- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree Ray. I think that can be a shift for some to feel comfortable acknowledging for fear of what that says about scriptures, but I think so too. It is OK to just have some things in the canonized works that I don’t spend time “likening” to my life. Song of Solomon is in the Canonized scriptures too. My mission president said we can just glue those pages together, they aren’t useful scripture. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but the point is…we seem to accept some scripture in the KJV less important than others. I kinda do the same with some of the POGP. The curse of Ham, ie black skin, and priesthood ban can be traced back to BoA I’d like to hear a bit more from the people that reject the BoA as scripture but still hold Joseph Smith to be a prophet/the church to be true. Here’s my current viewpoint:
The Book of Mormon is referred to as the keystone to our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church is the restored church of Jesus Christ.
I feel as though it is within reason to say that if the Book of Abraham, given the prophet’s declaration of its divine origins, is found to be a hoax then that would cast doubts on Joseph Smith’s declarations as to the divine origins of the Book of Mormon as well. Add the true methods employed to translate the Book of Mormon to the narrative (and to a lesser degree the Kinderhook plates and the Greek Psalter) and it starts to establish precedent with respect to Joseph’s claims about the Book of Mormon.
On the flip side of that coin, and I’m guessing that this is what some of you have decided, perhaps Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon and from that point on he was under extreme social pressure to translate every little thing that came across his desk. Under that assumption one could only speculate that he used all of these “translation under the gun” moments to introduce truths or revelations found during his studies.
I guess I view it as a bigger deal than most. Still, what do you do in church when you are asked to give a lesson or are asked questions in a lesson about material or doctrines found in the Pearl of Great Price?
The simple answer Nibbler is I don’t take an all or nothing approach. I think BoM is inspired and BoA isn’t. nibbler wrote:I’d like to hear a bit more from the people that reject the BoA as scripture but still hold Joseph Smith to be a prophet/the church to be true.
I don’t reject the BoA as scripture, but I recognize that all writings contain philosophies of men mingled with scripture – such is the nature of mortal life.
I don’t have any problem seeing the BoA as a potential “hoax” speaking in purely physical/mortal terms regarding its origin — while at the same time recognizing it has scriptural attributes and spiritual insights. In my mind spiritual truths transcend physical problems. They don’t erase the problems, but they give meaning that makes the origin unimportant. I often fall back to a quote from Brian J: Even if Joseph Smith saw himself as a fraud (not saying he did) he still got some things right!
Changing gears I do recognize that problems in the story of translation does cast a shadow on physical earthly authority and how it should apply to me and my life. I still don’t know how to fully reconcile all the claims of exclusive authority that I hear in church with my growing knowledge of God and personal experience/insights. For now I simply say there are many things that I don’t fully understand, but I know we
allhave some misplaced confidence in our lives. nibbler wrote:what do you do in church when you are asked to give a lesson or are asked questions in a lesson about material or doctrines found in the Pearl of Great Price?
Easy, speak of them from a spiritual truth point of view not worrying about literal physical realities. It becomes more difficult where the topic intersects with an assumption of exclusive earthly authority, but even there I try to speak from a position of the universal spiritual lessons that a literal belief may support.So maybe a more “by their fruits ye shall know them” approach. If the fruits that result from living the teachings are edifying then why does it matter where it came from? I can definitely identify with that. You hit on what I was getting at Orson, whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings takes a back seat to the true question that the issues with its origins raise… as you mention the claim to exclusive authority. If the claim to exclusive authority comes under serious fire I guess the question then becomes why stay around? In that context, if the pursuit is a life spent learning edifying principles, I don’t see how that equates to the desire to stay with any one particular church. You could just hop from thing to thing until you become a zen master.
Just as a tangent, take the Voree plates for example. Is it intellectually honest to continue to remain a Strangite should definitive proof come forward that the Voree plates were forgeries? Does one hold to the religion because James Strang and the translation of the Voree plates had some really edifying things to say? I’m just trying to divorce the subject from the argument, no offense to Strangites. Many people here do not believe the Book of Abraham to be inspired, yet they fight (as do I) to stay in the church.
Thanks for the comments SamBee, if people believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired then it makes perfect sense as to why they would keep up the good fight.
Again, I’ve made a mountain out of this molehill. Nevertheless, I’d still like to strike a balance with all of this. I should take my own advice and live and let live, discover what works for me.
Fruits definitely – people bear testimony of genuine experiences with the BoM all the time. They don’t with BoA. Or rarely. No one seems to join the church because of the BoA. They do with BoM.
However, BoA gave us a racist priesthood ban, pre-existence and a curious cosmology. There is stuff about dark lamanites in BoM, but also great stuff about redemption and inspiring things.
I have no testimony of BoA, I do of BoM.
nibbler wrote:Many people here do not believe the Book of Abraham to be inspired, yet they fight (as do I) to stay in the church.
I have a very loose definition of the term inspired. I believe the BofA to be inspired… I also consider The Chronicles of Narnia to be inspired.
I think the Chronicles of Narnia are better in fact, but not scripture! nibbler wrote:You hit on what I was getting at Orson, whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings takes a back seat to the true question that the issues with its origins raise… as you mention the claim to exclusive authority. If the claim to exclusive authority comes under serious fire I guess the question then becomes why stay around?
What I was trying to say is actually the other way – the origins take a back seat to a useful message. Exclusive authority is another issue and to answer your question why stay around?:
1) why not? It is my life, it works for me. I am Mormon by birth and I cannot un-Mormon myself any more than I can un-American myself. If I get thoroughly upset about the way my country is run I have the option to move out – but that move would be more disruptive to me than any difficulty that living with a government I may not agree with could present. If a different path works for you I have no argument, your life is yours.
2) Exclusive authority is not a big enough part of my daily church experience to justify it being a make or break item. I realize many or most members have learned to lean this heavily on it – I have learned to not.
3) the Mormon Stories podcasts with the interfaith amigos will give more depth to perspectives on this point.
nibbler wrote:You hit on what I was getting at Orson, whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings takes a back seat to the true question that the issues with its origins raise…
Interesting point. Do you think, nibbler, the BOA should be held to a different standard then the bible because of how the church teaches about the restoration and authority claims?
Because origin issues certainly exist for other canonized scripture. Wouldn’t you agree?
So perhaps the issue is not the BOA itself…but the fact we are closer to the origin to hear how Joseph Smith processed it, made claims about it, and how the church claims authority about it.
Is it the book? Is it Joseph Smith? Is it the Church? What’s the root of the origin problems of the BOA different than any other scripture?
I suppose I should have been more careful with my words. I meant to say that whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings is a separate issue from the questions that the problems with its origins raise. As Roy points out, you can find inspiration anywhere. I already accept that the book can contain inspiring messages so I’ve resolved that aspect. In that regard it takes a back seat to the unresolved aspects, namely what does the issues with its origins imply? Claims to exclusive authority permeate quite a bit of the church’s overall message… I suppose the consensus then is to concern yourself more with the message than anything… after all, that’s what is going to change your life one way or the other.
Orson wrote:1) why not? It is my life, it works for me. I am Mormon by birth and I cannot un-Mormon myself any more than I can un-American myself. If I get thoroughly upset about the way my country is run I have the option to move out – but that move would be more disruptive to me than any difficulty that living with a government I may not agree with could present. If a different path works for you I have no argument, your life is yours.
That makes total sense. My background is that I’m a convert (about 20 years ago). I came to the church because I believed in its claims to exclusive authority.
I’ll give the podcasts a listen when I have the time.
Heber13 wrote:Do you think, nibbler, the BOA should be held to a different standard then the bible because of how the church teaches about the restoration and authority claims?
I think I have held it to a higher standard, so now I have to ask myself… why?
Heber13 wrote:Because origin issues certainly exist for other canonized scripture. Wouldn’t you agree?
Certainly.
Heber13 wrote:So perhaps the issue is not the BOA itself…but the fact we are closer to the origin to hear how Joseph Smith processed it, made claims about it, and how the church claims authority about it.
I see and very much appreciate the point. Something to mull over.
Where does all of this leave you? I don’t mean to be flippant but it seems like to retain any faith in the restoration (of a church, not of teachings; perhaps that’s where I’ve run aground, in thinking that he restored a church rather than him simply restoring the gospel teachings) you’re left with a narrative where Joseph could spin quite the yarn but it just so happens that the yarn was inspired by deity after all and that more good than harm came out of it. Or perhaps he truly was a prophet but was limited to using made up stories because that’s the only way the people of his day would be open to receiving the teachings. Perhaps that’s all God has ever done throughout history? Delivered his message in a context that could be understood and received by us. If that’s means a church, then it’s a church; if that’s means authority, then it’s authority; if that means a burning bush, then a burning bush. Whatever it takes to get you interested in the message.
Again, something to mull over and something that takes time to process. You guys are a tremendous help in giving me a new perspective to think about things.
writer63 wrote:I agree with church0333. This is the straw on the camel’s back issue for me. Independent Non-LDS Egyptologists agree 100% on how the papyri translate. That’s not all that’s problematic for me though. My problem is based in large degree on JS’s own words and the words of people who were there. What they said and what is being said now just don’t jive. IMHO, church leaders are doing verbal gymnastics to try to keep people in the church over this.
I agree this is the most blatantly obvious piece of evidence Joseph is not what he claimed to be. I do however think the BofA is sort of cool. It was my favorite book of scripture when I believed in such things. Was it inspired? Probably just like Shakespeare, or Tolkien. Was it divine? Probably not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.