- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fwiw, modern written Japanese is a good example of a language that developed in much the same way as Reformed Egyptian appears to have developed – again, based only on what the BofM actually says about it (which is next to nothing). Quote:The BoM is supposed to be a history book, so I think it’s fair game for criticism.
Spacious Maze, I must disagree with the first part of this statement. The BoM is first and foremost a spiritual book. The Bible is also a spiritual book. When we attempt to try to turn it into a history book, it is a lousy history book. Most history books I know of reference source materials, are written by a group of scholars, and are very specific about dates, locations, etc. If we were to look at most people’s diaries, they leave out obvious events. For example, I have a journal, but haven’t written about the birth of any of my children. If I were to die today, you might think I had no children. How could I leave out such an obvious fact? I’m not even sure I’ve written about my marriage–I better pull it out and catch up on some things. But if someone read my mission journal, they would know I had a testimony.
As for the 2nd part of your statement, I too think it is ok to examine the BoM critically. I think it’s fine to look at anachronisms, and other areas in which it might be weak. Some will conclude differently than I do. But to try to turn the BoM or Bible into a history book when it’s primary purpose is spiritual is a real misapplication of it’s purpose. Trying to turn a newspaper into a history book would be equally problematic, as the newspaper often contains incomplete or inaccurate information, and is subject to the bias of the reporters. Certainly we would take great issue with the worldview of Soviet-era Pravda newspapers as an accurate representation of history.
This is a wonderful thread, thanks to all of you. The Church can keep supporting the Book of Mormon even with its problems because by and large it is clear that most General Autorities have a testimony that it is true and historical. I agree with them, I was converted by the Book of Mormon, received an overpowering testimony of it that I cannot explain by any other method except for God and am willing to work out the problems as they come. Part of the problem with the early teaching in the church is this emphasis on the Book of Mormon being “the most correct book ever written”. Well in terms of spiritual concepts that is absolutely true BUT in terms of the nuts and bolts of (let’s use Ray’s word here ) transmission there are a lot of issues but I think most of them have to do with Joseph’s own limited understanding and capacity. As Emma said, at the time Joseph really couldn’t even write a decent letter.
Bill Atkinson wrote:This is a wonderful thread, thanks to all of you.
The Church can keep supporting the Book of Mormon even with its problems because by and large it is clear that most General Autorities have a testimony that it is true and historical. I agree with them, I was converted by the Book of Mormon, received an overpowering testimony of it that I cannot explain by any other method except for God and am willing to work out the problems as they come. Part of the problem with the early teaching in the church is this emphasis on the Book of Mormon being “the most correct book ever written”. Well in terms of spiritual concepts that is absolutely true BUT in terms of the nuts and bolts of (let’s use Ray’s word here ) transmission there are a lot of issues but I think most of them have to do with Joseph’s own limited understanding and capacity. As Emma said, at the time Joseph really couldn’t even write a decent letter.
It does say…”most correct”, not perfect. It’s ok for it to have some flaws. Even the authors of the different books stop to acknowledge their own faulty limitations. I think the beauty is that God works inspite of it all. And perhaps it is ok that we argue in our heads a little about the flaws. Maybe that just points us to the better, more effective forms of revelation.
Mormon Heretic, you make an excellent point. Now, I never said the BoM was a goodhistory book, I just take what the church says about it; that it’s a recordof the people. The problem I see in treating it otherwise, is the difficulty in discerning between inspired truth and a truth that is a spiritual necessity. I read a ton of literature and have felt the spirit when seeing truth in all sorts of beautiful writings. Is there a difference between the goodness I receive from novels, poetry, philosophy and the truth in scripture? If the BoM were a book of inspirational stories, proverbs and philosophies, I would feel much more at ease. But my criticism derives from the claims regarding the scripture; that is has consequences in our salvation, that it is
needed. Stage 4 ramble.
My history books in school may be accurate (as far as I can tell), but don’t inspire my soul to be better. Cookbooks tell me step by step instructions…but they don’t make me a good chef. I think the Book of Mormon achieves its purpose…helps me feel closer to God.
Heber13 wrote:My history books in school may be accurate (as far as I can tell), but don’t inspire my soul to be better. Cookbooks tell me step by step instructions…but they don’t make me a good chef.
I think the Book of Mormon achieves its purpose…helps me feel closer to God.
And that’s exactly what it’s supposed to do. In my limited and shallow opinion I believe the details and proof that we would all like to see and some of us demand run contrary to God’s plan of exercising faith, and commitment first. I believe that the stronger(braver) person is the one who believes and walks according to that belief with no proofs available in sight than the one who is willing to walk only after the security of the proof. I do not believe we will receive much if any proofs of the BofM until we all learn to accept it IMNSHO.I’m really enjoying this thread also, and I appreciate everyone’s very intelligent comments. Thank you
Hi. When I talked about inherent racism, I was meaning that the BofM reflected the racial mores of the early 1800s rather than those of the time of the Book of Mormon. I find that the descriptions of the Lamanites as wild and ferocious in Alma 17 mirror the prevalant views about native americans among whites in the 1820s. Again, reading the book ‘1491’ really educated me about the complexity of culture and the intellectual and technical achievements of peoples in the Americas. Understanding that applying current attitudes and morales to another time is a mistake, it still concerns me that these racial attitudes are included as part of God’s teachings through inspired prophets via holy scripture. On a side note, I find it interesting that we do apply our current attitudes to our interpretations of the past: I mean, you didn’t see any polygamy, poor grooming, coffee drinking or tobacco use in the movie ‘Legacy’ did you? Yet, this all existed during the crossing of the plains. Only characters who are cleaned up and made to fit out current concept of Mormonism were included in the movie’s cast, so that it doesn’t antagonize our sense of self or cause confusion to the outside world. “Legacy” as with many church productions, cannot be viewed as accurate history. They are primarily a marketing tool. Most of the outward characteristics of how we currently perceive ourselves as Mormons: conservative dress and grooming and Word of Wisdom focus for example, was instituted during Heber J. Grant’s tenure. Heber J. Grant was a practicing polygamist, long after the manifesto, and this too assaults our sense of ‘mormon-ness’, and is never included in any church education materials.
It is very interensting how what is accepted one day is not accepted another. I am always amazed at what we are allowed to get away with just because it’s part of our culture. I had a woman on my mission reading and loving the BofM until she got to the part where the Lamanites got cursed. She cried racism too. That was the end of the discussions. I never really looked at it like that. I understood it how the book explained it, a curse for rebellion. I never understood why there was a warning against racial integration. I don’t think that it was to keep the religion pure like in the Old Testament with the Isrealites and the gentile nations. I don’t think the Lamanites themselves had a very pure blood line after a bit because of 600 years of desentions. So who knows?
I guess if you wanted to flip things around, and instead of, “Oh the poor dark Lamanites getting picked on by the mean evil white Nephites,” who was it that after indulging in a culture of muder was able to be forgiven of the Lord? Who’s more favored now? Also who was it that primarily taught their children to hate the other? The Lamanites.
But I suppose if the BofM was written under the racial context of Joseph Smith’s day I can totally understand your point. Why wouldn’t he call the Indians “wild and ferocious?” Also it sounds horrible and un-Christlike to separate one group of people from another and do that by distinguishing them by their color. At first glance it can look truly racist. I suppose some of this is what has engendered a tone of racial intolerance from some of our early church members. But, tolerance is reigning now and the BofM stays the same.
But I think the BofM does a horrible job of painting the Lamanites in a bad light. Sure it describes their lack of civilization for a while but lets look at how kind it is to them.
1. Lehi promises that they will never be destroyed.
2. Book of Mormon written for the intent that the Lamanites might believe and come unto Christ.
3. Nephites constantly trying to convert them to Christ in a spirit of brotherly love, they were bretheren, and the Nephites considered them such.
4. Nephites gladly and willingly accepting the people of Ammon and gave them lands for inheritance.
5. 2060 warriors miraculously protected by God and called sons by Helaman.
6. Less hard hearted than the Nephite dissenters and willing to never go back to war.
7. Joined with and protected by the Nephites from the Gadianton Robbers.
8. At the end of the BofM the promises once again described, involved in the building of the New Jeruselem, like lions among the prey, and Mormon and Moroni’s pleading to be believing and praying that they get this record. THE BOOK OF MORMON HAS DONE NOTHING BUT EXPRESS THE GREATEST HOPE AND LOVE FOR THE LAMANITES. Can’t be racist then, can it?
I think it’s a good study for racism, but looking at it from a Christ loving point of view, racism claims don’t really hold water.
This thought just came to me too. As I listed above there are some pretty positive things about the Lamanites in the BofM. Of course it was written by prophets who were close to Christ. I guess you could say that they had put away the “Natural Man.”
The BofM portrays the general Nephite public as having a rather sour view of the Lamanites. They looked down on them and thought that they were dirty sinful trash that salvation could have no claim to. Sometimes they were warned that their sins exceeded that of the Lamanites. They could only use that comparison in the same way as Christ told the Pharasees that the Samaritan was more neighbor than they.
But here’s what I’m getting at. I believe that racism is a product of the “Natural Man.” It is part of our base self. I think it is HARD WIRED into us all. My theory goes like this. The BofM may be an example to us all. You have the general population of base humans who have some racism, and then you have those who have invited the Spirit of the Lord into their lives and have risen above racism, like the guys who wrote it, the prophets, teachers and priests, or anyone who was spiritually alive. They seemed to have an increase of love for the Lamanites. It would make sense to me that if the rest of us today could tap into that and rise above being a base “Natural Man,” then there would be less racism and the world would be a better place.
You might be interested in the following post that lays out my own view on how the description of the Lamanites by the Nephites might have come to be: “Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflections-from-mixed-race-family.html Can I just say I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and lively posts!!! This forum is wonderful, and, although I understand why it cannot be, I would really love it if this kind of discussion could be had in a gospel doctrine class!!! Thanks for all the responses. SilentStruggle, the bloggernacle IS much better than Gospel Doctrine, precisely because we can talk openly here. Sorry, I don’t know about the ‘bloggernacle’. I know about the ‘meganacle, aka Conference Center! 
I helped build that meganacle. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.