- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Orson wrote:
I simply see Elder Callister as speaking here from his own understanding.
With you so far …Quote:I see the BoM as divine scripture even though I may not see the historicity issue in the same light as him.
Still with you …Quote:While not the way I would word it I think I can get at his meaning.
If you are saying that he said something even somewhat related to what you just said, you lost me. His meaning was unequivocal, and the intent clearly very different.doug wrote:Orson wrote:I simply see Elder Callister as speaking here from his own understanding.
With you so far …Quote:I see the BoM as divine scripture even though I may not see the historicity issue in the same light as him.
Still with you …Quote:While not the way I would word it I think I can get at his meaning.
If you are saying that he said something even somewhat related to what you just said, you lost me.His meaning was unequivocal, and the intent clearly very different.I know it’s been five months since I participated in these forums — but a spade is still spade. Call it the way it is and then let the chips fall where they may.
Okay, I probably meant a portion of his meaning – the part that I see as most important. Either the BoM is inspired or it’s a malicious fraud. I wouldn’t word it that way, but given that choice it’s easy for me — I see it as inspired and not malicious. There is a fascinating post about an obscure BOM theory that is on Wheat & Tares: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/04/the-legend-of-the-lost-book-of-gold-part-1-of-4/ This is part one of a 4 part series. It’s an offbeat theory that eliminates many of the archaeological problems with animals, metals, and coinage.
i believe the book was translated from ancient plates by Joseph Smith. i believe that Joseph Smith saw Celestial Beings who gave him a charge to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ forth where much spiritual darkness had reigned. besides the Book of Mormon i believe the Pearl of Great Price enlightens us to the very nature of Godhood and creation. take note below:
Moses 1:33-35
Quote:33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
in that sense I consider Joseph Smith bringing the very nature of God to our understanding is what makes Joseph Smith a true prophet. what other churches have brought forth this kind of scriptural knowledge about the nature of the Godhead ? I think we know the answer to that.
Quote:Okay, I probably meant a portion of his meaning – the part that I see as most important. Either the BoM is inspired or it’s a malicious fraud. I wouldn’t word it that way, but given that choice it’s easy for me — I see it as inspired and not malicious.
I see Elder Callister’s perspective as a false dichotomy. Let’s say the Book of Mormon is “of the devil”. It seems a roundabout way to get people damned by establishing the key to a religion that asks people to pray regularly, go to church, eschew sin and care for the poor and the needy. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Of course, these things could be considered evidence of the BOM’s veracity except that other religious organizations ask their members to do the same things. I think there is at least one other option which is that Joseph Smith was not inspired but wrote a book (for some reason of his own) that was inspiring to many other people and led to the organization of the LDS Church which (despite some of its flaws) has been a wonderful part of its members’ lives for nearly 200 years. And that’s really the worst case scenario IMO.
As for me, I find the BOM inspiring not just because I believe it’s of divine origin but because it contains narratives and concepts that really resonate with me (e.g. Nephi’s discussion of why there must be opposition in all things, Ammon’s missionary work of preaching to the Lamanites, Christ’s appearance to the Nephites after his resurrection). Though could we call a moratorium on using the “stripling warriors” account in talks and lessons for a bit? It’s got to be one of the most overused stories from the BOM.
Gerald wrote:I see Elder Callister’s perspective as a false dichotomy. Let’s say the Book of Mormon is “of the devil”. It seems a roundabout way to get people damned by establishing the key to a religion that asks people to pray regularly, go to church, eschew sin and care for the poor and the needy.
That’s been my argument too against these kinds of all-or-nothing, perfect or fraud, God or the Devil demands.
If it’s 100% of God, it has a lot of flaws, and God seems not to be such a smart communicator.
If it’s 100% of the Devil, then the devil is the worst salesman ever… We’re actually supposed to be afraid of this guy?
BeLikeChrist wrote:what other churches have brought forth this kind of scriptural knowledge about the nature of the Godhead ? I think we know the answer to that.
Well, the orthodox branch of Christianity does pretty well and by extension the western church with acceptance of the trinity. Something that the BoM picked up in its trinitarian passages. Considering how fast they’re growing, JW’s have done a pretty good job as well.
Hearing the all or nothing talks is helpful for me as it brings me back to deciding what’s true and what’s not and at the same time what matters or not. I think using the term “malicious” was meant to be rhetorical but I don’t think JS’s motives were that. I guess we’ll all figure it out in the end but it’s hard to go wrong in serving our “fellow beings” and by extension serving God.
I’m sure that Callister thought he was doing a good thing with black and white, all or nothing, approach — and that many of these fringe, middle way Mormons will feel guilt and fear, and repent and just accept the BOM and the church and fall into line of the authorities. I think he is wrong. So wrong. Drawing a line in the sand like he did is, well, foolish. It will most likely just drive a deeper wedge between the church and those who question and study and research. Once again, a crappy, not well thought out Oct conference talk has given a sucker punch to all the apologists and set the church back at least a decade – maybe two. It will cause way more casualties than converts, IMO.
Now, I’m sure many of us here will try to do mental gymnastics to make it work, much like we tried to do with the 14 Fs of the prophet and the two lines of communication. But like Doug said — his message and intent was VERY clear.
Good luck StayLDSers. These are the kind of talks where we will need it.
cwald wrote:I tip my hat back.
I do not believe George Lucus and Tolkein are motivated by $$$. I think they are artists. Money is just the consequence of them being very talented at what they believe in. I think they are men who have a vision and message, and use their talents and arts to spread their particular message to the masses.
I may even put them in the class of “prophet” to be honest.
I think that if we, as an LDS church can say that the founding fathers and Columbus were “inspired” by god — than why not Tolkien and Lucus. They have certainly influenced the world more than any modern LDS prophet has. Yes?
Definitely not Tolkien, he was an academic, and didn’t like celebrity status. But George Lucas, I do think is ruled by the almighty dollar I’m afraid. Why else would he constantly tinker and re-release Star Wars. I like some of his stuff, but it is very commercial.
If you’re looking for other prophets out there IMHO, some people go on about Castaneda (I’ve never read him), and Herman Hesse (who I have – Siddartha is especially good)… M Scott Peck… Karl Jung… Tarkovsky who veers between incredibly pretentious and very spiritual, and even within our own church, there’s Eliza Snow and John Lyon who never get the credit they deserve…
cwald, fwiw, I didn’t like that talk at all. Just so you know explicitly. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the Book of Mormon isn’t an intentional fraud, but making it a choice of absolute opposites doesn’t sit well with me – even though I can accept it as an actual translation of a real record, if proof one way or the other never is found. Given lack of proof, I choose to interpret it in whatever way is the most inspiring and meaningful to me – and that absolutely is as an inspired book of one kind or another.
I’m with Ray. His premise – that if something is not from God, it is from the Devil, is false. Does this mean, then that the Islamic scriptures are a fraud, and from the devil, and to be shunned? Or that the writings of John Milton in Paradise lost are from the devil (Milton claimed he wrote Paradise Lost as revelation filled his head each morning)? I think not. Truth is everywhere. Even if the history and witnesses surrounding the Book of Mormon is a fraud, it still can inspire people.
My question — why do people like to come up with these either-or statements? Cut or commit?
For example, myself. I am lukewarm as a Ward member. I go on Sunday, and contribute a bit, but I’m not on fire. I don’t buy into most of the Church policies and even some of the doctrine. Why do people like to say “you’re in or your out”??? Even being only half-way in, my halfway in position provides support to my daughter, my wife and my son. Is that not of value? And what about the possibility I may be on fire again — should we shuck all that out simply because I’m lukewarm for the time being?
What do these people who make extreme statements hope to gain from such false dichotomies?
SilentDawning wrote:My question — why do people like to come up with these either-or statements? Cut or commit?
For example, myself. I am lukewarm as a Ward member. I go on Sunday, and contribute a bit, but I’m not on fire. I don’t buy into most of the Church policies and even some of the doctrine. Why do people like to say “you’re in or your out”??? Even being only half-way in, my halfway in position provides support to my daughter, my wife and my son. Is that not of value? And what about the possibility I may be on fire again — should we shuck all that out simply because I’m lukewarm for the time being?
What do these people who make extreme statements hope to gain from such false dichotomies?
I think that many people view NOM, Buffet style, and middle way approaches as threats.
For many decades the US has prepared itself to fight world wars. Now with possible cyber attacks and acts of terrorism performed sometimes by US citizens, not only the armed services but also the legal structure is hard pressed to deal with these issues. So we have Gitmo, and the attempted categorization of enemy combatants, and the legal complexities of hunting and killing American citizens (who engage in terrorism) without trial. (Sorry for waxing political for a moment)
If we can look at this as a war of ideas, then the church has built up very good defenses from the “Mormons are satanic cultists” naysayers. That is a battle that we are comfortable with and have experience in. Often anti-Mormon authors in their haste to paint the LDS church as all bad use fallacies that can be shown and discredited.
But now we have Sunstone, and Symposia, and Mormon Stories, and NOM, buffet style, and middle way approaches – and it would be so much easier if we could just return to the Mormons and Anti-Mormons, “if you are not with us you are against us” mentality. If we don’t combat the slippage now, how much longer until the membership will be wanting to downgrade the BOM to “a good book” like the formerly RLDS have reportedly done.
And so the dichotomy persists, because if it can be accepted than those that have had spiritual experiences with the book will be forced to conclude that it must be from God and even that every word and phrase is His holy word. To believe it to be from the devil would mean that those spiritual experiences where likewise from the devil.
To put it another way, perhaps you have heard of the analogy of boiling a frog. If the false dichotomy can convince the majority of the frogs that the water in the pot in scalding hot (even when it is comfortably warm and bubbly
:thumbup: ) and thereby convince them to exit the pool before the bathing suites start to come off and things get crazy, then the false dichotomy would have served its purpose from a certain point of view.I seem to have mixed my metaphors somewhere along the line, but I think you get my drift.
:crazy: I think it is a GREAT example Roy. And, I think it is right on. “Middle way” is a threat – because the leadership doesn’t know who their allies are and who their enemies are. I would say that I was CERTAINLY an ally of the church up until May when they more or less accused me of being in the camp of the “axis of evil.”
So then the question becomes, why does the church leaders think we are at war? And when will we ever not be at war?
I really get tired of hearing war and militant type of language from the church — we sure use a lot of war and military analogies in our talks and manuals – and it all starts with the “war in heaven.” Yeah, it bothers me, much the same way that I don’t like to hear those analogies when I’m listening to sporting events.
College football teams are not at war, and neither should be people from different faiths. (even though many people in history have killed, and died, because of religion, and in the name of god.) That’s stuff needs to end.
cwald wrote:I think it is a GREAT example Roy.
I agree. It’s a natural human tendency to distinguish ‘us’ from ‘them’, ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’, etc, and no human endeavor better epitomizes that than does war. There is apparently no better way to get people to rally around your cause than to convince them that ‘they’ are threatening to destroy ‘us’, and no better way to cast it than as a battle between good and evil.
Quote:
I really get tired of hearing war and militant type of language from the church — we sure use a lot of war and military analogies in our talks and manuals …
Don’t forget the church hymns. I can hardly sing them any more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.