In Which I am asked, "What About the BOM?"

[Thoughtful]

In speaking with Spouseman, I am finding him more and more on the same page as me. He's not doing any of his own reading, but he's taking my word for it.

The BOM is off limits though. I had a conversation with my teenagers about horses/tapirs and he overheard and got upset: science doesn't know everything and hypotheses can be wrong.

Tonight I was visiting with my parents. My mom recently bought the Ghost of Eternal Polygamy and agreed with it. I was talking with my dad, a SS president about the manuals so badly in need of updating but that there are so many verifiable facts that are misstated or taken out of context to imply something different that I believe the church would rather we have more lessons about conference talks. They asked for an example and I suggested tithing and Malachi as an example of misconstruing and taking out of context. Which led to a whole discussion of problematic church history.

My mom asked, "but what about the Book of Mormon?"

This is just the worst. Why is that one the hardest? To say that it's not historical, that JS did have resources to pull it together, and that so much of it is plagiarized? To point out a few anachronisms?

Is the BOM the final frontier? Once you see it, you cannot unsee the problems with it.

It feels so good to have my parents listening and validating. However, I don't know what emotional state this left them in. I don't want to shake their worldview at age 65.

I ended the conversation saying history is less important to me, that plenty of other things are whitewashed, but what makes me angry is how I have been treated because of canonized falsehoods about my value as a woman, and what does that mean for my kids? They relaxed and they love me and don't know what to think about all this.

Thoughts on why the BOM is untouchable? Is it all the talk of "if the BOM is true, JS is a prophet so all the rest must be true?" Or is the BOM really standalone great enough to overlook polygamy, scandal, cons, Danites, the Trek West, racism and misogyny?

[Dravin]

My mom asked, "but what about the Book of Mormon?"

There are several ways to respond to that question:

• It is a work of Joseph Smith's, the church narrative of some drooling idiot of a man who whipped it up some short number of days in isolation after having supposedly been shown the plates doesn't fit the historical record. Also, it isn't nearly as amazing a piece of literature as Mormons claim (and if it was why not a claim of genius rather than the divine?).
• The Book of Mormon could possibly be true but there is not sufficient archaeological or historical evidence to justify belief in what it claims to be. Feeling good while reading something is not, in my mind, sufficient justification to believe something is true. I can feel good reading fiction (basically go for the jugular of the Mormon epistemology).
• What about the Vedas? Quran? The Popol Vuh? Or any claimed holy book, holy books are a dime a dozen and one can place the Book of Mormon in their ranks without directly challenging the Book of Mormon itself. This shifts the burden of proof from 'prove the BoM isn't true' to 'prove the BoM is true' where it belongs. It naturally leads, in my mind, to the position just prior that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief..
• Even if the Book of Mormon was true it does not resemble Mormonism, if one did hold the Book of Mormon to be true scripture one could use it to argue Mormonism is not of god given how much it varies from what is taught in the Book of Mormon. They may argue you are interpreting it wrong, but interpreting it wrong according to whom? The leaders of Mormonism have an obvious vested interest in interpreting in such a way that it supports their position and belief. If you think Mormonism is not what it claims quoting prophets at you admonishing you to interpret scripture in a certain way is like listening to politician telling you how to interpret the news, obvious interest on their part there.
• The standard missionary line of: "Book of Mormon is true => Mormonism is true." is logically flawed. For instance, Joseph Smith could have fallen as a prophet after translating, or Mormonism could have gone off the rails with Brigham Young. Oh that's not possible? Why? Because possible failed and fallen prophets claim it couldn't happen?
• For completeness, not because I find it compelling: The Book of Mormon and Mormonism are both what they claim to be.

[alas]

I think you did really well just pointing out what you did and having a good discussion. No need to give them more than they can chew at once, and like you said, do you really want to destroy their world view? What is important is that they see enough of the real problems to understand and accept your disaffection, not that their whole testimony topples.

As far as your husband and teaching your kids, you do have a right to teach your kids, but so does he. And he is correct that science doesn't know everything, so there is a remote possibility there really were horses and elephants in the Americas during the BoM time. Very very remote, but still a possibility.

The trick is to let your loved ones come to their own conclusions. If you fight too hard about the BoM they will just dig in deeper. So, don't push. You have planted seeds. Now see if they grow.

As far as why they balk at the point the BoM comes up, it is the difference between seeing problems in the church and saying the church is a fraud. Too big of a step for now. And yes, it has to do with the way the church teaches the BoM is true, therefore JS was a prophet, therefore the church is true. Right now they are willing to see real problems in the "true" church. Deciding the BoM is just something JS wrote is a big step from seeing problems in a true church.

[Thoughtful]

As far as why they balk at the point the BoM comes up, it is the difference between seeing problems in the church and saying the church is a fraud. Too big of a step for now. And yes, it has to do with the way the church teaches the BoM is true, therefore JS was a prophet, therefore the church is true. Right now they are willing to see real problems in the "true" church. Deciding the BoM is just something JS wrote is a big step from seeing problems in a true church.

I think so.

My parents reiterated they love me, and maybe I'll buy them a copy of RSR or Planted.

Spouseman said today that I need to decide what I really think and do something about it, in reference to BOM. Yesterday's conversation made him angry. I feel -- my real purpose in teaching my kids about tapirs is that I want them to have a healthy level of skepticism and never at 34 years old realize their entire worldview was a dupe. I want to protect them from the pain of my last several years. I don't mind if they're skeptical of science too, but there must be more than one side of the story.

I thought I'd decided what to do, I've missed two weeks of church and I've been saying I'm giving up church for Lent. I'm not sure what he wants me to do, besides get a hobby and not read up on church problems. Silence enables us to pretend there aren't problems. I don't want to smash worldviews, but I also feel if others can bear testimony, why can't I?

[wtfluff]

My mom asked, "but what about the Book of Mormon?"

"What about the magic rock that produced the Book of Mormon, mom?"

An easy way to change the subject?

Or maybe not..

[notforprophet]

I don't want to smash worldviews, but I also feel if others can bear testimony, why can't I?

I think because your testimony threatens to destroy their world and identity.

I want to say : You have some awesome parents!! That's so cool!

I've been thinking a lot about the BOM problem. Holland really fortified that last hurdle with his talk saying anyone leaving has to do so "crawling under, around, or over the book of mormon" (something like that). Maybe that's true. I like to think that most of us drill our way straight through it.

I agree with what's been said above. Having TBMs accept problems with the church is the first step. Seeing the BOM as a fraud is much further down the road. For me I had to learn, first, that the BOA is verifiable, complete bullshit. Then I was able to accept that JS maybe just made some stuff up and was able to write something that seemed like legit scripture. This may be an important stepping stone to the BOM; it was for me.

I also agree with you about destroying their worldview at a latter stage of life. There is probably an age at which it's just better to be ignorant. I wonder what age that is.

Good luck with Spouseman! That's really tough. (I love the term spouseman, haven't heard it yet)

[RubinHighlander]

It is sad that the BOM is a pretty easy thing to take apart because of how many loose threads it has, yet TBM folks that take the dogma more literal, really need the BOM to be true. And their leaders have flat out told them that if the BOM isn't true, the church isn't true, right up to just a few years ago when Holland gave his pulpit pounding sermon on that topic. The COB has tried to dummy it down with apologetics from third parties but it just makes them look worse; and there is more worse to come as time marches on and more digging reveals nothing to support it.

[Corsair]

The Book of Mormon is proclaimed as "true" without specifying what "true" means in this sense. For example:

• Is it truly a book? Yes, that's true.
• Is it a book of scripture? Also arguably true from the Mormon standpoint.
• Does the BoM truly testify about Jesus Christ and the atonement? Yes, and I have seen Evangelicals grudgingly acknowledge such.
• Does the BoM contain the fulness of the gospel? Well, it does proclaim the grace of Jesus Christ and espouse faith, repentance, and baptism. So, yes that's a pretty pretty true statement.
• Does the BoM make any material claims that are falsifiable? OK, now we have a problem involving a loooooong list of anachronisms, historical claims, and textual criticisms.
• Could any man produce a book of scripture as "true" as the BoM without inspiration from God? This will be hotly debated for a long time. It's not a slam dunk in favor of the believers in any case.
• Does the BoM need to be historically accurate to be a "true" book of scripture? That depends on who you talk to. Spencer Kimball is all in on historical accuracy, while Russell Nelson is a bit more flexible.

If a believer wants to confront an apostate about the truth of the Book of Mormon, taking some time to define "truth" and set some rhetorical boundaries is an excellent exercise.