How to feel good about using LDS scripture knowing the error

I have come to a place where I can’t believe that any of Joseph Smith’s translations are really translations from any ancient texts.

I know a lot of people who agree with you and still find great value and power in what he published.

As a former history teacher, and as a social scientist by nature, I love pretty much anything that I find to be “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” and/or that causes me to be a better person / more Christ-like / more godly.

Most of what Joseph published fits that description for me, no matter how I view its origins – and how I view the origins is a bit complicated, varying somewhat by specific text, and open to multiple possibilities. I actually like keeping multiple doors open, since there is good I can take from each view that I would lose if I closed all but one.

I am attracted to this philosophy, but I am having a hard time shaking the feeling that these are just mental gymnastics that represent a final, desperate attempt to make something fit/work that just doesn’t.

I’ll borrow and tweak Orson’s response. Doesn’t fit what? Meaning it likely is a final, desperate attempt to make the BoM fit into some specific narrative.

One has to be open to the idea that Joseph simply made the whole thing up and that he knowingly attempted to pass off his work as something more than it was. That’s one narrative where the philosophy comes across as a last ditch effort in mental gymnastics. There are other narratives where the philosophy does fit. To get new age… perhaps god manifests himself in all of us and each one of us is equally capable of producing things that inspire and reveal gods will. Perhaps the lesson is that inspiration is to be found in everything if you look hard enough.

In certain scenarios perhaps we are doing ourselves a disservice in looking to only one person, a prophet, or a small set of books, etc. as the source for inspiration when there are sources all around us. It could be that we need to look to one person for inspiration until we are able to find it in everything. Perhaps a faith crisis, or a loss of faith in what was our inspirational bottleneck, is part of the plan. That we only move on when we are ready and capable of moving on. On that note I find it interesting that Joseph appeared to be preparing people for that eventuality. There are evidences that he was concerned that everyone develop self sufficiency in tapping into the divine.

There are lots of narratives.

Another weakness I see in this philosophy is that once you start selecting certain portions of scripture as God’s Eternal Will and other portions as erroneous ramblings of the human author, how can you be confident in your selection mechanism?

Good question. The first thing that popped into my head was “Because they are my selections. They are meant for me.” Then I thought, “Well that’s life for you.” Meaning sometimes I have more confidence in an answer simply because I don’t have much confidence in the answer. :wtf: :crazy: Ok, that doesn’t even make much sense to me. I guess I’m trying to say that life is uncertain, it stands to reason that my answers to life’s questions are also uncertain. My answer today may not be my answer tomorrow. It’s that uncertainty that drives study, reflection, meditation, change. It’s that uncertainty that allows me to maintain faith. I like uncertainty.

To go along with my first thought… consider turning your question on its heels. How can you be confident in someone else’s selection mechanism? I’d have less confidence in that approach because it doesn’t account for my unique needs. Both approaches may not inspire much confidence but I think I can have more confidence in personal selection than I could in leaving the selection process to others. Over time we grow in the confidence of our own selection methods. I think it’s supposed to work like that.

And how do you integrate that into a Sunday School lesson about Abraham’s sacrifice? If I place myself inside this philosophy, I could see myself responding in 1 of 3 ways: 1- “Neither Abraham nor Isaac actually existed as individual people, so there is nothing to discuss.”, 2- “Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac was caused by Abraham’s inability to correctly interpret God’s will in the first place, so we shouldn’t worry about God asking us to do something like that, since it wasn’t even Him asking Abraham to do it. The real moral of the story is that if you think God is telling you to kill someone, you should probably ask some of your living peers and see whether they think it’s a good idea before you go and try to do it.” or 3- “It’s just a story that teaches us that God wants us to be willing to make difficult sacrifices (though probably not to that extreme) in order to achieve spiritual growth and get closer to him.”

What I’m about to say sometimes doesn’t make much sense to me but this is my current answer and the fact that it often doesn’t make much sense to me is the very reason why I like the answer and hold onto it. Like the little girl in the Old El Paso taco shell commercials. Hard taco? Soft taco? Hard taco? Soft taco? Porque no las dos? [Why not both?]. So to answer that question: why not all three? Things can have multiple interpretations and we’d sell ourselves short in siding with only one. To put it another way: embrace contradictions, there’s lots of lessons to be learned in them.

Dark Jedi,

That is pretty much where I am too, although I think response #2 for the Abraham example is s fun one to play with. Same with Nephi and Laban. Whether or not the events actually happened (I believe they didn’t), I think it is still up for debate whether or not killing Laban was actually the right thing to do. Anytime someone in any story or setting gets a revelation that someone should be killed, I think there ought to be a pretty high bar of vetting and consensus among multiple people before it should be acted on.

new6, we just talked about that exact example in our family scripture reading last night (Nephi and Laban), and I told my kids I don’t know if I could kill someone no matter what kind of “constraint of the spirit” I thought was going on.

Yeah, me either. If it were a situation where it was kill or be killed, I probably could – otherwise I doubt it. Given the circumstances of the story, I think it even more unlikely. The fact that he had tried to kill me wouldn’t have been enough when I could just leave and perhaps have let the authorities deal with it.

And I agree, New6, #2 is interesting to think about since my own faith crisis had quite a bit to do with whether or not I was correctly interpreting God’s will.

The Community of Christ Church (formerly RLDS) own the copyright to the JST of the Bible. I have a full copy. In my copy, in the introduction, they acknowledge that it is not a “translation” of any manuscripts, but it like a commentary by JS. They say to imagine reading the KJV of the Bible, and having JS sitting by your side, commenting on each verse as you read.

Is that how we should treat the BofM, D&C, and PofGP?

Learning about history, archeology, genetics, and other such things often fascinate me, but for me what is important is what the overall effect of theology has on me. Most particularly I am impressed JS had the audacity with only a third grade education, to invent a theology that answers questions that have stumped theologians for centuries. The plan of salvation is a big part of this for me.

The BofM, D&C, PofGP are a jumble of subjects, asides, diversions, diaries, war reports, histories and other unrelated details. Yet out of this jumble can be drawn a cosmology that gives purpose and rationality to mortality and puts it in the context of the pre-existance and eternal life.

I recently read a book that gives a comprehensive overview of the How Mormonism makes sense of life. For a really good read, I suggest the book “The God Who Weeps by Givens & Givens”. The book is not a sermon or argument, but of gentle persuasion. It is addressed to not just Mormons, but anyone interested in religion. A reviewer on Amazon.com describes it this way:

“I was not ready for this book to end. I could have read and read forever. Honestly, this is one of the most profound and important books I have ever read. Having been raised in a fundamentalist Christian faith, I was all too familiar with the typical vengeful and fearsome God portrayed in the Old Testament. So much so that I have felt horribly bruised by it, and never able to believe the oxymoron that God actually LOVED me even while being so cold, distant and vengeful all of the time. I have spent my whole life up until this point really trying to believe that he loves me. This book is an epiphany…a game changer. It is salve for the soul. The Givens gently but perfectly guide the reader towards the truth about God, divinity, and his love for us in a way that makes the kind of sense that rings true in the deepest part of your soul. This book will be added to my current yearly “re-read” list.”

Read more reviews at Amazon.com.

So the supposed implausibility of the BofM, PGP, or JS’s “peeping stones:, etc. fades away into irrelevancy for me. Those arguments may or may not ultimately prove the veracity of JS, but I don’t think anything will conclusively prove JS’s theological work in my lifetime. In the mean time I have to live my life now, not when these issues get settled. And IMO, JS gives me a meaning to live that is a whole lot better than most.

There was a chaplain who posted here once, and he titled it “Is the Book of Mormon true? Is Shrek true?”.

His post was meant to address the question you’ve asked above. His philosophy was that even fictitious stories can be inspiring. I have felt the spirit watching Old Yeller, Charlotte’s Web, Forrest Gump, Les Miserables and BoM stories. The stories don’t have to be true to work change in the hearts of people.

I’ve also felt inspiration from the words of Ghandi, from movie quotes, and from poetry.

In short, literature doesn’t have to be true, to be inspiring.

Here is another thing I did once. I wrote a story in Book of Mormon format. I divided MS Word into columns like scripture, gave an italicized preamble, chapter headings, and numbered verses just as we see in the current version of the Book of Mormon. I then wrote a story in Book of Mormon language about a young king who lived a life of arrogance, but then, gained self-awareness, and subsequent humility.

I set it aside for a while, and then read it. I felt the Spirit!!! The short phrases extolling the virtue of humility, and negative impact of arrogance and pride, as well as the transformation of the main character inspired me — even though I knew for sure the story I wrote was false! I had woven in some quotable one-liners, and had also written about the king’s feelings as he learned about how his parents and other people perceived him, prior to his change. It worked! And it was only two chapters long.

My wife kicked up a huge fuss as it looked like I was trying to write scripture for public consumption, but I wasn’t. I no longer have what I wrote given computer turnover and hard drive problems, and will not be publishing the Book of Silentdawning any time soon! (or ever)…(although I like the name).

As a result, the old story you hear that some other guy in JS’s time tried to write a work like the BoM but couldn’t, doesn’t hold water. I think a good author could mimic the style of JS, come up with their own plot, and write pithy quotes that others find inspiring. Simon and Garfunkle once added a new verse to Scarborough Fair. In that verse they said “Through all the changes we are always still the same”. Everyone clapped profusely at the concert. I think a good author could make quotes that people recite in talks, such as “By small and simple things, are great things brought to pass”.

So, look at them as inspiring stories. Don’t get caught up in study that attempts to justify the historical accuracy, such as “Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon”, but read them for their ability to bring you peace and happiness. And expand your reading to other books in the wisdom literature available to everyone, regardless of their faith.