FAIR Mormon Outreach

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Wayfarer,

Are there any articles or books of individuals who believe like you explaining their view of how God used an unhistorical BOM to create the restoration? I would be fascinated to read more of how you put your view together

I don’t think that “god used an unhistorical BOM to create the restoration”. In faith, I accept that God created the restoration by restoring prophets and revelation to the earth, and prophets bring forth scripture. And, after studying the nature of scripture, I have found that scripture need not be historical in the least and yet be revered as relevant and normative.

Hence, I cannot think of anyone who has written that God used an unhistorical book of mormon to create the restoration — and that is not what I believe as well.

When Joseph Smith prayed in the grove as a boy, he received an answer: that he was to join no other church, and that the creeds of the day were an abomination. Later in life, Joseph explained WHY the creeds were an abomination, that a creed would lock people into a specific belief, and they wouldn’t accept truth as it would be made manifest from time to time.

Joseph taught specific things about revelation:

1. That it was progressive — we would learn things line upon line, precept upon precept

2. That there is a lesser knowledge — that which is received by the church as a whole, and a greater knowledge — the mysteries — that people can and should receive on their own.

3. That revelation was manifest through the mind and heart of the person receiving it

4. That this process of mind and heart is exactly the same spirit and method of revelation used by Moses (and hence, all prophets).

6. That the process of mind and heart necessarily is though the language and weakness of the one receiving it.

The centrality of revelation as the key to the Gospel was laid forth by Paul to the Galatians:

Paul to the Galatians 1:11-12 wrote:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The fact and existence of Paul demands that the true Church of Jesus Christ receive revelation as its means of operation. Paul did not witness the events of Jesus Christ while living — he never met Jesus in life, and was not a witness to the resurrection. The ascension to heaven already occurred long before Paul had his experience on the Road to Damascus. If Paul received the gospel by revelation, than upon what basis do fundamentalists demand that the current canon of Christian scripture be locked down and never to be extended?

If god were to restore the Gospel, it is not the Book of Mormon that constitutes the restoration. The “Book of Mormon” was not part of the primitive Christian church established by Christ (at least in the mind of all Christians). But the Book of Mormon does testify of Christ, and it was brought forth by a prophetic process. In other words, the Book of Mormon is not the MEANS of the restoration, it is only a product of the restoration. The means is different.

The core principle and means of the gospel is not a worship of or adherence to scripture. It is simply and purely “revelation”. Without revelation, the Church is not “living”. Without revelation, there is no restoration. Without revelation, there is no ability to produce “scripture”. Thus, the only imperative fact of the restoration is the restoration of revelation, and revelation brings forth “scripture”. Scripture is simply the documentation of revelation as it has affected mankind through history. Scripture is also a common narrative upon which the Church can contain its teachings of divine principles, ever pointing to current, personal and corporate “revelation” as the key to the Gospel. But scripture, alone, is dead works.

In one of the most misquoted scriptures in the bible by mormons, Jesus said to the Scribes (Self-appointed interpreters of scripture), and Pharisees (rabbinical jews who built a fence around the law based upon scripture and their talmudic traditions): “Ye search the scriptures, thinking that in them ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” Thus, the purpose of scripture is not to contain a history. Scriptures are not to be used to teach science. Scriptures need not be accurate to history in the least. Scriptures have one purpose: to point to Christ, the personal experience with the divine. And once one has connected with the divine, the scriptures are like a well within a lake of pristine water.

As we study the history of scripture, much of it was created, like the book of mormon, as a tome of ancient revelation and guidance. If you read how Graf and Wellhausen laid out the documentary hypothesis, Graf realized that the Torah wasn’t Moses words at all, that the stories in Genesis were mythologically based, and in fact self-contradictory as the redactor quoted the J and E accounts one after another. (two creations, two flood myths, etc.) Most importantly, however, Graf said that if the production of scripture was by prophetic process, then what did it matter if Moses didn’t write it?

The origin story of Deuteronomy is especially illuminating. In the midst of attempting to reform Judaism and bring people to righteousness shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, King Josiah sought for a divine approval for his reforms. In 2 Kings 22, Josiah asks Hilkiah, the Highh Priest, to go clean up the temple, which has fallen into disrepair. This is symbolic — The kingdom had fallen into disrepair. In the process of cleaning up the temple, Hilkiah “discovers” a book of the Law, a “second telling” (Deutero) of the “law” (nomos). Orthodox Jews and Christians accept that this discovery was of an ancient personal testimony of Moses, written by his own hand, and it may well be that HIlkiah and Josiah used such a qualification to lend authority to the book of Deuteronomy, even if the language of the text was clearly from the current time. It was absolutely not written by Moses, but in my impression, by well meaning prophets under inspiration from God. Pawning off Deuteronomy as an ancient work with Moses as its literal author was a bit of pious fraud — but the work itself was not fraudulent in the least: in it, the most critical statement of the Law is given: the Shema – “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is One, and thou shalt love the Lord thy god with all thy heart might mind and strength”.

Why then should we claim that the book of Mormon was produced in any other way than the Prophet and High Priest Hilkiah did under Josiah’s leadership? Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham in nearly the exact same way that Deuteronomy was created. And, Joseph promoted the books as ancient works, one from gold plates, and the other from papyrus, written by Abraham’s own hand. The work itself is revelation, the means of getting peoples attention to it seems a bit problematic, when viewed in our current lens. But Joseph may well have thought he was ‘translating’ when indeed he was ‘revealing’ — I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

[Anonymous]

Awesome Wayfarer… I really enjoyed reading that.

My framework is as follows and I would like to to help me see how you see it differently.

When Unhistorical Scripture was created (EX: Balaam and the talking Donkey) I believe when that was first uttered, that the prophet or person writing it didn’t portray it as actual event but that we as readers in the future take it that way. That those who heard the Balaam Story originally knew it was a myth to teach a principle.

So I struggle to even comprehend that God would deceive Joseph or that Joseph would deceive us in portraying the BOM as a historical account revolving around real people who did real things?

Did Joseph Smith know The people, places, things, were fiction?

If he didn’t and it was God who portrayed it as historical by having a n angel show up saying he was Moroni, was that dishonest?

Help me understand how you reconcile that.

Thanks

Bill

[Anonymous]

bill,

First of all, I do not “disbelieve” the historicity of the book of mormon, I neither believe nor disbelieve — it has become something that doesn’t matter, because I have seen how “scripture” is much more accidental in its origin than any planned outline or coherent plan by god to lay out his teachings with clarity and succinctness.

When you say that you don’t know how god would deceive Joseph, you’re revealing a mindset that says that God actually directs each thing the prophet does. As well, you’re potentially holding on to an idea that “revelation” is more direct than it most likely is.

god’s methodology with revelation is to enlighten the recipient with thoughts and feelings, not necessarily through direct manifestation. You’ll recall that when Angel Moroni visited Joseph in his bedroom, Moroni appeared several times through the night to him, with manifest glory. My DW asked me a couple weeks ago in family night (no kids at home now) how this could be the case — when there were several other family members in the same room and some in the same bed! It’s because even a vision is seen with “spiritual eyes” — that is, to the heart and mind of the recipient. I know this, because it’s there in scripture, and I have had such a vision — more powerful and real than I can describe, yet I know it was in my mind and heart.

And with what I have experienced personally, the interpretation of a vision is often beyond words. In another spiritual experience than I just mentioned, I can attest to you, that I personally believe that my mother attended the temple with us with a sealing of one of her favorite granddaughters a couple of months after her death. I could feel her presence so strongly in the sealing room, I felt I knew exactly where she sat. Yet I also know that this was my perception, only a couple of others resonated with what I felt. You might think I made this up. I might have. I might be deceiving myself — but it was very real to me. And, I have no idea why she was there — sure, to give support to her granddaughter — maybe it was just what i needed to know and feel at the time. There are any number of possible interpretations. But for me to impute a specific aspect of the afterlife because of a specific gift I felt after my mother died…this wouldn’t be right either — I don’t have those keys.

But Joseph Smith did have keys — he had the authority to convey from his own visions and revelations something that matters for the church. I do not believe his method of revelations was any bit different than what I experienced — only that as prophet, his responsibility is greater and his keys are to reveal for the church as a whole.

Joseph Smith, even in reciting the Book of Mormon in the way he did — head in hat, short period of time, brought forth a pretty coherent text that fulfills its mission very well. Could he have composed it and delivered it as a man — yes — but then, why did he not teach from it, or do more of that kind of automatic recitation into the future. I find no evidence that Joseph Smith had deep knowledge or understanding of the book of mormon — he delivered it, and then aside from a very few comments, seldom used it or referred to it again. This amazes me — it is as good of an example of “spirit writing” as one can get — and yet, after the fact, he never duplicated doing it again. What does that all mean? Without getting into apologetics — for me — there is just a divine power at work here — one which evidences itself in my reading of the book.

So, reconciling Moroni’s visit is to say that Joseph had a vision that he was about to reveal something. what Joseph remembers, believes, or even understands from that event was put into a frame of what he thought to be the truth. The outcome of the vision was that he eventually revealed a marvellous work and a wonder. Does it matter how that happened?

Here’s the deal, bill: revelation is a powerful experience — how we interpret it is also powerful, but seperate from the experience itself. We are often wrong in our interpretations of the experience, but our wrongness does not negate the phenomenology of the experience itself.

It is even possible that joseph deceived about the angel’s visit, or the witness of the plates — This isn’t my point of view, but what if Joseph did? does that make God a liar, even if joseph is somewhat deficient? Why did abram lie about sarai? why does the church occasionally lie today? Good people trying to do a higher purpose, one might say. The fact is that god, however we define him or her, necessarily works through deficient humans, speaking through them in their own language, and according to their own limited understanding. It has ever been so, and ever will be so. Why do we try to make each revelation perfect when god’s method is through the free agency of the prophet? Whose plan are we endorsing if we presume that god will give us a perfect plan where we cannot make mistakes?

Let’s simply assume that Joseph Smith and his colleagues thought they were performing a marvellous work and a wonder — that they were revealing god’s truth. Not only did they think that, but so do many of us here today. The facts are clearly evident that being about that higher purpose, Joseph chose to lie about some things: especially as it related to polygamy. He was thus not above lying to achieve a higher purpose. Does this mean that God lies? no. What it really means is that Joseph was flawed, yet somehow divine. And this is how the true plan of salvation is quite evident in our lives: we are also flawed, but divine. Why, then should our history be any different? Why should we whitewash the flaws, when the plan of salvation was clearly to be BE flawed, yet divine? You see, if we make of Joseph Smith a perfect being he was not, we aren’t accepting the flawed, yet divine plan. It is IN the flaws of history that we must test and exercise our faith.

Between the extremes of being flawed and being divine, there is a deep need to reconcile our flaws with our divinity. And this is the MIddle Way of Faith. This is the Middle Way of the Savior’s atonement — grace bridges the gap in our understanding, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ allows us to accept that there is a gap, but it will be well with us to the extent that we allow him to bridge that gap. We don’t know the book of mormon is historical. But we do know it testifies of Christ. We don’t know if Joseph lied about the origins, or was fully inspired to dictate a literal history of some people yet to be discovered, but we do know that the teachings of that book reveal the pure and simple gospel doctrine of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

Thank You, That clarifies. I too have wondered why he didn’t use the BOM more in his life and as you say it speaks volumes of it being divine and not Josephs sole creation.

[Anonymous]

Excellent clarification Wayfarer, but I can’t help but throw in my 2 cents:

DBMormon wrote:

I struggle to even comprehend that God would deceive Joseph or that Joseph would deceive us in portraying the BOM as a historical account revolving around real people who did real things?

Did Joseph Smith know The people, places, things, were fiction?

If he didn’t and it was God who portrayed it as historical by having a n angel show up saying he was Moroni, was that dishonest?

Help me understand how you reconcile that.

Thanks

Bill

The simple explanation is the assumption of Joseph and many people of his day was that the mounds and artifacts that they observed came from an ancient Israelite civilization that had migrated to the Americas and were the ancestors of the natives. Because Joseph automatically associated and mingled that assumption with the revelations that he received does not necessarily mean that God was the author of it.

I believe it is possible that some observer could have personally listened to Jesus recite parables and assume that he was giving factual/historical examples in his teachings. Would that mean that Jesus was dishonest in his method?

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

I believe it is possible that some observer could have personally listened to Jesus recite parables and assume that he was giving factual/historical examples in his teachings. Would that mean that Jesus was dishonest in his method?

It depends on your definition of “dishonest.” It is my understanding that Jesus used parables to with-hold truths from those that were not spiritually ready. Under some definitions with-holding truths qualifies as dishonest. I do not personally believe that Jesus was dishonest, but it just goes to show how murky the line can get between honesty and dishonesty. Is it dishonest if you 100% believe and swear by something that turns out to be false? Is it dishonest if you withhold information because you believe the other person is not ready for or would be damaged by the information? Would it be dishonest if JS really did have visions that revealed powerful spiritual truths but felt that he had to put them into the mouths of ancient prophets in order for them to be taken seriously? Would it be dishonest if something much harder for an observer to understand was going on – like spirit writing were Joseph himself wasn’t sure how it was coming through him?

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Excellent clarification Wayfarer, but I can’t help but throw in my 2 cents:

The simple explanation is the assumption of Joseph and many people of his day was that the mounds and artifacts that they observed came from an ancient Israelite civilization that had migrated to the Americas and were the ancestors of the natives. Because Joseph automatically associated and mingled that assumption with the revelations that he received does not necessarily mean that God was the author of it.

I believe it is possible that some observer could have personally listened to Jesus recite parables and assume that he was giving factual/historical examples in his teachings. Would that mean that Jesus was dishonest in his method?

great two cents — I agree.

Of course jesus would not be dishonest in using parable and metaphor to teach. iirc, his disciples were quite frustrated over his teaching in parables — it didn’t seem straightforward to them. But given that he did it, it should say something about our ability to look at scripture more as a guide and less as a literal history or fact book.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It is my understanding that Jesus used parables to with-hold truths from those that were not spiritually ready.

Fwiw, I don’t buy that, no matter who has said it or where it is said. Parables generally aren’t meant to withhold; they are meant to teach in an open-ended way that allows for multiple conclusions and understandings. I much prefer that view, and the two views are diametrically opposed. One is meant to hide; the other is meant to enlighten.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I don’t buy that, no matter who has said it or where it is said. Parables generally aren’t meant to withhold; they are meant to teach in an open-ended way that allows for multiple conclusions and understandings. I much prefer that view, and the two views are diametrically opposed. One is meant to hide; the other is meant to enlighten.

Well I said it right here (mock indignation 😡 👿 😈 ), but you are correct that I derived that view from others. I actually prefer your perspective to the withheld truth one (even though it hurts my argument that using half truths is sometimes ok and that sometimes the ends do justify the means). It saddens me when we as people are given a key to a parable and then we stop pondering the meaning because the “key” is already given to us. For me I have really enjoyed thinking about the possible symbolism of Lehi’s dream – but sometimes people try to shut me down because Nephi already interpreted his father’s dream.

[Anonymous]

I just wish that JS and the other spiritual leaders would have been clearer, like I saw God the father and his son in a dream, Morori came to me in a dream, the BOA was inspired not translated. If I told my wife I made the house payment and then we get a notice saying the house payment is late and I explain that I made the house payment in my head it wouldn’t be a lie but it would cause problems for my wife. I don’t want faith to be that hard. I have faith God loves me but I want to see and feel that love on occasion. If the suicide of my daughter was just to teach me lesson then I am going to be pissed.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I just wish that JS and the other spiritual leaders would have been clearer.

When you read Joseph’s account of Moroni’s visit, it is hard to read it carefully and analytically and not conclude that it was a vision, as opposed to a visitation. The sleeping arrangements alone almost dictate that conclusion. Also, Joseph called his encounter with the Father and the Son a “vision”.

In their time and culture, they actually were as clear as they needed to be. Generally speaking, the people of that time understood what was being claimed much better than we do now. As time passed and expectations / perspectives / worldviews changed, the common meanings began to morph accordingly. (For example, the First Vision becoming a visitation and rising to the top of the evidence chain.) We now live in a time (and have for a while) when visions are not valued as much as “real” experiences (and I put that word in quotation marks intentionally to make a point). We forget that too often, since our time and culture are SO radically different than theirs and we tend to emphasize our own paradigms.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

I don’t want faith to be that hard. I have faith God loves me but I want to see and feel that love on occasion. If the suicide of my daughter was just to teach me lesson then I am going to be pissed.

Church0333, after the comment about your daughter I went back and read your introduction. I am sincerely sorry you have been through so much. Having a son with bipolar disorder, I continually worry about the very real possibility of suicide. In my line of work, I’m also familiar with the effects of TBI, effects that are often invisible to outsiders. Faith is hard to hold onto amidst so much tragedy.

I too want things to be more straight forward. In Elder Holland’s recent conference talk, he spoke of God having only imperfect humans in which to accomplish his work and how frustrating that may be for him. I think much of the complexities are man-made constructs to explain the complexities of life, especially things we don’t understand such as what happens after we die or what happens to those who never learn of Christ in this life. I suspect Gods plan is really very simple, maybe little more than we came to this Earth to better learn how to love.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

In one of the most misquoted scriptures in the bible by mormons, Jesus said to the Scribes (Self-appointed interpreters of scripture), and Pharisees (rabbinical jews who built a fence around the law based upon scripture and their talmudic traditions): “Ye search the scriptures, thinking that in them ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” Thus, the purpose of scripture is not to contain a history. Scriptures are not to be used to teach science. Scriptures need not be accurate to history in the least. Scriptures have one purpose: to point to Christ, the personal experience with the divine. And once one has connected with the divine, the scriptures are like a well within a lake of pristine water.

As we study the history of scripture, much of it was created, like the book of mormon, as a tome of ancient revelation and guidance. If you read how Graf and Wellhausen laid out the documentary hypothesis, Graf realized that the Torah wasn’t Moses words at all, that the stories in Genesis were mythologically based, and in fact self-contradictory as the redactor quoted the J and E accounts one after another. (two creations, two flood myths, etc.) Most importantly, however, Graf said that if the production of scripture was by prophetic process, then what did it matter if Moses didn’t write it?

The origin story of Deuteronomy is especially illuminating. In the midst of attempting to reform Judaism and bring people to righteousness shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, King Josiah sought for a divine approval for his reforms. In 2 Kings 22, Josiah asks Hilkiah, the Highh Priest, to go clean up the temple, which has fallen into disrepair. This is symbolic — The kingdom had fallen into disrepair. In the process of cleaning up the temple, Hilkiah “discovers” a book of the Law, a “second telling” (Deutero) of the “law” (nomos). Orthodox Jews and Christians accept that this discovery was of an ancient personal testimony of Moses, written by his own hand, and it may well be that HIlkiah and Josiah used such a qualification to lend authority to the book of Deuteronomy, even if the language of the text was clearly from the current time. It was absolutely not written by Moses, but in my impression, by well meaning prophets under inspiration from God. Pawning off Deuteronomy as an ancient work with Moses as its literal author was a bit of pious fraud — but the work itself was not fraudulent in the least: in it, the most critical statement of the Law is given: the Shema – “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is One, and thou shalt love the Lord thy god with all thy heart might mind and strength”.

Why then should we claim that the book of Mormon was produced in any other way than the Prophet and High Priest Hilkiah did under Josiah’s leadership? Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham in nearly the exact same way that Deuteronomy was created. And, Joseph promoted the books as ancient works, one from gold plates, and the other from papyrus, written by Abraham’s own hand. The work itself is revelation, the means of getting peoples attention to it seems a bit problematic, when viewed in our current lens. But Joseph may well have thought he was ‘translating’ when indeed he was ‘revealing’ — I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

Brilliant post. It fits. Almost.

This might be at risk of a derail… But… What about the Gold plates?

The gold plates are a bit of a thorn in the side of the ‘inspired translation’ approach.

The presence of something of substance offers only 4 options:

1) the plates were real. He was guided by God to find them and they served as the basis (or muse) for his translation/dictation.

2) the plates were real. In his treasure hunting he finally found something and then imagined/dreamed up the rest.

3) the plates were fake. Joseph made something (and wrapped it in a blanket) to convince/deceive others. The various witnesses never saw anything other than a fake item (possibly wrapped).

4) there were no plates at. Most of the 1820s associates were ‘in’ on the fraud but managed to all stay quiet about it to their deaths.

Much as I’d want it to, I’m not sure where your model fits in that. 3? Well intentioned, even inspired fraud? Or maybe 1? God guided him to find whatever was needed to inspire a reaction. But if one believes God can do that, why not just believed that he also got another prophet to make and bury them 1200 years earlier.

2 and 4 just make it sound like one big con.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

The presence of something of substance offers only 4 options:

I personally believe that if the plates where physical or spiritual doesn’t matter. The BOA, the Greek falter (sp), kinderhook plates, and Zelph the white Lamanite bones – all tell me that when Joseph found a muse or a physical catalyst for his revelation then the actual item and the revelation are no longer tied together. IOW, JS’s revelations had nothing to do with the actual history of the “muse” items. JS’s “translation” of the bible was similar especially where he inserted big chunks of text that were not there in the KJV. There is also a precedent in the D&C of an anchient document that was spiritually shown to JS but never physically in his possesion.

The vision of the cave at hill cumorah is what really seals it in my mind. Now we are talking about an entire room full of artefacts and the final resting place of the golden plates. There has been no discovery of void in the hill, though some have tried. Geologically this hill could not sustain a natural cave. “The geologic unlikelihood of a cave existing within the hill such as the one described suggests that the experience related by the various witnesses was most likely a vision, or a divine transportation to another locale (as with Nephi’s experience in 1 Nephi 11:1).” (FAIR Wiki) If the Gold Plates were physical then it sure throws a wrench into the interpretation to have them returned to Moroni through a visionary experience.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=13&num=1&id=338

I agree with Ray that when carefully looking at the many angelic accounts from early in the restoration there are clues that what is being described is a visionary experience, “as opposed to a visitation.”

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Brilliant post. It fits. Almost.

This might be at risk of a derail… But… What about the Gold plates?

The gold plates are a bit of a thorn in the side of the ‘inspired translation’ approach.

The presence of something of substance offers only 4 options:

1) the plates were real. He was guided by God to find them and they served as the basis (or muse) for his translation/dictation.

2) the plates were real. In his treasure hunting he finally found something and then imagined/dreamed up the rest.

3) the plates were fake. Joseph made something (and wrapped it in a blanket) to convince/deceive others. The various witnesses never saw anything other than a fake item (possibly wrapped).

4) there were no plates at. Most of the 1820s associates were ‘in’ on the fraud but managed to all stay quiet about it to their deaths.

Much as I’d want it to, I’m not sure where your model fits in that. 3? Well intentioned, even inspired fraud? Or maybe 1? God guided him to find whatever was needed to inspire a reaction. But if one believes God can do that, why not just believed that he also got another prophet to make and bury them 1200 years earlier.

2 and 4 just make it sound like one big con.

there are really two decisions here, and while they are related, decoupling them serves a purpose:

1. Did Joseph Smith reveal the material in the book of mormon by the gift and power of god?

This is subjective. we have the book. it evidences teachings many consider to be inspired and fully consistent with the gospel. this comes down to testimony and faith, as with all subjective assertions of religious things.

2. What about the plates?

first, there is the highly likely probability that we will never know for sure…which makes this objective claim a historical unknowable, and thus any assertion about it speculation.

you correctly identified potential position cases about the plates. except for case 1, some degree of fraud is involved. to those who believe that the delivery of divine things cannot involve fraud, then if one is subjectively convinced that the book is divine, then case 1 is the only possible position.

but for 2500 years, people have been claiming that deuteronomy is the writing of moses, and even jesus christ — god by the christian definition — quoted the Shema as scripture. this disproves the notion that divine things must also have perfectly divine provenance. the fact of the matter is that even a defective being can bring forth a divine work…and if so, then we, too, as defective beings, can bring forth divine works.

my opinion is this: as mature saints, we need to stop mythologizing our founders and leaders. we need to stop avoiding the evidence that the book of mormon is nonhistorical, and embrace the stunningly unintuitive conclusion that a completely weak and defective being, one who had a penchant for storytelling and treasure-seeking cons, broought forth a singularly divine work and a wonder.

and while the book of mormon may be divine, and in my faith it is, the more uniquely divine products of the restoration are:

1. the open canon — the book of mormon was the necessary icebreaker. we believe that god reveals constantly to all of us.

2. a recognition that revelation works (and has always worked) within the mind and emotions of the prophet.

3. god works through natural laws

4. humanity is divine — there is a deep reality around the plan of salvation. the symbols and terms we use to describe it do not do it justice, and fall far short of the mark.

5. universalism: all god’s children are somehow redeemed, and all humans deserve the deep reverence as children of god.

6. existentialism: “there is no such thing as immaterial matter”.

7. the gospel is merely “all truth” — regardless of source, and we should openly seek all truth without the confirmation bias of creedal dogma.

these, to me, are “pure mormonism”.

when we face, full-on, the idea that a fraudulent act brought forth a divine work, then we must abandon the platonic ideal as our definition of god — the single most pernicious part of the judeo-christian concept of god, and we immediately have to come to a new paradigm, one embodied by the seven principles above. christianity and correlated mormonism have the wrong paradigm, based upon an impossible, platonic and creedal definition of god and reality:

1. Canon is closed, except for a major event where the church is threatened if it doesn’t change doctrine, nothing changes. the church has painted itself into a dogmatic corner by canonizing a nineteenth-century worldview as being accurate, infallible, and inerrant truth. Absent any leader with Joseph Smith’s audacity to credentialize his ideas as being “direct revelation from god”, canon cannot change.

2. Revelation is supernatural dictation, perfectly reflecting the word of god, and is infallible. (this explains why the humans who run the church don’t declare any teaching as revelation for certain, because the are at least self aware enough to know tat they aren’t absolutely certain — they are victims of the mythologizing of direct revelation)

3. god is supernatural: all powerful, all knowing, all good – he is the ideal, unchanging from everlasting to everlasting. therefore whatever he proclaims must be perfect.

4. the natural man is an enemy of god, totally depraved, and the world is going to hell, and there is no way fallible humans can be gods in this life (even if the psalmist and jesus said otherwise).

5. only those who believe a specific set of claims will be saved, despite compelling evidence to the contrary. the lost are the empty chairs.

6. all things were created spiritually before they were created physically, thus our physical existence is necessarily something less than ideal, and falls short of the “plan”.

7. truth is defined as what the church teaches. if anything is in conflict with what the church teaches, it cannot be true, despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

as long as we hold onto any of the above seven concepts, the pious fraud of joseph smith is too cognitively dissonant to accept and have faith survive. therefore, apologists defend book of mormon historicity at all costs, and for most who don’t buy the apologetics and realize the fraud, faith becomes untenable.

thus, to me, the answer to the false dichotomy of “its either true or fraud” is…it’s both, in the grand tradition of all scripture. and in facing this paradox, one is enlightened by setting aside paradigms that no longer work.

[Author]

Posts