The BoM ends all doubts about the Church’s truthfulness?

[Anonymous]

I subscribe to the LDS Daily Gems, and History Gems. Most of the time I find them uplifting, although the history gems have become increasingly tedious for me to read. They are often filled with half-truths, fallacious reasoning, and aggrandizing statements. I recently got this one.

Quote:

“We are to use the Book of Mormon in handling objections to the Church. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ revealed themselves to Joseph Smith in a marvelous vision. After that glorious event, Joseph Smith told a minister about it. Joseph was surprised to hear the minister say that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days, that all such things had ceased. (See JS—H 1:21.)”This remark symbolizes practically all of the objections that have ever been made against the Church by nonmembers and dissident members alike. Namely, they do not believe that God reveals his will today to the Church through prophets of God. All objections, whether they be on abortion, plural marriage, seventh-day worship, etc., basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation. . . .”Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.”

Ezra Taft Benson, The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God, Ensign, Jan. 1988, 4

Topics: Book of Mormon

Please note that I’m not trying to bash the quote. I am interested in hearing your remarks to the point the quote is trying to make.

Here is my own analysis:

1. does the minister’s remarks really “symbolize practically all of the objections that have ever been made against the Church by nonmembers”? This seems like a bit of a generalization.

2. do “All objections, whether they be on abortion…basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation”? If this is true, what does this say about those who disagree with the prophets of God (like on Prop 8 for example)? And if an individual is wrong for disagreeing with the prophet, exactly when is a prophet fallible, and how are we to know, and are we to agree with him whether he’s wrong or not?

3. Is this all there is to it? “Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.” Does anyone see the circular logic here? How about the non sequitur argument? Is this sound reasoning just because a prophet said it? If so, isn’t that circular reasoning?

So what does everyone think? Does the “truthfulness” (whatever that means) of the BoM resolve all objections about the Church being “true” (whatever that means)?

[Anonymous]

1. No

2. No

3. Perhaps the first couple of conclusions are fine given the wording, but the last one is not related and absolutely can be argued against. The core argument of all the groups that accept the BofM but not the LDS Church shows the fallacy of the last statement.

I understand totally the belief that the BofM is the keystone of our religion, but this quote? I just don’t agree with the actual specifics.

[Anonymous]

Wow. That is pretty bold on his part.

In his defense, President Benson was getting fairly old and frail by 1988 (assuming the Ensign date was close to the date of the quote) I saw him at a conference in Dallas in about 1987 and he and his wife were looking really fragile. His talk then was on the BoM and it was rather “simple”, although admirable for a man his age and condition IMHO.

[Anonymous]

#1 No. It does not symbolize “practically all of the objections that have ever been made against the Church.” That is one objection people have made, but it only goes so far. It may have been a more important objection at that time, because I think the protestant world mostly rejected revelation at that time. I see a lot of protestant Christian churches today that seem to acknowledge personal revelation and leadership revelation for their organizations. The Catholics of course have always had this with their Pope.

So no. Especially today, I don’t think revelation and visions are automatically rejected as not possible in the Christian world.

#2. No. I believe that Joseph Smith and successors received divine revelation. But my personal revelation takes me in a different direction at times. They were obviously wrong at times too. We’re all familiar here at StayLDS with reversals in doctrine (polygamy, priesthood, adam-GOD, etc.).

There is nothing wrong with following the prophet of the LDS Church, even doing that 100% without question. I choose not to disabuse people of that practice. They are making a decision though, and they have consequences and results from the path. I think there are some people that would really rather not be responsible completely for their life. That is what I hear when I talk to a member that is fanatical about never straying from the council of the current prophet of the Church.

What is the alternative? Well if you follow your own revelation, you are completely accountable for the results. I accept that when I deviate (for better or worse).

How do we know when a prophet is right? The only way to know is to get your own personal revelation on the subject and test the results (I am talking theologically not scientifically). Outside of that, we are following someone else and trusting in them (the arm of flesh, right?).

3. Well… the LDS Church doesn’t exactly follow all the ideas in the Book of Mormon. As Ray pointed out, there are many non-LDS groups that believe in the Book of Mormon. Many of them have well-grounded arguments why they believe they are following the true path laid out by Joseph Smith.

So that argument really doesn’t work so good.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the other comments that the statement is rather simplistic. As we are supposed to be on a path to “become more like God” I think it is our responsibility to gain our own wisdom and responsibly exercise our own agency. As we become adults we move beyond childish things – to me that includes simplistic models of life and absolutist ways of framing ideals.

So I think a key point to remember is the official church direction will follow more simple “milk” ideas, while as individuals we need to follow the spirit as it helps us learn and live the way we personally need to.

Good question and good comments.

[Anonymous]

The only problem that I have is that IT SEEMS like many members take this to the extreme. It APPEARS that way – BUT individually are seemingly unquestioning members less narrowminded .. Is there more than this simple view? Some take it to the extreme on the outside – Maybe in Church meetings BUT behind the act do you think a great deal of members really do think for themselves iwo get their own personal revelation? – To someone like me this appearence (weather it is true or not) makes me feel like I can’t be obedient enough – Like I don’t have enough faith. Maybe in reality some members do not take things like this so literal .. Then again sadly I’m sure some do – And I do feel bad for them for not using their God given brain – not questioning and letting faith walk hand in hand with unresponsibility.

Personally DH has asked me to read the BOM to help with any problems I might be having – The often said what is it? .. Simple Truths or w/e that the BOM holds are what is important – And then otoh the Church seems to focus on lotts and lotts of little things – which really don’t seem like the Simple Truths we are suppose to follow in the BOM. Although I find the BOM to be an interesting book and it has good symbolism and stories to learn from – And some amazing quotes .. It really has nothing to do with some of the things I question in The Church. I just don’t see the black and white anymore – Even if the BOM is not a historical context – Even if the gold plate thing was just a story (lie) I can still think it was inspired .. I don’t think anything is completely false, including The Church .. Even if The BOM isn’t “True”. Whatever that means. :

[Anonymous]

Quote:

1. does the minister’s remarks really “symbolize practically all of the objections that have ever been made against the Church by nonmembers”? This seems like a bit of a generalization.

I agree with Valoel that this was, in 1988, the primary objection of other protestant sects. Having served a mission in 1989-90, it was still fresh. But nowadays, there are far more sects and non-denominational churches and far more diversity in religion is encountered routinely.

Quote:

2. do “All objections, whether they be on abortion…basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation”? If this is true, what does this say about those who disagree with the prophets of God (like on Prop 8 for example)? And if an individual is wrong for disagreeing with the prophet, exactly when is a prophet fallible, and how are we to know, and are we to agree with him whether he’s wrong or not?

This EBT statement is really just a continuation of the notion that if you believe in ongoing revelation, you can accept those changes and theological re-interpretations, but that in churches that don’t, they will reject us based on the fact that we constantly evolve (my view of ongoing revelation) or that our re-interpretations differ from their more historical interpretations (most TBMs’ view).

Quote:

3. Is this all there is to it? “Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.” Does anyone see the circular logic here? How about the non sequitur argument? Is this sound reasoning just because a prophet said it? If so, isn’t that circular reasoning?

It’s circular logic, yes, but it’s the basis for a Mormon testimony as explained by most modern-day church leaders. And all religion is based on circular logic. Statements like “All things testify of God” are also based on circular logic, or the idea of scriptural infallibility and literalness: “God said it, so I believe it.”

Bless EBT’s heart. The quote’s not profound to me, but he was sincere through his presidency as one who loved the Book of Mormon dearly and spoke about it sincerely. Which was refreshing since most expected him to promote the John Birch society’s anti-communist rhetoric, but he didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

I think there are some people that would really rather not be responsible completely for their life.

There it is.

Valoel said it, not me. 😈

There was a much more recent version of this, I’m too lazy to look it up but it was GBH, I think in a priesthood session in 2004 (?) in which he basically said “it’s either all true or it’s a fraud”. I would submit that this line of thinking is alive and well in the church. For better or worse???

[Anonymous]

swimordie, fwiw, that GBH quote gets butchered a lot in the Bloggernacle. He was talking about a few very specific things – like the First Vision, the Book of Mormon as scripture, modern revelation. I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but when people claim he was referring to every jot and tittle of Mormondom I have to shake my head and sigh. (not saying you did that – just venting slightly as the resident parser)

Honestly, when I re-read his actual words, I was comforted somewhat that he wasn’t making a sweeping generality – and that the way he worded it left open plenty of room for interpretation of even the things he mentioned. Iow, he didn’t specify HOW any member had to view them but rather simply that there are some core components of our beliefs that have to reconciled and “believed to be true” in order to accept the Restoration as worth accepting.

I can accept that construct, if it’s limited to how he actually said it. Unfortunately, too many members and local leaders don’t interpret it as he said it. *sigh*

[Anonymous]

You knew I’d look it up, didn’t you, Ray? 🙄

I put in the leading statements and the subsequent for context. fwiw, this was almost the beginning of the talk/address.

GBH (2002):

Quote:

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.

The rest of the talk is GBH pontificating on ‘how in the world’ the rest of Christianity can’t embrace the BoM, that the church works with other denominations but they’re just not inspired. I know this sounds like I’m paraphrasing in a condescending way, so if you want the whole talk (this talk sounds just like my dad, so take my comments with a huge grain of salt):

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=371bee9ba42fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I’m still working on getting past my own Stage 3-ness when faced with black/white statements. imho 😯

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

There is nothing wrong with following the prophet of the LDS Church, even doing that 100% without question. I choose not to disabuse people of that practice. They are making a decision though, and they have consequences and results from the path. I think there are some people that would really rather not be responsible completely for their life. That is what I hear when I talk to a member that is fanatical about never straying from the council of the current prophet of the Church.

What is the alternative? Well if you follow your own revelation, you are completely accountable for the results. I accept that when I deviate (for better or worse).

Well said. I like this.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

swimordie, fwiw, that GBH quote gets butchered a lot in the Bloggernacle. He was talking about a few very specific things – like the First Vision, the Book of Mormon as scripture, modern revelation. I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but when people claim he was referring to every jot and tittle of Mormondom I have to shake my head and sigh. (not saying you did that – just venting slightly as the resident parser)

Honestly, when I re-read his actual words, I was comforted somewhat that he wasn’t making a sweeping generality – and that the way he worded it left open plenty of room for interpretation of even the things he mentioned. Iow, he didn’t specify HOW any member had to view them but rather simply that there are some core components of our beliefs that have to reconciled and “believed to be true” in order to accept the Restoration as worth accepting.

I can accept that construct, if it’s limited to how he actually said it. Unfortunately, too many members and local leaders don’t interpret it as he said it. *sigh*

Yes, the quote gets butchered a lot, but for good reason IMHO. It is still a very black and white view. Yes, GBH was referring specifically to the First Vision, but I would ask, if the First Vision was just that, a vision, not an actual visitation, does it really destroy GBH’s testimony? Hardly. Furthermore, if in fact, it all was part of a psychological function explained by the same phenomenon that governs alien abduction accounts, angelic visitations, demons, etc. would that really change GBH’s testimony? Probably not. Neither do those potential explanations take away from what Joseph said on a mythological level. But they do shed doubt on the validity of literal interpretations.

GBH’s comment, just like EBT’s is very literal, and black and white sounding. That’s the parallel in my mind.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

GBH’s comment, just like EBT’s is very literal, and black and white sounding. That’s the parallel in my mind.

Good topic. Yes, I think it is very black and white for those who view it that way. For others, it just doesn’t logically follow.

If BoM is true, Joseph must have been a prophet to bring it about.

That is disconnected from the Church, IMO. Being a prophet could certainly mean that JS setup the church with God’s authority, or it could mean God sent JS the Book of Mormon, and JS setup the church on his own to teach it. They don’t necessarily follow.

Then, even if JS did setup the church…when he was killed, was BY led by God to continue that work, did it die with JS, or did the reorganized church have right claim. Those are disconnected from the Book of Mormon as well.

To look at our church now and TSMonson leading it to me is disconnected from the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon itself.

One must gain a testimony of the church in addition to the Book of Mormon. IMO. They fit together nicely for those who believe it…they don’t fit together nicely for those who don’t. I believe faith is needed to find the answer, there is no physical proof or logical reasoning that can get you there…it comes by testimony from the spirit of both the BoM and the church.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

If BoM is true, Joseph must have been a prophet to bring it about.

That is disconnected from the Church, IMO. Being a prophet could certainly mean that JS setup the church with God’s authority, or it could mean God sent JS the Book of Mormon, and JS setup the church on his own to teach it. They don’t necessarily follow.

Then, even if JS did setup the church…when he was killed, was BY led by God to continue that work, did it die with JS, or did the reorganized church have right claim. Those are disconnected from the Book of Mormon as well.

To look at our church now and TSMonson leading it to me is disconnected from the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon itself.

One must gain a testimony of the church in addition to the Book of Mormon. IMO. They fit together nicely for those who believe it…they don’t fit together nicely for those who don’t. I believe faith is needed to find the answer, there is no physical proof or logical reasoning that can get you there…it comes by testimony from the spirit of both the BoM and the church.

This was one of my big issues with my deconstruction. I fail to see why logical reasoning couldn’t get you there if the church was true. Why is this? I would think that the true church would appeal to everyone, those more logical, those more faith based. Why do I need to suspend my logical thought processes to discover truth? This doesn’t make sense to me.

Do I really need to accept all the non sequitur arguments you described above in order to find truth? And why does it need to come by testimony from the spirit?

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Do I really need to accept all the non sequitur arguments you described above in order to find truth? And why does it need to come by testimony from the spirit?

“testimony from the spirit” is something pretty personal to different people…so I guess I’m open to that being different for you than for me. In fact, I change my mind on what I said, and do believe that you can logically come to believe it. I am sure it was perfectly logical to GBH. For me personally, when I believe something in my heart, I’m more committed to it than when I believe something in my head logically (probably because I leave room for doubting my logical reasoning skills). Even when I went through my crisis of faith, something inside me kept telling me I still believe these things, even if I think about them differently now. I don’t know what that is, but I have chosen to stick with that.

[Author]

Posts