Church today — returning to report

[Anonymous]

Disclaimer: I haven’t really actually thought this through yet.

Okay, so you guys are talking about a fantasy world in which the players all act rationally, or at least think about what they are saying. I am talking about what I confront each Sunday, twice a year in GC, in every other meeting I am privileged to attend, and official church publication that has ever fallen into my hands. In that world there is no room for equivocation, literary analysis, or any other human endeavor invented since the dark ages. There is “yes” or “no”. “Right” or “wrong”. And in that world, the BoM is as true as 2+2=4 is true, and roughly in the same sense. For example, in the book of Mosiah we are told by some guy who two seconds before didn’t know his arse from a hole in the ground that a “seer is greater than a prophet.” Do a Google search on that phrase and you will see that there has been a great deal of time, ink and electrons wasted on explaining why this meaningless distinction is actually an earth-shattering revelation of the highest order. Does anybody really know or care what the difference is? Not in my experience, though some have made valiant efforts to demonstrate otherwise. It has become fixed in our vernacular forever. It doesn’t matter that we don’t have any idea who the guy was who purportedly said it, or that it is perennially taken out of the context in which it was purportedly said. All that matters is that it is a phrase that God put in the BoM, and that it is therefore TRUE and deeply meaningful.

Perhaps there aren’t any recent “official” and explicit assertions that the BoM is literally in every sense the word of God (I’ll have to go look at Elder Callister’s talk, I suppose) but as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

Would anyone here be willing to say that the events described in 3 Ne are intended to be taken figuratively by the church establishment?

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Disclaimer: I haven’t really actually thought this through yet.

Okay, so you guys are talking about a fantasy world in which the players all act rationally, or at least think about what they are saying. I am talking about what I confront each Sunday, twice a year in GC, in every other meeting I am privileged to attend, and official church publication that has ever fallen into my hands. In that world there is no room for equivocation, literary analysis, or any other human endeavor invented since the dark ages. There is “yes” or “no”. “Right” or “wrong”. And in that world, the BoM is as true as 2+2=4 is true, and roughly in the same sense. For example, in the book of Mosiah we are told by some guy who two seconds before didn’t know his arse from a hole in the ground that a “seer is greater than a prophet.” Do a Google search on that phrase and you will see that there has been a great deal of time, ink and electrons wasted on explaining why this meaningless distinction is actually an earth-shattering revelation of the highest order. Does anybody really know or care what the difference is? Not in my experience, though some have made valiant efforts to demonstrate otherwise. It has become fixed in our vernacular forever. It doesn’t matter that we don’t have any idea who the guy was who purportedly said it, or know anything about the context in which it was purportedly said. All that matters is that it is a phrase that God put in the BoM, and that it is therefore TRUE and deeply meaningful.

Would anyone here be willing to say that the events described in 3 Ne are intended to be taken figuratively by the church establishment?

Let me pick myself up off the floor from laughing out loud and rolling on the floor.

I really, really enjoy the LDS movies showing the coming of Christ to americas. When I read the book of mormon the first time, I got tears in my eyes, the burning bosom and all that in 3rd Nephi. And for years, whenever I need that old spiritual high, I’d read 3Ne 17. It’s really great stuff. It’s great because it’s spiritually valid and powerful. The concepts taught in some of these chapters are priceless and unique: “O all ye that are spared … will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you.” “what manner of person ought ye to be? Even as I AM”. These are some of the most powerful gospel statements I know. They do not have to be literal.

But yet, I want it to be literally true, and if anyone wants to believe it’s literally true, I’m not going to shatter that in the least. It’s absolutely true, spiritually.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“if anyone wants to believe it’s literally true, I’m not going to shatter that in the least.”

Amen. Just because I play a saxophone, I don’t need to try to get everyone else to stop playing their drums – and french horns – and oboes – and even those shrill, overbearing piccolos.

Fwiw, in this particular discussion, I am bi-instrumental. I play both the saxophone and the piano – sometimes even using one hand on each instrument simultaneously. I might not get every note “right” by doing that, but I enjoy the effort and what it adds to the orchestral sound.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Perhaps there aren’t any recent “official” and explicit assertions that the BoM is literally in every sense the word of God (I’ll have to go look at Elder Callister’s talk, I suppose) but as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

Would anyone here be willing to say that the events described in 3 Ne are intended to be taken figuratively by the church establishment?

Haha.

Yeah, you need to read Callister’s talk. He unequivocally makes your argument for you, from the pulpit in GC in Oct 2011.

I think you make a great point about the events in 3 Nephi – most Mormons and the leaders are not going to accept that it’s figurative. It’s pretty obvious to me.

I wish it just wasn’t so.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

doug wrote:

Perhaps there aren’t any recent “official” and explicit assertions that the BoM is literally in every sense the word of God (I’ll have to go look at Elder Callister’s talk, I suppose) but as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

Would anyone here be willing to say that the events described in 3 Ne are intended to be taken figuratively by the church establishment?

Haha.

Yeah, you need to read Callister’s talk. He unequivocally makes your argument for you, from the pulpit in GC in Oct 2011.

I think you make a great point about the events in 3 Nephi – most Mormons and the leaders are not going to accept that it’s figurative. It’s pretty obvious to me.

I wish it just wasn’t so.

i beg to differ. i have very little problem with callister’s talk because i share his testimony. in paragraph 2, he recites the “all true or fraud” false-dualism canard that will cause a lot of people grief, and the church needs to attenuate that noise. but when you look at his fundamental premise, does it point to god or the devil? and i think he makes the case that its teachings point to christ. no where does he say you have to accept literally…although i would suspect that he does. he is simply propsing that the BoM is fully divine…in origin and in every word… and i agree with the divine part, but to get to ‘every word’, he is, again going beyond what the book says of itself…not a history…forgive our imperfections in writing…

i share his testimony, that the book truly testifies of christ. he does not say that it is history, only that it is entirely god breathed. i can work with that.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

…

i share his testimony, that the book truly testifies of christ. he does not say that it is history, only that it is entirely god breathed. i can work with that.

Oh no.. Now I have to post it here to prove you wrong. 🙂 I’ll be back.

[Anonymous]

Now you folks can nuance it all you want…but come on…there is no way anyone could possible argue about what Tad Callister is saying, or what his message is telling us. it’s like when we had these conversations last year about the the 14 Fs and the Two Lines of Communication. Nuance it all you want – that’s the great thing about the middle way. We don’t have to believe…

but the membership will not nuance it or dissect or try to find a hidden message within the message, They hear what is said, and the message is clear.

Quote:

“Years ago my great-great-grandfather picked up a copy of the Book of Mormon for the first time. He opened it to the center and read a few pages. He then declared, “That book was either written by God or the devil, and I am going to find out who wrote it.” He read it through twice in the next 10 days and then declared, “The devil could not have written it—it must be from God.”1

That is the genius of the Book of Mormon—there is no middle ground. It is either the word of God as professed, or it is a total fraud. This book does not merely claim to be a moral treatise or theological commentary or collection of insightful writings. It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page. Joseph Smith declared that an angel of God directed him to gold plates, which contained the writings of prophets in ancient America, and that he translated those plates by divine powers. If that story is true, then the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, just as it professes to be; if not, it is a sophisticated but, nonetheless, diabolical hoax.

C. S. Lewis spoke of a similar dilemma faced by someone who must choose whether to accept or reject the Savior’s divinity—where there is likewise no middle ground: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. … You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. … But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”2

Likewise, we must make a simple choice with the Book of Mormon: it is either of God or the devil. There is no other option. For a moment I invite you to take a test that will help you determine the true nature of this book. Ask yourself if the following scriptures from the Book of Mormon draw you closer to God or to the devil:…” – Tad Callister GC Oct 201

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Now you folks can nuance it all you want…but come on…there is no way anyone could possible argue about what Tad Callister is saying, or what his message is telling us.

I just re read Callister’s talk and agree. You can spin it all you want but he’s saying the BoM is either true in every sense or a hoax, no hair splitting. Unfortunately there’s a good argument that could be made why it could still testify of Christ and be of the devil which I won’t make. I’ve been trying to re read the BoM for what good I can take from it but that’s about as far as it goes.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t chimed in on his talk yet, since I’ve been really busy with move prep and been focusing on other posts, but my two cents worth:

I think Callister’s own view is exactly what he says – that everything happened exactly as Joseph described. He also believes that if it isn’t from God – if Joseph made it all up intentionally – then it’s a fraud. That view is Elder Holland’s, as well – and it is the default position of “The Church”.

I don’t and won’t argue against that view – because it works for lots of people, because I am open to the possibility that it is correct and because I don’t see the Book of Mormon as an intentional fraud. If people need that sort of “either/or” view, and if the only alternative is fraud, I lean far more toward acceptance than rejection – since I do believe it is of God (“God-breathed” or “inspired”, as my Protestant friends would say). In that very narrow sense, I agree with Elder Callister that it is “of God” – and I think he arrives at his conclusion simply because he can’t see any other options between those two extremes.

Where he and I differ is that I can see possibilities between the extremes.

However, having said that, I don’t agree at all with the following from Edler Callister – and I think this is the heart of what wayfarer is saying:

Quote:

It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page.

No, it’s not. It doesn’t make that claim – and, in fact, it says exactly the opposite. It claims to be a tiny abridgment complied exclusively by three people (Nephi, Mormon and Moroni) from a massive collection of various records written by mortal, imperfect people – with mistakes and “deletions” admitted openly and directly. (“What I’ve chosen to include is not even a hundreth of what I could have chosen” means LOTS of stuff was deleted from the other records, if you will, in the writing of the summary.) It’s not the Mormon version of the inerrant Bible – even though that’s how many members view it.

This is a great example of what I’ve said for many years – that the biggest problem in the LDS Church right now with regard to the Book of Mormon is that so few members (including many leaders at all levels) really understand what the Book of Mormon itself actually says. (I’m not saying I do totally, but I’ve spent lots of time and effort trying to parse and understand it – and it simply doesn’t say or teach LOTS of things many members think it does, imo.)

So, at the most core level, I’m MUCH more concerned about the church membership understanding what it actually says than about how people view it, regardless of how it is presented by those who view it literally – especially when I agree fundamentally with the belief that if it’s an intentional fraud (not truly inspired or not believed to have been inspired by Joseph himself), then it’s not the word of God.

[Anonymous]

since it’s too dang much work to keep quoting people, I’ll just jot my responses to my giving Tad Callister a little slack.

1. Of COURSE he says ‘there is no middle ground’ — that’s the party line. He says then its either the word of god or complete fraud. Let’s take Ray’s point of view for a moment: As the “Word of God” it is divinely inspired non-fiction. Does it make any difference whatsoever whether joseph ‘translated’ the plates or recieved them as dictation? Does it still qualify as “word of God”? I would put a resounding yes to that. Of course, Callister mentions in passing ‘translated the plates’ and theres a little sense with the word ‘as’ joseph smith said it happened. although he doesn’t quite say this, he comes close.

There is no question that I’m splitting hairs here — I’m just demonstrating that in the language there’s room for defining what the meaning of the word “is” is. if you catch my reference. but there’s more to this than just splitting hairs.

2. Jesus taught in parables. There are even allegories in scripture, such as Jacob 5. In looking at a parable or allegory, can the story be spiritually true and the ‘word of god’ without being literally true? The answer is a resounding “yes”, but you know? If you ask LDS this question, I will bet you that most will say that there was a unjust judge, or good samaritan, or an unwise steward…. It all has to be literalized.

I kind of expect that from the TBM church members, but you guys… why do you guys jump to the literal conclusion so easily? I known I’m not being fair on that.

In the end, surviving in the middle way means having to balance between the words used by the majority, and what we really believe. Tad Callister’s talk is not helpful, because the canard of “All or nothing” is a significant problem for the church — it’s painting the church into a corner it cannot get out of without breaking something. I have come to the position of accepting the likelihood that ‘it’s all make believe’ (i.e. all religion), and if any of it happens to be literally true, hot dog.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Let’s take Ray’s point of view for a moment: As the “Word of God” it is divinely inspired non-fiction.

I just want to make it very clear that I could accept an “inspired fiction” view just as easily as an “inspired non-fiction” outlook – as long as Joseph didn’t intentionally write it as a blatant, cynical fraud. I don’t believe he did that, so I’m open to multiple possibilities.

I really don’t know exactly what it is, since I really do see very valid reasons to see it differently. I see plenty of “evidences” for both conclusions – so I personally use the one I want to be true as my default, personal view. It also is the one that serves me the best in my conversations at church and with most other members – and that’s a good benefit. At the core, I see it as “scripture” (the word of God, accepted by a community as such) – and that’s enough for now, as I continue to try to understand it better.

At heart, I’m agnostic on this one (beyond classifying it as scripture) – if push came to shove and I had to declare one way or another. Since I’m agnostic, I consciously choose to “have faith” in the “non-fiction” view – knowing full well it might end up being wrong when I get to see the full picture and being totally fine with that.

I’m not making a “defense” in saying that – but it’s important to me to say it that way, since I really am open to multiple poosibilities with regard to the Book of Mormon and Joseph when we go beyond the labels of scripture and prophet.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

I kind of expect that from the TBM church members, but you guys… why do you guys jump to the literal conclusion so easily? I known I’m not being fair on that. …

Agreed. I’m not really talking about what we could or should believe here as a middle way mormon. You’re right – that is a given.

I’m only addressing the issue of what orthodox, average active members are hearing, believing and teaching. Does the church (common Sunday going person) believe the BoM is a literal history of the American Continent, and do those members EXPECT me to believe the same thing.

Answer: Unequivocally – YES.

If you or I were in charge, this wouldn’t be an issue. But if say Doug was to get up in SS and say that he believes the BoM is not literal and then spout off some nuanced, figurative belief about Christ’s visit to America – what are going to be the consequences of that? My stance is, that he is going to get shut down, and some leaders might even suggest he is going against the “official doctrine” of the church because it contradicts what is written in the manuals, and what our Prophets (Callister) just said from the pulpit in General Conference.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

If you or I were in charge, this wouldn’t be an issue. But if say Doug was to get up in SS and say that he believes the BoM is not literal and then spout off some nuanced, figurative belief about Christ’s visit to America – what are going to be the consequences of that? My stance is, that he is going to get shut down, and some leaders might even suggest he is going against the “official doctrine” of the church because it contradicts what is written in the manuals, and what our Prophets (Callister) just said from the pulpit in General Conference.

sad but true. way too true. The consequences are quite amazing as we both know. (that ain’t a mormon testimony ‘know’ either — it’s from personal experience). There is a dated, jawdropping story of the writers of “Mormon Enigma”, who after being praised and lauded, were completely censured from speaking or contributing in church because of their book. Although it lasted only two years during 84-86, it was silently done, no notice to them, no church court, they were just cut off. When visiting with Dallin Oaks, he told them that it was permanent. Can’t have anyone questioning the authenticity of the church history or faith promoting stories they tell.

My non-literalism can be shared compatibly with literal belief, because i use the same words. But that’s a little disingenuous. On one hand, Ammon allowed ‘great spirit’, a pagan concept, to describe ‘god’, so although he was a little disingenuous, it was probably a good idea — to speak truth in a way that people can understand. I have learned that it’s a good idea and ok to get along in peace for the most part…but it costs.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

…sad but true. way too true. The consequences are quite amazing as we both know. (that ain’t a mormon testimony ‘know’ either — it’s from personal experience..).

Yeah, it is.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

But if say Doug was to get up in SS and … spout off …

Please don’t give me any ideas. And I know very well what would happen if I were to do that, am always painfully conscious of it, and measure my words very carefully as a result. Makes for a really relaxing sabbath-day experience.

Wayfarer, I sort of get what you are saying, and I can see the wisdom in it. I think it even frightens me a little. But honestly, I don’t see how such idealism can survive in this world. In spite of all the good we might say about the LDS church and it’s people and programs, in its current incarnation it is highly corrosive to the ideals you are espousing. That’s my experience.

[Author]

Posts