Moroni 10:5 and no longer believing

[Anonymous]

Since many members of this list have become disillusioned with the Book of Mormon, I am wondering if any of you who are originally had a testimony of it based on the passage in Moroni, I believe 10:5, which says that if you read the BofM with an open heart and pray about it then you will receive confirmation that it is true? And if so, how do you reconcile that original confirmation with your disillusionment today? I never had the experience myself but many Mormons insist that they have. Is there anyway to reconcile having the experience with the problems that the BoM poses as to its veracity? Does anyone think the experience is transferable to other books? I mean if one really, really, really wants to believe the Koran is true, and opens one’s heart, and humbles oneself, and prays about it, would one get the same confirmation? I am just curious what list members might have to say about these issues?

[Anonymous]

I would say that my interpretation of these kinds of experiences has morphed over time. But this has to do with my assumptions about the experience of having a prayer “answered,” and the meaning I create from those experiences. The experience is just that — an experience. The experience is real, but what does it mean? That’s the question!

I think what you are getting at is the assumption that a good/positive feeling (coming from our intuition, subconscious or the divine) as an answer to prayer means something is factually true. I didn’t always have the same nuanced and complex view of scripture (religious holy books) that I have today, but I don’t really think I ever had a strong attachment to the factual elements of religious mythology. I have felt that the Book of Mormon is true, but I always thought of that in the context that it contained a message for me from God. It did. It continues to do so, sometimes. I have gotten a lot of personal, spiritual and religious value out of the Book of Mormon. So does that make it true for me or not? What if it is a totally made up story? I decided it doesn’t change my experience. I like many of the concepts in the BoM. I don’t have to believe it all, use it all, value it all, OR reject it all.

I was not so concerned about Nephi being a real person in 600 BC, swords made of steel, horses, a specific geographical location, etc. etc. I assumed that it was a history book, but that isn’t really necessary for it to be meaningful and useful as a religious book. That totally misses the point. And let me be clear, I am not saying for sure it isn’t a history book. I don’t know. I find the exploration of that idea interesting, but it isn’t really the point of religion to me.

I know why most religions push that literal view though. We do this in Mormonism. In their framework, it creates a sense of a moral imperative to accept a whole chain of assumptions and expectations they insist are attached to the “scripture.” For example:

-If the Book of Mormon is “true” (whatever that means), then Joseph Smith is a prophet.

-If Joseph Smith is a prophet (whatever that means), then everything he said and did must be true, and we must obey.

-If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and there was “true” succession, then the leaders of the Church today must be true too, and should be obeyed.

On and on and on and on… Buy into the first premise, and you must buy into all the others? That is the assumption that is promoted. It doesn’t have to be that way though. The chain of connection linking each piece to the other is only a construct in people’s personal view of faith.

Can someone pray about the Qur’an to know it’s true? Yup. I have met people that did that and got an answer. I have no problem accepting that. What does that mean? To me, it means there is a message from God in that book for them. Their intuition, their spiritual self, is telling them to travel that journey. Does it mean that the angel Gabriel literally dictated all the words in the Qur’an to the Prophet Mohammed? I don’t know. That’s an interesting idea to explore, but again … it misses the point.

[Anonymous]

I no longer believe the BOM is literal history nor do I believe in the process of which it was supposedly brought to life. That doesn’t mean the book isn’t good or doesn’t help people become closer to Christ or goodness in general.

At the time I read it, to “know” if it was true, my boyfriend was leaving on a mission. We were both 18 and I thought (and still think) that he was my soulmate. My heart and head would have believed just about anything at that point. Whatever I had to do to be with him – I was going to do or at least honestly try. I prayed – I felt good … and got baptised. We got married .. sealed. I stopped believing in the BOM being literal history a year later and honestly it doesn’t matter. I don’t agree with the truth of the entire church depending on the validity of the BOM. I think if my husband believed the Koran was the truth … I would have believed in that also at the time. I have come to realize that the truthfulness of the BOM holds no place in my day to day life – If I what I read in it helps make me a better mom, wife or friend .. Sweet! If passages in it irritate me it goes back under the bed. I must admit I haven’t been reading ANY books really for the past year. My life is already busy enough with a one year old.

When I read and prayed that it was true – It was true. It was true for me. I learned some things about it and my perception changed – But that just means it is no longer my truth …. but can still be someone else’s. (I’ll never be 100% sure …. I could always be wrong and I openly accept that fact)

When I was five I believed Santa was true – He was real to me. I learned eventually that he wasn’t “true” in the way that I once thought he was. – But even though he is no longer my truth … I have no right to take that truth from another five year old. (I still look for a sleigh on Christmas Eve – we did it when we were little …. and it wouldn’t surprise me too much if I happened to see it one day .. anything can happen )

[Anonymous]

curt wrote:

Since many members of this list have become disillusioned with the Book of Mormon, I am wondering if any of you who are originally had a testimony of it based on the passage in Moroni, I believe 10:5, which says that if you read the BofM with an open heart and pray about it then you will receive confirmation that it is true? And if so, how do you reconcile that original confirmation with your disillusionment today?

I did pray about whether to join the Church, and when I got a confirmation, I just accepted the Book of Mormon might be true, read it 10 times, and tried to live its principles. I felt peace after reading it many times, and also felt this overwhelming desire to want to do good, and to avoid the mistakes that people profiled in the Book of Mormon made. . It was as if the landscape of man’s relationship with God was exposed to me to benefit from — like one observes the mistakes of others and resolves not to make the same mistakes themselves. Without really thinking about it, I felt Moroni’s promise was someething I had experienced first hand

When I came to this site, I still believed it and didn’t even question it. The historical problems didn’t seem to bother me as I’d written it all off as faith-detracting anti-Mormon hokus to be shunned. However, after spending time here, I realized it didn’t have to be be true to be beneficial, and even started doubting its origins. But this doubt hasn’t hurt me in any way….

Why? Reading it DID bring me peace, just as reading “First Things First” by Covey inspired me for a while. So did a book by Hugh Prather called “Notes to myself” and the movie Ghandi did. It does provide me with ways of helping people make sense of their lives given some of its passages and principles. The article Nathan wrote “Is Shrek True, is the Book of Mormon true” epitomizes how I view that book now – the stories in it provide examples of how to react to spiritually challenging situations, and provide a theoretical framework to impose on life’s ambiguity. I still revere it as possibly inspired, the same way John Milton claimed his work “Paradise Lost” was inspired. I don’t outright reject its origins as false, but I don’t accept them wholeheartedly as true either. In fact the origins are incidental to the message of the book. For example, I don’t care if Covey wrote “First Things First” or Kermit the Frog wrote it — the ideas in it are what compels me to embrace it in my life.

I still turn to it first, over and above the Bible for passages to share with others, or for reading. I love the Book for what it’s done for me in the present.

[Anonymous]

curt wrote:

Since many members of this list have become disillusioned with the Book of Mormon, I am wondering if any of you who are originally had a testimony of it based on the passage in Moroni, I believe 10:5, which says that if you read the BofM with an open heart and pray about it then you will receive confirmation that it is true? And if so, how do you reconcile that original confirmation with your disillusionment today? I never had the experience myself but many Mormons insist that they have. Is there anyway to reconcile having the experience with the problems that the BoM poses as to its veracity? Does anyone think the experience is transferable to other books? I mean if one really, really, really wants to believe the Koran is true, and opens one’s heart, and humbles oneself, and prays about it, would one get the same confirmation? I am just curious what list members might have to say about these issues?

If you don’t want to believe or think the reasons to doubt it are too strong to ignore then it should be fairly easy to dismiss any warm fuzzy feelings about the BoM or the Church in general as simply being a case of your own mind playing tricks on you with emotions that didn’t necessarily come from God. Yes, I think someone could easily convince themselves that the Koran is “true” the same way if that’s what they really want to believe in. I read somewhere that there is some embedded “numerology” in the Koran that supposedly proves that it had to be written through supernatural assistance because an illiterate man like Muhammad couldn’t possibly have thought of this on his own and it couldn’t be mere coincidence. This reminds me of the Jeffrey R. Holland talk about the BoM where he said:

Quote:

Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died…None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

The general idea seems to be that if you can’t really explain why or how Joseph Smith would have produced the BoM with such a fantastic story about its origin then he must have been a real prophet and this supposedly puts a divine stamp of approval on the LDS Church. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that even if the BoM did come directly from God exactly as advertized (which I doubt) it still wouldn’t mean that the LDS Church is everything that it claims to be at this point. For example, maybe JS was a fallen prophet and then Brigham Young followed his bad example of using religion to further his own personal interests.

The Book of Mormon by itself is not really that essential to the current theology of the LDS Church because many of the distinguishing LDS doctrines like temple marriage, priesthood, and the WoW are conspicuously absent from the book. However, admitting that it might be fictional the way the CoC/RLDS Church has done is basically an intolerable idea to the LDS Church because this would seriously undermine their claims about exclusive authority and being the one and only true Church. Oh well, just because they say it doesn’t mean I need to believe it.

[Anonymous]

I had a true BOM experience. What it means is subject to interpretation. To me, it means Mormonism is something I am better off committing to live. I am a better person. I can experience spirituality in this way. I don’t think the Moroni promise specifically applies to other books, but prayer applies to spiritual path in all cases – so in a general sense it does, just not specifically. Even after I had my experience with the BOM, it didn’t change the issues I have long had with the book. Yet I do find it a useful spiritual guide often. I’m on the fence about its historicity, but it is a very Christian book and gives good advice to those who want to follow Christ’s example.

Personally, I think answers to prayer are always about action, not belief. I received an answer about course of action, but I’m not sure it really changed my opinion about the BOM as a historical book; just about what to do.

[Anonymous]

curt, since I’ve never had the type of burning in the bosom feeling about the BofM that you reference, how I end up viewing it really doesn’t matter much to me. My “testimony” of it actually is based on the fact that I simply love it – and that it has “spoken to me” since I was very young. It’s more than a little ironic that much of the peace I have with regard to my heterodox views rests on the foundation of those views beginning when I was VERY young while reading and falling in love with the Book of Mormon – and realizing I was understanding it differently than anyone else I knew. Thus, I’ve had obviously heterodox views from as far back literally as I can remember – and it all began with the BofM.

I think it’s a wonderful book – absolutely inspired. Therefore, given other intellectual foundations, I accept it at face value for what it claims to be. I certainly am open to other interpretations, but this one’s the one that I like now and that works best for me currently.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I wouldn’t call it being ‘disillusioned’ as much as ‘disabused of certain notions for which there is no compelling evidence or other reason to believe’. I guess disillusioned works as well, but to me the word has other negative connotations. Though I consider myself as someone who has had a spritual experience about the book, I am now free to accept or reject the BoM, or parts of it, as I see fit, always looking for the good and learning to appreciate how it can be meaningful to me. Recently I have thought it would be instructive to take a page out of Thomas Jefferson’s book (pun intended) and excise the parts that either don’t speak to me or that I have a real problem with, and see what I end up with.

Brian, I really liked your analysis, and how you pointed out that the logic that we so often use on converts, and on one another, is not the only way to see things. We have so many notions that are quite often nothing more than traditions, and it can be really exciting to recognize them for what they are and then ask ourselves if we want to keep them as part of our worldview or not in the happy knowledge that we can answer either way.

Conversely, I wonder how many people would allow that some honest folks have sincerely read and prayed about the BoM but have never been given the answer that Moroni promises. The SMA that they either weren’t sincere enough or didn’t pray hard enough is frustrating to me.

[Anonymous]

I agree with your last paragraph completely, doug. We tend to extrapolate our own experiences onto others as expectations, and I think we do unto others unjustly when that happens. When we say God speaks to all in their own language, I believe strongly that it isn’t talking about only mortal communication mechanisms. I have to admit that there are multiple spiritual languages, as well – and mine isn’t the best for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Conversely, I wonder how many people would allow that some honest folks have sincerely read and prayed about the BoM but have never been given the answer that Moroni promises. The SMA that they either weren’t sincere enough or didn’t pray hard enough is frustrating to me.

I prayed about the BoM the most as a missionary and never had any answer one way or another so just took it for granted that it was what it claimed to be. It wasn’t until years later that I found that reading it became more and more difficult because of the language and style and the anachronisms. I read it the last time in response to Pres. Hinckley’s challenge and all I could see were the problems magnified. I haven’t been able to read it since and haven’t been able to teach a lesson and use it or give a talk and quote it. It’s like fingernails on a blackboard. I agree about the truths that are there but they’re Christian principles that stand by themselves. I just can’t ignore the assertion that underlies it that it’s a translation of an ancient record. I was believing enough back then to think that God would answer but he didn’t so I just soldiered on hoping for an assurance one way or another. It didn’t happen then and I don’t think trying to spin it by saying the the historicity or whatever doesn’t matter will make it any more believable now.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

It’s like fingernails on a blackboard.

I understand exactly what you mean.

Quote:

It didn’t happen then and I don’t think trying to spin it by saying the the historicity or whatever doesn’t matter will make it any more believable now.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I am ambivalent about the book. I have a very good friend who has shared in my struggles (though from a slightly different perspective — he’s an Idealist) but who is able to find truths that work for him in the BoM. I lean on his experience and hope that I’ll also be able to find those things that inspire and uplift. I’ve no doubt I will, and when I do, I expect I will take them at face value only. But I think there are times for me when the only thing to do is to put it aside, as you seem to have done. Lately, I concentrate ‘scripture reading time’ on the NT. Interestingly, with my new-found perspective, the NT seems to be much more full of meaning than it used to be. Not sure why that is yet.

[Anonymous]

I think I have a testimony of it, but yes, the archeological side just doesn’t fit. Oddly enough the Old World Arabian stuff seems to work best… but Mayas as Nephites? Probably not…

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

…It’s like fingernails on a blackboard…I just can’t ignore the assertion that underlies it that it’s a translation of an ancient record…I don’t think trying to spin it by saying the the historicity or whatever doesn’t matter will make it any more believable now.

I really don’t think people try to spin it as if the historicity doesn’t matter to try to make it more believable to others as much as simply to say that the question of whether or not it is historical is not really that important to them personally. I have also heard some apologists say that they don’t have a testimony of the history of the Church or that critics attach more importance to the Book of Abraham than most members do.

The general attitude is similar to the Mormon kid on South Park when he said he didn’t really care if Joseph Smith made it all up because what the Church teaches now is about loving your family and being nice. For some people if they feel good about the Church and like the other members then that is already a good enough reason by itself for them to want to be a part of it and they really aren’t overly concerned about the “truth” of it all. Personally, I already doubt that it is historical and suspect that maybe JS was just a “pious” fraud or outright con-man and pathological liar but I’m not going to resign my membership and make a big stink about it simply because of this difference of opinion with the traditional LDS view.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It didn’t happen then and I don’t think trying to spin it by saying the the historicity or whatever doesn’t matter will make it any more believable now.

I’ll give a couple of examples:

The story of Lehi’s Dream and the Tree of Life in 1st Nephi. I think this is a rich and deeply meaningful examination of a personal spiritual journey in life — the figurative descriptions of an iron rod, mists of darkness, fruit that is delicious and pure love, a pathway, etc. You can do a TON with that material (and I do not accept only one interpretation). Now, even in the BofM this is clearly described as a dream (like Jesus teaching in parables). Does it matter if Lehi is a real person that really went to sleep one night and had this dream? I suppose it can. But to me, the story has the same use and value either way.

I can say the same about their journey away from Jerusalem (unenlightened old life, wickedness, destruction) in search of a “Promised Land,” experiencing hunger, traveling across deep waters (symbolic of the mysteries in many mythologies). This is a story that is retold in many different forms throughout the world of religious literature.

King Benjamin’s grand sermon found in Mosiah 2 – 5. It’s a pretty cool social commentary, very idealistic and Utopian. It exemplifies the ages old notion of Philosopher-Kings. What if there really wasn’t a king named Benjamin? Does that make it no longer true?

Lastly, there’s the overall theme throughout the Book of Mormon, an observation of basic human and social nature where people suffer or want, become creative and “enlightened,” receive an abundance of prosperity, and then fall into chaos as they forget. It’s the classic 2 steps forward, 1 step back. We experience this individually. It’s also the classic cycle of civilization played out many times in the story of the BoM. Is this observation false if the BoM is fiction?

Scriptures are more like poetry than technical manuals. It works much better that way for me.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Conversely, I wonder how many people would allow that some honest folks have sincerely read and prayed about the BoM but have never been given the answer that Moroni promises. The SMA that they either weren’t sincere enough or didn’t pray hard enough is frustrating to me.

When my husband joined the church in 1972, he joined it on an intellectual testimony because the church had a more rational theology than any of the other Christian religions he had encountered. He figured the spiritual witness would come later. So, he sincerely read the Book of Mormon, and was particularly interested in Moroni’s promise that one could get a spiritual witness of this book. I still remember how he fasted and prayed for 5 days straight in a row for that witness and it never came. Soon after that he was called on a stake mission. He told our ward leaders he could not accept this calling because he could not testify that the BoM was true. The leaders promised him that if he would accept the calling, that when the time came to testify of the BofM, the spiritual witness would come. So, he accepted the calling with the hope that it would happen. It never did and after two months he asked to be released. He’s tried for over 30 years to get the witness of Moroni’s promise and it was enough. He left and decided he had to move on. The fact that the only time he actually felt the spirit once or twice was when he gave a priesthood blessing to a sister he home taught, who was in the hospital with her non-member family and just the opposite happened was the final straw for him. He thinks the church has a rational theology for many things and good people in it but to him that does not make it God’s only true church. You would not believe how many times my husband got the answer that he was not humble enough or too scientific and so the spirit could not work with him. It was so insulting to him because I know how sincere he was. My husband did talk to a visiting GA once who was speaking at a stake conference about what he experienced. Don’t recall who that was now, it was so long ago and when we lived in Oregon. But, he did tell my husband that some people seem to get an answer quickly and others have to fight and struggle for their testimony. That he did not understand why some people never got that witness and that he felt sorry for my husband. At least that was more honest.

As far as my own testimony of th BofM…it was not my favorite standard work. I did not like all the wars and repeition sayings in it. I taught it for a year when I taught GD class and there are alot of good thoughts in it. I thought it might be true when I listened to all the Nephi project videos about how these guys used the Bof M to find stuff in the middle east. But, then when I saw John Dehlins utube video about how no archelogical swords or bodies were found in Hill Cumorah and other stuff, I started doubting again. So, now I just don’t know.

[Author]

Posts