- RL on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “ST perfect comment. Is the Book of Mormon inspired or a revelation is the primary question. When Parley P Pratt read the book cover to cover he said he had a witness the book was a revelation. I’ve had this witness too. I get the skepticism, and feel kind of neutral on the historicity debate, fun to study but I wouldn’t want to argue either side. I think engaging with the text is worth more time, and historic questions is a part but not the whole deal. Sorting through the book to find the divine and then engaging with the divine is the utility of the book.” Jul 27, 00:37
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I agree that we should be patient, kind, and understanding towards one another. Even so, there are some things that cannot be compromised. Either the Book of Mormon is what it says it is or it isn’t. And if it isn’t then it has serious credibility issues. There may be a few who are able to receive the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction–and I’m all for folks accepting it as an inspired document for any reason that works for them. Even so, that paradigm simply does not work for most people. If we were to learn by some credible means that the Book of Mormon were indeed pure fiction it would destroy the church, IMO. Now one might argue that such might be the case because the saints aren’t ready to accept such a counterintuitive revelation. But my response is: how far are we willing to go with that kind of thinking? Are we prepared to accept the idea the Jesus did not rise from the dead? Or that God is not the Creator? Or that absolutely nothing that we’ve been taught has any validity at all–except as it might motivate us to do good in the present? I can’t go for that. The gospel is a living reality. We are transformed as we exercise faith in a Living God. And if that God bears no resemblance to the witnesses that we’ve received of him–then whence our faith? Whence our hope? We believe in his living reality because of what he has manifested (to us) about himself through his chosen vessels. And I don’t think he would set us up with a certain continuity of belief only to lead us to something completely different. It would be like his teaching us something about love by allowing us to care for our loved ones only to have all of them turn out be temporary constructs.” Jul 27, 00:30
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I think the Book of Mormon might be equally equipped to speak to those who see it as ancient history, modern history, or postmodern history. Nephi said “the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). This could mean that God adapts his communication to us, considering the language that has shaped each of our worldviews, so that we will understand His message in a way that makes sense to us. For instance, there are scholars who can read the same passage in the Book of Mormon and see either evidence of Hebrew literary patterns or Mesoamerican culture and society, depending on their training. Impressively both sets of scholars share these findings in the belief that it will help nurture faith in the Book of Mormon and its message. I don’t say this to be dismissive, but instead to suggest how multivalent the Book of Mormon might be. I think there is a good chance that the namesake of the book was trying to tell us that he had taken multiple perspectives into account when he prepared his manuscript: “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing” (Mormon 8:35). To me that raises the possibility that he included elements that would appeal to people who approach as either ancient, modern, or postmodern history. Adherents of the ancient history paradigm likely appreciate the how the book resonates with the stories of God’s dealings with his covenant people in the Bible. They might also be inclined to find meaning in apologetics that seek to tie the text to an ancient landscape, such as archeological work done for proposed sites at Nahom and Bountiful. Those drawn to the modern history paradigm might find inspiration in how amenable the text is to academic analysis. For instance, historians have a knack for finding context in which the emergence of the Book of Mormon in nineteenth-century America might be plausibly understood. And literary criticism has uncovered how the text seems to be in conversation with other texts from the same time period. Proponents of the Book of Mormon as postmodern history can point to the narrative’s fragmentation and complexity (flashbacks within flashbacks), self-referentiality (considerable commentary on record compilation), interpretative flexibility (shift in Lamanite curse from physical to spiritual), subversion of grand historical narratives (counternarrative to Biblical and Eurocentric history), moral and ethical complexity (such as the shifting moral allegiance of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies), and critique of colonialism and empire (Samuel the Lamanite exemplifies empowerment of the marginalized). Each of these three historical perspectives on the Book of Mormon involves a different set of epistemological commitments and interpretive lenses. An individual who embraces any one of them could feel discomfort with the other two. Fortunately, the book offers a few clues for handling these differences. Charity, the pure love of Christ, exhorts us to be patient, kind, and understanding towards others, even those with differing views (Moroni 7:45-48). If we find our disagreements becoming disagreeable, we might do well to remember what Alma the Elder told his people, that “there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another” (Mosiah 18:21). And in its climax, the book offers a model of achieving unity through diversity (Lamanites and Nephites forging a common society in 4 Nephi 1), which suggests that individuals can seek to find common ground and maintain respectful relationships despite differing interpretations.” Jul 26, 22:33
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “IMO, the Lord is more interested in our efforts to live up to the teachings of the BoM than he is in where we stand on its historicity. Even so — aside from the fact that the BoM’s claims about itself being the best explanation for what it is — there are serious theological problems with its claims if they are not grounded in real history, IMO. Much like trying to “spiritualize” the resurrection of Jesus–if we reduce the witnesses contained in the BoM to mere stories then we lose the concreteness of the reality of God’s actions. The book loses its power if there is no Living God keeping the promises he makes to real historical individuals. The power of its witness of Christ resides in the reality of the testators’ experience with him–the fact that real people saw him and conversed with him and then bore witness of their encounter with him.” Jul 26, 20:17
- on On Pie and Beer Day: “Pontius, sorry, my bad. The first half of my comment was directed at you specifically – I think the pioneer story really is sacred – but the second half wasn’t directed at you at all. I should have made that clear or split it up into two comments. I posted in haste and apologize.” Jul 26, 19:37
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “Anon, always feel free to clarify. John, I’m glad you’re at peace with all this. Anna, I’m glad you had a good experience with the bishop you described. Those are interesting responses both from your bishop and the Spirit. I do hope that there’s greater space for people like you and the people you love. Something I’ve worked at. ST, I do like the way you frame the question in terms of divine revelation. I do see the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as inspired. I do think it’s wise to take tolerant attitudes toward different ideas on the Book of Mormon, but I don’t expect the leaders giving conference talks saying “It’s no problem if you don’t think the BoM is historical” anytime soon. The church (leaders and members) have invested quite a bit in the notions that a historical Book of Mormon is quite central to the church’s truth claims. That may change slowly, but not easily.” Jul 26, 17:25
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I am not a scholar, but have found a sort of middle way that works for me. I offer it here in case another finds value too. For years I struggled to choose between the loose and tight BoM translation theories. Both seemed to have merit and limitations. Eventually I realized I could choose both – ie, there were two translations. My view is that Jospeh simply dictated text that appeared to him. The actual translation happened by some individual (or group) a few centuries before. That’s why the English better fits 17th century phrasing than 19th. This view also can offer a resolution for whether the BoM is historical. I believe the book reflects a deep meta story based on a lost history, but which has been filtered through the 17th century translation process which introduced factual errors (eg horses), post-NT terminology and views (eg Christ), and attempts to answer reformation era questions (eg infant baptisms). The view is similar to how many modern historians approach whether Troy or Atlantis are historical. Again, I’m not particularly studied. But I am convinced Joseph could not have written the text. It’s far above his abilities at the end of his life, much less as a struggling newlywed. And I am convinced the book brings people closer to Christ. For me, to maintain faith I’ve needed to find a workable theory for how the text came to be. This one works for me.” Jul 26, 17:19
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “Writing as a sympathetic non-Saint whose biggest stumbling block, by a mile, is BoM (etc) historical claims, I’m attracted to the (probably unintended?) implication in Grant Hardy’s most recent Reader’s BoM with Oxford that the fundamental question is whether it’s divine revelation–if it is, the historical questions don’t disappear but they do fade in importance. I can easily see a divinely inspired scripture, drawing on a lot of existing sources…like the historical and poetic books of the Hebrew Bible. Other Christian churches (such as Catholicism in my experience) tolerate a range of opinions on biblical historical accuracy within a shared assumption that the canon is divinely revealed. That seems like a reasonable approach. Not every question comes down to “what will cause fewer faith crises and departures” but visible tolerance on this question, even just at the grassroots, would blunt one prominent problem. I’m not a non-Mormon trying to dictate policy, but this is some of how I sometimes try to internally square a pull towards theology I find attractive with a desire to not assent to claims about Precolumbian America I find…what I’ll call implausible on an LDS blog” Jul 26, 16:39
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “My story is kind of like “ anonymous please” above and I too am “that old”. With a couple of differences. 1. Except I’m female. 2. Except my problem included Joseph himself right along with the BoM. 3. I also am no longer attending, but that has more to do with how the church treats anyone not Cis/straight/white/male. It has nothing to do with my feelings about the BoM. The thing that is the same is my doubts starting as a doubt that I just could not shake way back in Junior Sunday school. I tried studying and the more I studied on the issue the bigger the doubts became. I prayed and all I was told was that I should stay in the church, “for now.” Thirty or so years of that, as I became more sure the BoM was not historical. I finally got quite demanding with God and demanded a straight answer to the question of “Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?” I hoped maybe I would just be told that he was insane or a con man as S. Smoot seems to want it to be black and white. I wanted black or white, not some smeary vague grayish, brownish, blob. Either tell me it’s all fake so I can leave the church, or tell me it is lovely white and Joseph the jerk was really the best God could do for a prophet. Well, I got the loudest voice saying very calmly, “It doesn’t matter.” Not what I wanted. Not at all what I wanted. How can it possibly “not matter” when it is the one foundation of the church? So, next temple recommend interview my bishops asks about my testimony of J.S. and I just laughed, and quoted my revelation. Then I explained my demanding temper tantrum before God, and told my bishop what my answer was, and just how can this question “not matter”? If my bishop had been S. Smoot, I would have left the church that day. But, lucky me, I had a guy like S. Fleming, He was wise enough to know the world is not black and white. I then told my bishop a bit more about the question, because if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, not a con man or insane or fallen prophet, and he was STILL a prophet when he was lying to Emma about his other “wives”/concubines/affairs, then God does not really love his daughter as people, just sees them as baby incubators. My bishop got awfully quiet, paced the room a bit, but would not let me leave. Then finally he turns around looking like he just found the winning lottery ticket (yeah, I live in a state with lottery tickets) and he says, “that’s right, it doesn’t matter. What *Does* matter is loving God and knowing God loves you. So, if Joseph being a “real prophet” means you feel that God does not love you, then it really doesn’t matter. Joseph Smith matters a lot less than Jesus Christ.” Then I got really brave and asked him if the BoM was history, he smiles and says, “Probably not, but that doesn’t matter either.” Last I knew that bishop was still in the church, in spite of his thinking the BoM is “probably not historical.” Me, I quit going because I have too many ways that most Mormons just cannot understand or accept me and I got tired of being labeled “unworthy” when I was doing the best I could and besides, I have too many people that I love who are LGBT and some other letters. But it was not the lack of historicity of the BoM that made me quit going. I stayed active a good 15 years after that conversation with that bishop.” Jul 26, 15:19
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I left the church for seven years and returned four years ago. I spent the first year doubting the historicity yet believing the fundamental truth claims. Then, it dawned on me that, like the major miracles of other dispensations, the physical proof does not come until the chance to believe the claims without the proof has passed. That’s where we are right now. All arguments against historicity rely on assumptions about the unlikely probability of things and presume today’s knowledge of how things really were to be more comprehensive than it really is. God is perfectly proficient in low-probability spaces, so I’ll let Him reveal the physical proof on His timetable. It does me more good to take Joseph Smith, Jun. at his word than to lean into doubt, especially when I know the fruit of his restorative work to be so sweet.” Jul 26, 14:24