LDS and the bible vs BOM

[TOmNossor]

Who is the author of the Book of Mormon?

Of course I believe it is Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, … and that Joseph Smith was an inspired “translator.” I believe Nephi wrote of geography he walked with his father Lehi that is why it is consistent and in my opinion matches remarkably well a journey from Jerusalem - Nahom - Bountiful. I believe Mormon abridged records from many authors and wrote about a consistent geography that he experienced. If you could teach Mormon about airplanes and fly with him from NY to Mesoamerica and then asked him if the BOM geography covered all this region he would confidently say, “No.” Joseph Smith just didn’t know the geography that was consistently presented in the BOM (because he was not the author and unlike C.S. Lewis or Tolkien had not planned it out in his head).

TOm, you used to be a Catholic? But only belonged to one parish?

I have memories from more than 4 parishes. I stepped out of the cradle in a parish far from here of which I only have a few scattered memories. The one that I consider “my parish” I attended from age 11 or 12 until leaving for college. We started this parish originally meeting in the middle school cafeteria. Raising money and … to build a building and … My family still lives in my teenage home (across town from where I live). I have attended mass there very sporadically since I became a LDS. I have shared here that the parish is very liberal and quite comfortable with LDS, Agnostics and Wiccans receiving communion. My wife and I did not partake.

Very true, you are your own authority.

First, by claiming I am the “world authority” on TOm, I mean that I possess more knowledge about TOm than anyone in the world (not what you thought I said or at least what I think you thought I said). I have read Catholic apologetics that appeal to the need to give the Catholic authority a privileged read when evaluating this or that theological question. Such is good for those who accept the Catholic authority, but is not of much use to someone evaluating the fidelity of the Catholic authority. So, before we submit to a human authority, we are all acting as our authorities. That is not IMO the same as the spirit of individual interpretation that leads to the Ultra-Trads. I find their arguments compelling EXCEPT that they are claiming to be more Catholic than the Church which is far and away the biggest problem with their arguments IMO.

I have known many Mormons who have admitted they are in it for family, not for theology, but you may know differently.

I merely say I am a LDS because I think it makes the most compelling case for being God’s church (and that I have a testimony, but I believed the first part for many years before I had what any LDS would call a testimony). I do not know the inner workings of other LDS, but I would be surprised if SOME of them weren’t “in it for family.”

Admitting JS was a polygamist was a huge death to the idea that he was a devoted husband to Emma alone. Admitting he doesn’t know where the BoM took place, along with numerous other apostles and presidents, is a huge death of the idea that they are seers and revelators.
I could go on, but the bottom line that is how many see the Mormon church.

I have no memory of ever thinking Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Such a misconception is totally foreign to my experience of the CoJCoLDS. That hopefully sounds very neutral towards anyone who had this misconception.
I have a vague recollection of dropping the hemispheric geography model many years ago and it was a non-issue for me.
I have no memory of any stress brought on as a product of learning that LDS leaders did not know much about the BOM geography and what many of them claimed I think is unlikely to be true.
I do have somewhat vivid memories of what I call my “dark night of the soul,” but it was mercifully brief. It had NOTHING to do with any naturalistic concepts associated with the origins of the CoJCoLDS, such for whatever reason have never held sway with me.

The universal authority on TOm is of course not me it is God. If John Calvin was/is the most brilliant and/or inspired theologian, I might be non-elect AND with my non-elect mind I am incapable of seeing that I should be a 5 point Calvinist (or I might be elect and it is not my time yet). Perhaps Calvin is only partially correct and … But, as best as I can tell the things I admit are problems are consumed by the magnitude of the strengths. I find the explanation that the CoJCoLDS was started by God to have much more explanative power than the idea that it was and is a fraud.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Of course I believe it is Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, … and that Joseph Smith was an inspired “translator.” I believe Nephi wrote of geography he walked with his father Lehi that is why it is consistent and in my opinion matches remarkably well a journey from Jerusalem - Nahom - Bountiful. I believe Mormon abridged records from many authors and wrote about a consistent geography that he experienced. If you could teach Mormon about airplanes and fly with him from NY to Mesoamerica and then asked him if the BOM geography covered all this region he would confidently say, “No.” Joseph Smith just didn’t know the geography that was consistently presented in the BOM (because he was not the author and unlike C.S. Lewis or Tolkien had not planned it out in his head).

1. The Mormon church has made no such statement
2. Mormon apologists have decided where the BoM took place because Joseph Smith and all the presidents and apostles have gotten it wrong
3. This is an example of wordiness meaning nothing

I have memories from more than 4 parishes. I stepped out of the cradle in a parish far from here of which I only have a few scattered memories. The one that I consider “my parish” I attended from age 11 or 12 until leaving for college. We started this parish originally meeting in the middle school cafeteria. Raising money and … to build a building and … My family still lives in my teenage home (across town from where I live). I have attended mass there very sporadically since I became a LDS. I have shared here that the parish is very liberal and quite comfortable with LDS, Agnostics and Wiccans receiving communion. My wife and I did not partake.

LDS, Wiccans and agnostics are receiving communion?

1. Why would they want to?
2. How would you know?
3. Are you accusing a priest of knowingly giving communion to non-Catholics?

First, by claiming I am the “world authority” on TOm, I mean that I possess more knowledge about TOm than anyone in the world (not what you thought I said or at least what I think you thought I said). I have read Catholic apologetics that appeal to the need to give the Catholic authority a privileged read when evaluating this or that theological question. Such is good for those who accept the Catholic authority, but is not of much use to someone evaluating the fidelity of the Catholic authority. So, before we submit to a human authority, we are all acting as our authorities. That is not IMO the same as the spirit of individual interpretation that leads to the Ultra-Trads. I find their arguments compelling EXCEPT that they are claiming to be more Catholic than the Church which is far and away the biggest problem with their arguments IMO.

Again, many, many words.

I merely say I am a LDS because I think it makes the most compelling case for being God’s church (and that I have a testimony, but I believed the first part for many years before I had what any LDS would call a testimony). I do not know the inner workings of other LDS, but I would be surprised if SOME of them weren’t “in it for family.”

Yes, they are called New Order Mormons.

I have no memory of ever thinking Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Such a misconception is totally foreign to my experience of the CoJCoLDS. That hopefully sounds very neutral towards anyone who had this misconception.

This is the most disingenuous thing I have ever heard.

1. This isn’t about you, it’s about the many, many Mormons who did not know Joseph Smith was a polygamist.
2. If it was so well known, why did the Mormon church need to make an official announcement?

 

[TOmNossor]

LDS, Wiccans and agnostics are receiving communion?

1. Why would they want to?
2. How would you know?
3. Are you accusing a priest of knowingly giving communion to non-Catholics?

For some it is what is being done and it was encouraged or almost encouraged.
My wife and I were the LDS (and did not take communion) and I knew the other two folks.
And yes, I am. My point is that this is a very liberal parish.

TOmNossor;12920502:

I have no memory of ever thinking Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Such a misconception is totally foreign to my experience of the CoJCoLDS. That hopefully sounds very neutral towards anyone who had this misconception.

This is the most disingenuous thing I have ever heard.

1. This isn’t about you, it’s about the many, many Mormons who did not know Joseph Smith was a polygamist.
2. If it was so well known, why did the Mormon church need to make an official announcement?

You should probably clarify what you consider as “disingenuous.”
I think the CoJCoLDS has published essays to deal with controversial issues, but I would have never claimed the purpose of those essays was to unveil the great secret that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. There are difficult truths in the historical record that are IMO the purpose of the essays on polygamy. These truths certainly are open to multiple interpretations and I largely follow Brian Hales and Don Bradley in my thoughts about these though I am happy to be in a church with Richard Bushman and Todd Compton too.
In addition to being in a church with Hales, Bradly, Bushman, and Compton; I am glad to be in a church with folks that were shocked to discover that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.
Before I comment much more I hope to know what lack of sincerity you see in my post so I can know.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

For some it is what is being done and it was encouraged or almost encouraged.
My wife and I were the LDS (and did not take communion) and I knew the other two folks.
And yes, I am. My point is that this is a very liberal parish.

“TOm”
So you are stating that there is a Catholic parish near you where the priest is encouraging non-Catholics to take communion? That the priest himself is aware and is personally giving communion to the people?

Even if it is true, it does not have an impact on the fact that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church that Jesus Christ himself started, the Catholic Church.

You should probably clarify what you consider as “disingenuous.”

1. You are purposely not answering the question that was stated.
2. You have, once again, made this about what “TOm” thinks, not what the Mormon church teaches or believes as a whole.
3. This is done over and over to confuse, conflate, and twist words so that the original meaning is lost.
4. This is done intentionally.

I think the CoJCoLDS has published essays to deal with controversial issues, but I would have never claimed the purpose of those essays was to unveil the great secret that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. There are difficult truths in the historical record that are IMO the purpose of the essays on polygamy. These truths certainly are open to multiple interpretations and I largely follow Brian Hales and Don Bradley in my thoughts about these though I am happy to be in a church with Richard Bushman and Todd Compton too.
In addition to being in a church with Hales, Bradly, Bushman, and Compton; I am glad to be in a church with folks that were shocked to discover that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.
Before I comment much more I hope to know what lack of sincerity you see in my post so I can know.
Charity, TOm

What in the world…

 

[Stephen168]

Michael Coe:

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere. The archaeological data would strongly suggest that the Liahonas [the Book of Mormon is only a source of mores and guidance] are right about the Book of Mormon. To me, as a sympathetic and interested outsider, the efforts of Iron Rod archaeologists [the Book of Mormon is a history as defined by Joseph Smith] to go beyond the moral and ethical content of the Book of Mormon arouse feelings not of superiority but of compassion: the same kind of compassion that one feels for persons who are engaged on quests that have been, are now, and always will be unproductive.

Michael Coe:

Mormon intellectuals, it seems to me, have taken three ways to extract themselves from the dilemma.

Michael Coe:

The more traditionalist, such as my friend John Sorenson, have tried to steer their stern elders away from Book of Mormon archaeology on the grounds that not even the best and most advanced research has ever been able to establish on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the Bible, for instance the very existence of Jesus Christ. According to Sorenson, all one can hope to do is to “paint in the background,” which in his case has meant building up a convincing picture of trans-Atlantic diffusion by presenting New World-Old World parallels. This is of interest to non-Mormon archaeologists, and Sorenson has done much to work out the methodology of such comparisons, but few nonbelievers have been swayed when faced with the indigestible cattle, horses, wheat, and so forth.

Michael Coe:

The second escape is to take a Liahona approach [the Book of Mormon is only a source of mores and guidance] to the problem. This is obviously [Dee F.] Green’s way, as it is that of several other Mormon archaeologists of my acquaintance. But then what does one do with the Book of Mormon itself? Even the most casual student will know that the LDS ethic is only slightly based upon the Book of Mormon, which has very little in it of either ethics or morals; rather, its ethic is heavily dependent upon such post-Book of Mormon documents as the Doctrine and Covenants. And what does one do with Joseph Smith, great man though he was, with his outrageous claims to be able to translate “Reformed Egyptian” documents, with the ridiculous Kinderhook Plates incident, with the “Book of Abraham,” with Zelph the “white Lamanite,” and with all the other nonsense generated by a nineteenth century, American subculture intellectually grounded in white supremacy and proexpansionist tendencies?

Michael Coe:

The third way out of the dilemma is apostasy. I will not dwell further on this painful subject, but merely point out that many unusually gifted scholars whom I count as friends have taken exactly this route.

While we have covered all three in this thread, I think there is a fourth way Mormons are using to “extract themselves from the dilemma,” and that is to change what it is for the Book of Mormon to be “true;” a combination of 1 and 2. It still presents the same problem as #2 in “what does one do the Joseph Smith…?”

 

[lax16]

I have no memory of ever thinking Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Such a misconception is totally foreign to my experience of the CoJCoLDS

“TOm” - Not sure how you missed it, but here is how most Mormons feel.

the Washington Post:

The Mormon church finally acknowledges founder Joseph Smith’s polygamy

Nov 11, 2014

Many Mormons have mixed feelings about a recent disclosure from the church, acknowledging for the first time that the religion’s founder Joseph Smith had as many as 40 wives in his lifetime, including teenagers. That is, if they even heard about the disclosure at all.

The New York Timespublished a piece on Tuesdaylooking at the aftermath of the somewhat unusual acknowledgement, which was posted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Web site in late October.*The church has long renounced polygamy. And until now, it has never officially acknowledged Smith’s multiple marriages, only discussing his first marriage to Emma Hale Smith.

Although at the time, the Associated Press called the news “surprising,” the Times’s follow-up gives some good context for understanding just why that would be. To be sure, as the Times notes, many Mormons*will know about the early church’s polygamous history – particularly when it comes to early church leader Brigham Young – but not, at least, the full history of Smith’s marriages.

According to the Times, many Mormons still might not know about the essays at all. “Many Mormons said in interviews that they were not even aware of them,” the Times’s*Laurie Goodstein wrote, adding, “They are not visible on the church’s home page; finding them requires a search or a link. Elder [Steven] Snow [the church historian] said he anticipated that the contents would eventually be ‘woven into future curriculum’ for adults and youths.”

That would be a big change from how the church currently teaches Smith’s biography, as Goodstein’s interview with bloggerEmily Jensen makes clear.“Joseph Smith was presented to me as a practically perfect prophet, and this is true for a lot of people,” Jensen said. Indeed, what makes the recent acknowledgments so stunning is not necessarily the fact that Smith was polygamous, but instead the details the church acknowledges pertaining to the nature of that polygamy.

Several writers, including Jensen and RNS writer*Jana Reiss, compared the Mormon reaction to the acknowledgements as similar to the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, despair, and acceptance.

Some of themore notable acknowledgements in the essay include the detail thatSmith “was sealed to a number of women who were already married,” which the church speculates may have been a way to strengthen bonds between early Mormon families. Helen Mar Kimballmarried Smith before she turned 15 (however, most of his wives were between the ages of 20 and 40 when they married Smith). Some, but not all, of Smith’s marriages were “sealed” only for the afterlife, meaning that they were not physical relationships. It is suggested that Smith’s marriage to Kimballwas meant only for eternity.

Smith’s first plural marriage – after he and Hale Smitheloped – might have been as early as the mid 1830s, when the religion was still in its infancy. And, according to the essay, it was possibly inspired by what Smith described as multiple visits from an angel: “During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully,” the essay states. The church adds that “fragmentary evidence” suggests Smith marriedFanny Alger in Ohio sometime in the mid-1830s. It’s not clear whether Hale Smithknew about, or consented to, this first plural marriage.

The evidence suggests that Hale Smithwas not okay with many of these marriages. Speaking of Smith’s “eternity-only” marriages to already married women, the church writes,“These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma.” The essay adds that Smith’s plural marriages were an “excruciating ordeal” for her. Four of the women, with her apparent consent, lived as part of their household. However, “Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings,” the essay says.*

The essay is the latest, and perhaps one of the more consequential, of recent acknowledgements from the church leadership that seem to suggest Mormon leaders want to increase the organization’s perceived transparency. In January, the church published a short essay on the church’s early history of polygamy, and a relatively frank discussion of the church’s ban on African-American men taking the priesthood until 1978 — part of a wider church policy excluding African Americans from several church ceremonies, immortalized in a line from the “Book of Mormon”*musical: “In 1978, God changed his mind about black people.”

 

[jane_doe]

“TOm” - Not sure how you missed it, but here is how most Mormons feel.

Lax, unless you have a systematical survey to share, I don’t think it’s logical to use the word “most” which implies a statistical majority.

 

[lax16]

Lax, unless you have a systematical survey to share, I don’t think it’s logical to use the word “most” which implies a statistical majority.

Change “most” to “many.”. And that is stated most clearly in the article.

Can you provide a systematical survey to prove otherwise?

 

[lax16]

Lax, unless you have a systematical survey to share, I don’t think it’s logical to use the word “most” which implies a statistical majority.

many
ˈmenē ]
DETERMINER and PRONOUN
a large number of:
“many people agreed with her”
NOUN (the many)
the majority of people:
“music for the many”
synonyms: people · common people · masses · multitude · populace · More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

 

[jane_doe]

many
ˈmenē ]
DETERMINER and PRONOUN
a large number of:
“many people agreed with her”
NOUN (the many)
the majority of people:
“music for the many”
synonyms: people · common people · masses · multitude · populace · More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

Lax, are you trying to say that many = most? And then by extension that many = majority? If so we are using very different dictionaries.

I would say many = a large number. Such as “many Americans have HIV” (1,201,100 according to the CDC). But I would not say that most Americans are HIV positive, as only 0.37% are, far from the majority.

 

[Horton]

Lax, are you trying to say that many = most? And then by extension that many = majority? If so we are using very different dictionaries.

I would say many = a large number. Such as “many Americans have HIV” (1,201,100 according to the CDC). But I would not say that most Americans are HIV positive, as only 0.37% are, far from the majority.

I think you missed the post where he said to change most to many. Once again when confront with a truth you disagree with, you will pick out one as if it will refute the statement as a whole.

 

[jane_doe]

I think you missed the post where he said to change most to many. Once again when confront with a truth you disagree with, you will pick out one as if it will refute the statement as a whole.

Horton, I was asking Lax for clarification on this view: asking for clarification of words and repeating his thesis as I understood it. Hence posts of “did you mean XYZ”. Such a technique is called being an active listener and is advised when two people see things differently (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening).

 

[jane_doe]

Change “most” to “many.”. And that is stated most clearly in the article.

Can you provide a systematical survey to prove otherwise?

I missed this post earlier. Sorry, my bad.

I am unaware of any systematic survey that says one way or the other on this issue. As a general rule I try to avoid making overarching statements about a group of people.

 

[lax16]

Lax, are you trying to say that many = most? And then by extension that many = majority? If so we are using very different dictionaries.

I would say many = a large number. Such as “many Americans have HIV” (1,201,100 according to the CDC). But I would not say that most Americans are HIV positive, as only 0.37% are, far from the majority.

I did not know we had to be so exact on a forum.

If someone were to say to me “most Catholics were upset by the priest sex scandals” and I replied to this person telling them that they needed a systematical survey to prove this statement, that would be nothing but a diversion.

Although I have not seen a systematical survey on whether many or most Mormons knew Joseph Smith had 40+ wives, there are multiple Mormon blogs discussing whether this “surprise” will or will not ruin their faith. Not to mention The Washington Post article that mentions the many Mormons who were interviewed for the story.

I am not the Oxford Dictionary, but invite you to post a different definition using any dictionary you deem superior.

 

[lax16]

I missed this post earlier. Sorry, my bad.

I am unaware of any systematic survey that says one way or the other on this issue. As a general rule I try to avoid making overarching statements about a group of people.

Overarching statements would be opinion. What I stated was information from a news article.

 

[XuDan]

In my time as LDS (I understand that this is anecdotal.), I would assert that most of the people I encountered (not just at the ward level), knew Smith was a polygamist, many of those most were aware that it was in the dozens. That said most that I encountered did not know (or kept it hush hush, which I doubt) that he was married to many (~11) women who had living husbands (thus polyandrous). Most also did not know that at least one of his wives is known to have been 14 at the time of the wedding, which was young even for that day.

It wasn’t a subject much discussed nor emphasized. It wasn’t avoided, but most people were either ignorant to those two points or simply didn’t believe them. The few who did struggled deeply with it.

 

[lax16]

In my time as LDS (I understand that this is anecdotal.), I would assert that most of the people I encountered (not just at the ward level), knew Smith was a polygamist, many of those most were aware that it was in the dozens. That said most that I encountered did not know (or kept it hush hush, which I doubt) that he was married to many (~11) women who had living husbands (thus polyandrous). Most also did not know that at least one of his wives is known to have been 14 at the time of the wedding, which was young even for that day.

It wasn’t a subject much discussed nor emphasized. It wasn’t avoided, but most people were either ignorant to those two points or simply didn’t believe them. The few who did struggled deeply with it.

Thanks for clarifying. When it was recently in the news all the non-Mormons I know said “doesn’t everybody know that?”

I’ve known for years that he was married to teens, other men’s wives…the fact that the Mormon church had to “officially” acknowledge it totally surprised me.

And, anecdotally, I know of one Mormon woman (and she is true blue) that was totally blind-sided and very, very angry. She seems over it now though.

 

[jane_doe]

When it was recently in the news all the non-Mormons I know said “doesn’t everybody know that?”

I’ve known for years that he was married to teens, other men’s wives…the fact that the Mormon church had to “officially” acknowledge it totally surprised me.

That was my reaction too.

 

[lax16]

That was my reaction too.

Why then, in your opinion, did the Mormon church have to make an official statement and why are (were?) so many Mormons discussing it on blogs/boards/Facebook?

 

[TOmNossor]

Even if it is true, it does not have an impact on the fact that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church that Jesus Christ himself started, the Catholic Church.

I am not, was not, and do not think I have ever made a claim that the liberality of my parish is evidence that the Holy Spirit is not “protecting the Church that Jesus Christ himself started, the Catholic Church.”
When I talk about my departure from the Catholic faith I often try to extend an olive branch that is also honestly part of what I think is there and this was what I was doing.
I pointed out that my preconceptions shared with Catholics who were reasonably well catechized would have changed just like I claim Catholics who mature in the faith or LDS who mature in the faith SHOULD engage their faulty preconceptions. The only communities that I think this would not happen in is communities like the UU’s where it MIGHT be possible to instill such a fluidity in understanding that preconceptions do not break but flow. This is what I meant when I said,

If you have not read Stages of Faith you should. I read it long before I knew of Dialogue and … To come to grips with aspects of your faith that were not properly understood is natural and sometimes painful. It happens in most or all religions. IMO it happens in all religions worth embracing.

It seemed important to note at this time that unlike the departure stories most ex-Catholics and ex-Mormon share, my story is about leaving a church that I thought was just like all the other churches. I really didn’t recognize the unique place Catholicism inhabited in the family of Christianity. I was part of a “Catholic Community.” I attended youth group and was an altar boy. I was more involved than most. But the particulars of Catholic truth claims were so deemphasized I easily gave them up for the silliest of reasons.
That is all I was saying. I expect that in Utah the Catholic Church has very few laissez-faire parishes like mine. Just like NM has virtually no LDS who would treat you as you were treated in Utah. If you look up the church closest to my address you will find what I consider to be a wonderful and faithful parish that is not like the one I grew up in. If you go about the same distance in the wrong direction you might find yourself at the “Liberal Catholic Church” which the Arch -Bishop has declared does not meet ones Sunday obligation and should be avoided (my teenage parish has no such stigma upon it, but I do think our priest is much more liberal than the Arch-Bishop).
All this originally meant was that my departure from the Catholic Church was unconsidered and happened in large part because I had no idea what I had as a Catholic. It was and is an olive branch as compared to all the “Catholic Church did me wrong and this is how” stories and their “Mormon Church did me wrong and this is how” complements.
I am wondering if the bulk of your Catholicism has been Utah Catholicism. I imagine a parish like my teenage parish would not fare as well in Utah as it has across town from me.
Charity, TOm