- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Not wanting to hi-jack the other thread but wanting to respond to Mackay’s thoughts here we are. mackay11 wrote:
I’ve always grown up with my testimony based primarily on the Book of Mormon and trusting everything else from there. I never thought it possible that Joseph could have fabricated it. I’m now considering it to be possible. That would probably shatter everything else. I know we’ve discussed it elsewhere, but if it’s a fabrication it’s a deal breaker. I can handle plates + inspired elaboration on plates. Maybe even inspired part fiction/part history. If I conclude Joseph wrote it entirely from his own head, then game over. I don’t care how ‘good’ the stories on it are. Everything else falls for me.Personally from what I read here I think you’re in a relatively safe place, after all there is no chance for the plates to be proven or dis-proven because there is no question about whether they sit in church archives or not. From here it all becomes personal interpretation. Did a man named Lehi actually live on the earth? Did a man named Job actually live on the earth? I can understand the attachment to literal interpretations of the historical items, but isn’t the more important part how we can apply the lessons to our personal progression? Isn’t that effectiveness the true test of its accuracy?
FWIW I don’t think Joseph could have fabricated the entire story all from his own talent. Whatever that literally means I choose to call the source inspiration/revelation, even if that included input from other people. My understanding of revelation includes a requirement to “study” or ponder the topic until it formulates in your mind. I think external stimuli or questions often get the revelatory ball rolling.
Thoughts?
If the source was revealed to be different from what is claimed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a deal breaker for me. Although the BoM has flaws, it is simply amazing to me. I don’t think it’s the “story” that is so amazing–the theological vision of Christianity revealed by the book is most remarkable. I understand that many of the doctrinal themes were floating around in Europe and America during Joseph’s youth. But if he, or even a committee was able to pull it together, it would be one of the greatest theological accomplishments in a thousand years. That being said, I am currently agnostic on the source of the book.
I’m open to multiple options. The hardest thing for me to accept would be incontrovertible proof that Joseph made it all up and intentionally fabricated the entire thing – but even then I would continue to love the book itself. That last part still amazes me even now. I really do love and am continually surprised by the book itself.
I’m not sure if it would be a deal breaker because there are some valuable lesion to be learned from the BOM just like the bible, the help, or any other book that teach morals. Plus I like going to church, I like serving and I like most of the people in my ward. I think I could find that in other churches but to tell the truth they just don’t feel like home. One of the trivia questions that gets bounced around in my home is, “What if Pres. Monson stood up in GC and said – it’s just a made up church. Made with good intentions, but it’s not any of the stuff we said?” My answer is always “It framed good in my life.” I find the Book of Mormon the same way – I’ve always found human nuggets of validity in it’s pages. I have had moments in dark days where just opening the book and staring at it’s page (not reading) has brought insight, healing, and power. I have the same experience with the bible.
Last of all – even if it were announced that it was a totally made up / self written book – it’s in me. Ideas such as choice, cause and effect, human relations – it’s in me already. It bubbles up without my asking. For me it’s too ingrained even if it was a deal breaker. If I left it over it – the internalization’s in me would be with me the rest of my life – and I would govern by those.
Orson wrote:Not wanting to hi-jack the other thread but wanting to respond to Mackay’s thoughts here we are.
mackay11 wrote:
I’ve always grown up with my testimony based primarily on the Book of Mormon and trusting everything else from there. I never thought it possible that Joseph could have fabricated it. I’m now considering it to be possible. That would probably shatter everything else. I know we’ve discussed it elsewhere, butif it’s a fabrication it’s a deal breaker.I can handle plates + inspired elaboration on plates. Maybe even inspired part fiction/part history. If I conclude Joseph wrote it entirely from his own head, then game over.I don’t care how ‘good’ the stories on it are. Everything else falls for me. Personally I don’t believe this needs to be a dealbreaker in most cases. I understand why many Church members would think this way because of all the importance that gets put on all this supposedly needing to be literally true from the beginning of our experience with the Church and the typical all-or-nothing mindset so common in the Church culture and doctrines. However, I think the only real dealbreaker should typically be whether you feel like the Church is worthwhile or not. For example, does it add value overall or is it a net drain? Now maybe if you start to think almost everything you hear at church is nonsense then it will understandably lose some value compared to what it meant to you before, but like church0333 mentioned there are other possible reasons to stick around depending on your personality and preferences that don’t necessarily depend on truth or authority such as if you like the meetings and/or the other members or simply because it’s what you are already familiar with so that it basically feels like home to you.
The only reason the origins of the Book of Mormon is relevant is because it’s of such recent vintage that we can actually search out the genesis of the book. The books of the Bible are so old, their creation surrounded in mists of time, myth, mysticism and tradition. For me personally, I don’t really give a fig who wrote Genesis, or Job, or the Psalms, or the Gospel of John. The truth of their words ring to me and so I accept them as scripture. That being said, should I apply the same standard to the BoM? If the BoM were 2000 years old instead of 200 years old, we wouldn’t be discussing whether JS “translated” it with the U&T or a rock in a hat. We’d only be discussing its content and meaning. I’m not saying this approach is right, just pointing it out. So for me personally, the only thing that would be a true dealbreaker would be an affidavit from JS affirming he’d made the whole thing up. As for the BoM’s historical factualness, that’s not really a dealbreaker for me, either. Do I really believe that the entire earth was covered in water 5000 years ago during the flood of Noah? No, I don’t. Do I truly believe there was a man strong enough to topple an entire pagan temple by pushing over its central columns? No, I don’t. But do accept the Noah and Samson stories as scriptural? Yes, I do. And why? Because of what they teach and how I feel about those teachings. So, was there really, truly a bloke named Captain Moroni? I don’t know. But do I accept the story as scriptural.
The key approach for me at present is to read as much as I can about the ‘coming forth’ of the Book of Mormon, the environment, the social ideas, the parallels to Old World as evidence in support. The parallels to 19th and KJV as evidence against. There are 5 scenarios that I see as being plausible:
1) Lehites real people in history. Wrote their account on Gold plates. Joseph given plates. Translated into English by the power of God
2) Joseph given Gold plates as a creative muse. Joseph dictated an inspired book ‘based on actual events’ but with a very loose account of what happened, but enough to find some evidences in old/new world.
3) Joseph thought or imagined he had Lehite Gold plates and convinced others he did, but had some other prop or muse. Joseph dictated an inspiring book thinking he was translating, generated by material from his environment
4) Joseph made a set of metalic plates which were usually kept hidden and wrapped for effect. Joseph created the story from contemporary ideas and sources. The parallels are just coincidences of writing a book based on the old world and americas
5) Joseph and others had nothing. A group of people fabricated the story of the plates and created the book collaboratively from multiple sources.
Maybe there are a couple of other permutations.
I can deal with 1 (obviously) and 2. If I conclude 3 is the most likely scenario, I could probably limp along, but with reduced confidence in his other ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along’ commandments. If it’s 4 or 5, I don’t think I want anything to do with it.
Can I reach a certainty over one option? Probably not? Can I reach a final conclusion based on the weight of evidence? I could.
I think the validity of the Book of Mormon is important because all other revelations come after. If Joseph was receiving divine inspiration (even in a 2 or 3 style situation) then I can trust his instruction to give 10% (received when he was trying to get money from the church), avoid strong drinks and tobacco (received when Emma was giving him a hard time and emphasised during an era of temperance), enjoy the endowment (received right after attending masonic rituals), accept that the priesthood was really restored by Old World apostles (a story announced 6 years after the event, at a time when Joseph and Oliver were reeling in their position of leadership after the failed Zion’s camp).
If Joseph really could get revelation from the start, then it builds confidence in the origins of the later revelations. If he made the first one up (knowingly or unknowingly), then it brings into question the rest.
mackay11 wrote:If Joseph really could get revelation from the start, then it builds confidence in the origins of the later revelations. If he made the first one up (knowingly or unknowingly), then it brings into question the rest.
I think it is important to always question everything. When we don’t we risk trusting in the arm of flesh. Of course when we do we also risk trusting in the arm of flesh but that is our task as we strive for spiritual growth – to tame our “natural man.”
Personally I don’t think external evidence can distinguish between #3, 4 or 5 – so at some point our views become a choice. I guess for me I have reached a point where revelation has nothing to do with historical accuracy. The important part of the revelation is the transferable or personally applicable “moral of the story.” Parables or historical fact can all function the same, and if the stories perform well for me in my life I call them divine.
Best wishes to in in your continued sorting and search.
Orson wrote:mackay11 wrote:If Joseph really could get revelation from the start, then it builds confidence in the origins of the later revelations. If he made the first one up (knowingly or unknowingly), then it brings into question the rest.
I think it is important to always question everything. When we don’t we risk trusting in the arm of flesh. Of course when we do we also risk trusting in the arm of flesh but that is our task as we strive for spiritual growth – to tame our “natural
In my humble opinion, the only substantial thing that seperates us from gods other creatations(and how we grew as children of god to adults) is that we question “why?”! The why is what really seperates us from monkeys, dolphins and others. It’s what has helped us evolve to our surroundings and understand them and adjust.
If we stopped asking why or questioning everything(not just or having to do with gospel) then we cease to grow or be different in any meaningful way. When you stops asking questions and pondering and exploring, we stop growing.
Growing up, I always asked my parents “why?”, from the time I was old enough to speak, even till now.
They didn’t always have the answers and I had to search for many on my own. And that’s ok, it’s not obtaining the answers that mattes most. It’s the seeking and questioning and exploring that make us grow and understand.
There are many things we may never know the answer to, but that shouldn’t stop us from questioning and exploring them(in all subject matters). I personally feel this is what makes us divine. Not our phyiscal form, or our debatable iteligence over certain others of gods creations. Animals do what there told, don’t question there environment or surroundings and don’t evolve much. We have. Although for all our knowledge and tech we are like 2100 centurary hardware running in 40,000 B.C. Software. We still have it basic emotions, thinking and reactions ingrained that our ancestors had 10s of thousand of years ago still attached and realitvly unevoveled. We still have a long way to go. And we will never get there without questioning our emvirment and surrounding and way of life.
I feel we will continue to grow for quite sometime spiritually, emotionally and phyically evolve. The fact that we will never know all “the answers” is illrelevant. Being insecure (somewhat) about our long held answers or beliefs in anything is what makes us search and grow. The journey to me is more important then the destination.
P.S. typing on the phone sucks lol, sorry for the double post and typos.
Orson wrote:
Personally I don’t think external evidence can distinguish between #3, 4 or 5 – so at some point our views become a choice.
Truly…When I started this journey I was convinced that the problem could be solved intellectually. I would simply believe whatever had the greatest amount of evidence. If the evidence weighed in favor of being made up, then I would believe it was all made up. At some point I came to realize that even this plan was flawed. I remember reading about court cases where the evidence was sufficient to convict a man (quick google search turned up this examplehereI agree that there is insufficient evidence to ‘convict’ Joseph of fraud, especially when it’s 180 years after the event. The ‘evidence’ leaves it open for a final conclusion. Given we’re asked to use the gift of inspiration to make that final conclusion, perhaps it doesn’t matter. In a court case someone could be acquitted due to insufficient evidence. But they still might have the millstone of suspicion that undermines confidence in them. I feel like that. I have insufficient evidence to say with certainty that he was or wasn’t a fraud. But there is enough against to undermine my confidence in Joseph. I suppose that’s what being in a ‘middle way’ is about. Accepting that there are some things you know, some things you hope, some things you don’t accept at all any more… but still making mormonism work for you.
mackay11 wrote:I suppose that’s what being in a ‘middle way’ is about. Accepting that there are some things you know, some things you hope, some things you don’t accept at all any more… but still making mormonism work for you.
Indeed…shouldnt have taken the red pill….Posted from my Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Eman…at least once a week i think of that converation in the Matrix. how often do we wish we could forget the things we have learned and keep the fantasy
Blue-hoo-hoo-hoo pill (sobs) I’d sniffed/licked the red pill a few times before for minor things a few years ago and always thought I had it sussed.
Turns out I didn’t…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.