Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't see how one can accept that the BoM is not historical and still continue to have have faith in Mormonism. That reconciliation seems like a torturous bit of mental gymnastics. The BoM claims to be a history. JS claimed it was a history. Countless prophets and apostles have also claimed it to be so. That claim is at the very heart of Mormonism. If the BoM is not what it purports to be, then the whole ball of yarn called Mormonism quickly unravels.

I agree with you here. If I reached the conclusion that the BoM was just a bit of inspired fiction, well then I'd move on and be 10% richer.

[Indy Coug]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Good one.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't see how one can accept that the BoM is not historical and still continue to have have faith in Mormonism. That reconciliation seems like a torturous bit of mental gymnastics. The BoM claims to be a history. JS claimed it was a history. Countless prophets and apostles have also claimed it to be so. That claim is at the very heart of Mormonism. If the BoM is not what it purports to be, then the whole ball of yarn called Mormonism quickly unravels.

I liken your attitude to a guy who has had an autographed Mickey Mantle baseball on his mantle for years, only to discover that it was never really signed by Mickey Mantle. The ball might give him comfort because it has become a fixture in his life, and he might even try to convince himself that the ball has value, but in his heart he'll always know the ball is worthless. If I'm that guy, I'm going to get rid of the ball.

I think you are wrong about this. Someone I respect a great deal has often said to me that even if none of it is true (the church) it certainly provides a wonderful framework for ones life, a community, a place where others will help you raise you children to be moral people. I can respect that fact that some conclude that the BOM is non-historical on the one hand, but that its teachings and the church built around it can help a person have a happier life on the other. I do not think that Joel Olsteen, for example, is a prophet. But I like to listen to him because I have often heard something there that made me think and helped me be better and happier. Many people view the church this way and I don't see why a belief that the BOM is fiction requires a contrary conclusion. I don't fault your point of view because I think that point of view I am describing is only a choice and not required either.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

This would be one of the Python moments that might work.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think you are wrong about this. Someone I respect a great deal has often said to me that even if none of it is true (the church) it certainly provides a wonderful framework for ones life, a community, a place where others will help you raise you children to be moral people. I can respect that fact that some conclude that the BOM is non-historical on the one hand, but that its teachings and the church built around it can help a person have a happier life on the other. I do not think that Joel Olsteen, for example, is a prophet. But I like to listen to him because I have often heard something there that made me think and helped me be better and happier. Many people view the church this way and I don't see why a belief that the BOM is fiction requires a contrary conclusion. I don't fault your point of view because I think that point of view I am describing is only a choice and not required either.

They live the church tenets and are members but don't really believe The Book of Mormon as an historical document. Little did I know how many people are living a lie.

Interesting

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think you are wrong about this. Someone I respect a great deal has often said to me that even if none of it is true (the church) it certainly provides a wonderful framework for ones life, a community, a place where others will help you raise you children to be moral people. I can respect that fact that some conclude that the BOM is non-historical on the one hand, but that its teachings and the church built around it can help a person have a happier life on the other. I do not think that Joel Olsteen, for example, is a prophet. But I like to listen to him because I have often heard something there that made me think and helped me be better and happier. Many people view the church this way and I don't see why a belief that the BOM is fiction requires a contrary conclusion. I don't fault your point of view because I think that point of view I am describing is only a choice and not required either.

That's the way I feel about the Church. I choose to accept that Mormon and Moroni were real people, but if someone came to me tomorrow and gave conclusive proof that they were not real people, it wouldn't change a thing for me.

I like being Mormon, and I believe it's a great way to live. I believe it makes me a much better person than I would be otherwise (which is scary), and that's what makes the Church so true to me. It also is important to me that the Church advocates searching for truth, "let it come from whence it may." (JS)

It's like the Genesis story. If someone proves to me that the Earth wasn't created in 6 days, or that God really didn't keep a dude alive in the belly of a whale for three days, I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it. I like being Mormon, and I have had enough spiritual experiences in my life to make it unimportant whether something was written to describe literal events or written as a parable.

I'm not saying that I automatically accept scripture as a parable...nor do I automatically accept scripture as literal. I'm merely saying that the distinction is unimportant to me. I'm also not saying it should be unimportant to RockyBalboa or anyone else. It's just the way I feel personally.