LDS Freedom Forum

MercynGrace wrote:[ But again, I refer you to the temple recommend questions - there is no question about the historicity of the BOM

So what? That is a really sad line of logic to say that if it isn't a part of the Temple recommend questions, it doesn't matter. How about the Book of Abraham? Let's just chuck that out the window too while we are at it. It contains doctrines that so many "intellectuals" poo poo as well.

All we have to do is believe in Christ and all is well, right M&G?

Mahonri wrote:

MercynGrace wrote:[ But again, I refer you to the temple recommend questions - there is no question about the historicity of the BOM

So what? That is a really sad line of logic to say that if it isn't a part of the Temple recommend questions, it doesn't matter. How about the Book of Abraham? Let's just chuck that out the window too while we are at it. It contains doctrines that so many "intellectuals" poo poo as well.

All we have to do is believe in Christ and all is well, right M&G?

No - but we're talking about the start of the path, not the end of it. As Elder Holland said in the last GC, the path of discipleship narrows as you progress along it. How do we expect people to learn and grow if we exclude them before they've even entered in at the gate?

MercynGrace wrote: How do we expect people to learn and grow if we exclude them before they've even entered in at the gate?

How do you expect people to learn and grow if there are no standards? Like you said, there isn't even a question on the BoM in the Temple questions. So according to you, you don't even need to believe in it to go to the Temple. That is not "entering in at the gate" in Church terms.

patriotsaint wrote:

MercynGrace wrote: A testimony of Christ, the gospel, the restoration, yes. But again, I refer you to the temple recommend questions - there is no question about the historicity of the BOM which is the topic specifically addressed by the OP.

You're far too hung up of the word "historicity". The book isn't broken out into sections labeled historical, spiritual, political, familial etc. It's either true or it is not. One has a testimony of its truthfulness or one does not.

I'm not the one hung up on that issue - it's the issue that was raised in the investigator in the opening post.

MercynGrace wrote:
I'm not the one hung up on that issue - it's the issue that was raised in the investigator in the opening post.

what are you talking about? YOU are the one that says it doesn't matter. That is what is being addressed.

MercynGrace wrote: How do we expect people to learn and grow if we exclude them before they've even entered in at the gate?

Nobody is advocating excluding anyone here! What is being advocating by myself and others is helping people gain an understanding and testimony of correct doctrine so they are prepared to enter in at the gate. We don't want to exclude them. We want to see them taught and prepared for the covenant they are about to enter in to. Covenants with God should not be entered into on a whim.

On another note, I don't know why you keep bringing up temple recommend interviews here. We are discussing baptismal interviews and yes, the question of whether or not someone has a testimony of the BOM is discussed, unless something has changed since my missionary service.

Mahonri wrote:

MercynGrace wrote: How do we expect people to learn and grow if we exclude them before they've even entered in at the gate?

How do you expect people to learn and grow if there are no standards? Like you said, there isn't even a question on the BoM in the Temple questions. So according to you, you don't even need to believe in it to go to the Temple. That is not "entering in at the gate" in Church terms.

Not according to me - I didn't write the temple recommend questions. And who said there are no standards? The questions identify the standards.

I believe it's the doctrine taught in the BOM that matters. This is why Elder Holland acknowledged members can be in the church without the same burning testimony of the Book's origins that he has.

Mahonri wrote:

MercynGrace wrote:
I'm not the one hung up on that issue - it's the issue that was raised in the investigator in the opening post.

what are you talking about? YOU are the one that says it doesn't matter. That is what is being addressed.

My bad. I thought you started this thread to open an interesting topic up for discussion. The gist of the blogger's response which, to my understanding, is the heart of the issue is this:

Should all those powerful reasons for affiliating as a Mormon be set aside because one has reservations about the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? For some, the question of the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon serves as a litmus test for faith. But can you imagine if all the Christians who took a non-literal approach to the Bible were kicked out of Christendom? Can you imagine if all the Jews who did not believe in the literal historicity of the Torah were made unwelcome in Judaism? Most synagogues would be e-m-p-t-y.

Some posters seem to be saying that historicity (there's that word again, Patriotsaint ) is a litmus test for membership. Elder Holland and Elder Maxwell seem to disagree. So do I.

MercynGrace wrote: Not according to me - I didn't write the temple recommend questions. And who said there are no standards? The questions identify the standards.

I believe it's the doctrine taught in the BOM that matters. This is why Elder Holland acknowledged members can be in the church without the same burning testimony of the Book's origins that he has.

Again with the temple recommend questions. Please note that those being interviewed for a temple recommend have already expressed their testimony of the BOM in their baptismal interview.

Is the BOM no longer the keystone of our religion? When did that change? What happens to the structure of an individuals faith if the keystone is removed?

MercynGrace wrote:

Mahonri wrote:

MercynGrace wrote: How do we expect people to learn and grow if we exclude them before they've even entered in at the gate?

How do you expect people to learn and grow if there are no standards? Like you said, there isn't even a question on the BoM in the Temple questions. So according to you, you don't even need to believe in it to go to the Temple. That is not "entering in at the gate" in Church terms.

Not according to me - I didn't write the temple recommend questions. And who said there are no standards? The questions identify the standards.

I believe it's the doctrine taught in the BOM that matters. This is why Elder Holland acknowledged members can be in the church without the same burning testimony of the Book's origins that he has.

That makes you an enemy to Christ. I love you and hope you repent of such satanic doctrine.

Believing the doctrine of the BOM matters and agreeing with Elders Holland and Maxwell makes me an enemy to Christ?

Well, that's clear as mud.

patriotsaint wrote:

MercynGrace wrote: Not according to me - I didn't write the temple recommend questions. And who said there are no standards? The questions identify the standards.

I believe it's the doctrine taught in the BOM that matters. This is why Elder Holland acknowledged members can be in the church without the same burning testimony of the Book's origins that he has.

Again with the temple recommend questions. Please note that those being interviewed for a temple recommend have already expressed their testimony of the BOM in their baptismal interview.

Is the BOM no longer the keystone of our religion? When did that change? What happens to the structure of an individuals faith if the keystone is removed?

Did you read the OP? This "tentative investigator" acknowledges that the BOM is a religious text full of spiritual truths. She is acquiring a testimony. Would you deny her the entrance into the church because that desire to believe hasn't flourished into a perfect knowledge?

MercynGrace wrote:Believing the doctrine of the BOM matters and agreeing with Elders Holland and Maxwell makes me an enemy to Christ?

Well, that's clear as mud.

It just highlights your confusion that you actually believe that Mahonri and myself are in opposition to Elders Holland and Maxwell

According to your interpretation of this issue its ok for a member of this church to profess belief that:

1. Christ's visit to the Americas was simply allegorical?
2. The Angel Maroni's visit to the boy Joseph was really a figment of his imagination?
3. Everything told us about Lehi's journey from Jerusalem with his family and preservation by the hand of God is just an uplifting fable?
4. The story of the Jaredites was inspired fiction invented by Joseph to provide interest to the BOM?
......we could go on and on here.

All of these viewpoints are acceptable according to you, as long as we are deriving some spiritual benefit from the Book of Mormon right?

It just highlights your confusion that you actually believe "a figment of his imagination" is the same thing as "vision", the term used by this investigator.

You've presented a very reductionist view of what the investigator has said, IMO, and completely mischaracterized what I've said (repeatedly).

I understand the desire to create an exclusive country club with a narrow theological terrace, really, I do...

MercynGrace wrote:It just highlights your confusion that you actually believe "a figment of his imagination" is the same thing as "vision", the term used by this investigator.

You've presented a very reductionist view of what the investigator has said, IMO, and completely mischaracterized what I've said (repeatedly).

I understand the desire to create an exclusive country club with a narrow theological terrace, really, I do...

LOL. What did Joseph have a vision of if not a historical figure. You can't have it both ways. Either Moroni was a historical figure, or a figment of Joseph's imagination.

Or can you show me an instance where God chose to work through fairy tales as opposed to his servants, mortal or immortal? No my friend. The confusion here is yours.

Trust me PS, I'm not confused. Neither am I willing to bar the door to the kingdom against someone who is willing to abide the doctrines of the church based solely on his lack of a perfect testimony.

MercynGrace wrote:Did you read the OP? This "tentative investigator" acknowledges that the BOM is a religious text full of spiritual truths. She is acquiring a testimony. Would you deny her the entrance into the church because that desire to believe hasn't flourished into a perfect knowledge?

If the BoM is a just fictional tale with nice spiritual truths, then Joseph Smith was either a liar or blinded by the Devil. As patriotsaint said, you can't have it both ways. It's especially hard to make the point that Joseph was a liar, because e.g. 3 others saw Moroni. Joseph taught it was a real, historical document, had visitations from BoM people and visions of their civilization - it's ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ. A testament of real people who were visited by Christ. All of that is fictional? A tale? Then you reject Joseph Smith's teachings, and you undermine his prophetic role. I'm not sure how you can believe the entire BoM is a fictional tale and still believe Joseph Smith is a prophet. You would have to be a very confused individual to do so.

Frankly, it's not up to me whether this individual enters the Church. That is between her, the Lord, and the interviewer. I just think this growing body of "intellectuals" who are "too smart" to believe the nonsense from Joseph Smith that these people are real is a threat within our walls. It troubles me. That's fine if it doesn't trouble you. When the trials and headwinds get more intense, I hope to be clinging onto the iron rod with all my might. Those who think Joseph was a liar or hoodwinked by the Devil about the origin of the BoM don't have a firm grip. I would prefer my children not be taught by them.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I've not expressed my personal views once in this thread. I have been addressing the OP from the start. (Just in case that has become muddied by the use of "you" when others are addressing me.)

We are talking about an investigator - someone who by definition is still acquiring knowledge. Do you reject an investigator for baptism if they have an incomplete testimony of the BOM? That is the question.

MercynGrace wrote:Trust me PS, I'm not confused. Neither am I willing to bar the door to the kingdom against someone who is willing to abide the doctrines of the church based solely on his lack of a perfect testimony.

Nice evasion of the question. You keep putting words in my mouth throughout this discussion and making accusations that really aren't true. I've never claimed anyone needs a perfect testimony to become a member. I've never said we should exclude people from the church. I've never attempted to "create an elitist country club with a narrow theological terrace." I have simply advocated that people be taught the doctrines of the restoration without apology or excuse.

We don't need to water down the gospel to make it more palatable to those with doubts! Paul seemed to feel the same way when he said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth". (Rom 1:16)

I don't get why you are arguing against that stance. Your arguments seem to support the views of the Community of Christ more than the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What is it they believe about the Book of Mormon?

PS,
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Let's make this simple to avoid confusion. Do you believe a person should get baptized if their testimony of the BOM is incomplete?

Well, if the candidate can answer all of the baptismal questions in good faith, such as "Yes" to "Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith?" as well as covenant to obey the commandments, then no, I would not deny that person baptism (as if I had any say in that). But if she joins this growing pool of "believing" Mormons who believe Joseph Smith was a liar or mistaken about the keystone of our religion, then it is troubling to me. But no, I would never reject Baptism to someone who in their own conscience can satisfy the basic requirements for Baptism as outlined in the Baptismal Interview.

iamse7en wrote:Well, if the candidate can answer all of the baptismal questions in good faith, such as "Yes" to "Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith?" as well as covenant to obey the commandments, then no, I would not deny that person baptism (as if I had any say in that). But if she joins this growing pool of "believing" Mormons who believe Joseph Smith was a liar or mistaken about the keystone of our religion, then it is troubling to me. But no, I would never reject Baptism to someone who in their own conscience can satisfy the basic requirements for Baptism as outlined in the Baptismal Interview.

Thanks for the candid answer. We are on the same page.

But Mahonri's basic question was this: does this attitude as outlined in the Ask Mormon Girl response (believing Joseph Smith's explanation for the origin of the keystone of our religion is FALSE) help or hurt the removal of condemnation spoken by the Lord. I believe it hurts. What do you believe?

MercynGrace wrote:PS,
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Let's make this simple to avoid confusion. Do you believe a person should get baptized if their testimony of the BOM is incomplete?

Our testimonies are always growing. Neither you or I have a complete testimony of the BOM.......but I do believe a testimony of it's divinity is necessary for baptism. I think we would all do well reviewing the Oct 2009 talk given by Elder Holland in Conference. He makes it clear where we should stand when it comes to the BOM.

He said:

"I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, … a rock of offence,” 11 a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.” 12

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared in crossing an ocean, settling in a new world. I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek nor witness the fiery death of innocent believers. I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, “ give [my name] unto the world, to witness unto the world that which have seen.” And like them, “ lie not, God bearing witness of it.” 13

I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my own oath and office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my “last days,” but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world, in the most straightforward language I could summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the latter days."

I can't say it any better than that. Now compare that to the waffling position of the Community of Christ found Here

In 2001, Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."[40] In the introduction he qualified his statements: "I cannot speak for each person within our community, but perhaps I can say some words on behalf of our community."

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled on a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record" out of order. In so doing he stated that "while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church."[41]

The church's official stance has this to say about the Book of Mormon (under Affirmation Nine):
"With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, the Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. We do not use these sacred writings to replace the witness of the Bible or improve upon it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God (Preface of the Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants 76: 3g). We have heard Christ speak in all three books of scripture, and bear witness that he is “alive forever and ever” (Revelation 1:18)."[42]

I don't think it hurts the church because I believe no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Also, if a person lives by the precepts in the BOM that serves the purposes of the church and the Lord, regardless of their views on the literal nature of the gold plates and stone box.

So long as the manuals and official declarations of doctrine are consistent, it is clear that individual opinions are just that. I think the blogger was very clear that the investigator would hold a minority opinion and should respect the official position in her remarks in the church.