Church today — returning to report

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I teach the 12-15 YO SS class (they merged the 2 ages in our ward, so I chose to teach the BOM manual this year). We are one lesson behind, on Nephi’s vision of the destruction of his people, the future of the gentiles, and so on. There was an interesting quote in there about what was referenced by the Great and Abominable Church. The quote was from Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition. I was pleased that almost all the kids in the class got the question right – that this doesn’t refer so much to a church as people who put their hearts on the wrong things that erode spirituality and mock those who are humble. But one student was still in 1st edition territory, not saying it was the Catholic church, but all churches other than our own! I had to point out that there were plenty of people in our church who were like the description and plenty of good an humble people from other faiths or no faith at all. Baby steps.

I taught the same lesson to a slightly older age group, and tried to emphasize the exact same point.

Quote:

I still have to wonder how people can hang onto this junk after so long!

Because if you read the BoM literally, which we are, of course, strongly encouraged to do, it’s difficult to come to any other logically consistent conclusion than the one Elder McConkie originally came to. And, if that’s what you want to believe, it’s not hard to find a quote from a GA to back you up on it.

Quote:

I also got to point out that 1 Ne 13 clearly points out that we are not Biblical literalists and why. I made sure to drive that point home, pointing out that there are some other churches that feel very differently about this, but we believe the Bible is imperfect.

The frustrating part about that point is that, no, we’re not literalists unless and until it’s on some point that happens to mesh with our theological worldview. And the reason I am not a Bible literalist is not because I suspect a bunch of evil men conspired to mess up all the good stuff, but because it was imperfect (perhaps intentionally so) from the start.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

I taught the same lesson to a slightly older age group, and tried to emphasize the exact same point.

Hawkgrrrl, doug, I taught the same lesson as well…and asked the group what the Great and Abominable Church meant, half didn’t know, the Stake Pres son said, “Catholic Church”, and then was corrected by some young women who said, “Some people have said that, but I don’t think that’s right. That’s not very nice to my Catholic friends.” I was proud of those girls :thumbup: I read the McConkie quote and it generated a good discussion in the class.

I also emphasized to them the point that Lehi had the dream, and Nephi sought to question and understand it more. We are a church that wants us to question what prophets have said, and things that don’t make sense to us…not to criticize, but to understand for ourselves the meaning of things and how it applies to our lives…not just obey and not think about things. By doing this, Nephi greatly expounded his understanding of things.

I was also able to go home and after church talk to my son about Joseph Smith using seer stones and a hat. He thought I was joking. But we had a good discussion about it. I think there are small inoculations youth today will be advantaged to have that I didn’t really have when I was there age. Baby steps.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Because if you read the BoM literally, which we are, of course, strongly encouraged to do…

how is that again? there is no “strong encouragement” to take the BoM literally. there is only the herd blindly following without thinking. the book of mormon claims for itself that it is not a historical account, and to my knowledge, no current conference talks try to reconcile BoM history or science.

[Anonymous]

To add to wayfarer’s comment, the BOM points over and over to its being flawed. Yes, it’s true that unthinking members will consider that its narrators just being modest, but I say where there’s smoke there’s fire. They say it’s flawed enough times, it’s worth considering that it is. Either way, we’ve been looking at 1 Nephi as the biased journal writings of Nephi much later in life. It’s not the “words of God” – it’s the words of Nephi trying to tell his version of events as a much older man looking back. (Whether historical or not, this is a way of reading that students understand).

[Anonymous]

I almost made it through church without saying anything, but during SS, the teach spent most of the lesson talking about the great and abominable church. She listed pride as the top way to identify such church – and read BRM’s definition. Then the class spent ten minutes talking about how all other churches except the LDS church were part of the GaA church, and how we had the truth and the fullness of the gospel, and prophets and temples etc etc.

I finally raised my hand and said, “it looks like to me that we aren’t quite as entirely free from all this pride that we might think we are.”

[Anonymous]

Great comment, cwald. Do you think very many people in your branch understood what you were saying?

One thing I love about my current ward is that there are at least 5-10 people who say things like that regularly. I hope our new ward is like that, as well.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Great comment, cwald. Do you think very many people in your branch understood what you were saying? …

Yes.

It was a mixed bag.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

doug wrote:

Because if you read the BoM literally, which we are, of course, strongly encouraged to do…

how is that again? there is no “strong encouragement” to take the BoM literally. there is only the herd blindly following without thinking. the book of mormon claims for itself that it is not a historical account, and to my knowledge, no current conference talks try to reconcile BoM history or science.

Well, I confess that I am somewhat taken aback by that comment. I’ll have to reexamine some of my thoughts on this … always a good thing.

Maybe “literally” in my original comment wasn’t the right word. Perhaps “true”, “truth” or “literally the Word of God” would have been more to the point. If someone can find an official statement saying that the BoM is not one of those things, I’d be very interested in reading it.

I have the SS manual. There are no disclaimers in there that I am aware of. Though I think it would be a stretch, it might be possible to interpret some recent comments from GAs (I’m thinking of Elder Holland in particular) as making room for an “inspired fiction” interpretation of the BoM. But literal history or inspired fiction, an explicit description of the dominant Christian organization of the first two millenia is hard (for me) to take as anything other than just that.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Maybe “literally” in my original comment wasn’t the right word. Perhaps “true”, “truth” or “literally the Word of God” would have been more to the point. If someone can find an official statement saying that the BoM is not one of those things, I’d be very interested in reading it.

I have the SS manual. There are no disclaimers in there that I am aware of….

I think the church has done NOTHING to discourage folks from believing and teaching that the BoM is the “literal” historical document. “every word and every verse…”

Quote:

Because if you read the BoM literally, which we are, of course, strongly encouraged to do…

Elder Callister anyone?

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Well, I confess that I am somewhat taken aback by that comment. I’ll have to reexamine some of my thoughts on this … always a good thing.

I think I understand a bit of Wayfarer’s comment and position on this. We aren’t “spoon fed” a non-literal or nuanced view at Church. We’re told by “the herd” who heard it from “the herd” before them that the Book of Mormon is a history and archaeology book. What Wayfarer is getting at is this: The BoM itself NEVER claims to be that. He’s talking internally from within the text. In fact, there are several locations where we are told by the author(s) that what we are reading is religious in nature, cherry-picked from larger stories/histories, and “abridged” to tell us a new story that the author(s) felt prompted to transmit to us in our day by the Holy Ghost.

The first thing that comes to mind is the very small “book” within the BoM called The Words of Mormon. Most readers skim over it, but it tells a LOT actually about the text. Mormon tells us that 1st Nephi through Omni are what he assembled from the “Small Plates” of Nephi. Those were specifically dedicated to spiritual stories (with a tiny amount of religious history built in). Then Words of Mormon through 4th Nephi are an “abridgment” from the “Large Plates” of Nephi. Only a small, fractional amount makes it into Mormon’s abridgment. Also, Mormon tells us directly that he is selecting information to tell us a story based on his feelings from the Holy Ghost. So right there is a RED FLAG in literary analysis! He is telling us this isn’t a literal history, but a religious story he thinks transmits important messages to some future readers (that he doesn’t even know).

The BoM tell us, in cases like I mentioned above, that it isn’t to be read as a literal history or as an archaeological textbook. Modern readers of the BoM have told us that. The BoM refutes it though in the text.

[Anonymous]

To add one more point:

I could write an “abridged” history of WWII. I don’t know that much about all the specific names, dates and places for battles. But I know the general history. I can assure you that my “abridged” story about WWII in Europe would be a disaster if an alien landed in a flying saucer 5,000 years from now and found my book. They would look at my descriptions of the battles, the names and places; look at a topographical map of Europe, and come to the conclusion that I made the whole thing up.

That’s a little more extreme of an example, but along the lines of what I was saying about Mormon creating a “reader’s digest,” mythic version of the small and large plates of Nephi. Unless of course you absolutely hold fast to the notion that prophets are human fax machines for God — that an error can never happen. That doesn’t seem to pan out too good though when looking at all other “Holy Books” out there (the Bible in particular).

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

but along the lines of what I was saying about Mormon creating a “reader’s digest,” mythic version of the small and large plates of Nephi.

yes, Brian, and to go further, you had prophets write them (as Hawkgrrrl points out, sometimes as older men thinking back on earlier life), and then passing them down to other generations, and then compiled and rewritten on plates of Mormon/Moroni, then handed to Joseph Smith to go through the mysterious revelatory process…

even if all that was literally the way it happened…how would we expect exact historical documents of word for word what God said to prophets (that just happens to match up perfectly with the KJ version)?

I could very well see the Lord just saying, “It doesn’t have to be perfect…just give Joseph the basic story line through the Urim and Thummim so people can be inspired by gospel related parables. It works for the Bible.”

We may very well be the only few generations in history that has ever had the technology to record anything literally. Others didn’t get bothered by it, because they didn’t expect it to be otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

To add one more point:

I could write an “abridged” history of WWII. I don’t know that much about all the specific names, dates and places for battles. But I know the general history. I can assure you that my “abridged” story about WWII in Europe would be a disaster if an alien landed in a flying saucer 5,000 years from now and found my book. They would look at my descriptions of the battles, the names and places; look at a topographical map of Europe, and come to the conclusion that I made the whole thing up.

That’s a little more extreme of an example, but along the lines of what I was saying about Mormon creating a “reader’s digest,” mythic version of the small and large plates of Nephi. Unless of course you absolutely hold fast to the notion that prophets are human fax machines for God — that an error can never happen. That doesn’t seem to pan out too good though when looking at all other “Holy Books” out there (the Bible in particular).

Thanks Brian for your explanation of the BoM. I found this to be really a helpful way of looking at the book. I have been struggling with how to view the book. I am still struggling with throwing out the black and white thought of, “It’s either all true or the biggest fraud.” When you really look at it the book was never meant to be a history textbook. It is meant to provide inspiration. Although I find that it mainly inspires me to be angry at this time 😆

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

doug wrote:

Because if you read the BoM literally, which we are, of course, strongly encouraged to do…

how is that again? there is no “strong encouragement” to take the BoM literally. there is only the herd blindly following without thinking. the book of mormon claims for itself that it is not a historical account, and to my knowledge, no current conference talks try to reconcile BoM history or science.

Well, I confess that I am somewhat taken aback by that comment. I’ll have to reexamine some of my thoughts on this … always a good thing.

Maybe “literally” in my original comment wasn’t the right word. Perhaps “true”, “truth” or “literally the Word of God” would have been more to the point. If someone can find an official statement saying that the BoM is not one of those things, I’d be very interested in reading it.

I have the SS manual. There are no disclaimers in there that I am aware of. Though I think it would be a stretch, it might be possible to interpret some recent comments from GAs (I’m thinking of Elder Holland in particular) as making room for an “inspired fiction” interpretation of the BoM. But literal history or inspired fiction, an explicit description of the dominant Christian organization of the first two millenia is hard (for me) to take as anything other than just that.

i think the taking of the book of mormon literally is so pervasive in the church it’s like air to us, or water to fish. It’s part of assumed ground that says ‘the book of mormon is true’. One LDS scholar, an anthropologist, does subscribe to the ‘Inspired Fiction’ model and said:

Thomas W. Murphy wrote:

From a scientific perspective, the BoMor’s origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God’s malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith’s own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image.

Murphy’s LDS stake president asked him to either recant his position or resign his membership. (sound familiar?) Murphy refused, so he was ‘invited’ to a court of love. Murphy and his supporters went public, and the resulting protests and actions weren’t what the church had in mind, so the court was permanently put on hold. That was 2002.

In 2007, Elder Ballard is seen giving this statement in a church video response to a question “Is there Scientific Proof Authenticating the Book of Mormon“. Ballard states bluntly that people will not know the book is true by scientific, DNA or other means. He proposes that reading and praying reveal that it is true, and then later stipulates this as ‘religious truth’, which is always confirmed by feeling. There is a point here, an important one that gets entire lost when people try to literalize.

Such truth need not be history or origin, but ‘true to purpose’, that is, does the Book of Mormon faithfully witness of Jesus Christ and teach the fulness (essential core) of the Gospel? To me, that is the question posed, not the history or origin. And that end, I would agree that it does witness to the mission and divinity of Christ, and does provide a very clear, concise explanation of the gospel in as much of essentials as needs to be known (aka fulness). To me, in that way, it is absolutely true.

But yet, perhaps you are correct that there is strong encouragement to take the book literally, but the Church may be distancing itself from this position, and even the book of mormon itself says not to, at least in a way:

1 Nephi 9:2-3 wrote:

And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people.

Yes, these refer to the small plates of Nephi — and this theme that they are not historical is repeated about four times in the book of mormon. The Large Plates may have had history, but Mormon edited them down to essentials — the teachings necessary to witness belief in Jesus Christ throughout the narrative. They had no intent of providing a history by their own (or the author’s) admission.

Moving to the end of the book, there is an interesting autobiographical insertion as to the intent of the book:

Joseph Smith, in Mormon 9:30-31 wrote:

Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words.

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

So, here is the author speaking ‘as though’ he was dead. Now this is Moroni’s voice, but lets see carefully what he is saying. Joseph Smith may well have had three sources of the words from which he drew inspiration: himself, his father, and some other sources, like Ethan Smith and the Bible. note what he is saying: condemn him not because of his imperfection (whoa, a lot to ask, but let’s grant that); nor his father – yes, the guy who was always preaching ideals that JS bought into but wasn’t really much of a farmer, and them that wrote before them (sources…). Now mark carefully his words. “Give thanks unto god that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” How much more autobiographical can you get? Powerful stuff when put into context: Joseph Smith admitting his faults and imperfections, the source of his inspiration, and his intent of learning from these imperfections.

Joseph Smith, in Mormon 9:35-37 wrote:

And these things are written that we may rid our garments of the blood of our brethren, who have dwindled in unbelief.

And behold, these things which we have desired concerning our brethren, yea, even their restoration to the knowledge of Christ, are according to the prayers of all the saints who have dwelt in the land.

And may the Lord Jesus Christ grant that their prayers may be answered according to their faith; and may God the Father remember the covenant which he hath made with the house of Israel; and may he bless them forever, through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

So again, Moroni officially speaking, but more to the point of Joseph Smith’s pious desire to bring people to what he felt was the true and living Christ. This is the intent and purpose of the Book of Mormon. To literalize this, to try to find the history, is to miss the entire point of the book.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

To add one more point:

I could write an “abridged” history of WWII. I don’t know that much about all the specific names, dates and places for battles. But I know the general history. I can assure you that my “abridged” story about WWII in Europe would be a disaster if an alien landed in a flying saucer 5,000 years from now and found my book. They would look at my descriptions of the battles, the names and places; look at a topographical map of Europe, and come to the conclusion that I made the whole thing up.

well it becomes even less likely that you’d find the right places if you weren’t looking at the original plates of the history but instead, were looking inside your hat at a stone for the places. Joseph Smith wasn’t very good at finding buried treasure with that means, so it’s entirely likely he couldn’t keep a complex, book of mormon geographic model in his head while doing so.

I remember so many people I’ve known who have slain themselves mentally trying to make sense of book of mormon geography. it’s like playing ‘dungeon’, the old DEC-10 timesharing game that had various rooms and places — when you draw it all out, there has to be some hypercube of geometry that goes beyond normal topology…so aside from being a hobby — essentially irrelevant.

in the post above, I have to look at the book of mormon differently, and in so doing, measure it against its stated objective: does it testify of Christ, does it teach the Gospel. To me, a resounding yes on both counts. For labeling purposes during classes, however, it might be nice to have the teacher do the fun stuff about twisting through the anachronisms and geography in a way that doesn’t convolute essential meaning…but that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

[Author]

Posts