mormon and the Priesthood

One of the things I had to do in my faith transition was divest myself of the domino effect of the idea that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. I think that’s a good theory, but I don’t think it’s a fact and the dominoes don’t necessarily fall. I currently struggle with the whole “true” idea and I don’t have a firm grip on what it would or should mean were I to say the church is true. As pointed out here, in addition to coming to an understanding that the Bible is mostly allegorical or symbolic, I believe the Book or Mormon is likewise and I believe much of the D&C is also not literal. I had an earlier thread on whether the gospel actually was restored or needed to be restored. Was it ever really lost? On close examination, it doesn’t all fit together as some would have us believe.

So, is the Book of Mormon true? I don’t know, and I frankly doubt it, but I do believe it is good and contains correct principles. Does that make Joseph Smith a prophet or not? I think he was – I believe he did have at least one profound interaction with God, but that neither proves nor disproves the BoM and vice versa. Was the priesthood literally restored by angels to Joseph Smith? Again, I don’t know but unless these guys are resurrected beings, which I also don’t know, I doubt it happened the way it is described.

Regardless of the claimed ancient history, the BoM IS an historical document. We know when it was published, where, who transcribed it, and what age Joseph Smith lived in. That’s all history.

I think the BoM is taught in such a stale way. I was talking tonight about how folk hate Shakespeare, thanks to school. We have the same problem.

Thanks to Terryl Givens, and others, I have come to look at it in various ways which are far more interesting than the manuals.

I also really don’t understand why I have a testimony of it. Sure, I prayed and all the rest, but it’s taken me by surprise. It’s quite an amazing work viewed in a non-spiritual context. But I have had positive experiences with it – normally outside the Standard program.

The problem I have with this is that all Church leaders since JS have taught the BofM as literal and actual events, not as merely spiritual teachings. To illustrate this idea, think of the Koran. Mohammed said he received the teachings in the Koran from an angel named Gabriel, over a period of time, and they were later written down. This compares more closely to the D&C. Joseph Smith may have actually believed that he received the revelations recorded in the D&C. Whether or not that actually happened, I can live with that.

The BofM OTOH, supposedly came from an actual existing record kept by actual people who were supposed to have lived. That is what we are taught without any room for interpretation. While right now, I think it’s more likely that JS was a literary spiritual genius, I don’t believe the BofM was translated from actual gold plates. So, if the gold plates didn’t really exist and JS didn’t actually translate them, then that makes anyone who says those things did happen a liar. I don’t like to think that our leaders are deliberately lying to us, but it’s nearly impossible to prove either way at this point. That’s where my huge struggle lies and is basis of my FC/FT. If a religion, especially one as all consuming as ours, is based on a lie about a book of scripture that the religion is based on, then how can I trust anything else that religion teaches as true? (These same arguments apply to the origination of the BofA.)

I understand what you are saying and I have the same distrusts. I don’t believe the church leaders are deliberately lying to us, though, I think they really believe what they are saying and and/or I think they tend to parrot that which they have been taught their whole lives. Since I used to believe it myself I can forgive them and depend on that which I know and believe rather than that which they purport to know. I don’t think you or I have to trust anything we’re are taught about the church, I think we are supposed to come to our own understanding. An interesting little side note here is that the TR questions do not specifically ask about the BoM, there is only a vague question about the restoration of the gospel. I can believe (in a limited way) in the restored gospel and not believe the BoM is literal and that there never were any gold plates.

Excellent point, DJ.

There is a big issue with the Koran. Did you know the entire thing was lost for a while, and had to be copied down from memory?

Seriously? Can you point me to some info on that?

I share pretty much all of the doubts mentioned in this thread. Yet, on the other hand, I really have a hard time believing that JS could have fabricated the Book of Mormon. The tiny, odd quirks that are included seem so odd as to be realistic, just as a real history would be complex. For example, all the talk about how the Nephite records were kept, and the switch from 1st person to 3rd person, and this set of plates and that set of plates, and the random long chapter about the olive tree allegory that came out of nowhere, just to name a few. The BoM also has a weird randomness to it, combined with a very cohesive narrative. Think of all the different threads woven in there, claiming to be different accounts: the Mulekites coming from Jerusalem, the record of Zeniff and Noah and that whole population, then the side story about Alma fleeing, and the random chapter by Mormon where he talks about finding these other plates and inserting them, and so on.

If I were a literary genius, I imagine myself writing a book that would be less clunky and disjointed. I just can’t imagine someone who has the capability to write the Book of Mormon to write it in the manner that it is written. I would have made it sound better, if that makes sense. Yet, when I say better, I am also saying less complex. The Book of Mormon is complex, and it has the type of complexity I would expect from a real civilization with 1 man who compiles a huge stack of records and picks out pieces here and there to include in his abridgement. I would expect such a compilation to be clunky and disjointed. We are talking about 1000 years of history, picked from tons of records and put into a single book, combined with direct quotes from old records, in some cases.

It seems more plausible to me that it is a genuine record, but that the translation was received through the inspiration of an imperfect mortal mind who had biases and cultural influences (i.e. the King James old English scripture talk style). And that it also contains the quirks and mistakes of the original Nephite authors and biases. I certainly cannot believe at all that the BoM was given to the Nephites undefiled and straight from the mouth of God. I cannot believe that JS translated it in the same undefiled, perfect way. I have come to recognize that all revelation, if it exists, comes through mortal minds and can never represent the flawless word of God. It can only represent the ‘gist’ of what God is trying to say, like playing the telephone game.

Yet, on the other hand, I also realize that it is possible JS was such a genius that he could make the BoM smack of real complex and disjointed historical records, and completely fabricate it from his own mind.

It would be easier for me to accept the BoM as metaphorical with good principles if it wasn’t so literally claimed to be a genuine, real record of a real civilization. But I suppose that if JS stated that it was just spiritual, metaphorical writings meant to bring us all closer to God, the religion may have never got off the ground. It is much more radical and exciting to join a religion that had access to such powerful miracles.

So, I feel conflicted and just don’t know how to view the BoM.