- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just finished a really great CD set a bout the Old Testament by Amy-Jill Levine. One of the things that really impressed me about her is that as a scholar she really didn’t have much confidence in the historicity of the Old Testament and doubted that the events really happened. However, that in no way prevented her from enjoying them and learning from them as good literature, and as instructive stories. I was thinking about that attitude about the Book of Mormon. We seem to be pressured not just to read it, learn from it and enjoy it but there is pressure to accept it as an actual history of an actual people. Why?
The eighth article of faith states that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. That is different from believing that it actually happened. I believe the stories of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal son are the word of God, however, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that those stories actually happened. If there was evidence that they did, it would be an interesting footnote, but not essential. If it was proven that they didn’t no one would bat an eye. The importance of those stories is not in relating events that happened but in making a point. Why can we not accept the Book of Mormon to be the same thing?
Patricia Polacco (great author and illustrator) said that the truth of a story is not in the events that happened, but in the telling of it, in the relationship between teller and hearer or reader, and in the effect that the story has on their souls.
Why can’t the church accept the truth of the Book of Mormon apart from its historicity?
rebeccad wrote:I just finished a really great CD set a bout the Old Testament by Amy-Jill Levine. One of the things that really impressed me about her is that as a scholar she really didn’t have much confidence in the historicity of the Old Testament and doubted that the events really happened. However, that in no way prevented her from enjoying them and learning from them as good literature, and as instructive stories…I was thinking about that attitude about the Book of Mormon.
We seem to be pressured not just to read it, learn from it and enjoy it but there is pressure to accept it as an actual history of an actual people. Why?The main difference I see between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon is that we don’t really know much about the actual authors of the Old Testament in its current form because it is so old and on top of that it could have easily been changed by uninspired scribes even if Moses and others it talks about really were inspired to begin with but in the case of the BoM the claim is that it was all translated by Joseph Smith with supernatural assistance. So because of that the BoM is basically connected with the credibility of Joseph Smith as a trustworthy and reliable prophet and that’s where most of the pressure to accept it as historical and the literal word of God comes from in my opinion.
Maybe the BoM could be both entirely fictional and inspired at the same time but if that’s the case and if revelation really worked the way the Church teaches then I would have expected God to also reveal that it should be viewed as metaphorical from the beginning rather than having LDS prophets act like the Native Americans are literally direct descendents of Lamanites and having Emma and other witnesses talk about the physical plates it was supposedly translated from. Personally I think the Church should start to de-emphasize the relative importance of Joseph Smith and the restoration and make it more about the way the Church is now rather than where it came from.
Yes, thank you. I believe we should allow everyone to take from the book whatever they can get. I’m afraid if we set up or outline expectations for others they will be more inclined to skip it entirely. Kind of like if you are about to serve someone a nice meal under the condition that they consume everything completely or they are not welcome to any part of it; or at a minimum they are missing the point of what you’re offering if they don’t consume and taste it allin the same way in which you do. There is sometimes this gulf between what we want or feel and what the church teaches. Currently they claim it is all historical. We may look at it as mythology but that really does not have a place in Sunday school discussions. It is always going to be an uphill grind to try and nuance a core tenant of the religion and stay a part of the organization. At least as a fully believing member. This is why we get so many splinter groups. Something does or does not change and a certain segment runs off and starts a new branch of basically the same thing. If they are just good parables that JS made up to help us, then should we worship Aesop as a prophet, too? Should we let him guilt us into attending meetings weekly and giving him money to continue his work spreading fables? I guess if they are just stories, then we have a lot of regular old Joes writing good stories. Not really a foundation for a religion, is it?
That’s getting into literalist territory, Brown. It’s the domain of both Richard Dawkins and six thousand year old creationists. I grew up with Aesop, and many of his lessons stuck with me.
Parables comment on reality and help us understand it…
rebeccad wrote:The eighth article of faith states that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. That is different from believing that it actually happened. I believe the stories of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal son are the word of God, however, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that those stories actually happened.
I find the whole “God’s Word” thing interesting. What does it mean to be God’s word? When Paul writes a letter of counsel to a particular church area. Are Paul’s opinions and biases contained in the letter? Does the letter address the issues and needs of the local church (the intended audience) and not the general membership? Even if Paul was inspired in what he should say to advise the particular branch of the church – how does that inspired counsel later become God’s word to a different group of people far removed from the time, place, and circumstances or either the author or the original audience?
I personally believe that we Mormons use the term God’s word because that was what was generally in use by the Christian denominations of the day to refer to the Bible. I think the story (of what it means to call the Bible God’s word) mainly goes that God knew that one day we would use this collection of writings for our understanding of our divine purpose – so he hand picked each word as it was being written down. Since God was so purposeful in choosing each word and phrase, he also used his holy power to protect the wording from being mistranslated or mis-transcribed. Thus the book is exactly how God wanted it to be = God’s holy word.
So I guess that I have an easier time accepting the D & C as God’s word because at least some of that was delivered as a revelation in the 1st person – as though God were actually speaking.
Great question. For a while I thought the church could only be true if there was a historical Nephi. Having accepted the possibility that there’s not… I’ve also come to accept a few things:
1) There is credibility to the evidence that it is not historical and enough to choose to believe it is not.
2) There is enough evidence to support believing it is historical and it supports a choice to believe it is.
3) Either way, following the principles and reading the book helps me ‘be’ better and ‘feel’ better. So on that level I consider inspired, whatever the source.
At moments like this I reach for my ‘middle way quotes book.’
Quote:PBS: [You say] there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there’s no middle way.
Elder Holland: … If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. …
I think you’d be as aware as I am that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.
SamBee wrote:That’s getting into literalist territory, Brown. It’s the domain of both Richard Dawkins and six thousand year old creationists.
.
I don’t see it that way. It’s just that if they are merely stories, then is that a foundation for a religion I should believe in? I think there are many who claim to have gained great insight from the Harry Potter series or the Chronicles of Narnia. But that doesn’t make the authors prophetic or called of God, does it?
Brown wrote:SamBee wrote:That’s getting into literalist territory, Brown. It’s the domain of both Richard Dawkins and six thousand year old creationists.
.
I don’t see it that way. It’s just that if they are merely stories, then is that a foundation for a religion I should believe in? I think there are many who claim to have gained great insight from the Harry Potter series or the Chronicles of Narnia. But that doesn’t make the authors prophetic or called of God, does it?
I would say CS Lewis is certainly worth classifying as a (small p) prophet… Certainly inspired. If he had started a new denomination of Christianity he would have prob got followers. Our Prophets quote him.
Harry Potter… I was just quoting Dumbledore in a blog the other day (plus Plato… Another inspired person from history):
http://manyotherhands.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-do-good-people-suffer.html?m=1 Brown wrote:I think there are many who claim to have gained great insight from the Harry Potter series or the Chronicles of Narnia. But that doesn’t make the authors prophetic or called of God, does it?
Why not? The way I see it all inspiration comes from God, who are we to limit His reach? Of course just because someone is prophetic at times that certainly doesn’t mean we should hang on their every word all the time — historically this is where people often get into trouble. This is why I appreciate our teaching that everyone is to obtain a spiritual confirmation on every point of doctrine. Even though it may not be a popular thought in the church today, I think there is a strong argument that it is a Mormon teaching.
Orson wrote:Brown wrote:I think there are many who claim to have gained great insight from the Harry Potter series or the Chronicles of Narnia. But that doesn’t make the authors prophetic or called of God, does it?
Why not? The way I see it all inspiration comes from God, who are we to limit His reach? Of course just because someone is prophetic at times that certainly doesn’t mean we should hang on their every word all the time — historically this is where people often get into trouble. This is why I appreciate our teaching that everyone is to obtain a spiritual confirmation on every point of doctrine. Even though it may not be a popular thought in the church today, I think there is a strong argument that it is a Mormon teaching.
Have read (and enjoyed) both of these, and HP at least doesn’t give me a burning in the bosom at all!
Here’s an interesting bit of out the Last Battle (Lewis). Tash is a demonic God, Aslan is Jesus.
Quote:
“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc [emperor] of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.
Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”
Seems some folk in Christian circles take issue with CSL and see him as some kind of satanist –
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/narnia.htm SamBee, great, great quote from CS Lewis. The Last Battle is probably the most overt of all the religious parables (apart from Aslan’s stone table moment perhaps). I love the Aslan’s/Tash parable. Clearly Tash is not the Devil but the Eastern gods. Lewis’s point is that the sincere service is rewarded because the heart and intent was in the right place. And the link you included left me unsure whether to laugh or cry that someone would be so narrow-minded.
Yeah, the link was something else. Apparently Lewis was evil because he smoked and went to the pub like most other Irish people in England. (You should see their page on Pan’s Labyrinth… talk about missing the point entirely.)
The Tash quote is interesting. Tash is evil, an the Calormenes worship him. Some folk try to mix him with Aslan – Tashlan… which is false… but Emeth, a good Calormene enters heaven through his righteousness despite worshipping the foul (fowl?) Tash.
I still remember how strongly I felt the spirit as I read the last battle as a teenager. I really wanted it to be real…enough so that the right charismatic leader might have got me to follow him/her Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.