Book of Mormon Historicity, Part 3: Quiet

130 comments for “Book of Mormon Historicity, Part 3: Quiet”

1. A big part of my faith crisis was learning that the historical problems were well known to church leaders, but the lesson manuals and artwork were allowed to be printed with the whitewashed versions anyway. This is a problem for me because I made life decisions that were based on that misinformation.

   So I agree with Dehlin and Reel that members should be given the information up front in order to make the best decisions for themselves. I wish I had had someone in my ward who spoke up and sparked conversation instead of staying quiet.

   From Chapter 31 of Gospel Principles: “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies.”

2. And yet, we still seemed to have plenty of “conversation,” right, Davek? So …

3. Yeah, church is definitely not the correct setting to discuss if the Book of Mormon is historical or not because almost the entirety of active church members have a testimony of said book and believe it is historical. And, if you ever were to mention that God revealed to you it wasnt historical you would cross the line entirely into the same group as the Bill Reels and John Dehlins in the eyes of church goers.

   Chances are highly likely that although your research and studies seem sound, they are only sound in the secular scholarly eyes of the world. I fear that you seek an audience amongst believers in our faith and you can have some sway amongst them in convincing them of some type of mass deceit by Joseph Smith and even God himself. Be careful, thats the same way Reel and Dehlin both left the church and became bitter over it.

   You would never be able to convince me the Book of Mormon isnt historical. I have my own witnessed. I choose not to look through the secular scholatly lens and because of that I see evidences where you will always refuse to look.

   When Noah, the Jaredited and Nephi built the ships they traversed the oceans they did so according to the Lords instructions, not their own. We take these stories on faith knowing that Gods ways are not mans ways. Mans ways of determining actual history are notoriously flawed.

   It is best to keep quiet amongst the true believers, we are not easily deceived. Places like sunstone, the JI and here all attract those on the fringe who have itching ears who are always looking for fuel to extinguish faith ad truth.

4. You made your views clear in your other comment, Kibs. Like I said on my first post, this was a conclusion I came to through spiritual promptings. Having been released as bishop recently, I’m not sure how more devotion to the church I can show.

5. Stephen,
   So, if the studies I have done over the last 20 years have persuaded me in the belief the Book is historical and I receive spiritual witnesses and promptings that my findings are correct, how do you think I feel about what you say? Certainly God wouldnt deceive the both of us. Either your promptings are real and mine were wrong, or, mine are right and yours are false. Its not hard at all then, I know mine to be true so therefore yours must be false. So, you not only lose me as being credulous, but also lead me yo believe your promptings come from the devil and not from God. Now, certainly you can think the same with me.

   Suppose for an instance that your conclusions are wrong. Where would that place you and your work? It doesnt matter if you were bishop or not. Bishops can fall from grace just like anyone else.

   An area of major concern I have is because you conclude that the book isnt historical it moves the line so far into unknown territory on what is true that the same logic that propels and compels you forward will leave you and others who follow or agree with you into strange paths where nothing God ever says or does can be believed.

   I will be honest, I have watched, mostly silent from the sidelines, and have witnessed the sad demise of every single soul who disbelieves the Book of Mormon and have fallen away. The odds ate not in your favor to remain in good standing with the church. And, your work actually destroys, not helps, bring to pass the work and gliry of God. Think about that. God would never create a fictional work and pass it off as true to bring to pass his will. Be careful what side of the line you are really on. Is ehat you are doing strengthening peoples testimony in the Book of Mormon, or weakening their testimony? If it is weakening it then you are not on Gods side. Its that simple.

6. Let me just clarify a couple of things. First, you’re a bit off the topic of this particular post: quiet. But whatever.

   Second, the point of these posts isn’t to convince you or anyone else of my views. Go ahead and believe the BoM is historical. The point is just for me to explain my views.

   And you’ve seem to have missed the timeline I laid out in my first post, so I will repeat. I stopped believing the BoM was historical in around 2011 and was called to be bishop at the end of 2018. So I didn’t believe the BoM was historical 7 year prior to being called as bishop and served the entire calling with that view.

   I get that you find my views concerning, but the data is simply against BoM historicity. Tons of people can figure that out. I’d like those people to figure out a way to stay (I did!) I don’t see your views as very helpful in that effort.

7. I find it interesting that the first two commenters are so opposite, one accusing you of lying by omission by not bringing up awkward truths at church, and the other warning you against speaking your heresies at church and warning you you are on a dangerous road to apostasy.

   I agree with you that church meetings are not the place to bring up awkward truths when the church seems to, if not officially, at least imply that the opposite is true. For example, in a lesson on the reasons people go inactive or apostate, the church often teaches that Thomas Marsh went wrong by supporting his wife in some story about stripping the cream off milk. Well, the truth is Marsh dropped out of the church over polygamy, but I don’t bring that up at church because it would just label me a trouble maker. Even a former bishop would get funny looks and head shaking over bringing up something like that. The milk stripping story comes from Brigham Young, and most members think he is credible. But he sometimes lied to say that people did not leave the church over polygamy, but reasons of their own pride.

   But on the other hand, Davek has a good point about informed consent. When we are making important decisions about our life, it helps to have correct information. And when people are lied to, then find out, they lose trust in the thing or person that lied to them. Losing trust in the church is the biggest thing that leads to apostasy, not the facts about the history.

   But it is up to the institution to either continue to lie, or correct wrong information as soon as they are aware of it. But the problem is the church has the likes of B K Packer who say that the true history is not faith promoting. So, the church keep showing pictures of Joseph carefully studying gold plates, with a curtain between him and a scribe as if he is really translating, instead of whatever he really was doing with his head in a hat and a rock in that hat.

   I made a decision to stop being quiet at church and yet not look like I was agreeing with some of the things I disagree with, by not attending. But yeah, I was quite a long time. And I do wish that I knew some of the stuff the church covers up sooner and I feel betrayed and lied to about some of the things I was told. And I will never trust church leaders again, so this is a hard thing for individuals to solve. It really is an institutional problem that top church leaders need to solve.

8. Stephen,
   This “data” you are promoting though is secular reasoning and understanding. This same secularism pretty much believes all of scripture stories to be mythical. And though you believe “tons” of people can figure that out, those “tons” are the very ones who leave the church. Your philosophical approach is a paradox. On the one hand you want people to stay, but on the other, your beliefs and attitudes and promotion of that work will lead people away, not bring them in.

9. I don’t create the data, Kibs. I don’t promote it. It exists on its own and it easy to find. I’m not making it up or promoting it. As Ben Shapiro say, “facts don’t care about your feelings!”

   I have had several encounters with people who’ve told me that a little study has made it obvious to them that the BoM is not historical. It has nothing to do with me, they did the research and figured it out. They are just sharing what they found with me.

   And in many cases, I’ve shared my views on the matter and they have told me that such sharing has helped them STAY. So I’m going to keep doing that even if you don’t like it Kibs.

10. Those are all really big topics, Anna, many requiring their own posts. So I’ll just share a few thoughts related to what you and Davek said.

    Like I said in the OP, I thought playing class “know it all” was obnoxious and I preferred to have those conversations elsewhere. The Bloggernacle in it’s heyday was a lot of fun (I’m happy to try to keep some conversations going here). So it seemed to me that there were other public outlets for these kinds of conversations. Marsh and strippings were discussed extensively here.

    Now, I know that lots of people didn’t know about these outlets, but I’ve also learned that they are not the vast majority of member’s cup of tea. For me to try to turn Gospel Doctrine into the Bloggernacle would be obnoxious on my part. I’m happy to contemplate.

    I do see value in “getting along” at the ward level. I like the idea of striving for that sense of community. So advice I’ve had for people who’ve been upset with the church and wanted to be more vocal about it is, “If you go and fight with people at church, it will probably leave you feeling upset and not wanting to come back.” I’ve often felt that one big cause of people leaving is not liking the other ward members. My sense that picking fights may exacerbate that feeling.

    So I know needing to talk is important, and frustrating gospel doctrine lessons are hard, but I’m of the opinion that there are better venues.

    That’s why I created the safe-space group in my ward, which Davek happens to be a part of!

    But as I mentioned in previous posts, lots of members found the idea suspicious and uncomfortable. Not an easy thing to put together and keep running, but I think the results have been really good.

11. Stephen, lets be clear, the “data” you suggest is conjecture and supposition at best. Its not hard facts like you wish to think. For instance-
    Have you seen, handled and felt the golden plates yourself? Thus you cannot prove what they are or not. Thats supposition and conjecture and at best heresay. Have you seen the angel Moroni? How can you say he is or is not who he claims to be if you havent seen him?

12. Kibs you’re off the topic. I want to discuss the topic of THIS post here. Please post these kind of comments on my other post. I responded to you on that other post.

13. I like this post Stephen. And I like the fact that the church doesn’t have a fixed creed. Yes we have to be careful that we don’t go about throwing wrenches in the church’s works by pressing our own peculiar values upon our fellow members — and that’s something that every member needs to be aware of whether orthodox or “un” — but there’s nothing wrong with each one of us holding differing views so long as we know how to safeguard them and so long as they don’t grieve the spirit.

14. For my own part–I think John Dehlin and Bill Reel are wrong for a couple of reasons. First, they will always be wrong because they seek to destroy the church. And so it doesn’t matter how “right” they are on this detail or that–because as Section 50 teaches us (in so many words): if the word of truth is not conveyed by the spirit of truth then it is not of God. The adversary was 100% wrong when he deceived Eve in spite of whatever “truth” he may have employed to get the job done.

    Second, church meetings is not the place to hammer out the details of its history. The church’s primary responsibility is to help its members live the gospel. And that means teaching the basics more than anything else–not graduate level courses in history and theology. That said, I’m one of those who believes that if we are befuddled by something in the church’s history the antidote is to keep digging. I’m of the opinion that more accurate information tends to vindicate rather than condemn the church. Even so, I’d hope that in spite of whatever it is that might challenge our faith we’ll remember the workings of the spirit in our lives. The fruits of the spirit is proof positive of the church’s claims in spite of whatever conundrum may present itself from its past.

15. Anna, I’d like to clarify that my first comment was directed towards the church, not specifically at Steve. He has been great to talk things out with as an adult. I was just kinda wishing I’d had these conversations with SOMEONE before I went on a mission, chose my spouse, cringily bore my testimony to friends and coworkers, sacrificed time, energy and cash for the LDS Corporation, etc. Those actions were all based on a version of the church / gospel that I was presented while there was much more well-known-to-some information that would have colored my decisions differently.

    I’d like to think that I would have made many of the same life decisions, but with a more mature outlook. I would have phrased my missionary teaching & testimony differently but honestly. But who knows? We don’t have a crystal ball or a time machine. I can’t know for sure what life would have been like if I was taught true church history as a kid.

    I am not bitter. My life is good. But I am a big supporter of giving all relevant information for people to make their best choices. That is why I choose the loudmouth approach when I attend church classes. I say what the teachers won’t as gracefully and thoughtfully as I can. Sometimes I go too far and annoy the others, but I’m mostly accepted.

16. “Either your promptings are real and mine were wrong, or, mine are right and yours are false. Its not hard at all then, I know mine to be true so therefore yours must be false. ”

    Slightly off topic, but this argument is one of the major things that pushed me out of being orthodox LDS.

    It was my deeply spiritual experiences to serve a mission vs the deeply spiritual experiences to convert to Catholism and become a nun. Our spiritual experiences were almost identical.

    So whose were fake?

    Mine?

    Hers, since becoming a Catholic nun went against every thing that God taught about a woman’s path back to him?

    Or maybe none of us really understand God at all or what’s happening when we connect with diety.

17. Adding that the nun was not me, but anther person. My comment reads as if I was making the choice!

18. I personally don’t know if the Book of Mormon is historical or not. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I choose to believe it is scripture and choose to believe the stories are real, but it may not be so in the end. All I know is that I agree with the theology taught in the Book of Mormon. It is really a Pascal’s wager for me. I have both a BA in American History and an MA in Theology with an emphasis in American Religions. I know that new data and new discoveries can alter the entire understanding of the past. So, I am open that there could be some eventual proof of a Book of Mormon people, but I also don’t expect there to be any.

    I really like the Friends episode where Ross is teaching about the “fact” of evolution. Pheobe then pushes him to acknowledge that there could be a slight chance that he could be wrong. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxMvH6C1aXs) I love the reminder that science is about exploring possibilities and understanding how things work. Even things that are universally agreed on, such as gravity, are still called “theories” because there is still more to be learned which could change the way we understand the subject. So, is the Book of Mormon historical? Maybe, maybe not. There are still alot of discoveries to be made which may prove or disprove our current understanding of the past.

    guess my only concern is that when we speak of things that contradict the norm with such assuradness, we leave little room to continue to learn and be

19. Sorry about the last line being connected. It should have been deleted.

20. There’s no Article of Faith asserting Book of Mormon historicity. There’s no temple recommend question on the topic. Most Church instruction involving the Book of Mormon (and Bible, as well) is based on the scriptural narratives taken straightforwardly as text, without any significant attention to whether or not characters or events correspond to the current state of historical or archeological knowledge. Believing there were historical Nephites is not a core element of the faith, even if a strong majority of members happen to believe it. The Church should be a big enough tent to accommodate differing views on that question (and many others that are equally peripheral). Stephen’s posts here are helpful, in that regard. He’s not alone.

21. Thanks for the comments!

    Again, I can imagine the fact that I held these beliefs the whole time I was bishop could cause some concern and I’m thinking particularly about the opinion of many ex-Mos. I can envision future comments along the lines of “he both actively advocated deception and practiced it by not letting his members know of his beliefs! Think of all the people who he could have informed!” etc.

    So while that’s not the dominant crowd around here, I did want to try to address that. Simply put, it’s a complicated issue and I’ll note again and again, John Dehlin’s endorsement of the church that I always quote.

    “That’s another reason I’m not trying to destroy the church or explicitly take people out of it, cause I don’t know if we as ex-Mormons or as secular people have figured out for sure a better way. Is there healing and growth and happiness? [outside of the church] Yes. Is there a system that’s as packaged to provide people with identity, meaning, purpose, spirituality, community, friendships, resolution about the afterlife? Is there a package that you could just drop into, live it, raise your kids in it and have a community and blossom from it? No.”

    I too see real value in the church, try to focus on that value, and share additional beliefs in what I see as better spaces than me standing at the pulpit or in gospel doctrine.

22. Stephen, just a few thoughts.

    I agree with the approach of this post, essentially asking how you can benefit the most from time at church and how you can most contribute to other people’s worship, and the answer is rarely (although not never) “this one amazing fact from an article I published.”

    I understand Kibs’ concerns – I’ve said some of the same things at some point – but I also agree with MoPo’s comment that the Church just doesn’t require much belief in historicity.

    (And if I can comment here briefly about Part 5, your JI post: Anthony is looking at much larger groups numbering in the thousands at least, not a Lehite band of a few dozen people. And the Book of Mormon does directly mention other people already in the New World: Mulekites and Jaredites! While the narrative of the Book of Mormon isn’t easily localized in time or space, I think your comparison to the historicity of the Exodus is useful: the Book of Exodus may not be an objective account of a mass migration that happened precisely as described, but that fact alone doesn’t tell us much – and it doesn’t change a whole lot about how we approach the OT as scripture. I believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture, and my gut feeling is that it’s a text with a history, but how the narrative maps on to mundane history is hard to say.)

23. “Mother told me I’m special.” It’s unsettling to watch someone adopt such flagrant Mormon exceptionalism as words to live by. That Dehlin quote is laughably self-serving, annoyingly provincial, and plain wrong. I attended Sunstone to meet some of my favorite content creators. I now know with every fiber of my being that Alyssa Grenfell is the one true podcaster, lol.

24. Jonathan, I respond on the JI post.

    Chino ?

25. I’m not going to try to respond to the comments (except to point out that Thomas B. Marsh was excommunicated during the Missouri period, not Nauvoo) but I want to say that I appreciate your approach here, Stephen. Seems to me that “Quiet” for you and Joanna Brooks is a spiritual practice in that it puts the welfare of your sisters and brothers first–including letting them define what’s good for them. That’s admirable.

26. The fact that one feels compelled to maintain strict silence about one’s beliefs or opinions on matters that are not core to the faith for fear of being piled-on, ostracized, or disqualified from church service opportunities is a problem. It puts every person who differs from the majority in isolation—a spiritual tyranny of the majority. I tend to think Joseph Smith would agree, as he said “I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. . . . I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammelled. It don’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

27. Just going back to Davek’s point in response to Anna, if the hope was have been more informed and nuanced before your mission, then the bigger issue, I think, relates to ones upbringing more than people’s decorum at church. I’ve heard Dehlin say a few times that he wished he could have encountered more nuanced and intellectual approaches to Mormonism younger. And yes, I did have the advantage of having a dad who was more that way, and it WAS nice.

    But as we’ve talked, Davek, we know that most members aren’t that way, and I think that brings up a couple of issues. 1) It’s not uncommon for our older selves to looked back on our younger version and be appalled at our immaturity. There’s really no way around that. Growth is a process. 2) Dealing with the worldview that one’s parents raise them with. There’s no way around that either. All parents have it, and all children have to figure out what they believe or not.

    I don’t mean to sound glib, as I very much get how painful a faith crisis can be. But I do think that those two points are common parts of life. Again, I don’t mean to downplay how hard these transitions can be, but I think what is best is for us all to try to be helpful, which is what I try to do.

    Thanks RLD, but also related to MoPo, I just want to point back to the what I said in the OP as far as motivation. Quiet contemplation is a spiritual practice that I actively liked (that was Brooks’s point too). And this was something I embraced more than 20 years ago in many ways related to my grad schooling. Grad school was just a different place than church, I decided. And I do enjoy being quiet in church.

    So no, I don’t maintain “strict silence” as these posts should make clear. And I did put together as safe-space group for my ward members while bishop (still running).

28. Let me just add that spiritual prompting are devilishly difficult to decipher. One thing we crave as Latter-day Saints is certainty, but our declarations of certainty should probably be a little more cautious, or a lot. I’ve experienced too many promptings that turned out to be just wrong, and I’ve seen the same in others, including Apostles. Even very strong spiritual encounters have often turned out to be perplexing, at best.

29. I’d add one thing to MoPo’s observations — I am sometimes struck by the parallel between the pressure to only articulate comfortably affirming views in church meetings and discourse and what Joseph Smith described as one of the most immediate effects of being confronted by the adversary: “I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak.” As well as the full frontal assault on any capability to speak, I could speculate that the adversary would be entirely capable of more subtle tactics, perhaps even using a church culture’s love of certainty and conviction to make sure the saints can’t speak to each other in terms of exploratory renegotiation of understanding, thus ensuring they’d need no more bible and the restoration would be long since complete rather than ongoing, though of course the cover story might remain that all necessary revelation will be done by God and select few so no one needs to worry about what they might overzealously if accidentally bar from meetings.

    But I’ll say that I also very much believe there are key differences between this and the “silence as a practice” approach that Stephen is describing. He describes feeling being *able* to speak but choosing not to, and the motives he’s describing seem to include listening, respecting church meetings as a venue for discussing gospel principles / living, implicit respect for the kinds of topics others may or may not be interested in pursuing, and a call to less self-centered narratives (“certainly was not to be ‘The Steve Show.’”). And while I can recall good results both from speaking in orthodox and less orthodox terms at times in church meetings, most times the results have been good have probably gone hand in hand with thinking about the needs of the other participants and listeners in the room rather than focusing on full disclosure. Perhaps this is even part of the antidote or countermeasures to astonishing nefarious influences that can bind tongues.

    Anyway, appreciate the posts Stephen!

30. My sense is that you were probably a gift to your congregation as a bishop. It’s no small thing to do that demanding job, especially as a skeptic where LDS truth claims are concerned.

    That said, nobody ever went broke telling Mormons how special they are. And that’s exactly what Dehlin is doing here:

    “Is there a package that you could just drop into, live it, raise your kids in it and have a community and blossom from it? No.”

    It’s Mormon exceptionalism (and a particularly dubious and egregious example of that naive mindset).

    It’s also quaint and amusing, as I type this out on our patio watching the young parents push their strollers down to our neighborhood park. The same parents we’ll see at our corner pub and in our 5Ks and endless festivals. It’s almost as if our little burb was packaged to offer life’s necessities.

    Anyone who believes it becomes a cautionary tale about the dangers of following podcasters religiously.

    I’m guessing more than a few of us were assigned to read Ibsen’s ‘The Wild Duck’ at BYU. Trying to strike the right balance where candor is concerned deserves thoughtful consideration. Similarly, we ought to thoughtfully consider if there isn’t something awfully self-serving in some of the pronouncements from podcasters looking to appeal to Mormon sensibilities.

31. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, Stephen. With regard to KIBS remarks above suggesting that his and Stephens revelatory experiences are at odds, and that the contradiction means one of them is right and the other wrong, I find misplaced from the purpose and premise of revelation. I find the whole concept of revelation as an epistemological approach to “propositional knowledge” suspect. I would argue that it’s not a matter of saying scripture is not historical, but instead claiming that scripture is “ahistorical”, which is to say, not concerned with or related to history. I think asking heaven to confirm a factual question regarding the historicity of the BOM is entirely reading scripture incorrectly. Scripture is NOT history. Sure, it was written in a historical setting, but its objective is not to record and tell a historical story. Fiction is not false, it may in fact be more focused on practical transformational truth precisely because it’s not bogged down with getting all the facts straight. Hence, the stories that are most meaningful to me are the parables told by Jesus himself. Those parables are fictional stories packed with knowledge about human nature and how we sabotage the best in ourselves.

    To “know” throughout scripture is never addressing “propositional truth”. Ginosko – which is most often translated as “know” or “known” is a word that means so much more than that. This word implies a certain type of knowing that is perhaps best explained in several English words. In English the best way to translate it would probably be to personally, intimately, and experientially know something. As you can see it doesn’t really just mean to know about something but to have known it through personal experience. In light of this Ginosko could have times where it should not be translated to know at all but rather to experience but most of the time it indicates the knowledge that comes from experiencing something in an intimate or personal way. In this way it does exhibit times where it would occupy part of what we in English call love. There are places both in the New Testament (like in Mathew 1:25) and the Septuagint where this word is used in ways that implies physical intimacy of which produced children. One can see that this doesn’t mean to have head knowledge or understand something but to know something through intimate experience and there for this word could also inhibit and mean a part of what our English word love would mean. However, at its base this word should be translated to know some through intimate personal experience. It would be important to translate it in this way also because Ginosko should be distinguished from another Greek word Oida, which is propositional or head knowledge (knowledge-that).
    Oida, or propositional knowledge I think is best discovered by way of reason and empirical examination. To “know” God is a subjective experience, experienced by engaging with the mystery, without the need for absolute certainty to find it useful.

    Ginosko is the Greek word used in Matthew 7:21-22 when Jesus closes by saying, “I never knew you, depart from me”, and throughout scripture. As Alma notes in chapter 32, which LDS discourse commonly uses as an epistemological pattern, I believe is really his extended response to his failed debate with Korihor. In the end, I think Alma realizes that the existence of God will never be a “know-that” (as Michael Austin brilliantly writes about on BCC), rational argument to be made, empirical data used to prove, but rather, as chapter 32 clearly displays, an intimate experience of divine self-disclosure.

32. Tom, no doubt, but if you’re wanting to caution me against my own reference to feeling spiritually prompted, that’s okay, but just know I’ve never been very interested in the vibe I’ve often gotten at church that all my promptings better align with orthodoxy or they are not real. To me that sounds too much like Joseph Smith’s encounter with the Methodist preacher telling him his vision was of the devil. I don’t pay attention to such directives (if that’s what you meant, sorry if not!)

    Chino, claiming I follow Dehlin religiously shows quite a misunderstanding on your part. It doesn’t surprise me that you disagree with John, so I’m not sure what your adding here. Your claim that John heaps praise on Mormonism is greatly at variance from the very few podcasts I’ve seen. Either way, I’m assuming we can let John speak for himself as I don’t think your summation is particularly astute.

    And to others, I’m in now way saying that no one should speak up in church, or that I never say anything. Lots of legitimate different approaches. I’m just saying that *I* like quiet for the most part.

33. Two cheers for letting folks speak for themselves! I suppose the only thing I’m looking to add would be the bits you’ve surreptitiously redacted from your own post, namely:

    So while that’s not the dominant crowd around here, I did want to try to address that. Simply put, it’s a complicated issue and I’ll note again and again, John Dehlin’s endorsement of the church that I always quote.

    “That’s another reason I’m not trying to destroy the church or explicitly take people out of it, cause I don’t know if we as ex-Mormons or as secular people have figured out for sure a better way. Is there healing and growth and happiness? [outside of the church] Yes. Is there a system that’s as packaged to provide people with identity, meaning, purpose, spirituality, community, friendships, resolution about the afterlife? Is there a package that you could just drop into, live it, raise your kids in it and have a community and blossom from it? No.”

34. I’m confused. Yes, I quoted that (from an interview he did with Rick Bennett). Are you saying that quoting people is bad? Perhaps I didn’t use the most nuanced language with “endorsement of the church.” Sorry, sometimes comments get kind of thrown up on blog posts.

35. Ah, my mistake. You dropped that quote in your comments here, not in your post.

    I may not be astute, but please don’t pose asinine questions as if I’m an idiot. That’s rude. And so is this bit from Dehlin that you quoted approvingly:

    “Is there a package that you could just drop into, live it, raise your kids in it and have a community and blossom from it? No.”

    What a dismal judgment on the rest of humanity. And one that cannot bear scrutiny.

36. I’m a little confused why who chose to show up here apparently as “John Dehlin quote cop.” I understand you disagree, but we’re getting away from the topic of the OP. So can we move back to the topic or move along. Your objection has been noted.

37. No policing involved. It’s a simple question, Fleming. Do you agree with that quote?

38. I think Dehlin’s statement is worth considering. I’m well aware that you do not agree. No doubt Mormonism isn’t for everyone, but I do think it has a lot to offer.

    Again, I’m curious why that quote brought you here.

39. I’m not here because of that quote. I’ve been following up my visit to Sunstone by introducing our Reddit audience to this year’s presenters. Stumbled into your post. And considering the theme of Mormon exceptionalism discussed at multiple panels this year, it caught my attention. Same way we stumbled into the Matt Harris AMA that we’ve scheduled at r/mormon tomorrow.

    In any case, appreciate the curiosity. At the risk of belaboring the point (too late!) here we go:

    This is a completely ridiculous assertion, contradicted by every successful nevermo person, family and community on the planet:

    “Is there a package that you could just drop into, live it, raise your kids in it and have a community and blossom from it? No.”

    But I’m all ears to hear your rousing defense of such balderdash.

    After BYU, Brazil mission, etc., I dropped into Taiwan and started a family there with zero LDS context. We then dropped into a Chicago suburb to enjoy the package Dehlin’s quote describes. Still enjoying it as we watch our kids excel.

    Which aspect of our life is immediately and inherently suspect? Because according to that dumb Dehlin quip, what we’ve accomplished should be impossible.

    I’m guessing that John himself doesn’t actually believe it. Hence my advice to stop treating the musings of podcasters as authoritative, especially when those musings are so obviously unsupported by any evidence and so plainly crafted to appeal to a very specific audience.

    C’mon.

40. As I told you, you’ve made it very clear you disagree. Glad to know you’re doing well, so I don’t understand you’re self-appointed role as “the Dehlin quote cop.” We’re off the topic. Time to move along.

41. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. You’ve sparked some great discussions.

    The conversation continues at https://old.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1ersh85/heres_what_i_know_after_studying_comments_at_the/

42. :)

43. I’ve never gotten why an academic minded person would reference John Dehlin. He’s not a therapist, not religious studies. If an academic why can’t one quote higher minded folks to make points. Expand our minds instead of attributing John Dehlin a problematic middlebrow type.

    For the broader topic I get the author is really into saying the BOM is not historical, which is a pretty common outgroup criticism and usually these kind of convos aren’t useful because they are superficial and speculative and keep us out of the text in earnest.
    One other point is it’s generally not a good idea to reference past callings to try to add credence to your perspective when it goes against mainstream thought. Being a Bishop or Branch President before is like going to an Ivy League school before. Better to not tell people directly.

    BTW o

44. A small point: I agree with RL that it is usually not a good idea to invoke one’s church callings in support of a position. In this case, though, I think Stephen isn’t presenting his bishop’s calling as authority for his view of the BofM. Instead, a central question that people are interested in is whether someone can hold such views and still be an active, contributing member. Stephen’s church experience does seem relevant to that question.

45. SDS,
    I do think however that Stephen uses the bishop card as a means to sway others. It’s a power play in my opinion. If I were a general authority or apostle there is no way I would ever pass off on calling a member into the calling as bishop or stake president if they didn’t believe the Book of Mormon to be historical. Certainly, no general authority or apostle/prophet in the church believes it’s not historical. In fact, no one that high up in the church, historically, has ever voiced any testimony of the book being anything other than historical.

46. Thanks, SDS. Let me just clarify: I’m not saying that me having been bishop makes me RIGHT, I’m saying that my having been bishop (recently) makes me MORMON. Disagreeing with bishops on things is perfectly fine. That was the point of this post. https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/03/46668/

    Like, I said on that post, you can disagree, but that experience was pretty convincing to me.

    And Kibs, the whole point of this post is that I’m QUIET in church settings. I don’t use those settings to push such views. I DO however share my views in other settings like this one (and conferences).

    As MoPo pointed out, Book of Mormon historicity isn’t one of the questions. My stake president did not ask my for my views on the topic when he called me, though I had some uneasiness as I described here https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/03/not-really-bishop-material/

47. KIBS – you are right the no general authority has publicly declared a testimony other than the BOM being historical. That does not mean however that it’s possible that there are GA’s that do not think it’s historical. I still don’t understand why the most compelling and critical thing about the BOM or any literature for that matter is its historicity. I thought the purpose of scripture was to inspire “faith” (which is forward looking), not confirm the historicity of a certain group of people. Jesus taught in parables, which are fiction, and yet they may be the truest thing ever written. The object of the BOM for me is to invite people to have their own personal experience with God, not propositional, relational. I would never ask my child to kneel down and ask God to confirm to them my mystical experience, so why do we make that our main premise of the LDS church? I don’t read Steven Covey’s “7 habits of highly effective people” and then ask God if Steven Covey was a real person. The truth of what he wrote is found out in its application, not by my bedside, which I beleive is true for the BOM as well. It doesn’t matter if its historical, just that it produces “good fruit”.

48. Todd,
    The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. It is complimentary to the New Testament which itself is Another Testimony of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon purports to include the actual physical visitation of the resurrected Jesus Christ in the Americas. It absolutely does matter that it is what it purports to be because it stands as a witness for the convincing of both Jew and Gentile alike that Jesus is the Christ and that he really did visit the other “sheep” of his fold as he said he would in thr New Testament so that there would be one shepherd and one fold. The Book of Mormon is the literal testimony that He was born, crucified and resurrected for the sins of the world and that he fulfills prophecy in visiting the other sheep besides those in Jerusalem as he said he would.
    Disbelieving the literal testimony of Christ as contained in the Book of Mormon that he really does minister to all his sheep is a serious matter. One simply cannot believe in the restoration of our gospel and the merits that founded this church without the firm faith that the Book of Mormon literally is the testimony of Christ it purports to be. Further, one cannot honestly answer all the temple reccomend questions and be worthy to hold a temple reccomend if they teach or promote to others that the Book of Mormon and it’s origins are not what the church teaches that they are.
    So yes, it is a serious matter.

49. Stephen,
    I am glad you are quiet in church settings on the matter. If you were to speak up it wouldn’t generally have any positive net effect in that setting. Why, because generally, the overwhelming majority who regularly attend believe the Book of Mormon to be historical.

    Internet crowds and those who attend Sunstone symposium, etc are usually generally either on the fringe or decidedly anti-mormon.

50. Kibs, your persistent criticism seems so odd to me. Stephen seems to have found an equilibrium that works for him and has explicitly said he doesn’t see it as his goal to rush headlong into church-settings and disrupt everyone else. It’s as though his decision to be quiet isn’t good enough for you – you want to make sure he also feels bad about it. Can you see how that’s not a healthy way to interact with other people?

51. Anon,
    True, but this is the internet and the place he has made his stage for the world to hear and so, this is the place we aren’t so quiet with. The internet world has both voices of reason and voices of dissent that aren’t very quiet.

52. Kibs: To clarify, Stephen didn’t make this place his stage. The operators of this fine blog, starting with me, invited him here because this is an important conversation among insiders, and Stephen has a point that needs to be heard. I wish we had more examples of people who can say: The Book of Mormon doesn’t work for me as history, but I find inspiration in its pages and the Spirit in the Church, and I want to be here and serve.

    Do I have concerns about how well it can work? Absolutely, and I’ve expressed them directly and Stephen has responded (you’re wandering into a conversation that’s been going on for months). You’re free to share your concerns, some of which I’ve also stated.

    But please dial back the judgment. There are people who are authorized to decide on temple worthiness. They’ve made their decision, and they didn’t ask you.

53. Commenting on silence in church: During my 79 years I’ve developed my own personal religion. It is a strange mix of historic Mormonism, French absurdism, Jeffersonian Christianity, environmentalism, humanism, and organizational distrust. I spent 2-1/2 years proselytizing, In the end, I decided that trying to convert people to a particular point of view is not a productive use of my time. So I rarely feel the need to comment in religious discussions. My beliefs are my own.

    As for the BOM, I see NO evidence it is historical. But again that’s just my personal belief. I say that only in passing. I really like the sermon of King Benjamin. Succor those in need of succor.

54. Jonathan Green: thank you for your recent comment it was well-said and needed

55. Jonathon,
    Fair enough. It’s really a juxtaposition though. Like having wolves lie to bed in the sheepfold. Perhaps the bigger picture needs to really emerge because it appears on every front that the disbelief in the Book of Mormon by members is corrosive to the church body as a whole. You get to the root of why they disbelieve and things raise alarm bells pretty quick. The premise of the Book of Mormon is that it is or purports to be the very testimony of God’s dealings with real people in real time in the historical past of the real world.

    When we truly realize how are church was founded it started with a young Joseph Smith questioning which religion to join. The series of events that transpired ultimately led to Joseph translating the record that God had been preparing for thousands of years for the sole purpose to establish his church again in the latter days. So, to just conclude it as fictional is basically undoing/ignoring thousands of years of work by God. It’s a direct affront to God and places oneself onto very dangerous ground and peril.

56. Thanks for the comments, everyone!

    Kibs, I understand that you’ve found these posts upsetting, but info questioning BoM historicity is hardly new on the internet. I understand you don’t want active members to hold such views, but I’m hardly the first to do so. As Jonathan notes, we like the Bloggernacle as a place to discuss ideas and have been happy for you to share yours (while adding Jonathan’s admonishment of what our blog standards are).

57. Stephen,
    I think it is important for views like mine to be known. I feel that I represent your typical traditional old school conservative LDS and so it’s important for those who hold such anti-historical bias to know how we really feel about each other when we rub shoulders every week on Sunday. We see the movement as a general threat to our religion. I am glad I get to teach youth Sunday School every other Sunday and this bring Book of Mormon year I spend a bit extra time each week teaching them of how the adversary would try to diminish the Book, fictionalize it, etc. Basically, teaching them to be aware of those from both outside and within who would seek to diminish or destroy our faith.

    I feel these discussions are important, especially for those like myself who sit “quiet” on the sidelines for years until we decide to speak also. You really can’t appreciate or realize the situation until both sides can really speak their minds. At least until the woke crowd shuts you down.

58. Occasionally I get the feeling we’re straightening deck chairs on the Titanic. The Globalist-Marxist freight train looks like it will need a deus ex machina to brake; Marx and religion don’t get along very well, and American trends are not far behind the European. At other times I think future LDS youth, on learning that the Book of Mormon was once interpreted as literal history, will lose their testimonies. I’ve been a Darwinian for 50 years, a Book of Mormon skeptic for 40, a global warming skeptic for 25, and a doubter of democracy’s survival for about 5 years. Google censorship is rampant, the woke crowd is on the rise and hates Christianity, as do most the Marxists and Moslems, freedom of religion and speech and assembly are under severe attack globally. The radical left is dead set on shutting down TikTok and Twitter/X. Of late I’ve become more concerned about saving Trump than saving Nephi and Moroni.

    If you think I’m nuts I suggest you read some of David Horowtz’ or Victor Davis Hansen’s books. Cheers, –AGF

59. Dear Stephen,

    It was a pleasure to see your presentation at Sunstone 2024; thank you for entertaining my questions there. I appreciate your having written this three-part blog.

    1) I have enjoyed getting to know more about Jane Lead (and John Dee) and whether she might be an influence on the author of the passages that eventually became The Book of Mormon. I also think that Plato was an influence on that author (as well as Jonathan Edwards, Homer, Virgil, Warren, Ramsay, and others).

    2) I agree with you that Joseph Smith believed that The Book of Mormon was historical. I think I understand your position—that Smith (or his father, or Hyrum, etc.) composed The Book of Mormon (in either written or oral form) with Smith later dictating it to his scribes, believing that their story was accurate and divinely inspired.

    3) I am exploring another possibility—that Jane Lead was an influence on someone else (Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, and Oliver Cowdery are the natural, historical suspects). Would you mind sharing your slides from Sunstone 2024 (just as PDF)? I’d like to review my notes and other sources against your slides, if you would be so kind. If that is not possible, I understand.

    If so, please send them to [email protected].

60. Thanks, Lars. I’m not sure I’ll share my slides at this time (let me think about it), but it looks to me like the first place Lead shows up in the Smiths’ record is Joseph Sr.’s dreams, starting with the first one dated 1811. So I think this starts with Sr. Before that, among Lucy’s older siblings–Jason, Lovina, and Lovisa–though we don’t have as much details there. I do think Oliver Cowdery knew of Lead also, but see no evidence that Rigdon did.

    So I don’t think someone else “wrote” the Book of Mormon than Joseph Jr., but I do think that Joseph Sr. encouraged the whole project from the time Joseph Jr. was young.

    Just to clarify my project a bit, my focus is on the creation of Mormonism as a whole, not just the Book of Mormon. So my argument is that Lead is central to that whole things, including the Book of Mormon. My argument is that Joseph knew most of the Nauvoo doctrine at the time he produced the Book of Mormon. It’s in Lead and Plato, Joseph Jr.’s two most important sources.

61. Kibs, I’m glad you’ve had an opportunity to share your thoughts.

    Arthur, that’s quite a list of radical thoughts. Interesting. Not going to try to get into all of it as that would get us far from the topic, but I do agree with we all have troubling times ahead and that churches, including our own, will struggle. I do see churches, including our own, as having a lot of good that can help in the future troubled times, however.

62. KIBS – I am always happy for the possibility of sharing a civil discussion with people who have differing views; however, this skill set is not great among human beings, and maybe more especially religious folks. As far as I can surmise, when Jesus showed up on the scene, as we read in the New Testament, he was never attempting to create the new “In group”, or the new special people. He (Jesus), who I believe to be a real historical figure, did not come demanding lip service to a list of propositional claims, but to show a new way to live. I don’t see anything in his teachings that would require the person sitting next to me in Elders quorum to assent to my same propositional beliefs in order to be worthy of God’s grace or my personal care.

    In fact, Matthew 7:21-22 is a striking critique against the religious elite of his day for confusing means and ends. Jesus says, ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and, in your name, perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”

    This verse is directly pointing the finger of critique at those who have confused religious ritual and dogma as an end in itself. The word “Know” here is the intimate form, not the “between the ears”, proclamation form.

    What churches and religion inevitably forget–as does every human group–is that their laws, doctrine, and practice are not ends, truth in themselves, but pointers, guides to non-rational truth that must be personally experienced, never bestowed. And Paul continues in the book of Romans discussing how his own Jewish people have made this same mistake; 25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.’

    So, it seems to me, that you and me ought to be able to share a community setting with an atheist, or an orthodox believer and the way we show up should not be different.

63. I do agree with you, Todd, but also understand that Kibs and a lot of members may not be on the same page.

    Sorry, Lars, my response to you was a little rushed. What I meant to say is that JS may have been influenced by many ideas, but in my book, though I do talk about lot about the Book of Mormon, I say over and over again 2 things: 1) my project is about all of JS’s religious thought (I’m particularly interested in “the Nauvoo doctrine” and argue that Smiths encountered that early on, probably before the move to New York) 2) I don’t intend to try to track down every possible influence or try to account for every idea in the BoM.

    Again, I argue that Lead and Plato are the biggest influences on Mormonism as a whole and were quite influential on the Book of Mormon. I do look at some other ideas too, but like I said above, I have a bigger project in mind than just the BoM.

    One caution I would urge for those who DO want to try to track everything down is to be cautious about common religious language. I’ve not looked at the scholarship related to Jonathan Edwards, but common evangelical languages was common. JS explicitly rejected Edward’s Calvinism, so I’m a little skeptical of Edwards being very directly influential though I do know there can be some common language.

    I think a related example is THE LATE WAR that got some attention a few years ago. I think a Google search turned up lots of similar language to the Book of Mormon. But having taken a look, I really don’t see any DISTINCT similarities, but instead, two books using a lot of similar language in trying to sound like the Bible.

    So those are some cautions I would give to anyone who really DID want to try to track down all Book of Mormon language (not me!) Make a distinction between common ideas and ideas not so common.

64. Todd,
    The worry I have is that the devil is usually pretty subtle in leading people away and diminishing their faith until at some point he drags you down into his dark abyss from whence there is no return. It is my firm belief that a lack of belief in the Book of Mormon or a failing belief in it ultimately will lead one away from Christ and the ordinances of his atonement.

65. I belatedly posted this for Part 1 and comments were immediately closed (hopefully not because of me!). I am posting it again because I am tired of Kibs’ repetitive rants (moderators, you are way too nice). Here is Russell M. Nelson speaking at a seminar for new mission presidents in 2016:

    “There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is NOT a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is NOT a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is NOT a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” (my emphasis)

    Interpret this as you will, but to me it is clear that many members of the Church try too hard to turn the Book of Mormon into something it ISN’T rather than focusing on what it is which, according to Nelson, is a testament of Jesus Christ and “a clarifier of doctrine.”

    In other words, what is valuable and important about the Book of Mormon is not the “history” and proving/disproving it, but what it teaches and how it makes you behave. See Todd’s reference to Matthew 7 in his post above.

    (And yes, I understand that this quote does not address how the physical Book of Mormon came to be.)

66. NYAnn,
    It is a Testament of Jesus Christ. That means that he really did appear to the ancient Nephites in the America’s. That part of the story absolutely must be true and historical. Members of the church should all be able to agree on that. If not, look down and see just which side of the line you are really standing on. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon was one of, if not the greatest, events in the history of the earth for the purpose of gathering Israel. God spent thousands of years and countless events to secure its coming forth. The Book of Mormon is not the mere writings and musings of man and mediums.

    The historical elements the Book of Mormon does have were recorded by real men in the real historical past recording the actual events they saw surrounding them.

    The moment one starts to diminish the historical reality is also the moment they leave the door open to diminish the teachings inside. Once again, look down and see what side you are standing on. Saints should continually be driving out the wolves so they do not devour the flock. Wolves is a metaphor for anyone or thing that diminishes the testimony of Christ in one’s life.

67. NY Ann, posts stay open about a week an a half and then automatically close so that the bloggers don’t have to continually watch over old posts. Back in the day, advertisers would stick stuff on blogs. So that first post was shut down because the time was up.

    Thanks for sharing President Nelson’s remarks.

    I like to take a light touch when it comes to moderating, but any approach is a challenge. Over the years, the general norms of the Bloggernacle were that it was out of bounds to self-righteously condemning (on the orthodox side) or overly condemning of the church (on the unorthodox side).

    Kibs has probably strayed into the self-righteous condemnation territory and Jonathan called him/her out for the temple recommend quip. Demanding to drive the wolves from the flock in his/her last comment probably is into that territory as well.

    I’ll admit I took a light touch with Kibs because I’m well aware that my posts are unorthodox and wanted to give room for pushback. I have found Kibs a little extreme, but I have to confess that his/her comments didn’t seem to help his/her cause much, so I’ve been fine to give Kibs all the rope he/she wanted. Maybe such license wasn’t actually kind to Kibs or more traditional views, but I haven’t felt pushed to shut down his/her comments to this point. Like I said, I prefer to avoid that (but do understand it’s often necessary).

68. Stephen, it’s been nice reading over your posts here on this blog. Been a long time follower on JI, have read your dissertation, etc. I’ve interacted with folks as far up as the Maxwell Institute who have confirmed to me their disbelief in and lack of interest in the question of the BoM’s historicity. Makes me glad that there is space in the church for plenty of nuance, and not just on blogs like this. Just here to say I appreciate you and look forward to your future productions ^_^.

69. Stephen,
    I’m glad that I haven’t been censored. We live in this world sadly controlled by the woke crowd mentality that tends to shut down or “quiet” anyone that doesn’t agree with their side or raises issues of reason and truth. Sadly we are living in a more and more polarized world where sides are forming even amongst church members.
    There are more and more dissenters from our faith everyday. We certainly aren’t a body of saints of one heart (act the same) and of one mind (think the same).
    I’m not going to directly point any fingers but I have thought of this more and more recently. If I were the devil and I wanted a strategy to create dissent and lead away members, how would I do that? First thing I would do is erode the testimonies and foundations of the church in its early history. I would do this by creating a web of doubt surrounding church history and undermine the founding leaders. I would then lead men to disbelieve the Book of Mormon in small degree upon small degree. One way I would do this would be to use secular academia yo discredit the Book in every way. I would use institutions highly esteemed by men to do that. Institutions like the Smithsonian, the National Geographic Society, the NCSE, etc, to do all that I could to get reputable men in high standings to discredit the Book. Then, using that established academia, I would lead honest men to look for evidences of which they will not find by using the standard I convinced men to use.
    My idea would be to create that doubt, substantiated by learned men, and find men within the religion to spread that doubt and slowly lead dissenters away. I wouldn’t want members to believe Joseph Smith had real revelations from God or that he had actually received the golden plates or that they were real. I would parallel contemporary authors as his influence and source so that people would believe his surmisings weren’t from God but from man. My end goal in all this would be to destroy people’s faith overall in the Book of Mormon and thus lay the foundation to destroy their faith in modern prophets and then after convincing them their folly I would parallel them with ancient prophets and chalk them up also as mythical and flawed and even imaginary. Ultimately I would use all those means so that eventually they will disbelieve the scriptures as a whole and thus lead them into my captivity and power.

    Stephen, I would ask you to ask yourself again- is the work I am doing strengthening, or is it weakening our faith and belief in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

    Personally, I can’t see where anything you are doing with your dissertations and writings are strengthening my belief in Joseph Smith and the Book Mormon.

    Prove me wrong.

70. Kibs, I think you’re wrong about this part: “If I were the devil and I wanted a strategy to create dissent and lead away members” – because what you describe isn’t what you would do. You’re describing an academic path to apostasy, but you’re already suspicious of academia. Certainly that path exists, but it’s not your path.

    I think it’s more likely that if you were the devil, you would loudly insist that every word of the Book of Mormon and every incident in church history must have happened exactly as illustrated in the the Friend and other church magazines, building up tension bit by bit between simplified depictions and scholarly study until it reaches levels that are impossible to sustain. Then you’d push people into stark choices between faith and science and count on some people’s testimonies shattering.

    This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. We’ve had people, some arguing in obvious bad faith, who insist that church members have to believe in young earth creationism. Or we have to either accept FLDS-style polygamy, or throw Brigham Young overboard.

    If you don’t want to end up exploring that path to apostasy yourself, or if you just want to live in a less polarized world, then you need to do some work to understand where Stephen is coming from.

71. Jonathon,
    I can’t speak for Stephen himself but I have been following certain movements within the circles of the church membership, mostly on the fringes, for several decades and have seen the way in which apostacy occurs.

    I’m sure there’s a myriad of ways the devil works. What I have witnessed is that the devil wants very bad to discredit Joseph Smith, just as Moroni told him in his angelic visits, and also wants to discredit or dimish the Book of Mormon as a true historical account.
    My own personal witness and testimony of the Book of Mormon validates it as everything it presents itself to be. My own findings of evidences points strongly to its validation as historically viable.
    (Given, I don’t follow most LDS apologetics with their criteria and how or where they search for those evidences.)

72. “I would do this by creating a web of doubt surrounding church history and undermine the founding leaders.”

    This can only be seen as a bad thing if the web-of-doubt are lies. If the web is stating truths, then I can’t see how it could be from Satan. I actually see the problem as being that the 20th Century church leadership built a web-of-mythology and taught it as fact. It seems wrong to me to blame the crash of the web-of-mythology on Satan rather than early church decision makers. Choices were made. Own them.

    “I would ask you to ask yourself again- is the work I am doing strengthening, or is it weakening our faith and belief in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?”

    Pretty sure Jesus was very clear that the goal is to Love God and Love Our Neighbor. Faith and belief are supposed to be toward Jesus. Not JS or the BoM. For me, to think the goal is JS/BoM is to seriously misunderstand Faith, Grace, and the Atonement.

73. Faith and belief in Jesus are found in different places much of which come from his word (the scriptures). If the Book of Mormon isnt the true testimony of Christ visiting his other sheep as Christ himself testifies then either the Book of Mormon is a fraud or God is a fraud.

74. Kibs, “Personally, I can’t see where anything you are doing with your dissertations and writings are strengthening my belief in Joseph Smith and the Book Mormon.

    Prove me wrong.”

    Alas, I’m quite sure I’ll never say anything that you’ll find satisfying on this topic, Kibs. However, you’re question does bring up issues related to this posts, so I thought I’d at least address your challenge in a rhetorical way (though I’ve no intention of trying to convince you).

    As I mentioned in some previous posts (I’m thinking of this one https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/03/who-do-we-want-at-church/) when I attempted to put together the safe-space group I run, I got a lot of pushback from a lot of members. Lots found it threatening. I knew I was proposing something a little edgy, but it surprised me how upset it made some members. I learned that I needed to be careful to not push most regular members into such a thing. As I said in that post, my eq pres said, “Go off with your little group of people who want to talk about such things, and leave the rest of us alone.” And that’s what I did.

    As Jonathan stated, he did indeed invite me to this blog to discuss this specific issue. I wanted to cover a few other topics first before jumping into something so controversial. I thought having such a chat on the Bloggernacle would be fruitful (as did Jonathan) and also know that this is clearly not the same kind of place as is Gospel Doctrine or over the pulpit. Active church members certainly are not at all urged to come to such venues.

    And yet, it is a wide open forum where people who really do not like the ideas can come across what I’m saying. But again, I see such people’s involvement as voluntary and that Bloggernacle as not being “church.”

    I do recognize that you found what I shared jarring, but also feel that this is a voluntary space. I am happy to share more views of how I believe that such views need not wreck faith in Joseph Smith or the church, but that’s kind of complicated, and I don’t think you’re interested (though I will post some more on the topic).

75. Stephen,
    I actually am interested in how or if, the work you are doing either strengthen or weaken ones testimony in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Feel free to elaborate in detail. Personally I’m not convinced you promoting your beliefs strengthen the church but go ahead and elaborate.

76. Okay, well like I said that’s a big topic, but one I plan to attempt to lay out my thoughts in future posts. They probably won’t be your cup of tea, but I’m happy to continue to engage.

77. I look forward to critiquing them.

78. “either the Book of Mormon is a fraud or God is a fraud.”

    I reject this level of all or nothing thinking, and even more, I reject limiting God to such a small box. I believe that Truth/God is so wildly far outside of what humanity is capable of comprehending that the best we can do is muddle along working within the stories and metaphors that our limited brains can handle.

    Which is why love God and do it by loving our neighbors are THE starting place and THE goal for everything else. The rest is just means to help us get there. Including JS and the BoM.

79. Like I said before, if the Book of Mormon is not a true history then God and his son Jesus Christ are frauds. The Book of Mormon is the very means that convince us Jesus is the Christ he having dwelt among them anciently. No man can reject the Book of Mormon or diminish it in any way and come unto God with clean hands.

80. Kibs: you said:

    “Like I said before, if the Book of Mormon is not a true history then God and his son Jesus Christ are frauds. The Book of Mormon is the very means that convince us Jesus is the Christ he having dwelt among them anciently. No man can reject the Book of Mormon or diminish it in any way and come unto God with clean hands.”

    You need to insert this phrase at the beginning of many of your points: “In my opinion….”

81. In some instances I feel it is just my opinion, other times I’m just stating reality and bearing witness of the spirit. The spirit discerns those points for me.

82. The church is mostly quiet on historicity too. Sure, it assumes it took place somewhere but it makes no official effort to bolster this claim. Rather it relies on a spiritual affirmation that the things contained in its pages are true. IMHO its the conflation that a spiritual witness can manifest the truthfulness of historical claims is where the real conflict lies. But to stay on point of this post the church is intentionally quiet and actually insists that its members and leaders acting in an official capacity at least are too.

83. Carey,
    You may want check because eveything the church has published testifies of both the divinity and historical reality of the Book of Mormon.
    Here’s just one of a myriad of statenents-

    “Both volumes of scripture are a compilation of teachings as recorded by ancient prophets. While the Bible details events in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Book of Mormon documents the lives of the inhabitants of the ancient Americas. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. “Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. …” (overview of Book of Mormon published by the Church)

84. I don’t see what I’ve previously posted as conflicting with that statement you provided. I fully acknowledge that the Church claims that the events actually took place but they take no position where it took place besides somewhere in either North and/or South America. There are offer no official evidences or resources for on this claim. There are no lessons taught in Sunday church or even the CES program on historicity. I think that qualifies as saying they are “mostly quiet on historicity”.

    “The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.
    …
    Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”

    –https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng

85. Carey,
    I agree that the church at this point makes no claim on exactly where it took place only that it really did take place and is actual history.

86. Kibs,

    The real question is whether you agree the church is mostly quiet on the topic?

87. Carey,
    I think we can all agree that the church is silent as to where exactly the events happened (Where Bountiful was, where Zarahemla was, land of Nephi, etc,). The church however does officially and openly recognizes that the events did indeed happen somewhere in the America’s in ancient times and they are far from silent about that reality

88. KIBS – The question of, Is the Book of Mormon true? or any of the similar sister questions seem insufficient to the work of attempting to make God alive in the world. IMO, the only truly relevant question in religion is, What affect is that truth having on my heart?
    Whether the accounts are mixed with real history, or dreams, visions, allegories, and parables, it seems clear that religious practice is always at risk of seeing itself as righteousness, like the Zoramites, and creating a God that is trapped inside of certain buildings, certain words, certains places, times and clothing, which doesn’t travel well into the other six days of the week.

89. Guys you’re trying to reason with someone who thinks it is a historical fact that Noah’s ark housed a pair of each of 400,000 species of beetles, 200,000 species of moths, 150,000 species of ants/wasps, however many species of flies, cockroaches, crickets, all other insects, and all other land-dwelling arthropods, which somehow made their way from the amazon to Noah’s ark, to say nothing of the remaining at least 30 animal phyla containing millions of species. “Secular” reasoning is not likely to work.

90. Yeah, probably getting a little repetitive, but I appreciate people having been respectful while discussing this controversial topic. And nice to get to 90 comments!

91. Todd,
    I disagree in some extent. In order for God’s word to be true the context of history related to said stories and events must be accounted for. God deals with man in the real world, with real people in a historical literature fashion. The entire premise of God’s word stands or fails on the actual history. For example, the coming
    Christ, the savior of the world, is prophesied about in both the old Testament and Book of Mormon by real prophets in real time in the historical past. Then Christ comes and speaks as the very Savior prophesied about and speaks of these ancient prophecies as real. Christ doesn’t just show up, says he’s the savior and everyone believe him. His credibility lies in the historical framework before, during, and after his ministry. Speaking of things happening in real time (history in the making) Christ will come again as prophesied by both ancient prophets as we as modern, including Christ himself. When he comes, that event will be recorded and become a part of history, the very word of God, just as all other events that have already transpired. The word of God only has validity because the said events really happened. That’s “history”. The atonement and resurrection of Christ is a part of “history”.

92. Your food allergy,
    Sounds like bait and I’m not gonna bite. Plus, you wouldnt have or make the time to understand. Besides, this isn’t a Noah’s flood discussion.

93. “The entire premise of God’s word stands or fails on the actual history.”

    I can accept that you truly beleive this and that this is how faith works for you.

    Mine does not, and my faith is not trivial or fake or in any way less because of it.

94. Whatever works for you. A lack of belief is a lack of faith. They go hand in hand. Faith is strengthened by belief. A person has greater faith if he believes without knowing. Isn’t that what faith is?

95. Kibs, no, that’s not what scripture is. Like nearly everything else, God does not personally write scripture. He entrusts that job, like nearly everything else, to people who receive revelation and act on the promptings of the spirit and try to do the best they can with it. You’re assuming that the writers of scripture are omniscient, but that’s simply not true. If you read the Book of Mormon, you will find numerous expressions of inadequacy and failure – there’s not enough space for everything, their writing abilities are deficient, they make mistakes. Moroni wrote a letter to Pahoran castigating him for disloyalty, when in fact that wasn’t Pahoran’s issue at all. Are you now going to start accusing Nephi, Moroni and Mormon of diminishing the Book of Mormon? Mormon had to condense whatever records he had while his society his collapsing, and try to put off their final destruction as long as he could, which are hardly conditions conducive to writing history. Mormon wrote with with the spirit’s inspiration, but that doesn’t mean his history is flawless or that he was taking dictation – we have no indication that God’s aim with scripture is historical perfection.

96. Jonathon,
    The point being- the ancient prophets wrote things as they observed, to the best of their abilities. That’s what is called a historical record. The prophecies, miracles, teachings, etc, are all thus attached in real time that make them part of that historical record.
    God’s aim with scripture is to testify of real events, teachings, miracles, cursing, blessings, that are attached in real time in the historical past. They are things that really happened.

97. “A person has greater faith if he believes without knowing. Isn’t that what faith is?”

    Yes, which is why certainty is so dangerous!

    My favorite scripture passage is 1 Cor 13 taken in it’s entirely, but 8, 9, and 12 seem relevant to this conversation.

98. KIBS – It’s often the case that Faith and Belief are conflated. If we look at the original Greek we find out the “Pistes” is translated as faith, and is the noun form of the word, where “Pisteo” is translated as belief, it being the verb form. Either way, faith and belief, as far as scripture goes, are both manifest in action, not as a cognitive exercise. Faith and belief, in the ancient context, are both relational terms. They signify that one is operating in a committed relationship built on trust.

    Faith, in our modern world, has become something more like assenting to certain propositions without inquiry or challenge to available evidence. This is NOT faith IMO, it’s magical thinking.

99. Dear Stephen,
    Thank you for the response and for considering my request. In terms of Father Smith’s dream, I tend toward the explanation that Lucy Mack Smith’s account was an attempt to bolster her late husband’s reputation as a righteous and spiritually sensitive man. At the very least, the account was clearly influenced by the relevant chapters from The Book of Mormon. It is, of course, possible that Father Smith had some kind of dream thirty years before Lucy wrote her account of it and that the actual dream had some elements that she conflated. It is also possible that there was no such dream; if there was, she may have written opportunistically—suggesting that prophetic power was part of a patriarchal line and that such power (and property titles) should stay with her sons and grandsons. Like you, I do think that the original writer of the Tree of Life story that ends up in The Book of Mormon was influenced by Plato (and Homer and Virgil), and possibly Jane Lead.
    The preponderance of evidence at this point, for me, ranks Spalding as the most likely author of the original text (which was the prevailing theory before Brodie). He was most certainly deeply influenced by classical writers (he even taught at the Cherry Valley Academy, the first classical school west of Albany). If Edwards, Warren, Ramsay, Whitefield, Lead, and others were influences on The Book of Mormon, it makes much more sense that they influenced Spalding than they influenced Smith—based on timing, interest, purpose, and education. Spalding had lived among the Native Americans for ten years as a missionary trying to convert the “redman” or convince them that they were of the Lost 10 Tribes.
    The way I see it, Smith obtained a manuscript (perhaps through Rigdon) that he believed to contain truthful statements about ancient peoples, golden plates, and a cave of wonders. He believed that he could see such things in his seer stone because that is how he was conditioned. That is why he always believed The Book of Mormon to be historical (even though you and I do not). Like Father Smith, Joseph was extraordinarily credulous. If there were rumors of treasure, Father Smith unflinchingly believed them (with Smith either believing or pretending to believe so that money could be raised). If either of them favorably saw Jane Lead in the scripture, then he (or they) would have taken such as supporting or confirmatory information. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that Smith dictated something (and that he used misdirection with people like Martin Harris) but that does not mean that he (or his father) composed The Book of Mormon.
    I don’t think that Smith pondered on Plato much at all, or Hebrew, or the KJV, or infant baptism, etc.—certainly not before he obtained his manuscript. Yes, Smith did later study some Hebrew and history as he grew into what others expected a prophet like him should be.
    I understand that you’re doing a bigger project than Book of Mormon authorship, but “the Nauvoo doctrine” must be interpreted very differently on sole-authorship than other-authorship. I think that doctrinally Mormonism is mostly from the mind of Rigdon, including in the Nauvoo period. Smith nearly ruined Rigdon’s Mormonism several times with polygamy, Danites, usurpation of power, etc.
    Thank you for the caution around common religious language. I do not think that The Late War was an influence on the composition of The Book of Mormon. I agree that both were projects that drew upon common religious language. I agree that Smith didn’t accept Edward’s views; I don’t think he was influenced by them either way. But Spalding was influenced by them (and Rigdon).
    I agree that one needs to “make a distinction between ideas that are common and ideas [that are] not so common,” as you say. This is why I think that Nephi being the person name of the part-Jewish/part-Arabic linguist/historian that Athanasius Kircher made-up (as his convenient authority) when compositing an intermediate Coptic-Egyptian language (Prodromus Coptus) is interesting. “Mormon” being a person name of Kircher’s close contemporary as he was ridiculed for having written pseudepigrapha in the same decade (1630s) is also an idea that was “not so common.” Nephi, in The Book of Mormon, holding a spiritually magnetic compass with pointers, spindles, and writing on its sides is, to me, clearly an allusion to Kircher’s “balls of curious workmanship” that he displayed in his Cabinet of Curiosities. They function, so he said, on the principle of spiritual magnetism. They were made of glass and brass and had pointers, spindles, and writing on their sides. These influences can be better understood as coming through Spalding than through Joseph Smith. I gave a talk on this at Sunstone 2024. I would much appreciate the chance to discuss your reactions to it.
    I hope you can tell that I am following your arguments carefully and trying to learn from them. I am trying not to fall into the pitfalls that you warn against. Sorry that it took so long for me to respond; it has been a full summer. I hope you’re enjoying it!

100. 100! Woo hoo! Thanks for the discussion everyone!

     Lars, I’ll send you an email, but hashing out this kind of stuff isn’t very conducive to a blog. It’s getting off topic.

     However, I will list a few responses.

     1) Joseph Sr. had lots of dreams, and Sharalyn Howcroft recently argued that the first draft dreams come from Joseph Sr. See Sharalyn D. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination of Lucy Mack Smith’s History,” Foundational Texts of Mormonism, ed. Mark Ashurt-McGee, Robin Scott Jensen, and Sharalyn D. Howcroft (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

     2) I argue that the person Lucy was trying to rehabilitate in her history was herself not her husband. I’m arguing that Joseph Jr. saw Joseph Sr. was the much better spiritual guide than he did Lucy. Lucy picked the wrong religion and that was a very bad thing to do from Joseph Jr.’s point of view.

     3) I argue that Joseph Sr. put together the essential elements of Mormonism and much of the ideas that would make of the Book of Mormon before the move to New York. Sr. viewed Jr. as being the one called to fulfill Jane Lead’s prophecies and passed on the ideas and information to Jr.

     4) Thought I DO see the actual extant version of Spalding’s manuscript having some influence on the Josephs, I’ve checked out the old “Spalding theory” and don’t believe there was a second missing manuscript very much like the Book of Mormon. Just the one we have. That’s the scholarly consensus as well.

     5) So looks to me like Sr. and Jr. produced Mormonism and the *concept of* the Book of Mormon. Maybe Cowdery helped some.

     Like I said, I’ll send you an email.

101. Todd,
     I like that “magical thinking”. Believing the Book of Mormon to be a fictional work by some on here certainly should be defined as “magical thinking” cause there certainly isn’t any real faith in God involved.

     I have always viewed faith as a belief in something you believe to be true or hope will be true but not yet having the manifested result or answer. True faith is founded upon real and viable beliefs.

102. If JS Sr is the author, why all the stone in the hat stuff? What could JS see at the bottom of a hat, blocking out the light to see what was appearing on the stone? Did he have it memorized? Did he have a photographic memory? Like others have said, why the Moroni story at all, he could have just used the magic stone to find “plates” and translate the plates.

     I am not putting my tent in either side of the “camps” here but have enjoyed reading the thoughts from everyone. There is no doubt in my mind that when I die, I will not be questioned or quizzed about the BoM and if it was historical or not so not a big deal to me.

     Clearly it is a big deal to Kibs and I am ok with that as he feels that people are leaving the “fold” over this issue. Bro Fleming is trying to get members NOT to leave the fold over this issue, and I like that as well. (there are hundreds of issues to leave over tho)

     I have a dream, that one day we can all sit on the same pew knowing our differences and loving each other unconditionally like ReTx has shared. (and others) That’s the church I want to attend.

     Again, I think having a testimony based on books, church as an org, prophets, general leaders, temples, policies and programs are all sandy beaches. If all these eventually lead you to “blessed art thou for my Father told you” then you stand on rock. IMO.

     Kibs, I think from my little research about members leaving regarding the BoM is because they thought the BoM was completely 100% truth and accurate. Then they hear something that does not sit well with them (like the Isaiah chapters, horses, etc) and lose the faith. I am glad you have been able to stay in the faith with your BoM research and testimony. I think that is harder to do than being in the “dont care about it” camp.

     I couldn’t stay in the church, having studied our history extensively, and believe the traditional member way that the prophet is always speaking for God. Every book they write, every talk they give, every policy/temple change they do is from God. Wouldn’t work for me. Happy that it does for most.

     There is room for all of us in the church, no matter where you are in your gospel life path. The best church for humans, is not just the one we all belong to. Its the one that brings that person closest to God and Jesus.

     I like the quiet churching concept. I have just not attended 2nd hour as it is so frustrating for me to disagree with about 90% of what is said. And I have not been able to hide my “dont want to be here face” when I attend so for me, I home church the 2nd hour until I can be like Jesus and not let it bother me!

103. I adjusted my comment, REC. I mean Sr. played a big role in the “concept” of the Book of Mormon, not the textual dictation.

104. Rec911,
     I think for me, ditching most of secular academia was the best thing that opened the doors to seeing evidences for the Book of Mormon. That was some 20 years ago. I used to subscribe to all the science magazines decades ago. Science always intrigued me. I remember the day I finally ditched them all for good. They had done this big article about finding dinosaur soft tissue and the reasoning they came up with for why it was carbon rich was so completely unscientific and sci-fi that I realized for good they just invent their own narratives to fit their personal bias.

     I do believe though that at some point the church is going to have to further strengthen the reality and historical truths of the Book of Mormon. You can’t keep having people within the church mock our scriptures and Joseph Smith.

105. Just thinking about the bigger picture of this thread, it seems like there are two different aspects of what is important to posters.

     The OP has been open that he’s posting to help those struggling with the historical/difficult aspects of LDS history. I’d add to that that he’s a bit of an example of what staying in the church while being un-orthodox.

     If i understand correctly, Kibs’s concerns are for the orthodox members that may have their faith hurt by being exposed to the thought process /ideas around a non-historical BoM.

     The question then becomes, is it possible to assist those who can’t accept the BoM as historical in a way that helps them stay in the church while protecting the orthodox from exposure?

     Is one of these groups of more importance than the other?

106. ReTx,
     The orthodox are definitely more important as a body to protect. Our religion is founded upon the Book of Mormon and it’s claims as being historical. The book itself is a theologic masterpiece that in no way resembles anything mankind makes up. Ive studied the doctrines my whole life and I continue yo be blown away at how salvation is so masterfully taught. These arent mortal ideas born from Plato or Lead or any other mortal.

     As a religious body, we should all unite in the same beliefs. Maybe the real questions that we need to ask is getting to the real heart of why people disbelieve.

107. Kibs – The ideal “we all believe the same way” I think is a thing of the past and for the church to survive we need to figure out how to keep people in the pews (like me) who dont look at the church in a strict orthodox way. As more and more members are exposed to the warts of our history, typically by family members that they trust, the church will lose members. I believe most of the changes that the church has done in the last 6 to 7 years are for this very reason. Help people stay. The changes have even caused issues. We will not see the full affect/outcome of the “change” church for years. To me the biggest change, and the best change, is to not focus on the “church” as much and turn to a personal relationship with God/Jesus. Get your own revelations. Members dont know how to do that, IMO, as they just “follow the prophet” and all will be well.

     It is a fun time to be on the earth and in the church. The endowment just changed yet again. We belong to the church of change. At my age, (old) I almost dont recognize the church I grew up in. Not a bad thing, just different.

     If I was a betting man, the orthodox believers are the ones that will be leaving more than others. I see that in the xmo community. Lots were very, very orthodox.

     Would you have left the church if your 20 years of study of the BoM had a different outcome?

     IMO we need to unit in the same beliefs that God and Jesus want us to have a relationship with them and love others, repent, repeat. The gospel is what we should be converted to. The church is not the gospel IMO. It is the caretaker of the gospel. The leaders are our servants. Prophets are prophets when they are acting as such. Presidents are presidents when they are acting as such.

     There are lots of reasons to disbelieve in the church, especially if you study our history, but I think you know that.

108. One point of clarification. Kibs said Book of Mormon theology “arent mortal ideas.” Actually Book of Mormon theology was quite similar to a lot of the theology in Joseph Smith’s environment, especially the Arminianism found in Methodism. So not theologically unique at all.

     Plenty of Plato and Lead in the BoM, but theologically, even more in the later revelations and speeches.

109. Stephen,
     Similar is highly subjective. I’ve read a some of Leads and Platos prophecies, writings etc, and whereas they have ideas that are similar they lack the style and signature that makes the Book of Mormon stand out as something far beyond mortal man’s capabilities. I can read some of Leads prophecies and go “ho hum” and not really be moved by the spirit. The spirit signature and style of the Book of Mormon is powerful and moving. No other Book on the planet do I get that feeling and I read a lot of stuff. The NT comes close but it too is vastly different.

110. Rec911,
     Those leaving are those on the fringe who are Jack Mormons. Jack Mormons tend to be more educated by the secular and godless education system. True orthodox believers hold to following the prophets and traditional beliefs. We don’t need a church of Jack Mormons, we need old school traditional members who believe the word of God over secular understanding.

111. Kibs: Congratulations! You have unironically recapitulated the No True Scotsman fallacy with remarkable brevity!

112. “Maybe the real questions that we need to ask is getting to the real heart of why people disbelieve.”

     This would be a fascinating blog post and discussion. I’d love to have it and started to respond here, but then saw your other post and kind of came to dead halt. Your other post felt so unkind and dismissive of my relationship with God, that I don’t know that trying to explain how my faith works and why it moved away from needing historicity would really add anything to this conversation.

     So getting to that post…

     “We don’t need a church of Jack Mormons, we need old school traditional members who believe the word of God over secular understanding.”

     In this sentence, who is ‘We?’ Is it…

     The church community – who from your argument need protecting and kept in an insular situation so that their faith is never exposed to out-side thought? (Just by chance, I’ve read Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and 1984 in the last two weeks* and after doing so, this argument makes my skin crawl. But perhaps that is the secular thought in action…?)

     The institutional church & leadership – who only need workers in order to run and grow the church and people with their own opinions and ideas are a threat to that…? (If this isn’t your argument, fair enough. I couldn’t come up with anything better.) In this situation, I imagine that a lot more excommunications are in order so that all of the non-conformers get booted.

     God – Because God only cares about people who think and live a certain way? For example all those Jack Mormons, regardless of their faithfulness to Him and lives of character and giving, just don’t matter.

     Someone else?

     *All the reading was due to frantic end-of-summer, A.P. English classes about to begin, begging and pleading from my teens for me to help them prepare for back-to-school essays. This is not my preferred reading material.

113. Pontius,
     Ha ha, true in some sense. Let me rephrase a bit.

     As a person spends more time in higher education, the more prone they are to believe in the understanding of man over God. When that is coupled with prestigious accolades it compounds and gravitated even greater towards a purely secular understanding over God. As I see it, your Jack-mormons tend to be the ones who spend more time chasing prestigious merits and secular learning.

114. ReTx
     Perhaps my understanding of a jack-mormon is different than yours. Maybe my understanding of a traditional old school member is different than yours.

     To me a jack-mormon is someone on the fringe who aren’t true followers/believers in Christ as manifested by having polarized views of the church, it’s history, it’s beliefs etc.

     It’s one thing if they honestly seek change and come to be converted, but it’s another if they just sit on the fence and jeer at the true believers. In the blogosphere there’s an abnormally large amount of jack Mormons in my opinion. Everything fom movements to ordain women to questioning church authority or history, race, gender, marriage, lgbtq issues, feminism, etc. They are all mostly “jack mormons” and are the biggest threat from within in the church.

115. “aren’t true followers/believers in Christ as manifested by having polarized views of the church, it’s history, it’s beliefs etc.”

     I guess I honestly don’t know what to say to that overall. I don’t think that President Nelson or the Q12 would ever say that someone is a false of fake follower of Jesus just because they love Jesus but not in the same way as orthodox members.

     That you see people like me as a threat is too bad. But it’s not too bad for you not for me. My 15 year spiritual journey in moving away from orthodox thought has brought me closer to Jesus and more aware of loving others than my 35 plus years of being you. That said, I don’t need you to take my journey. But a little compassion to people experiencing God differently can not but bring each of close to Jesus.

116. ReTx,

     It’s really quite a juxtaposition because we probably agree on how to serve, how to love others, how to act in public, etc, yet we can have diametrically opposed viewpoints on matters I see as paramount to faith. I’m looking at it like this- Suppose the prophet was looking for a person out of several candidates, including one Stephen Fleming to go and serve as a spokesman for the church on social media and radio on a special mission to the people in Bolivia, and that we could only tell exactly the truth all the time and we had to speak whenever asked a question in behalf of the church. We were also told that our audience would be in the tens of thousands on a daily basis. Who would the prophet most likely want to send and why? Who would he not send and why?

117. Kibs, you are free to construct any imaginary scenario you want that’s tailor-made to your strengths. I don’t think the Savior or the prophet expect the scenario you just described from anybody, much less from anybody as a hypothetical. Given that you and ReTx would agree on everything that really matters in how to live and how to treat other people, I think you can safely set aside your disagreements on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

118. *everybody as a hypothetical

119. Kibs, I have to say that I’m fairly horrified by what you’ve been saying here, so much so that I have to keep reminding myself that I actually do believe in a historical Book of Mormon. The claim that every member must believe the same thing and your rejection of education is far enough from what the Church does and teaches that I suspect it’s only a matter of time before you start calling the prophet to repentance.

     What you fail to understand is that not just the prophet but God himself looked at the people available to serve in an important assignment – and chose Stephen. Recently the Church did need someone to direct media communication – and chose someone who has marched in Pride parades. When someone you loves comes to you and can’t understand why there is no easy archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, you will fail unless you have a better answer than “reject science.”

120. Jonathon,
     It’s not a reject science at all, it’s a ejection of the bias by science that would reject anything that deals with God. Maybe I need to clarify and call it the atheist biased parts of science that mocks Christ, ancient prophets, Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

     Certainly, to be educated is a good thing as long as one still places faith in God’s word and his history Book first. The problem is that almost all higher educators (university profesors) sway heavy to the left and that influence has its effect on the students and academia as a whole. In fact, history is one of the most liberal leaning amongst college professors. I’m not sure why, but facts are facts and when you have a majority of the higher educators leaning left, the work (academia) thus also is biased heavily to the left.

     I don’t question true sound science, it’s just that it’s become almost extinct in certain areas of academia like journalism, communications and history.

121. Kibs,

     I believe the Book of Mormon to be a compilation of real writings from real people from the past. And I’m of the opinion that they lived in Mesoamerica. That said, we need to be careful that we don’t take the virtue of historicity to an extreme. There are other virtues that need to be taken into account and given their just due. I think the Lord will be more interested in how well we lived by the precepts of the BoM than with how much we believed in its historical claims.

     That said, yes, those claims are important–and I agree with you on the importance of establishing the truth claims of the restoration on the veracity of historical events. Even so, in spite of the fact that the church (IMO) would not survive with out being grounded in certain temporal realities (e.g. the literal resurrection of the Savior) that’s not to say that there isn’t enough wiggle room for those who see things a bit differently. And yes they need to be careful not to publicly set themselves at odds with the apostles–another virtue.

     And so we see that there are a number of virtues that we need to be neatly fit together in order to maintain the kind of balance that is required for the Kingdom to flourish on as many fronts as possible.

122. Jack,
     I do agree with many things you speak of. I worry though that these types of movements do not work for the greater ood of the kingdom but actually take away from it. Kudos for Stephen for deciding to stay up to this point. Perhaps in his mind he truly believes that a safe haven can be found for to have those views and still remain. Reality paints a much different picture.

     Like I said and asked before, is the work he does seek to strengthen or weaken the kingdom overall? Does it strengthen or weaken the testimonies of others? He even alludes that God is revealing to him that the Book of Mormon isnt real history. I’m not saying he’s another John Dehlin but the paths are strikingly similar and we know what damage Dehlin is causing to the church.

     There’s just no way God would spend thousands of years to create an illusion and use mass trickery by a charlatan imposter to establish his kingdom once again on earth before Christ comes again to reign on the earth with his people.

123. (Sorry about the endless typos. I wince reading my own comments, but I’m on my phone at an event this week. )

     “he truly believes that a safe haven can be found for to have those views and still remain. Reality paints a much different picture.”

     This is an interesting comment because as someone who is active in all the usual ways, what makes the church not a safe haven is way less the doctrine or the SLC church leadership, it’s how other members treat me. I’m pretty thick skinned and just ignore the snide looks and being turned into the bishop for expressing views that aren’t in line with common thought (always with sensitivity and always with space for others to see things differently). It’s when my or other people’s teens start being mistreat that it gets to me.

     That said, I’ll guess that you’d see the church not being a safe haven for me as being for totally different reasons…?

124. KIBS

     “Suppose the prophet was looking for a person out of several candidates, including one Stephen Fleming to go and serve as a spokesman for the church”

     And in one single sentence you have described the problem I see in your arguments. You have made being a “Good Mormon” and a disciple of Christ the same thing. It sounds like, if you could have “your” way, personal integrity would be completely swallowed up by institutional loyalty. At one point here the discussion was about “historicity”, but you have now turned it into a session to condemn all those who do not “think correctly”, or more precisely, think exactly as you. Unfortunately, your remarks here resemble more the self-righteous prayer of the Pharisee, standing tall and exclaiming, thank you God that I am not like these people, robbers, heretics, unbelievers, skeptics, critical thinkers and all other labels used to define the impure infectants.

     That parable ends with Jesus giving all the glory to the introspective, honest, self-observing “Publican”. Stating that he, the one thought of as the most impure among them was actually the one that will be exalted and those that exalt themselves will be debased.
     Your words are harsh, punitive, and self-aggrandizing, telling people who are still engaging faithfully with the process of change that they are unworthy because they refuse to say the exact words you think are necessary. Saying the exact words, in the correct way, in the right places, is the prayer of the Zoramites. You might want to take the log out of your own eye before you start telling everyone else about their motes. It’s this ultra-orthodox attitude that both Jesus and Alma were consistently most critical of. It’s this posture that is driving people away from religion and making it increasingly difficult for me to sit through Elders quorum. I thought we were to fast and pray and meet together oft to discuss the welfare of our souls, but instead of discussing our welfare, we are discussing our ideology and coercing people to think correctly.

125. And on the theme of quiet, I’ve mentioned in past posts that I have put together what we call our “safe-space” group as a place to discuss topics that most don’t think fit very well in church. If anyone is interested, email me at [email protected]

     Like I’ve said, I’m happy to discuss controversial issues in more fitting settings that church.

126. Humm, seems like my last post didn’t post.

     Not sure if I pressed the wrong button or it’s the case of censored.

     Oh well.

127. Must have been a glitch, Kibs. No comments in our filter.

128. Aye,
     I will try to repost most of what I said.
     My reply was to ReTx,
     It’s a tricky line for me. I do feel the church should be a safe haven for those wanting to Follow Christ even though we all don’t share the same beliefs. I know it’s hard for me to understand some people’s views while remaining in the church. I recently had my own brother, who previously was our bishop in the ward, leave the church with his wife. They are now separated and getting divorced. It’s all gone downhill for him.

     I know there’s a middle ground but not sure how it will play out. Even though I have very different views politically than some of my neighbors I still love to serve them alongside them. We just don’t really speak our opinions to each other.

129. I’m deeply hoping that there is a middle ground as well and can’t see how it will play out, but I hope that changes begin happening soon. Right now, the divide is just too deep. Cheers.

130. “If the Book of Mormon isn’t historical, then what is it?”

     I believe that many Latter-day Saints ask themselves this when confronted with the idea the BoM isn’t historical. Neither Church teachings nor Church culture provide possible answers to this question. As such, members who confront it face crushing uncertainty: to even ask the question out loud is to risk being branded an apostate, and to try to answer it leads to almost impenetrable unknowns. In this all-or-nothing Church, many people either brush the question aside completely, or allow the question to destroy their faith.

     I applaud your willingness to openly identify yourself as a believing member who considers the BoM non-historical. That takes guts! But beyond telling us what you think the Book of Mormon is NOT (historical), what I would most like to hear from you is a post saying what you think the Book of Mormon IS, or COULD BE. If you don’t want to give us your personal belief, perhaps you could identify a several viewpoints that you think would be reasonable, or that others have shared with you. That will help people not fall into the all-or-nothing “you’re either completely in the Church or out of it” type of thinking. Thanks in advance

Comments are closed.