NOM

RodHeadLee wrote:I also believe there is certainly room in the Church for people to believe the BoM to be fiction. The problem with this fictional belief is it is a house built upon sand and when the wind blows and the seas come ashore that house will not stand.

When I read this on another board, I wanted to agree with Rod on the first part that there is room for people with a variety of beliefs. However, there are reasons to suspect that literal belief is the true house built on sand. Perhaps not only built on sand but made of cards as well if it needs to be supported with one tenuous position after another. Faith and membership can be worthwhile and satisfying even if fictional in nature and that would seem to be the most sustainable long-term position for most faith traditions, including their artifacts from Joseph's Seer Stone's to Thor's mighty hammer Mjollnir. I learned that from the first renaissance fair I attended as a child.

Ignorance or blind faith is definitely the sand in this allegory. This is why so many people are struggling when they find the truth. They discover that their beliefs were built on partial truths and distorted history. The root of some of my anger was toward myself for choosing to remain in ignorance for so long.

There is great freedom is seeing things as they are and not what we crave them to be. At that point choosing to participate in church becomes a different experience, because we see it as it is. The scriptures become a collection of stories, fables, and myths that communicate meaning without literalness.

I don't know the church will every be able to accept itself as it is, because it would need first own the lies about its history. Based on the essay's it is clear they don't want to admit they crapped on the floor, but prefer to polish the turd.

moksha wrote:

RodHeadLee wrote:I also believe there is certainly room in the Church for people to believe the BoM to be fiction. The problem with this fictional belief is it is a house built upon sand and when the wind blows and the seas come ashore that house will not stand.

When I read this on another board, I wanted to agree with Rod on the first part that there is room for people with a variety of beliefs. However, there are reasons to suspect that literal belief is the true house built on sand.

What are the chances of being welcome in a religious community when a member wishes to be public about the non-literalness of their belief? I'm not talking about being antagonistic about it, just not willing to declare that the Book of Mormon is a history of real events that we might reasonably discover through archaeology?

It's largely assumed in Sunday School classes that the Bible and Book of Mormon are literally true to a large degree. Lehi and Nephi were absolutely real individuals and their descendants exist today. Joseph Smith conversed with God and angels during his ministry and it would be impertinent to ask current apostles about their experiences with divine beings. Those of us on this forum are often annoyed by this. What are the limits of acceptance in an LDS congregation for trying to openly build your house upon a rock of non-literal commitment?

Corsair wrote:What are the limits of acceptance in an LDS congregation for trying to openly build your house upon a rock of non-literal commitment?

It probably depends a lot on where you live. In the MorCor I'd say it's pretty close to zero. If you don't believe in Moroni it's probably assumed to be the direct result of exposure to coffee or porn. The members of the Manhattan ward might cut you considerably more slack.

Hagoth wrote:

Corsair wrote:What are the limits of acceptance in an LDS congregation for trying to openly build your house upon a rock of non-literal commitment?

It probably depends a lot on where you live. In the MorCor I'd say it's pretty close to zero. If you don't believe in Moroni it's probably assumed to be the direct result of exposure to coffee or porn. The members of the Manhattan ward might cut you considerably more slack.

I think that's largely true; but in my corner of the world, in eastern Canada, literalism rules the day, at least in my stake. I'm going to post the story when I'm ready to, but I made the big mistake of going even further that what I say in church to another member, and was overheard by a zealous literalist, who happened to be my HPGL. So when we had a private conversation and I mentioned the BOM's 19th century anachronisms, lack of archelogical evidence, plagiarism from The Late War and other stories and the like, this gentlemen stated I was on the verge of apostasy and listening to anti-mormon lies. When a few weeks later this HPGL was called into the stake, I was invited into an hour-long meeting a few weeks later with the SP about my "loss of testimony." NOPE. It's not just the Morcor that has a problem with "new" Mormon history and a less literal reading of the scriptures, it's anywhere that is threatened by the status quo. Sad really. It's a great story, that meeting, and I'll tell it in due time. I want a few more weeks of laying low before I tell it.

And don't we have to say in our TR interviews that we believe in the literal restoration? The church won't accept anything less than belief that it's a historical truth or they'll have to change the TR questions too.....

My approach with the BofM is that it is similar to the bible, philosophy and some scientific theories - in that it's written by imperfect people - with their good and bad ideas.

The strange thing I've realized is that the only way to really have a strong foundation - to genuinely worship God/truth above all - is to not cling to any ideas of God - but to always be open to learning more. Ironically, it's like your structural beliefs can't be so set in stone or else they won't stand - maybe like the need to be earthquake proof.

The idea of the Book of Mormon being "inspired fiction" made some progress this year. Grant Hardy is a scholar that spoke at the 2016 Fair Mormon conference and in his talk he openly preached about giving room to the skeptics.

Grant Hardy wrote:For me, I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals. At the same time, I’m not sure that God will ask, “Did you believe the right things about the Trinity, Joseph Smith, the plan of salvation, and the nature of revelation,” let alone my opinions about polygamy, same-sex marriage, blacks and the priesthood, women’s ordination, politics, or Mormon history. Rather, I believe he will say, “Were you my disciple? Did you strive to know me better? Were you constantly trying to refine your ideas and actions in light of your growing understanding? Were you fully engaged in the Church? How did you treat those with different beliefs and values? And by the way, you were wrong on a number of things you felt strongly about." emphasis added

This is a huge admission at the preeminent LDS apologetics conference. It cedes an enormous amount of territory to those of us who simply can't make the Book of Mormon work in our belief systems. I will give some credence to some basic Christian messages in the Book of Mormon, but I don't see it as a historically compelling book of scripture. At the same time, it's basic doctrine supports a basic Christianity and has very little that is distinctly Mormon.

Last EQ ended with someone bearing his testimony of how he got a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the BOM and by the way Moroni has to be a prophet because he talks about kiddie baptisms : how could he have known about what the Catholics would do a thousand years later without being the Lord's prophet?
I think that if I had had a testimony of anything seriously fishy (literal translation, historicity, JS had an 1838 first vision, polygamy), I'd be angry and out by now. Instead here I am, chugging along with my personal spirituality which has survived reading NOM, Dawkins, exmormon.org, and other forbidden material.
Religion ought to strive for a less fundamentalist approach that could weather not only Cartesian doubt (which I believe the original analogy means) but also cold, hard hailstones of fact.

A church may or may not be the happiest place in town, but it should be the most honest.

Mormorrisey wrote:

Hagoth wrote:

Corsair wrote:What are the limits of acceptance in an LDS congregation for trying to openly build your house upon a rock of non-literal commitment?

It probably depends a lot on where you live. In the MorCor I'd say it's pretty close to zero. If you don't believe in Moroni it's probably assumed to be the direct result of exposure to coffee or porn. The members of the Manhattan ward might cut you considerably more slack.

I think that's largely true; but in my corner of the world, in eastern Canada, literalism rules the day, at least in my stake. I'm going to post the story when I'm ready to, but I made the big mistake of going even further that what I say in church to another member, and was overheard by a zealous literalist, who happened to be my HPGL. So when we had a private conversation and I mentioned the BOM's 19th century anachronisms, lack of archelogical evidence, plagiarism from The Late War and other stories and the like, this gentlemen stated I was on the verge of apostasy and listening to anti-mormon lies. When a few weeks later this HPGL was called into the stake, I was invited into an hour-long meeting a few weeks later with the SP about my "loss of testimony." NOPE. It's not just the Morcor that has a problem with "new" Mormon history and a less literal reading of the scriptures, it's anywhere that is threatened by the status quo. Sad really. It's a great story, that meeting, and I'll tell it in due time. I want a few more weeks of laying low before I tell it.

I'm still really wanting to hear this story.

In my world view the "Rock" has to be "Truth". If God is Truth then God can be trusted completely. If God is not totally honest then whoever or whatever he is, he may be negotiated with or even admired, but he cannot truly and fully be worshipped.

deacon blues wrote:In my world view the "Rock" has to be "Truth". If God is Truth then God can be trusted completely. If God is not totally honest then whoever or whatever he is, he may be negotiated with or even admired, but he cannot truly and fully be worshipped.

God may be the Rock of Truth but approaching, him through an authorized priesthood channel may grind the results down to sand.

Corsair wrote:

deacon blues wrote:In my world view the "Rock" has to be "Truth". If God is Truth then God can be trusted completely. If God is not totally honest then whoever or whatever he is, he may be negotiated with or even admired, but he cannot truly and fully be worshipped.

God may be the Rock of Truth but approaching, him through an authorized priesthood channel may grind the results down to sand.

Well put, Corsair.

Anon70 wrote:

Mormorrisey wrote:

Hagoth wrote: It probably depends a lot on where you live. In the MorCor I'd say it's pretty close to zero. If you don't believe in Moroni it's probably assumed to be the direct result of exposure to coffee or porn. The members of the Manhattan ward might cut you considerably more slack.

I think that's largely true; but in my corner of the world, in eastern Canada, literalism rules the day, at least in my stake. I'm going to post the story when I'm ready to, but I made the big mistake of going even further that what I say in church to another member, and was overheard by a zealous literalist, who happened to be my HPGL. So when we had a private conversation and I mentioned the BOM's 19th century anachronisms, lack of archelogical evidence, plagiarism from The Late War and other stories and the like, this gentlemen stated I was on the verge of apostasy and listening to anti-mormon lies. When a few weeks later this HPGL was called into the stake, I was invited into an hour-long meeting a few weeks later with the SP about my "loss of testimony." NOPE. It's not just the Morcor that has a problem with "new" Mormon history and a less literal reading of the scriptures, it's anywhere that is threatened by the status quo. Sad really. It's a great story, that meeting, and I'll tell it in due time. I want a few more weeks of laying low before I tell it.

I'm still really wanting to hear this story.

Yeah, still laying low for the time being. Starting not to care as much if someone can identify me from all I say on this site, and once that reaches critical mass through something stupid that happens one Sunday, I'll tell it. That and I was told that we needed to have another meeting in the new year, one I'm planning to decline, so maybe by March I'll be ready to spill the beans.

I've yet to see anything from the inspired fiction crowd explaining who this Moroni character was that appeared to Joseph Smith and helped him find the plates. Until that's explained to my satisfaction it's hard for me to have respect for someone that see's the problems apparent in a literal belief but not the problems apparent in a non-literal belief. Until then I'll weigh the church's truth claims on how THEY present them.

Hagoth wrote:

Corsair wrote:What are the limits of acceptance in an LDS congregation for trying to openly build your house upon a rock of non-literal commitment?

It probably depends a lot on where you live. In the MorCor I'd say it's pretty close to zero. If you don't believe in Moroni it's probably assumed to be the direct result of exposure to coffee or porn. The members of the Manhattan ward might cut you considerably more slack.

If I make it to church this year (which might not happen ) I might just ditch my Undercover NOM mask and just say I don't believe any of it is literal. So far trying to be subliminal hasn't accomplished much.

Korihor wrote:If I make it to church this year (which might not happen ) I might just ditch my Undercover NOM mask and just say I don't believe any of it is literal. So far trying to be subliminal hasn't accomplished much.

I'm thinking along the same lines. It might be a worthy New Years resolution. It would probably be liberating to raise a hand in GD class when they're talking about Peter, James and John restoring the Melchizedek priesthood (or whatever) and say "well, I don't believe that actually happened, but..." and then talk about it as a faith-building fiction that helped unite people in their common goal to restore the ancient church. Come to think of it, last year would have been a better opportunity because you could say stuff like "well, I believe Nephi is a fictional character, but the author makes an interesting point about opposition in all things."

I guess I'll get another chance when my recommend expires next month and I get to sit down with my BP and SP and tell them yet again that I don't believe any of it, but may I please have a recommend anyway.

I have a response that I'm waiting to use: "I don't believe that (BOM, temple, Joseph'smyth, etc.) But I'm willing to consider all the evidence.