Do you have to believe 100% that the BoM is true to be baptized?

[Jamie123]

Because, objectively speaking, it is. .... I would classify the Book or Mormon as useful.

 

MoE: I had always assumed you were LDS, but now I see "Not Mormon" in your profile. Your point of view is extremely interesting - it's certainly nothing I've ever heard from an LDS member. Mosr people (myself included) tend to view the BoM as either "theopneustos" (God-breathed and therefore infallible) or a 19th Century fabrication. (And given its purported origins - angels and seer-stones that would seem to me very reasonable.) You present a very interesting middle position. I would be very interested to see how many actual Mormns agree with you.

[MarginOfError]

MoE: I had always assumed you were LDS, but now I see "Not Mormon" in your profile. Your point of view is extremely interesting - it's certainly nothing I've ever heard from an LDS member. Mosr people (myself included) tend to view the BoM as either "theopneustos" (God-breathed and therefore infallible) or a 19th Century fabrication. (And given its purported origins - angels and seer-stones that would seem to me very reasonable.) You present a very interesting middle position. I would be very interested to see how many actual Mormns agree with you.

 

Jamie, to be clear, I am a baptized and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I identify as 'not Mormon' because, generally speaking, I find Mormons annoying.  

 

That's partly cultural and partly me being a jerk.

[omegaseamaster75]

Why does one "have to" acknowledge this?

To the victor go the spoils as they say, MOE's post above mine sums it up very well. I accept the Nephi was chosen of God to write his portion of the BOM, but it has his slant on it, as does Mormons portion. A casual reading of the book demonstrates this. 

 

Same for the history of the church. Its pretty whitewashed, but again to the victors go the spoils, Brigham Young and leaders that followed him got to choose the direction of how the history of the church would be told to members. Particularly new converts and over time members that were BIC. The good is glorified, and the not so good swept under a rug in some basement.    

[The Folk Prophet]

Because, objectively speaking, it is.  It was written almost entirely by two people (Nephi and Mormon) who had deep motivation to frame the actions of themselves and their people in terms of God's involvement.  Nephi's record frames the acquisition of the brass plates and the murder of Laban as commands from God, but never really addresses the fact that these were legitimate crimes.  Thus, there is historical bias in the record* 

 

Again, with Nephi, there's never any mention of the fact that Laman was literally robbed of property that, according to the customs of the time, probably should have belonged to him (namely, the brass plates, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, etc).  Nephi stole these (wisely, sure) in the midst of his departure.  But a critical reading of the Nephi's records leaves the impression that Laman and Lemuel and legitimate complaints with Nephi that never really get presented.

 

For Mormon's part, with very few exceptions, the Lamanites are nearly always the unprovoked aggressors of any conflict.  The nature of humanity indicates this is very unlikely, and so it seems the history is probably whitewashed.  The only times the Lamanites are not the aggressors is when they are "righteous," or a part of the Church of God.

 

So yes, the Book of Mormon has a clear historical bias.  But that's okay, because it isn't a document that purports to be a complete history.  It's a religious history, and I'm not aware of any place in the record where anyone claims it is intended to be an unbiased record.  

 

So back to the point, it seems silly to me to expect that a person should have to accept the Book of Mormon as 100% truth when it almost certainly is not.

 

To put it in statistical terms: "All models are wrong.  Some models are useful."  I would classify the Book or Mormon as useful.

 

 

 

* Note: I'm not saying he shouldn't have done those things, just pointing out that the record is in fact biased.

 

None of this justifies the thought that one "has to" accept the Book of Mormon that way. Even if we take your point of view here as indisputable fact, just for the sake of moving forward, my question is, what, exactly, is harmful about viewing the Book of Mormon as 100% fact with no historical bias?

[NightSG]

Ohhhhh, I could probably answer that question. But it wouldn't be very nice of me. 

 

Does it still involve roast beef and sauerkraut?  

[Jamie123]

The good is glorified, and the not so good swept under a rug in some basement.    

 

Which is fine until the rug is lifted.

 

I remember the second time the missionaries visited me back in the 1990s, I'd had a chance to look up "Mormonism" in the encyclopedia, and had learned about (amongst other things) the Mountain Meadows Massacre. When I asked them about this they told me it was true and it was something the Church had had to repent of. I could respect that. If they'd told me it was "all lies" - and I found out the truth later - I'd not have been impressed.

[omegaseamaster75]

None of this justifies the thought that one "has to" accept the Book of Mormon that way. Even if we take your point of view here as indisputable fact, just for the sake of moving forward, my question is, what, exactly, is harmful about viewing the Book of Mormon as 100% fact with no historical bias?

I take it on faith that the BoM is 100% correct. There is nothing "harmful" in thinking that there is not historical bias we will disagree on that point, but heck my 5yo believes in Santa Claus, no harm in that

[The Folk Prophet]

Which is fine until the rug is lifted.

 

I remember the second time the missionaries visited me back in the 1990s, I'd had a chance to look up "Mormonism" in the encyclopedia, and had learned about (amongst other things) the Mountain Meadows Massacre. When I asked them about this they told me it was true and it was something the Church had had to repent of. I could respect that. If they'd told me it was "all lies" - and I found out the truth later - I'd not have been impressed.

 

Those missionaries were dunderheads -- bless their hearts. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is historical reality, but the only ones who were guilty of it were those who perpetrated it, and whereas there are those who claim that "the church" was behind it, there's is no proof to that. Moreover, even if concrete evidence came to light that Brigham Young was behind it, there would still be no way to know what his motivations behind it were or were not, and if, therefore, any "repentance" was even required (see MarginOfError's remarks on Nephi's thieving (and, I might add, murderous) ways for reference if my meaning is not clear).

[The Folk Prophet]

 we will disagree on that point

 

How do you know I disagree on that point?

 

Of course, I'm not sure what point you mean? If you mean (as I presume) that the Book of Mormon contains historical bias, and you believe that I think it does not, then you are mistaken.

[Vort]

I remember the second time the missionaries visited me back in the 1990s, I'd had a chance to look up "Mormonism" in the encyclopedia, and had learned about (amongst other things) the Mountain Meadows Massacre. When I asked them about this they told me it was true and it was something the Church had had to repent of.

They were wrong. "The Church" had no hand in the murders you mention. That was done by local individuals, perhaps under auspices of their local Church authority, but certainly not something that "the Church" (meaning both the institutional organization and the body of Christ -- though I deny any sort of black-line distinction between the two) has any need to "repent" of. As for the individuals involved, I'm happy to leave their state up to their Judge.

[omegaseamaster75]

How do you know I disagree on that point?

 

Of course, I'm not sure what point you mean? If you mean (as I presume) that the Book of Mormon contains historical bias, and you believe that I think it does not, then you are mistaken.

1. We never agree...ok maybe twice

2. I find it odd that you would not think that the writers of the BoM would not be totally fair and unbiased in their description of historical facts and their personal views on them...

 

If I am mistaken I apologize.

[The Folk Prophet]

2. I find it odd that you would not think that the writers of the BoM would not be totally fair and unbiased in their description of historical facts and their personal views on them...

 

Why? Because I'm an unthinking, brainwashed, sheep who gullibly accepts anything without any thought given to it that my  mommy and daddy told me?

 

I don't see any problem with believing that some aspects of the Book of Mormon may be driven by the same historical bias that all history is. I do, however, as a general rule, take the concepts therein as either A. factual or B. meant to be described the way they are to teach truths even if the expression may be point-of-view rather than concrete reality.

 

In other words, I think there is a distinct different between having a general understanding of potential historical bias and writing off anything one disagrees with or views as problematic (particularly based on our own cultural biases, which for some reason in today's world everyone seems to think we're somehow above).

 

To treat the Book of Mormon as nothing but a historical record is mistaken. It is, primarily, scripture. That places it firmly into a different category of communication, and changes how we should accept and view the things therein. It is not a historical record that just happens to contain some religious thought. It is a religious text that just happens to contain some history. And it's writing, editing, preservation, and translation were under the control and domain of the Almighty.

 

But did the Nephites have a small-world, us vs. them, self-cultural-centric understanding of the world? Obviously.

[omegaseamaster75]

Why? Because I'm an unthinking, brainwashed, sheep who gullibly accepts anything without any thought given to it that my  mommy and daddy told me?

 

 

 

I never said that, you tend to be more black and white about things is all.

[The Folk Prophet]

I never said that, you tend to be more black and white about things is all.

 

I am black and white about gospel truths. Not history, man-made-philosophy, or even (if you knew my sad education history) mathematics.

[pkstpaul]

Most people (myself included) tend to view the BoM as either "theopneustos" (God-breathed and therefore infallible) or a 19th Century fabrication.

I don't know that there is anything that it "God-breathed and therefore infallible". I think God's word is distorted the moment it leaves His mouth. Except for the Spirit felt but the receiver, any recording or translation of such becomes tainted by the perspective of the person hearing it (which included the receiver). Yes, I think God can give and protect a pure translation, but I don't think He does. Men are men. They are not pure enough to fulfill an infallible church or carry forth infallible writings. That doesn't mean I believe everyting to be "corrupt", it mean "not pure". I think there a difference.

 

An example: in this week's Relief Society meeting, the discussion was on the Church's news conference and the take on us being more tolerantant of GLBT. In the discussion, it was asked if there are any examples of Christ dealing with a same sex attracted person (to be PC). The answer was 'no'; at least in our group. Do we really believe that Christ didn't deal with the issue while alive? I believe he probably did. So, why isn't it in the Bible? Because man refused to record it or more likely, somewhere along the way, it was deamed unworthy of print (consider the 1600 year history before comitted to King James Version). There are thousands of pages of "scripture" that never made it in KJV. That is one "possible" example of how imperfect the scriptures are.

The BOM is likely no different when you think of the thousands of pages Mormon condensed. What did he leave out? What did he write that was is cultural perception of what happened?

 

Now, just for ranting sake, take President Hinckley's talk about body piercing and tattoos. I listened live. I took it as sound and inspired advice that I will follow. I did not take it as a commandment. Other's did. Which was it?

[Just_A_Guy]

Jamie, for what it's worth, I agree with MoE's interpretation--and I think I'm a good deal more conservative than he is.  The Book of Mormon authors seem, to me, to see everything through the lens of God's dealing with man; and that's how they write their histories.  If David McCullough or Mike Quinn had been alive in AD 385, their accounts of the war of Nephite extermination would have been very different than what Mormon and Moroni actually wrote.  If Mormon and Moroni lived today I think they would have unabashedly tied the Ferguson riots to oppression of the poor by the wealthy, our military quagmires in Vietnam and the Middle East to the wholesale abandonment of American women and children by their husbands and fathers, September 11 to American toleration of abortion, and Hurricane Katrina to the spread of gay marriage. 

 

And the press would have pilloried them for it.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Jamie, for what it's worth, I agree with MoE's interpretation--and I think I'm a good deal more conservative than he is.  The Book of Mormon authors seem, to me, to see everything through the lens of God's dealing with man; and that's how they write their histories.  If David McCullough or Mike Quinn had been alive in AD 385, their accounts of the war of Nephite extermination would have been very different than what Mormon and Moroni actually wrote.  If Mormon and Moroni lived today I think they would have unabashedly tied the Ferguson riots to oppression of the poor by the wealthy, our military quagmires in Vietnam and the Middle East to the wholesale abandonment of American women and children by their husbands and fathers, September 11 to American toleration of abortion, and Hurricane Katrina to the spread of gay marriage. 

 

And the press would have pilloried them for it.

 

I would temper this idea just slightly with "if God revealed it to them". I have a bit of a hard time with the idea that Mormon and Moroni blamed everything on unrighteousness but it wasn't really the case and they were just too quick on the draw with such conclusions. These were prophets who wrote by revelation.

Edited March 3, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

To me, it's fundamentally the difference between proximate causality and ultimate causality.  The BoM authors focused on the latter.

[Vort]

I have no problem believing that the Nephite historians wrote from a biased perspective. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Frankly, it's refreshing to read people who don't pretend to an "objectivity" that they do not possess. Furthermore, when you get right to the core of the matter, what really happened with the Nephites is of far less importance to us than the lessons they are trying to teach us. That is the truth we need to be mostly concerned with, not whether the Nephites demonstrated racist intolerance for their neighbors at times.

[The Folk Prophet]

To me, it's fundamentally the difference between proximate causality and ultimate causality.  The BoM authors focused on the latter.

 

There is a fairly wide gap between this and the conclusion that Laman and Lemuel had legitimate complaints against Nephi.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have no problem believing that the Nephite historians wrote from a biased perspective. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Frankly, it's refreshing to read people who don't pretend to an "objectivity" that they do not possess. Furthermore, when you get right to the core of the matter, what really happened with the Nephites is of far less importance to us than the lessons they are trying to teach us. That is the truth we need to be mostly concerned with, not whether the Nephites demonstrated racist intolerance for their neighbors at times.

 

The problem with this idea is that the lessons they are trying to teach us is built right into what happened to them. Moreover, if they did, actually, demonstrate racist intolerance for their neighbors, does that not teach something? It's also somewhat difficult to write these things off as somehow unimportant when many of the so-called intolerantly racist ideas are from God himself.

Edited May 2, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

There is a fairly wide gap between this and the conclusion that Laman and Lemuel had legitimate complaints against Nephi.

Right, but I'm not sure that's quite what MoE was trying to say.  I think he was pointing out that Laman and Lemuel probably had some arguments that, to someone who didn't understand the mind and will of God, might have seemed facially valid.

 

I would suggest that it's not a bad thing to note that sometimes the Bad Guys can have really good arguments.

[The Folk Prophet]

Right, but I'm not sure that's quite what MoE was trying to say.  I think he was pointing out that Laman and Lemuel probably had some arguments that, to someone who didn't understand the mind and will of God, might have seemed facially valid.

 

I would suggest that it's not a bad thing to note that sometimes the Bad Guys can have really good arguments.

 

Somehow I don't think that is the message the Book of Mormon is meant to convey.

 

I don't necessarily entirely disagree with MoE's thoughts on the matter (other than the "have to" idea as to what is important to understand). If anything, I think they're simply applied too far-reaching and some conclusions drawn or implied (or perhaps, to be fair, inferred) are thereby faulty.

 

However, I would suggest that a good argument (depending, of course on the meaning of this...so to be clear I'll rephrase as "legitimate" argument) cannot be made from falsehood.

 

The bottom line is that Laman and Lemuel were in the wrong. Their point of view, therefore, isn't particularly compelling as an important one for consideration as to legitimacy. Why? Because they were unwilling to do that which the Lord asked them to do, which is to humble themselves and obey. Therefore, Nephi's imperfections don't really matter. I have no illusions that Nephi was perfect. There was only ever one perfect man on the earth. Certainly Nephi made mistakes in his interactions with Laman and Lemuel. These mistakes don't legitimize their point of view or choices however, because what was asked of them was to obey and follow in humility in spite of any imperfections in Nephi's words or actions. This, of course, is true of us as well when it comes to our interactions with prophets.

 

I have no doubt that from Laban's perspective getting his head cut off and his stuff stolen (though I expect the first was the greater insult) was unfair. And I have no doubt that the view of what Nephi was and did as held by the Jews who remained behind in Jerusalem was that he was a thief and a murderer and completely in the wrong. That view, however, despite the law of the land, was mistaken.

 

There can be no validity in a view that sides against the will of God.

[MarginOfError]

Why does one "have to" acknowledge this?

I suppose you're right that you don't "have to" acknowledge that the Book of Mormon is historically biased in the same way you don't have to acknowledge the commutative law of addition. The penalty for doing so, however, is that the beliefs and conclusions you draw based on that assumption are likely to fall apart under scrutiny.

The point though is that a missionary requiring that a potential convert believe the Book of Mormon is 100% true is setting an unreasonable standard (and illustrating his own naïveté).

The Book of Mormon could be a complete work of fiction, and so long as it was divinely inspired, I would continue to use my 'useful model' analogy.

[Jamie123]

They were wrong. "The Church" had no hand in the murders you mention. That was done by local individuals, perhaps under auspices of their local Church authority, but certainly not something that "the Church" (meaning both the institutional organization and the body of Christ -- though I deny any sort of black-line distinction between the two) has any need to "repent" of. As for the individuals involved, I'm happy to leave their state up to their Judge.

 

To be fair to dear Sister Detton and Sister Hinckley, I may have misquoted them when I said "something the Church had had to repent of". This was 23 years ago, and I can't remember exactly how they phrased it. The point I was making is is, they didn't try to deny that it happened, or that Church members were responsible for it.

 

Sisters - if you are reading this, and if I did misquote you, please accept my apology.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Jamie123