- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann wrote:Quote:
To me, it does’t sound apologetic at all. The author is outright saying not to bother trying to establish the book’s truth. Instead, focus on whether it can create a better world where people believe in it. That is the power of the book –in its ability to attract people’s hearts and change the world for the better. It doesn’t have to be true to do that — it just was to be accepted by people.
Maybe it’ll just turn out that I was born at the wrong time. It’s hard to even care about its “Truth” while everyone is haggling and creating cultural litmas tests regarding its “truth.” (I’m not sure I have the T’s right, but you know what I mean?) And because there’s so much Truth out there. I’ve been doing what the Givenses recommended: finding my own watering holes. I enjoy reading the New Testament more than the Book of Mormon, not because thousands of NT scholars have settled all their debates, but because it isn’t much of a discussion within Mormonism, and I’m not confronted every week with the realization that I don’t believe like 90% (?) of my fellow ward members, and that they’d consider me a danger to their kids in a classroom.But I need to try harder to clear all that away. So his take on it in that quote amazes me, how he really doesn’t seem to care.
Ann,..I see where you are coming from,…and it makes sense as a paradigm shift. I’m feeling myself start to settle with regards to “truth” claims (which I now reject). The next question is
how?….as in howam I going to learn to live and let live? So, from the perspective of exposing myself to, and contemplating different
paradigmshifts, this makes sense. The “truth” claim doesn’t matter–because another thoughtful question is: “is there goodness in the book as a source of helping people live good lives?” If the answer is yes (and many would accept it is a ‘yes’), then can the book be accepted, perhaps even embraced on that alone? That seems to be what you are saying here, and it is something to think about.
Old Timer wrote:Rob, do you do anything other than read?
I argue a lot.
Does that count?
Let the record show that I can’t find Solemn Covenant about Polygamy in kindle….. ARGGGGG!!!!!!
I finished the “Insiders View” this morning. Moving onto some D. Michael Quinn stuff. Will start a new thread.
I do not believe that the BoM is “fraudulent”. I do believe that it came through and largely from JS. I believe that this has everything to do with the magic world view. Today, if I were to go to a someone to perform a séance to communicate with a dead loved one – many would assume that this person would be running a scam. What are the chances that they believe in what they are doing?
JS, Sally Chase, and other’s had “peep stones” that they could use to find hidden items. Was that some sort of scam that they were running or was it somehow a method to focus the unconscious mind?
I believe that JS saw and believed in the invisible spiritual world.
Quote:The “truth” claim doesn’t matter–because another thoughtful question is: “is there goodness in the book as a source of helping people live good lives?” If the answer is yes (and many would accept it is a ‘yes’), then can the book be accepted, perhaps even embraced on that alone?
Yes!! If you can get past what you believe might be a fabrication about its origins. If you can get past that, and look at the book for its messages, then perhaps it is something you can keep at your bedside, study, and read and use to direct your thoughts and life. Just as I have a few books that sit next to my bedside and that I can’t seem to throw out. They are too full of wisdom nuggets to discard.
After saying this, I have to say, I haven’t read the BoM in many years now. I should pick it up and see what I think of it. Having such agnostic views about prophets, about baptism, about hope, about divine intervention, the sometimes destructive role of faith, organizational egocentricity, etcetera, I am not so sure whether I find it of value. But others clearly do, and it helps them live good lives. At one time, I even felt peace reading it. For those things alone, it has value.
I have often thought about taking excerpts from it — the most powerful passages, and putting them in one spiral bound book or on my Kindle, so I can gain strength from them without having my thoughts distracted or the experience tainted by the things that I find hard to accept — or that are not consistent with my life’s experiences in and out of the church.
Rob4Hope wrote:… those other people (like Oliver and Sidney) would have to be “duped”. They would have all had to of been in on it.
What is everyone’s take on that? Do you see all of these others being all in on a fraud?
No, I don’t see malicious fraud. I see true believers. There may be some examples of wanting to adjust a story because the audience can’t handle the way that God delivered it, but behind it all is a strong belief that it came from God.
Orson wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:… those other people (like Oliver and Sidney) would have to be “duped”. They would have all had to of been in on it.
What is everyone’s take on that? Do you see all of these others being all in on a fraud?
No, I don’t see malicious fraud. I see true believers. There may be some examples of wanting to adjust a story because the audience can’t handle the way that God delivered it, but behind it all is a strong belief that it came from God.
Orson,…in the book, there was a discussion about “spiritual site”. Basically it meant a type of metaphysical second site that didn’t involve actual eyes. Any ideas on this?
The discussion in the current LDS faith is (speaking about the BoM witnesses) “they saw with their eyes and felt with their hands”….the implication is physical site and physical touch. The book throws all kinds of discrepancy onto that interpretation.
Rob4Hope wrote:Orson,…in the book, there was a discussion about “spiritual site”. Basically it meant a type of metaphysical second site that didn’t involve actual eyes. Any ideas on this? The discussion in the current LDS faith is (speaking about the BoM witnesses) “they saw with their eyes and felt with their hands”….the implication is physical site and physical touch. The book throws all kinds of discrepancy onto that interpretation.
I believe that the phrase “believing is seeing” applies to all of us. What one believes and what one is raised to accept as normal plays a big role in this. I look at speaking in tongues as a good example for this. Speaking in tongues persisted in the LDS tradition, particularly in RS all women meetings up until the mid 20th century.
What do we have to say about this? Was this a gift of the spirit or a fraud? If it was a gift then why do we not seek after it today? If it was a fraud then what did these people have to gain by participating? I believe that some people were able to speak in tongues as an expression of their religious devotion. Many LDS believed that they were speaking in the undefiled Adamic language. I believe that for them it was sincere (mixed with the normal human qualities like wanting to impress everyone else by how “spiritual” you are). I believe that it died out as 1) society at large moved away from the magical worldview and 2) the church discouraged it’s use unless one had an interpreter to interpret.
In the modern church this gift has been reinterpreted to learning foreign languages for missionary service but this is not what it was in the early days.
Specifically about the BoM witnesses, I believe that they saw with the eye of faith.
Rob4Hope wrote:Orson,…in the book, there was a discussion about “spiritual site”. Basically it meant a type of metaphysical second site that didn’t involve actual eyes. Any ideas on this?
The discussion in the current LDS faith is (speaking about the BoM witnesses) “they saw with their eyes and felt with their hands”….the implication is physical site and physical touch. The book throws all kinds of discrepancy onto that interpretation.
I’m not speaking for Orson, but I am a firm believer that the first vision was in fact a vision. As such, I suppose it could be said that Joseph beheld whatever he beheld (whether it be angels, Jesus, or Jesus and Heavenly Father) with sight other than physical – that is spiritual. Joseph never claimed otherwise, and in most of the accounts outright calls it a vision and in at least one he says he beheld with spiritual eyes.
Likewise, the three witnesses don’t mention handling the plates, only seeing them “by the power of God.” The eight witnesses complicate things because they claim to have handled them. I pretty much side with Palmer (and others) on this one – I think there is great reason to doubt their claim.
I am a believer in spiritual sight, and I think it should be considered just as “real” and “true” as physical sight.
Rob4Hope wrote:Orson,…in the book, there was a discussion about “spiritual sight”. Basically it meant a type of metaphysical second site that didn’t involve actual eyes. Any ideas on this?
Yes, I have come to understand spiritual manifestations in this same way, it is not a physical event. When you hear the spirit speak to you it does not come through physical sound waves that vibrate your ear drum. If it was physical hearing then other ears nearby could also pick up the sound. In the same way if Moroni’s appearance to Joseph during the night was a physical event it would have roused his siblings who were sleeping in the same room next to him. Our expectations can easily get out of hand, as I read history this becomes obvious many times over.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.