- Jack on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “IMO, the Lord is more interested in our efforts to live up to the teachings of the BoM than he is in where we stand on its historicity. Even so — aside from the fact that the BoM’s claims about itself being the best explanation for what it is — there are serious theological problems with its claims if they are not grounded in real history, IMO. Much like trying to “spiritualize” the resurrection of Jesus–if we reduce the witnesses contained in the BoM to mere stories then we lose the concreteness of the reality of God’s actions. The book loses its power if there is no Living God keeping the promises he makes to real historical individuals. The power of its witness of Christ resides in the reality of the testators’ experience with him–the fact that real people saw him and conversed with him and then bore witness of their encounter with him.” Jul 26, 20:17
- on On Pie and Beer Day: “Pontius, sorry, my bad. The first half of my comment was directed at you specifically – I think the pioneer story really is sacred – but the second half wasn’t directed at you at all. I should have made that clear or split it up into two comments. I posted in haste and apologize.” Jul 26, 19:37
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “Anon, always feel free to clarify. John, I’m glad you’re at peace with all this. Anna, I’m glad you had a good experience with the bishop you described. Those are interesting responses both from your bishop and the Spirit. I do hope that there’s greater space for people like you and the people you love. Something I’ve worked at. ST, I do like the way you frame the question in terms of divine revelation. I do see the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as inspired. I do think it’s wise to take tolerant attitudes toward different ideas on the Book of Mormon, but I don’t expect the leaders giving conference talks saying “It’s no problem if you don’t think the BoM is historical” anytime soon. The church (leaders and members) have invested quite a bit in the notions that a historical Book of Mormon is quite central to the church’s truth claims. That may change slowly, but not easily.” Jul 26, 17:25
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I am not a scholar, but have found a sort of middle way that works for me. I offer it here in case another finds value too. For years I struggled to choose between the loose and tight BoM translation theories. Both seemed to have merit and limitations. Eventually I realized I could choose both – ie, there were two translations. My view is that Jospeh simply dictated text that appeared to him. The actual translation happened by some individual (or group) a few centuries before. That’s why the English better fits 17th century phrasing than 19th. This view also can offer a resolution for whether the BoM is historical. I believe the book reflects a deep meta story based on a lost history, but which has been filtered through the 17th century translation process which introduced factual errors (eg horses), post-NT terminology and views (eg Christ), and attempts to answer reformation era questions (eg infant baptisms). The view is similar to how many modern historians approach whether Troy or Atlantis are historical. Again, I’m not particularly studied. But I am convinced Joseph could not have written the text. It’s far above his abilities at the end of his life, much less as a struggling newlywed. And I am convinced the book brings people closer to Christ. For me, to maintain faith I’ve needed to find a workable theory for how the text came to be. This one works for me.” Jul 26, 17:19
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “Writing as a sympathetic non-Saint whose biggest stumbling block, by a mile, is BoM (etc) historical claims, I’m attracted to the (probably unintended?) implication in Grant Hardy’s most recent Reader’s BoM with Oxford that the fundamental question is whether it’s divine revelation–if it is, the historical questions don’t disappear but they do fade in importance. I can easily see a divinely inspired scripture, drawing on a lot of existing sources…like the historical and poetic books of the Hebrew Bible. Other Christian churches (such as Catholicism in my experience) tolerate a range of opinions on biblical historical accuracy within a shared assumption that the canon is divinely revealed. That seems like a reasonable approach. Not every question comes down to “what will cause fewer faith crises and departures” but visible tolerance on this question, even just at the grassroots, would blunt one prominent problem. I’m not a non-Mormon trying to dictate policy, but this is some of how I sometimes try to internally square a pull towards theology I find attractive with a desire to not assent to claims about Precolumbian America I find…what I’ll call implausible on an LDS blog” Jul 26, 16:39
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “My story is kind of like “ anonymous please” above and I too am “that old”. With a couple of differences. 1. Except I’m female. 2. Except my problem included Joseph himself right along with the BoM. 3. I also am no longer attending, but that has more to do with how the church treats anyone not Cis/straight/white/male. It has nothing to do with my feelings about the BoM. The thing that is the same is my doubts starting as a doubt that I just could not shake way back in Junior Sunday school. I tried studying and the more I studied on the issue the bigger the doubts became. I prayed and all I was told was that I should stay in the church, “for now.” Thirty or so years of that, as I became more sure the BoM was not historical. I finally got quite demanding with God and demanded a straight answer to the question of “Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?” I hoped maybe I would just be told that he was insane or a con man as S. Smoot seems to want it to be black and white. I wanted black or white, not some smeary vague grayish, brownish, blob. Either tell me it’s all fake so I can leave the church, or tell me it is lovely white and Joseph the jerk was really the best God could do for a prophet. Well, I got the loudest voice saying very calmly, “It doesn’t matter.” Not what I wanted. Not at all what I wanted. How can it possibly “not matter” when it is the one foundation of the church? So, next temple recommend interview my bishops asks about my testimony of J.S. and I just laughed, and quoted my revelation. Then I explained my demanding temper tantrum before God, and told my bishop what my answer was, and just how can this question “not matter”? If my bishop had been S. Smoot, I would have left the church that day. But, lucky me, I had a guy like S. Fleming, He was wise enough to know the world is not black and white. I then told my bishop a bit more about the question, because if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, not a con man or insane or fallen prophet, and he was STILL a prophet when he was lying to Emma about his other “wives”/concubines/affairs, then God does not really love his daughter as people, just sees them as baby incubators. My bishop got awfully quiet, paced the room a bit, but would not let me leave. Then finally he turns around looking like he just found the winning lottery ticket (yeah, I live in a state with lottery tickets) and he says, “that’s right, it doesn’t matter. What *Does* matter is loving God and knowing God loves you. So, if Joseph being a “real prophet” means you feel that God does not love you, then it really doesn’t matter. Joseph Smith matters a lot less than Jesus Christ.” Then I got really brave and asked him if the BoM was history, he smiles and says, “Probably not, but that doesn’t matter either.” Last I knew that bishop was still in the church, in spite of his thinking the BoM is “probably not historical.” Me, I quit going because I have too many ways that most Mormons just cannot understand or accept me and I got tired of being labeled “unworthy” when I was doing the best I could and besides, I have too many people that I love who are LGBT and some other letters. But it was not the lack of historicity of the BoM that made me quit going. I stayed active a good 15 years after that conversation with that bishop.” Jul 26, 15:19
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I left the church for seven years and returned four years ago. I spent the first year doubting the historicity yet believing the fundamental truth claims. Then, it dawned on me that, like the major miracles of other dispensations, the physical proof does not come until the chance to believe the claims without the proof has passed. That’s where we are right now. All arguments against historicity rely on assumptions about the unlikely probability of things and presume today’s knowledge of how things really were to be more comprehensive than it really is. God is perfectly proficient in low-probability spaces, so I’ll let Him reveal the physical proof on His timetable. It does me more good to take Joseph Smith, Jun. at his word than to lean into doubt, especially when I know the fruit of his restorative work to be so sweet.” Jul 26, 14:24
- on Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations, a Review: “Great review; thanks for sharing. An LDS Apocrypha of sorts.” Jul 26, 14:06
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “I know it’s stupid, but let me restate my last paragraph: I don’t have a “testimony” that Nephi did not exist. I just don’t have one that he did. It has become unimportant to me” Jul 26, 14:03
- on Being a Mormon without Believing in a Historical Book of Mormon, Part 1: “This is an interesting post and a thought provoking one at that. It has been a few years since heard a conversation on the radio before podcasts became a thing. I cannot remember the gentleman’s name, but he was talking about the Old Testament and it’s historicity. The person commented that much of the history in the Old Testament cannot be corroborated but the most important history in the OT is the history of the relationship of a people and their god. I immediately thought of the Book of Mormon I saw the same idea represented in the Book of Mormon. There are those members whose self identity is in part tied the the historicity of the BoM and I am fine with that. As for me there are many things in the BoM that hold value for me and I don’t tend to get caught up in those debates about the BoM’s historicity.” Jul 26, 13:11