Book of Mormon- does a literal history matter?

[Anonymous]

We posted at the same time, MJ

I wanted to respond to your post now…

MockingJay wrote:

Maybe I’m not stating my feelings very clearly, but I don’t feel like I have to share my feelings. I feel like I can’t share my feelings and maintain my same standing at church.

…

I guess what I’m saying is that it’s a struggle to have to keep my valid feelings a secret. This is the only place I feel comfortable talking about it, except with my son who left the church recently. Isn’t that the very reason we’re anonymous here?

I think you are expressing yourself great.

I see 3 options:

1) Don’t share feelings of things that cause angst with others or from others. It sucks sometimes, but it is not deceitful or duplicitous. Sometimes it is kind to have a filter on our thoughts. We do it with other things in life, so we can learn to do it with our thoughts on the gospel too.

2) Because the church hasn’t provided other safe avenues…use this anonymous group for support…then we can validate each other and know we are not the only ones thinking this.

3) The odds are likely others in your ward feel the same way, or others in your family…and they feel they need to leave the church for reasons like your son. Why not start talking about it kindly and openly in our wards so others feel it is safe to do so? Perhaps that is hard…but it is an option, depending on how you much social capital you have to spend.

There is no one right answer for it. But these are options. I don’t look down on those who choose #1. I think many people live this way for most of their life, and learn to focus on the positives in the church that hopefully outweigh the cost to choose what to ignore in the buffet line. It is a choice.

Personally, I am very very very glad I have StayedLDS all these years. It has been the best thing for me, and I love feeling authentic in my non-traditional testimony, and how I express it in person in my ward by using the right timing, the right dose, and the right tact when sharing it with others. I receive a lot of thanks from people who appreciate my sincerity. I feel like they need to hear it from people like me…so they can exhale and know they aren’t crazy and don’t have to accept crazy to be in the church. They can be honest with how they feel, even while they hear others who sound crazy.

[Anonymous]

An interesting discussion on Elder Hollands 2009 bold declaration of the BOM. (I don’t think this link is going against the site policies)

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did-elder-holland-denounce-or-intentionally-avoid-the-inspired-fiction-theory/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did-elder-holland-denounce-or-intentionally-avoid-the-inspired-fiction-theory/

This issue isn’t one that seems to resonate as a huge issue. Big – yes. But there are several “big” issues. Pivotal for me – no. But don’t take that as me trying to discount to someone else that feels it is import – even THE most important – issue they are wrestling with.

[Anonymous]

Excellent link, LH.

(and thank you for so kindly acknowledging that it is not a huge issue for you…but you do NOT dismiss others who do have it as a major stumbling block :thumbup: ).

The article quotes 2 sections of different talks by Elder Holland. I disagree with the premise of the article that it assumes then that “literal” is what his talks are about, even if literalists “woot and double woot” about it. But I can understand it is mostly taken that way.

If you read his quotes…Elder Holland is stating ways that “he sees it” and also strongly testifying of its divine nature and origin. But…I believe the door is still left open for members to not take the accounts as literal. He doesn’t explicitly say that in his bold remarks, even if I think he believes that. The emphasis is on divinity, not literal history. Always has been.

It can be “divine” and the “word of God” and not be literal. Right?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But…I believe the door is still left open for members to not take the accounts as literal.

I believe the door is open as well but for the people that want to come out of the closet as it were about their non-literal beliefs I believe there’s a strong inhibition that reminds people that “you can choose your actions, but you can’t choose your consequences.”

I know a ward up the road where no one would bat an eye if someone said they didn’t believe that the BoM was a literal account of people that lived anciently. Heck, you’d probably make two dozen new friends in the instant you said that. I know other wards where it might mean you don’t get to baptize your kids. It’s one of those local leadership roulette things and due to the relative silence at church on the subject I think many people are convinced that for any given ward there are 5 bullets in the chamber so it’s best to play it safe and keep the mouth shut.

I think there’s also the phenomenon of many SS classes having “that guy” that will start barking fire just as soon as someone starts to show signs of going off script. All it takes is one incident where fire barker “wins” a trivial difference of opinion over policy or doctrine via shouting someone down to scare people off of making comments that are anything that’s deeper than pray, ready your scriptures, and attend church. Sometimes our classes have many self appointed thought police. Get someone like that in a position of authority and that’s all she wrote.

Maybe the issue is that our classes have correct and incorrect answers to theological questions. We had two non-member people attend the other day and they both offered up several comments. Their comments were great and they even fit in perfectly with LDS teachings. The comments were still met with an initial degree of skepticism until the instructor figured out they were saying correct things. I still get the feeling that I’m always a half comment away from being the guy that the instructor looks at skeptically every time I say something. Peeps are watching, looking for that chink in the armor. 😆

Heber13 wrote:

It can be “divine” and the “word of God” and not be literal. Right?

That’s how I know it’s divine… when something isn’t literal. Seriously, have you seen the stuff that goes on in the world? :angel:

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

An interesting discussion on Elder Hollands 2009 bold declaration of the BOM. (I don’t think this link is going against the site policies)

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did-elder-holland-denounce-or-intentionally-avoid-the-inspired-fiction-theory/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did-elder-holland-denounce-or-intentionally-avoid-the-inspired-fiction-theory/

This issue isn’t one that seems to resonate as a huge issue. Big – yes. But there are several “big” issues. Pivotal for me – no. But don’t take that as me trying to discount to someone else that feels it is import – even THE most important – issue they are wrestling with.

I found that this link was very interesting. I too go with the inspired fiction theory – however this can be very damaging to a literalist and black and white mindset.

From the article comments – I added in the numbers to make it easier to follow my response to this comment.

Quote:

(1) Who was the angel who delivered the plates and who called himself Moroni? Did Moroni (or whoever he was) lie when he taught Joseph about the “former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang,” and the gospel that was “delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants” (JS-H 1:34)? (2) Were there no plates? Was there no angel? Then what did the witnesses see and touch (both in terms of the angel and the plates)? What did Joseph heave around all those days? (3) Did the First Vision really happen, or was Joseph mistaken about that too? (4) When Joseph (and other prophets who followed him) relates that ancient prophets visited him, including Nephi, Moroni, Mormon, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elias, Noah, and many others, was he mistaken about those experiences? Did they not really happen? (5) And what about those that were with him when he received such visitations? Were they mistaken too? (6) Did he really receive the priesthood under the hands of such ancient prophets, or did he just say he did, somehow thinking he had mistakenly, but not in reality? And what about Oliver Cowdery who was with him? (7) Did Joseph receive revelation from the Lord, or was he mistaken that he had, thinking it up within his own mind? Was he called by God to be a prophet and restore the Church, or did he mistakenly believe he was? This is just the beginning…

(1) For me that ship has sailed. I believe that JS had visions of angels and not visitations. It is possible that visions would show things that were not historical. (2) I believe that the plates were either spiritual or that there was some physical object with ancient writing on it that JS used as a catalyst or springboard for his revelatory translation (I lean towards a strictly spiritual for several reasons). (3) First Vision was also a vision – as JS himself presented it. (4)I believe that JS saw in vision a host of ancient prophets. Because I believe that visions can and do show things that are non-historical, I do not believe that JS has any particular insight into what these men may have looked like (or if they ever physically existed). I believe these to be subjective religious experiences. (5) There is some indication that these witnesses may have also been having visionary experiences. References to seeing with “spiritual eyes” etc. (6) I believe that JS had a visionary experiences wherein he felt he received priesthood and priesthood keys. This is perhaps the most problematic because we as a church have insisted that authority must be given by the “laying on of hands”. Could the authority be bestowed upon an individual through the laying on of hands in a divine dream or vision? Traditional Mormon reasoning would tend to say no. (7) I believe that the fruits of JS make a great case for his being divinely inspired. It does however seem to be a lesser degree of inspiration than what we have heretofore supposed about JS. Our church believes doctrinally the Christopher Columbus and the Christian reformers were likewise inspired. We want to believe more certitude or infallibility with our own leaders/prophets.

Essentially this commenter seems to be saying that if the BoM were inspired fiction then we would need to rethink many of the assumptions that our collective church narrative have been based upon – therefore the BoM must be historically accurate.

[Anonymous]

I have to say when I had my faith crisis I ended up adopting this view that I don’t know or care if the BOM is a literal history or not !!! I believe it is a good book that can bring a man or woman to Christ and that is good enough for me . No it does not have to be all or nothing (Gordon B. Hinckley taught this) I love what someone wrote earlier that is Yes this is the true church because it teaches things Jesus Christ taught and so do a lot of other churches are they less true or more true does it matter ???? The church teaches good things and a good way to live so history really doesn’t matter the life lessons that are taught are what matter to this end I recommend you go to the following web site churchistrue.com this web site explains new Mormonism and how to look at things a little differently . The site helped me get through my faith crisis as I am still an active member with a temple recommend , if it takes looking at the church somewhat differently then so be it who cares I am no less of a Mormon !!! Peace .

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

(4)I believe that JS saw in vision a host of ancient prophets. Because I believe that visions can and do show things that are non-historical, I do not believe that JS has any particular insight into what these men may have looked like (or if they ever physically existed). I believe these to be subjective religious experiences.

Just as a follow-up to this point. Colton Burpo (The boy from the Heaven is for Real book and movie) claims to have seen Jesus riding a rainbow colored horse in his vision/NDE. Is the horse thought to be a literal horse? Are resurrected celestial horses raised with rainbow colored bodies? Are each of us given a rainbow colored horse to go with our white stone (D&C 130:11)? Are the colors of the rainbow symbolic of the powers, authorities, and/or attributes of Jesus and that is why Colton was shown such a fantastical creature? What about Colton’s depiction of Jesus himself? Does he have special insight into the appearance of the historical Jesus? Should I throw away all my Jesus pictures in favor of the one that Colton says is “the one”?

I believe Colton had a vision. I am open to the idea that God was involved somehow in what Colton saw. I do not believe that this means that Colton’s vision provides a road map to how ancient historical figures looked or how things really work in heaven.

[Author]

Posts