- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree, Amy. So…in some ways, that resolves some issues and is a draw for people to like the BoM. However, the next layer of issues then reveals conundrums still to be found in religion. It is like going from one Stage 3 bubble to another stage 3 bubble…this new bubble has some nice things resolved with the BoM…but it doesn’t resolve everything.
Then the stage 4 sets in. Leading to the breakthrough to stage 5 where you meet up with all the other stage 5 people of many religious varieties…all conjunctive from different views or camps, and you realize that religion is paradox once you step back and get away from the stage 3 weeds.
From Stage 5…Callister is just talking about things from his point of view. I’m not convinced he is wrong or limited. Simply…has some truth to it, but not complete and final truth with no other argument to be made.
The point of religion, to me, is having the discussions and broadening our minds. The stage 3 apologetic talks can help us all do that, depending on what we are looking for.
AmyJ wrote:
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.
At one point I had two different versions of the inspired JS translation of the bible (published by the community of Christ, former RLDS)
One version from about 1960 started with an essay making the case that the bible was imperfect, that not all documents were available to the compilers and not all available documents were included. That translation and transcription errors were made. There were quotes from Origin and Augustus and other early church fathers to show that not everyone agreed with all decisions that were made in putting the bible together.
This essay established a need for a prophetic or revelatory translation to restore the original intent/wording/or meaning of the writings.
The second version was printed in about 2013. It starts with an essay about the translation process used by JS, what it was and what it wasn’t. It gave me the impression that the JS translation was in fact something akin to an inspired commentary, exposition, and/or expansion of the scriptural record.
Why the difference?
1) Because the original bible that JS had and notes that JS made give rise to this interpretation. He is making corrections to a verse in Mark but not making corrections to a parallel verse in Luke.
2) Because bible scholarship has advanced light-years in the last 50 years. We actually have copies of earlier manuscripts and have a pretty good idea where at least some of the translation and transcription errors are. Unfortunately, the inspiration of JS was atrocious in identifying these changes/errors.
He was changing the bible to make it better fit his theology. In doing so, JS was guilty of doing the same thing as some others that made changes to the scriptures throughout history. He was making additional changes – not correcting previous changes or “restoring” original wording. Some of JS’s changes are impressive and inspiring but… they do not seem to have anything to do with the original texts.
Roy wrote:
Unfortunately, the inspiration of JS was atrocious in identifying these changes/errors.He was changing the bible to make it better fit his theology. In doing so, JS was guilty of doing the same thing as some that made changes to the scriptures. He was making additional changes – not correcting previous changes or “restoring” original wording. Some of JS’s changes are impressive and inspiring but… they do not seem to have anything to do with the original texts.
That is not flattering to the prophet and what people thought he was doing (maybe what he thought he was doing). It sounds very much like BoA.
Is JS allowed to change it to fit his theology? Well…isn’t that what prophets do?
It’s never clear cut and easy and straight forward. Callister wants it to be…but it just isn’t. It always will take a level of faith.
It is what it is. The bible is still of worth, with or without JS commentary. I would rather believe in a living doctrine and ongoing revelation than stuck proving intentions of the past must be perfect if I am to believe them. The value is how I apply the scripture to my life. Prophets do their best with what they have. We don’t have a book written by the hand of God himself. We just don’t.
Quote:We don’t have a book written by the hand of God himself. We just don’t.
Now you tell me!
This debate runs a lot in our house. I get the scaffolding of the BoM falling. But I am a religionist. There is an unexplained draw to it in me. If I leave Mormonism, I would likely attach myself to some other Christian Sect. However in a pretty short order, I could knock out most of the bibles scaffolding. It’s story is full of holes and unprovables. So where does one go. Atheism and I don’t sit well with each other. I find myself more Deist than anything. Yet I love a tribe. A human breathing connection. Because of that I stay here.
No where in our religion are we required to believe the BoM to be the word of God. More importantly we are not required to swear an oath to it. I use it when it’s necessary to point out my perceptions of things. Otherwise I am a bible based Mormon and that’s good enough for me.
Just don’t lecture me like a three year old. It overshadows the good I can find in the book.
Heber13 wrote:
That is not flattering to the prophet and what people thought he was doing (maybe what he thought he was doing). It sounds very much like BoA.
This leads me right back to the BoM. One of the changes that was made to the bible some time before the KJV was a verse that says that God, Jesus, and HG are one God. The religionists of the day wanted so badly for the bible to explicitly teach the trinity that they added it in. Interestingly enough, the BoM has multiple verses (half a dozen?) that teach that trinity – one God concept.
This makes me feel that the BoM itself is a form of “translation” of (or expansion on) the bible. JS added stuff to the BoM that filled the gaps left in the bible. In that way it seems very much in the same ball park as the BofA and the JST. The BoM became “another testament” that complimented, added to, and expanded upon the bible.
Heber13 wrote:
Is JS allowed to change it to fit his theology? Well…isn’t that what prophets do?
To give JS the benefit of the doubt, this appears to be what religions do. The early Christians certainly coopted the OT. They may have written their “gospels” in a way that made Jesus seem to fit some of the OT Messiah prophecies. In this way, their new religion took on an ancient feel. The authors of each of the gospels also had an opportunity to add to the story. The gospel of Mark is regarded as the earliest chronologically. Each subsequent Gospel expanded upon the story in important (and decidedly more miraculous) ways. The apostle Paul had a huge impact in the development and understanding of the emerging Christian Doctrine. The Pauline letters teach things that are otherwise not part of scripture.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.)was another that had an outsized impact on the Christian religion. His writing influenced western Christianity and Philosophy. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace. Mormonism sees him as one of the furtherers of the Great Apostasy. He was one of the founding authors of the doctrine of Original Sin (that underpinned the baptism of infants) and his ideas on the Trinity were later incorporated into the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople (These appear to be big examples of the “creeds” that Jesus told JS were an “abomination” in His sight). We also strongly disagree with Augustine’s teachings on predestination. He was roundly condemned in Talmage’s book “The Great Apostasy”. I bring up St. Augustine to demonstrate that the additions/interpretations that some consider inspired and even revelation can be considered heresy and sacrilege to others.
So in a very real way JS did something similar to what had been done many times before – that is add to and expand upon those that went before. He created a new religion with a very old feel. Interestingly and ironically, St Jerome (347-420 A.D.) said of St. Augustine, that he had “established anew the ancient Faith.”
I view the BoM in this light. As an addendum or supplement to the bible. Making the old, new again.
mom3 wrote:
No where in our religion are we required to believe the BoM to be the word of God. More importantly we are not required to swear an oath to it. I use it when it’s necessary to point out my perceptions of things. Otherwise I am a bible based Mormon and that’s good enough for me.
I think in time we can get there but I don’t think that’s the case today, not from my corner of the vineyard. I don’t feel like there’s a “safe” place at church to disagree with Callister’s talk; finer points about the BoM, even less. It may not be required by the religion but it certainly feels required by the community.
Certain things are predictable during conference. There will always be a talk like this one, one that gets people fired up because they see someone standing up in defense of beliefs they feel are being attacked (irony isn’t lost on me here). Invariably many members will look back at conference and identify these types of talks as their favorites. Since these talks are people’s favorites we’ll all get to relive them again and again in lessons and talks at church. Because these talks are people’s favorites, and because the talk is already laced with rhetoric, it makes it that much harder to give a dissenting opinion.
nibbler wrote:
I think in time we can get there but I don’t think that’s the case today, not from my corner of the vineyard. I don’t feel like there’s a “safe” place at church to disagree with Callister’s talk; finer points about the BoM, even less. It may not be required by the religion but it certainly feels required by the community.
I agree. In the Church, in my experience, there is a major emphasis that the Book of Mormon is the “keystone” of our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he was a prophet, than the priesthood power has been restored and leads this Church. If the Book of Mormon is false, so it is told by many TBMs, the Church crumbles. Many people would leave if they did not believe the BoM was historically true; that would make Joseph Smith a liar and of the devil. And so they outright reject anything which contradicts the Book of Mormon (even the book itself). The possibility that the Book isn’t historically true is too painful to even consider…
For me, I place it alongside the Oddessy, Native American Folklore, the Norse Myths… I love those stories! There are so many wonderful parables and lessons to learn. I love the characters. I love the spirit behind it. It doesn’t matter one whit to me if it isn’t true; I do believe the world is round, after all. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t beautiful or inspiring.
My Llama side likes to try and slide bible stories/lives into lessons just to keep everyone on their toes. 😈 dande wrote
Quote:In the Church, in my experience, there is a major emphasis that the Book of Mormon is the “keystone” of our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he was a prophet, than the priesthood power has been restored and leads this Church. If the Book of Mormon is false, so it is told by many TBMs, the Church crumbles. Many people would leave if they did not believe the BoM was historically true; that would make Joseph Smith a liar and of the devil. And so they outright reject anything which contradicts the Book of Mormon (even the book itself). The possibility that the Book isn’t historically true is too painful to even consider…
Ironically – he (Joseph) barely quoted from it. If he referenced any scripture it had more to do with Paul’s Epistle’s or Book of Revelation. Not alot of Lehi, Nephi stuff. Even if he did translate an ancient, authentic record. And even if he was taught by it’s heavenly messenger Moroni – it didn’t phase Joseph. It was a checklist item in his full and short seership experience.
It didn’t work for me. That is as simple and complicated as it is for me.
My issue with this kind of talk is that while it may be faith promoting, it isn’t and never can be faith producing.I thought the same thing during Oaks’ talk. Anti-anti-Mormonism may feel good while you are writing and delivering or listening to these talks. But is that really the Holy Ghost you’re feeling, or simply the (false) good feeling of “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”? Joni wrote:
My issue with this kind of talk is that while it may be faithpromoting, it isn’t and never can be faith producing.I thought the same thing during Oaks’ talk. Anti-anti-Mormonism may feel good while you are writing and delivering or listening to these talks. But is that really the Holy Ghost you’re feeling, or simply the (false) good feeling of “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”?
I think you are right. “Yea our team!!” may rouse the fans, but it does not create fans.Joni wrote:
My issue with this kind of talk is that while it may be faithpromoting, it isn’t and never can be faith producing.I thought the same thing during Oaks’ talk. Anti-anti-Mormonism may feel good while you are writing and delivering or listening to these talks. But is that really the Holy Ghost you’re feeling, or simply the (false) good feeling of “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”?
You might even say that those feelings of solidarity and certainty take away any reason to exercise faith. If so, those kinds of talks are faith-
demoting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.