- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tad Callister gave a devotional at BYU that was very similar to his conference talk (although longer). I thought this was a good reaction to it that still allows personal interpretation of historicity without affecting “truthfulness.” http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/tad-callister-byu-devotional-on-book-of-mormon-historicity/ I dislike Callister’s black and white framing and even cherry picking which topics to even bring up. I think there are some issue that push the BOM in the “hard to explain”, some that are real problems, and some that could go either way. The proportion of each category depends a lot on how people are critical thinkers AND how they feel they have been spiritually touched by the BOM.
I know there are some that feel “there is no way it isn’t true” and others that feel “there is no way in hell it is true”. I do think that some of the first category don’t even desire (or fear) digging into some of the problems. I do think the more you study some of the problematic issues and items surrounding it, the higher your chances of moving to the second category.
LookingHard wrote:
I dislike Callister’s black and white framing and even cherry picking which topics to even bring up.I think there are some issue that push the BOM in the “hard to explain”, some that are real problems, and some that could go either way. The proportion of each category depends a lot on how people are critical thinkers AND how they feel they have been spiritually touched by the BOM.
I know there are some that feel “there is no way it isn’t true” and others that feel “there is no way in hell it is true”. I do think that some of the first category don’t even desire (or fear) digging into some of the problems. I do think the more you study some of the problematic issues and items surrounding it, the higher your chances of moving to the second category.
I agree completely. One good point from the post is that we should stop equating “true” with historical. Callister seems to still be in the black/white camp that ties truth of the BoM with historicity. This is the stance the church is going to have to back away from. The church needs to start fostering and allowing for viewpoints that maintain its “truthfulness” being tied to spiritual truth and back away from it needing to be a historical book.
I’m in the incredulous camp myself, but I can still root for the “faith of my fathers.” I see it as a necessary shift if the church is to remain viable into the forseeable future. I love the analogy of testimonies of sand castles that wash away with the first round of serious sincere questions. Continuing to build up an unsustainable foundation (something this talk attempts to do) does not protect adequately against the tough questions.
The issues he brought up aside, I don’t care for conference talks where the spirit of the talk comes across as putting a group of people (in this case BoM critics) in their place. I believe he also mischaracterized the issues that critics have, which I’m sure drives the critics nuts, then the whole thing becomes a feedback loop of reactions based off of reactions.
It’s somewhat frustrating that we even feel that we need this kind of talk. Look how right and correct we are. Look how foolish the critics are. Look at how they grasp at straws, make strained conclusions, and build upon sandy foundations. This is very clearly NOT aimed at having productive conversation with the doubters.
It feels like a collective patting ourselves on the back.
Roy wrote:
It’s somewhat frustrating that we even feel that we need this kind of talk. Look how right and correct we are. Look how foolish the critics are. Look at how they grasp at straws, make strained conclusions, and build upon sandy foundations.This is very clearly NOT aimed at having productive conversation with the doubters.
It feels like a collective patting ourselves on the back.
Here is what it makes me think – we are so scared we fear people won’t keep believing –https://wheatandtares.org/2017/09/29/showing-some-faith-backbone/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://wheatandtares.org/2017/09/29/showing-some-faith-backbone/ churchistrue wrote:Callister wrote:It always comes back to the spirit. The very same spirit that helps me know the Bible is true is the very same spirit that helps me know the book of Mormon is true.The spirit is the decisive determining factor not archaeology not linguistics not DNA and certainly not the theories of man. The Spirit is the only witness that is sure and certain and infallible.
Excellent. Agree completely. So let’s stop using historicity as the measuring stick of truth. The spirit is in that book. Regardless of historicity.
I think I am at the point that I think historical literalness is irrelevant to the experience.Therefore, while I cannot disprove it is historical, I don’t need agreement it is not. Perhaps Callister is correct. I’m open to that possibility, but don’t believe it is likely.
But, yes…I agree…truthfulness is not dependent on historicity (which can’t be proven either way). Some find peace in believing it is. I can’t prove they are wrong, and don’t need to. I allow others to believe according to the dictates of their own conscience, there is not “one way” the book must be in order for it to be the cornerstone of a religion, and I don’t need church leaders to acknowledge anything for me to see it the way I do.
If I’m reading churhcistrue correctly, I think we are in agreement. It is irrelevant to the experience. My only point is, if it is irrelevant then we don’t need leaders to say it is specifically NOT historical or criticize them for their viewpoint. It might be. They can believe it and say it, it won’t change the book. If others WANT acknowledgement it is not historical in order to believe the church is being honest, that is their path. It won’t change the book.
The spirit is in the book, regardless of historicity. If we believe that…then it doesn’t matter what others say or believe.
I think we as a church (members, leaders, everyone) spend more time talking about how great the BoM is than the time we spend sharing things in the book that we think are great. Maybe it comes from a place of insecurity but we establish and reestablish the truthfulness of the book and never move much beyond that.
nibbler wrote:
Maybe it comes from a place of insecurity but we establish and reestablish the truthfulness of the book and never move much beyond that.
Good point. It also probably comes from a place of laziness. “Just tell me what to think and I’ll repeat it” – which is not a sustainable faith.
I’m guilty of this. I still really don’t know what to make of Isaiah. Don’t have time (or energy or brain cells) to try and figure it out.
The BoM DNA essay – though it’s still apologetic – opens up the idea that the BoM is more of a conundrum than Callister lets on. Quote:
It’s somewhat frustrating that we even feel that we need this kind of talk. Look how right and correct we are. Look how foolish the critics are. Look at how they grasp at straws, make strained conclusions, and build upon sandy foundations.I feel like this applies to half the talks from this weekend.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:
It’s somewhat frustrating that we even feel that we need this kind of talk. Look how right and correct we are. Look how foolish the critics are. Look at how they grasp at straws, make strained conclusions, and build upon sandy foundations.I feel like this applies to half the talks from this weekend.
Agreed.
My point of view on Callister, who I am not shy about saying I do not like, is that he was being a parrot. These are not new criticisms and his answers also were not new. This could have been written decades ago using exactly the same words. In reality, yes, Joseph Smith could have been a genius and he could have had a photographic memory – we really don’t know. And, the BoM may have been written down in 60 whatever days, but there was tons and tons of time in between those days (hundreds of days) where JS (and anyone else) could have given great thought to the story, etc. Lastly, we don’t know if he used notes or anything else – we only know what a few people said and how do we know they were telling the truth or even answering that question.
nibbler wrote:
The issues he brought up aside, I don’t care for conference talks where the spirit of the talk comes across as putting a group of people (in this case BoM critics) in their place.I believe he also mischaracterized the issues that critics have, which I’m sure drives the critics nuts, then the whole thing becomes a feedback loop of reactions based off of reactions.
My TBM husband even raised his eyebrows at this talk and wondered “why” we had to have this in conference and came to the conclusion that he was being condescending and fulfilling an internal agenda. I was able to give him a quick “It’s Not That Simple” summary with 2-3 plausible reasons Bro. Callister felt he needed to have this talk (not that I disagreed with DH on this one, because I didn’t). The fact that my DH didn’t jump on the soapbox and join the TBM grandstand was a pleasant surprise. I am grateful that I had the chance to say something introducing seeds of other thinking so that if/when I talk to him about this FT, he will be in a better place to accept it.
Joni wrote:
The BoM DNA essay – though it’s still apologetic – opens up the idea that the BoM is more of a conundrum than Callister lets on.
Good point, Joni.I feel like people accept the Bible is a conundrum, but have faith the BoM is plain and simple…they don’t want it to be complicated.
Heber13 wrote:
I feel like people accept the Bible is a conundrum, but have faith the BoM is plain and simple…they don’t want it to be complicated.
I think that for a variety of reasons, people are lead to believe that the BoM is much plainer and simpler than the Bible. It’s easier to believe that scholars through the ages got things in the Bible wrong through numerous translations, while the BoM went straight from the prophets to Mormon to JS. It wasn’t until I found this site that I really started thinking, “What if prophets were writing their inspiration through the filter of their time/place/circumstances even while trying to provide revelation(s) for future generations?”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.