Approaching Mormon History: A Recent LDS Church Press Release

My favorite quote in the release is as follows:

I look forward to my next visit to Salt Lake and spending some quality time in the church archives, so that I can look at the same material that made D. Michael Quinn and Leonard Arrington so popular with the church. I finished Rough Stone Rolling last night, where Bushman laments the lack of public access to records of the council of the fifty.

Is this the leadership trying to tell us the church is a fraud – have they not read the evidence?

I suppose one would really need to identify what is officially “supposed” to be literal and what is not.

If I take Mormon’s words literally that the Book of Mormon may contain faults (see Mormon 8:17) doesn’t that give me a bit of freedom to think that cureloms and cumoms might not be real or some of the demographic information in the Book of Mormon by be fudged a bit, or for that matter, isn’t that a license to “metaphorize” whatever I have trouble with? Even Moroni seems to offer the reader that prerogative (see title page).

Anyone who has been through the temple should understand that its true meaning and beauty is only grasped when you look beyond the literalness of what actually is presented/occurs in the ceremony.

Jesus often taught in parables. A belief that he literally is the Son of God will do you no good if you are unable to look past the pearls, swine, sheep, goats, coins, wine, virgins, and husbandmen and see the symbolic nature of his teachings.

Nephi taught us to “like the scriptures” unto us (1 Ne. 19: 23). How are we to do this if all we see in the scriptures is a literal historical narrative?

I know I’m overlooking the big issues regarding the base level historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the actuality of Joseph’s revelations. But I would hope that as one matures spiritually, the essence of religion is found in applying the concepts and principles of salvation in our lives with respect to the way we interact with others and conduct ourselves personally.

When that priority is in place, the literalness of of the unknown/unknowable aspects of religious history find their place in the realm of the irrelevant.

As I hope I’ve made clear, accepting literalness still allows (or maybe mandates) a symbolic level of understanding. It’s also important to note that accepting things literally does NOT include a need to literally believe what Arnold Frieberg, Del Parson, Greg Olsen etc portray in their art (ie Joseph reading from the plates with Oliver at his side, God and Jesus physically floating amid the trees in the sacred grove, Moroni riding his horse, etc) because a careful examination of what our texts LITERALLY say is quite different from what is apparent in our artistic interpretations.

I hope I made some sense here. I just think its important to realize that literal belief in fundamental events and facts relating to Mormonism actually leaves one with a good deal of conceptual freedom.

I believe in the flood, I believe in the parting of the Red Sea, I believe a lot of stuff that isn’t proven archeologically. Doesn’t trouble me.

But I thought we did have that sort of proof about the Book of Mormon. There was a guy who was going around, Einer Erickson?–giving slide shows supposedly proving it.

Either way, the older I get, the more I’m just happy to be here. We can complicated thinking our brains right into a knot.

Razorfish,

You ask a wonderful question that I have asked myself many times before. Why stay and continue to serve and be a part if you don’t believe it all literally.

I cannot say for sure, but I can give it a shot.

Maybe because I love the people who I go to church with. Maybe it is because I am comfortable with the people that I am around. Maybe it is because my wife does not want to hurt her parents. Maybe because it is easy. Maybe it is because I like to go and be around people who believe differently than me. Maybe it is because I am a chicken. Maybe it is not to dissapoint my extended family. Maybe it is to avoid conflict at work. Maybe because overall, it just seems like the right thing to do.

I guess that what I am getting out of this thread is that there is not a huge amount of sympathy for people like me in my church. I guess that is what made this press release so depressing. Our leaders have historically done a great job of making policy that is very popular with the membership. I think that this is another such example.

The posting at LDS.org just takes snippets from the interviews at the PBS site for “The Mormons” and makes them available (in the form of that short article) to a wider audience of LDS readers who visit LDS.org.

While the substance of the remarks may sound like a rejection of the “middle ground” view, the fact that the post is directed at that question suggests they recognize there’s some tension there for a lot of Mormons. That might actually be viewed as a positive development. The only real problem is that a small percentage of local leaders might take this as a signal or even encouragement to start taking disciplinary action (formal or informal) based on these sorts of remarks.

And I suppose it is worth pointing out that the Brethren quoted are quite correct that it is very difficult to find and occupy this elusive “middle ground” between myth and reality.

Russ,
FWIW, no, anyone who’s looked at the historical does not ipso facto “that much of the claims are false, and the foundation of many of the docterines, revelations, ordinances, etc are man-made…not what they claim to be.” Beyond that, I can’t really follow what you’re arguing, so I’m not going to respond further.

For Russell and for others we are really struggling w/ all of this, I do recommend my essay: How to Stay in the Church After Becoming Disaffected.

https://www.mormonstories.org/HowToStay.html

There are good answers to some of these issues for those who are struggling, and for me, the answer is not to give up and leave.

Russ says: “Think what would have happened if the Mormon militia that JS called upon to save him at Carthage had actually come? Civil war. Raising an army against the law of the country? This religion and its people would have gone down in bloody chaos like so many other short-lived cults.”

I recommend reading Richard L. Anderson’s essay in Expressions of Faith: Testimonies of Latter-day Saint Scholars Susan Easton Black, ed Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1996.

He shows that the sources behind this claim amount to a Hofmann forgery, one second hand report of an unsourced rumor by Hosea Stout, who was not in Carthage at the time, and a late sourceless repetition of the rumor by a man who not yet a member and was living in England when the martyrdom occurred, and who had never been in Nauvoo. An eye-witness account by John Taylor, who ought to know, expressly denies the rumor that Joseph sent for the legion. The historical records show that the head of the legion remained in positions of trust till the end of his life, something that would not be the case had he refused such a request from the prophet. The historical records also show that the departure of Dan Jones from Carthage provided fuel for all sorts of rumors. The rumor that Stout reports bears all the earmarks of gossip for which we have first hand reports. In the sourceless gossip, the leader of the legion supposedly pockets the command, and tells no one (not even the one who delivered the message, or Richards and Taylor from the jail), but then loses the incriminating message in the street where some unnamed person conveniently finds it, and later, Mark Hofmann more conveniently fabricates it.

I find the first hand, eye witnesses accounts to be far more plausible and consistent than the rumor. The Anderson essay is very instructive in the dos and don’ts of viable history. Very enlightening. A classic moment in my personal journey. Repetition and elaboration of the weak rumors and later a forgery, with a corresponding neglect of the first hand contemporary accounts, on the part of Brodie, Sam Taylor, and Michael Quinn, does nothing to convert such poor sources into gold.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Random Guy,

Sorry…I was a bit unclear.

I definitely agree that the overwhelming majority of LDS know very little about the tougher history.

I also completely agree that virtually no LDS are aware of the NOM label, or consider themselves as anything but traditional.

That said, many many LDS that I talk to in confidence live many of the principles of the NOM, including a “buffet”-type observance of rules/regulations/commandments, and are aware of big issues w/ the church that they simply choose to ignore or shelf.

Finally, virtually every active LDS person I’ve spoken with, when you really dig deep regarding their testimony, say (in confidence) that their testimony is really based on a hope, not a knowledge, and that regardless of the church’s “Truthfulness”, what keeps them in the church are the culture, social structure, and the family.

Many, many LDS in my experience live by Pascal’s wager…..maybe that’s the best way to summarize it. And I doubt this is particularly an LDS thing.

Just my experience…..

John:

Do the versus in Alma 32 shed a particular light on ‘knowledge’. Can’t members of the church claim a legitimate knowledge from the fruits of the principles they live. I struggled for a long time to express a knowledge, but Alma’s words on the subject helped me to speak definitively of what I have experienced…I think a lot of members would fit this category of knowledge. A genuine knowledge of the good fruits of their association with the church and its restored truths.

Paul,

I totally support the legitimacy of LDS faith and knowledge.

Absolutely.

Oh, and thanks for comment 18. I greatly enjoy your podcasts, and have listened to more than a dozen.

It’s odd that the press release talks about how the church doesn’t hide from its history, when revelations have been rewritten, historical accounts like Lucy Mack Smith’s book have been re-written, and the basic events of Joseph Smith’s life become more sanitized every year.

We don’t talk about the extent of polygamy, we don’t talk about the Danites, we don’t talk about why Thomas B Marsh really left the church, we don’t talk about the different versions of the 1st vision. People have filled entire websites with the history the church is hiding from.

I love the church. It’s my culture, and the people are my people. The history is my history, with all its warts. But we can’t escape the fact that the church is just not totally forthcoming about the facts.

It’s a Dave sighting! Hey, Dave! I like the new color scheme. Autumnal.

One of the methods I have adapted to be happy in the middle way is to guard my boundaries with care. Statements by the FP and QoT are heavily, heavily filtered. I didn’t click on the link, and based on the comments, I won’t. I have enjoyed the discussion, though.

Ann is very very wise. I think I just ruined my bishop’s weekend by showing reading him the statement. He really hates to see the church back him further into a corner, a corner that he doesn’t think he can get out of.

I also agree with John that the intended target audience is the ultra conservative who are worried about the media coverage and the average members’ lack of outrage at the recent coverage.

However, there is still a part of me that wishes our leaders had the courage to not issue statements like these to pacify or preserve.

Footnote…I do not believe in the flood, Jonah’s fish story or the Garden story literally. I still find meaning in these stories as well as many of the foundational myths of Mormonism.

Just a side though that relates to the discussion in a roundabout way:

It seems that even the Brethren have their own reservations about how far they accept the literalness of certain things that “Bible Believing Christians” (or TBMs) hold as literal.

One example that comes to mind is Dallin H. Oaks in speaking about the transgression in Eden:

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

https://tinyurl.com/2g378m

It seems clear that he is suggesting that Eve’s act may have had nothing to do with an actual tree or a fruit.

On the same token, are we entitled to say things such as:

The Book of Mormon’s Translation, whatever its nature…
Joseph Smith’s revelations, whatever their nature….
Gordon B. Hinckley’s prophetic link to God, whatever its nature…
Salvation, whatever its nature….
The Nephite Civilization, whatever its nature….
[Ambiguous/Uncomfortable Religious Item], whatever its nature….
?

I’m convinced that if we’re willing to look beyond the surface of most religious ideas and statements, we can find a lot more leeway than we might expect.

Ann,

In a sick and twisted kind of way, he actually enjoyed it.

:o)

I hope you have a great weekend. I am planning on having a great weekend myself.

Sounds like the church is declaring war on thoughtful, intelligent, educated folks. Only the ignorant and superstitious need apply. Everyone else can go away or shut up. If that’s how they feel, I guess I am only too happy to oblige. It’s been a mostly good 18 years in the church. I agree with HAL also that Gordon’s statements about the literalness of Mormon historical claims being just as wrong as Brigham’s statements on race or Joseph’s statements on moonmen or Spencer’s statements on oral sex. Given that the so-called prophets have been so consistently wrong, why does anyone listen to them anymore? And why stay in a church that lionizes these men who so obviously have no more of a direct pipeline to God than I do to President Bush? Hey, if the church doesn’t want analytical thinkers in its midst, I will be happy to do my part to help the church fulfill its mission to purge the so-called intellectuals, feminists, and gays (2 out of 3 ain’t bad, in my case–I’ll let the reader decide which 2). Sayonara, Gordon.

The funny thing is that I actually take these guys at their word. I think GBH meant what he said. I don’t think he was just saying it to pacify the more conservative base of Mormonism.

If, as Ann said, “Statements by the FP and QoT are heavily, heavily filtered” what use is the Church besides a social club? This filtering demonstrates that your morality exists with or without the Church. Why perpetuate or pass on the excess baggage of the Church to anyone else? Your moral compass works just fine without the Church. This means that GBH for whatever he is has no more of a claim as moral leader than you do.

Clay asked the question “If I see my fellow Mormons as victims of deceit, or discrimination, or intolerance… what does it say about me if I just abandon them? Do I have a duty to save them, at least try?”

I’d love to try, but it’s like trying to convince someone that believes in psychics and tarot cards that its just cold reading tricks and probabilities taken personally. Also, what makes you think that leaving the church is abandoning them?

It seems so strange that NOMs continually argue for middle ground that the leadership insists doesn’t exist. You have to disbelieve a prophet in order to believe a prophet.

Thanks John,

Yeah I live in Logan. You name the time and place for lunch, it would be my pleasure.

I’m very familiar with NOM writing but I must admit that I still don’t understand it. Not for a lack of trying though. I’ve listened to ever podcast you’ve done (except a few of the latest ones). I’ve listened to your personal story podcast probably 3 time. The third part of that podcast I’ve listened to even more than that to try and wrap my head around NOM reasons for staying in the Church. I’m familiar with NewOrderMormons.org, and have talked with many people that have chosen NOMism. The problem I have is all of the NOM reasons for staying in the Church are in fact the very reasons I left.

What I mean about “disbelieving a prophet to believe a prophet” is the ability to disbelieve Gordon B. Hinckley when he said the Church was either true or false. I believe it was Hal that said he believed that GBH’s statement would be relegated to the current status of BY’s and JFS’s racist remarks. If you pick and choose what you like and don’t like (which I’m totally advocating) at some point you’ve already left Mormonism. I know everyone is a buffet Mormon but you must admit not like you or other NOMs. You’re buffet includes literal vs. figurative belief in Mormonism’s foundational claims while at the same time the leadership demands literalism. Other member’s buffets include “should I pay tithing on my gross or net income?” It’s not really in the same ballpark.

When Joseph Smith describes something as a literal event and every Prophet since has seconded literalism, it’s strange to disbelieve the literalism so that you can remain in their club. So you believe they’ve formed a nice place to raise a family and you like many other things about Mormonism, but you disbelieve them when they describe a foundational event as being literal. It doesn’t seem like they have any special ability to create a productive place to raise a family than you do.

“Finally, I know it first and last because I have the spiritual witness that it is true. Those things trump the naysayers’ points.”

I wonder if I can use this in the brief I am writing to submit to the court on Monday. “Your Honor, I know my client should prevail because I have a spiritual witness that the other guys really did break the law and that trumps whatever they might say.”

Incidentally, John Hamer and I predicted that apologists would soon be touting the “parallel universe geography theory” on the New Order Mormon discussion board back in September 2006. Check it out here

“As for the details of whether it was in mesoamerica, or in a different universe entirely, I leave those to God. It’s not time for us to know that yet.”

The problem with this is that numerous prophets and apostles have said that the BOM takes place in Mesoamerica and is the story of a family of Israelites. They are the same prophets and apostles now telling us that we must believe Joseph Smith’s story as literal history or it’s all a fraud. There’s no wiggle room according to the Lord’s mouthpiece.

I would really like to know the real motivation for this release that potentially alienates a growing segment of the membership.

As a random passerby, and serious church history student, I want to make a comment. Here is my way of dealing with some of the myth versus fact dichotomies. As far as I am concerned, so much of our “church history” amounts to a bugs-eye view of the minutia of what went on: “Just one [dang] thing after another,” as I believe Henry Ford is attributed as saying about history in general. How about trying the eagle’s eye view of history on occasion?

What if I told you that the LDS Church is largely responsible for the end of slavery in the US? By keeping the South from gaining control of all the new territories, including the “free” Utah territory and the new “free” state of California, the South was unable to impose their goal of making slavery the law throughout the entire US through bluster and bullying. They then only had the choice to back off and stay within their enclave, or to impose slavery by force of arms on the remainder of the US. They were foolish enough to choose the latter, and were ultimately smashed, as they ought to have been.

You can blame the whole thing on the Mormons, who were always in the middle of the slavery battle, no matter how hard they tried not to be. Being believers and good Christians, they had no real choice but to go to Utah, and then had no real choice but to resist the Southern attacks. The Mormons being anti-slavery (in Missouri, Illinois, and Utah) was far more important than any of their other more esoteric beliefs.

Instead of looking for the low, mundane, and venal in church history, and easily finding all they were looking for, why don’t people look a little higher? I assure you it is there, but rarely looked for seriously.

There are perfectly sensible, even brilliant reasons for every “crazy” idea you ever heard of from the Utah period, whether it is polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God, united order, etc., etc. But who even wants to know the truth? Was it Franklin Delano Roosevelt who supposedly said “Never tell the truth when a lie will do?” We have a whole raft of people, in and out of the church (and in the middle?) who are perfectly satisfied to believe a lie, it seems. And, I hasten to add, for those who have not the time to examine these historical issues in depth themselves, we have plenty of “historians” who are happy to supply those lies as needed. That is a continuing pet peeve of mine. They do a lot of damage, but only because people accept as definitive the dirt they “find” or invent.

“All these things tell me that God can put his other sheep places we don’t necessarily know about now, and some of them might be able to connect or tunnel into a hillside in NY.”

If God was going to hide Lehi and his family away in an alternate dimension, then why go through the trouble of having Nephi build a ship?

Now that I think about it some more, perhaps the Jaredite vessels were actually flying saucers. After all, they were “tight like unto a dish.” So tight, in fact, that God instructed Mahonri Moriancumr to bore a breathing hole in them so the people wouldn’t suffocate. Perhaps the dangerous waters were only a metaphor for the harsh environment of space! And the sixteen small stones, in addition to providing light, could have been energy sources akin to the dilithium crystals aboard the Starship Enterprise.

All,

I’ve got to put my two cents into this blog about Tatiana’s thoughts because I feel like the discussion is not going in a good direction.

This person is honestly trying to make sense out of the senseless, struggling perhaps to keep his or her testimony intact given the recent statements made by the church. We shouldn’t make fun of it, but rather be grateful that people of conservative, orthodox faith are willing to listen and read John’s work here. It’s the first step into a much bigger universe of truth and understanding. I believe it also gives credence to the whole reason most of us are participating as we would like to find some middle ground we each can live with in light of the avalanche of historical information that is now available to anyone who wants to study it.

Having said all that, reading the Book of Mormon and believing it literally means you believe that Christ visited America as written, that early American explores found the promised land as prophesied in the book, and that the American Indians are the literal descendants of Lehi. You can’t pick and choose or ignore parts of the work that don’t fit your particular paradigm. These statements have been made by every prophet from Joseph Smith to our present one.

It’s too bad that members are being put into a position of having to explain these things in far out ways to keep in the faith. Perhaps the leadership will see the error of pursuing this path to far and pushing out a goodly portion of the membership of the church. Most everyone as problems with one point of doctrine or another and/or historical information involving early church practices…

DV,

You should say “For me, the reasons for staying continue to diminish as time passes.”

That’s where DAMU folks always take it a bit too far. Instead of just saying what works for them, they have to ridicule or mock others who feel differently, or who arrive at different conclusions. Religion has always been a faith proposition. So you don’t like religious faith. We get it. Just know that lots of people smarter than you or I feel differently than you do. Logic, facts and science live in one realm — religion in a different one.

I wish ya’ll could just learn to respect those who choose to believe…in a sincere, genuine manner. :(

ME,

Dude! I really did try to get a babysitter on Saturday. No luck. :( I hope all went well. Please give me an update!!!!

I know Lincoln and all of you are smart cookies.

I’ll make it really brief…

–It’s rude to call people’s religious belief “laughable” — period. Just plain rude. Would you tell a devout Jew that their belief in the Talmud or OT is “laughable” — to their face? I doubt it. So why is it ok for you to do it here, or anywhere else?

–Using the word “lame” to describe how people try to reconcile thought with faith is, again, rude.

–Science has been correcting religion for centuries now. This is not a new phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that only lunatics remain religious. There are good reasons for faith that very smart folks knowingly choose, as supplements to reason, science and intellectuality. To me, Lincoln infers that only dumb and uninformed people (or lunatics, as he says) choose faith — even when parts of their faith tradition contradict science. This has simply not been my experience. Lots of really bright, informed, science-loving people still choose faith, in spite of all the contradictions. Faith serves a different purpose than science…that’s all. Totally different realms (for me, at least).

I know Lincoln is a cool dude, as are you ME. But each of us needs to follow our own heart and journey, I think, and show LOTS of respect to those in their journies. Language like this, to me, does not show the respect that it should.

But I can still love you both!!!!

Another comment about science and religion occupying “different realms.” That would be fine if the church were to admit that the BoM should not be considered a historical document. But when the church makes claims that are testable in the real world that we live in, those claims can no longer be considered questions that occupy a “different realm.”

Do you honestly think that the parallel universe theory ISN’T laughable? DV only applied the adjective “laughable” to an apologetic blunder designed to salvage the historicity of the BoM. That can hardly be considered sacred territory.

I no longer believe that outlandish religious beliefs should be immune to ridicule. The world is much more tolerant of ridicule when it is applied to political or even scientific opinions. But for some reason, religious beliefs get a special pass.

LQ,

Personally, I’m not crazy about words like “lunatic” and “laughable” and “absurd” when it comes to people’s sincere beliefs — religious, political, or otherwise.

I’m sure I’m guilty of using such words at times, but I’m trying to be better in that way.

People deserve sensitivity and respect, in my opinion….not ridicule. It’s the best way, in my experience, to help move folks along.

John, I really don’t like it when my honesty stirs up a firestorm of unanticipated anger. It is a straw man argument to characterize what I said as “mocking” of religious faith in general. That is very much a straw man, and your sophistication with this subject matter should tell you that. To clarify, I find the whole concept of 11 or 12 parallel dimensions to justify another limited geographic theory of the BoM to be utterly ridiculous. It is not in bad taste or rude to openly admit that Tatiana’s parallel dimension geographic theory (comment #40 above) of the BoM is baseless and ludicrous. Or have I missed out on the evidence somewhere on the Bloggernacle that points to this as being the most reasonable geographic theory available now?

The issue that troubles me further is your characterization of me as a DAMU member and therefore lacking in the ability to provide meaningful comments. IIRC, you used the DAMU yourself to wade through many of these tough issues. I hardly participate in the DAMU discussion boards anymore, I have many other outlets for my emotions. I am studying Church history even more than ever with my current calling. I would have loved to participate in the Bloggernacle, like so many enlightened Mormons but BBC and Nauvoo queued me once they recognized my IP address. I was marked as a “DAMU” participant.

I made some very generalized comments, but I was not allowed to participate. Unlike the ‘Nacle, Mormonstories has always encouraged open participation, and I appreciate that. That is why I am surprised to see you use a straw man argument with my comments. You and I are in much the same place John, you realize that. We have multi-generational heritage in the Church. We both have teaching callings. And yet, since I have participated in the DAMU as I learned the extent of the Mormon white-washed history, I have now been relegated to the role of a heretic (and an apostate, in some people’s minds.) It’s too bad, because my Bishop still thinks highly of me. It really is, because I constantly am given cudos for my insights into Mormonism from other ward members, many of whom hold advanced degrees such as yourself. But on the internet, my arguments can simply be classified as “rude” or “mocking” and summarily dismissed. Yes, I find the reasons for continuing participation in the Church as an institution to be lacking, as time goes on. But this does not necessarily mean that I find no redeeming values in Mormonism. I do, or I wouldn’t still be affiliated with the institution. But I see that your treatment of Scott Stevenson’s comments are much more pleasant even though he dismisses Mormonism as completely lacking in any value whatsoever.

Remember, those of us shunned by the ‘Nacle, embraced by the DAMU, are worthy of just as much tolerance as Naclers and Post-Mormons. I serve in a teaching calling and find enjoyment in the intellectual pursuit of truth that it provides me. There are many DAMU-ites in the same boat as me, you understand that. I simply see the Church as regressing when it comes to it’s approach to the future. The CoC has provided a good model for what the LDS church should do in the future. Honesty is the best policy. The Catholic church’s recent elimination of the doctrine of Limbo also provides a good model for the LDS church to follow. Progress can be made. Changes can be made. Mistakes can be corrected, after the proper repentance process is followed by the Church itself. But clinging to the myths of the past, and attempting to portray things as literally true, when evidence clearly shows that approach as inaccurate at best, is NOT in the best interest of Mormonism. Mormonism will only grow and flourish when it is honest with itself, and I fear that may only be when it is too late, and many of the truly honest and intelligent members have left the Church in pursuit of a more honest institution.

I hope that I am allowed to participate in Mormonstories discussions into the future. I really did not try to abuse this forum, in any way, and I am sorry if my comments were offensive.

I think it is fine to say that people with religious beliefs ought to be respected. I respect people with religious beliefs as well as people who have entirely secular viewpoints. But I do not think that all religious beliefs (as opposed to the people who hold those beliefs–there is a difference) are worthy of respect. A belief, assertion, allegation, or hypothesis needs to earn respect. Not all beliefs are equal, either in the scientific or religious realm.

Nor do I think that religious beliefs ought to be entitled to more respect than non-religious beliefs simply because they are religious. I can’t think of a reason why that should be so. John, can you explain why religious beliefs should be entitled to more respect than other types of belief? An example: if I say that it is my scientific opinion that the sun gets its light from the planet Kolob, I would expect people with even the most rudimentary to find the notion ridiculous and not mince words in conveying their assessment. If I then say that it is my religious belief that the sun gets its light from Kolob, not my scientific opinion, why should the belief be accorded more respect?

If religious ideas stay in the non-scientific realm, I think it fine to respect them. When someone takes an idea that has only a religious basis and makes claims about the natural world, however, they become fair game. That’s exactly what the Church is doing with its continuing proclamations that the Book of Mormon is historical. If a religious person says “I believe in life after death and science cannot disprove it,” that is a purely religious notion. And I respect it. If someone says “the entire earth was covered in a massive flood and only eight people (Noah and his family) survived in a boat that carried all the animals and it really literally happened,” well those are claims about the natural world. They are ridiculous claims and as such rational people are free to ridicule them. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who might hold that view, just that the idea itself is ridiculous. Not all religious ideas are created equal. Not all are worthy of respect.

Lunar Quaker, Lincoln, and I did ridicule the “alternate dimension theory” for the Book of Mormon. If others disagree and think it not ridiculous, they can certainly use their mental faculties to try to persuade me. But I see no reason why one cannot point out a ridiculous idea when one is encountered. As an aside, I imagine most TBMs would also consider the idea ridiculous, perhaps for different reasons. But I seriously doubt that the denizens of the DAMU are the only ones who would find that particular explanation for the lack of extrinsic evidence supporting the Book of Mormon’s historical narrative unimpressive.

I would really enjoy meeting you in person John, you know that. Hopefully we can get together sometime soon. You’re a class act.

John, I’m a little surprised the thread is still going, but thank you for insisting on mutual respect.

As a more conservative believer, I have always understood that you reserved the right to censor any comment I might make that showed substantial disrespect for less orthodox believers. I’m glad to see you apply the policy evenhandedly.

Blake,

“without the gift of prophecy??????????” That was awesome. truly awesome.

i really believe that the reactions to lincoln are more to his tone and word choices than his literal argument. and further, the reaction to lincoln shows the real big huge pink elephant in the room – there is not a comfortable place for people that do not toe the line, including, ‘knowing’ the church is true and ‘knowing’ that the book of mormon is true.

for a website that launched with john’s description of his mission, where children were baptized and a mission president rewarded loose baptisms, it is strangely ironic that someone who describes converts as lunatics is dismissed so quickly. perhaps lincoln should have used another word, but, that would not have made this conversation as interesting.

i will not be so much of a broadbrush painter by calling people lunatics. but, i have no issue whatsoever in saying that it is absolute lunacy to expect the converts to read excerpts of that book, listen to the abbreviated and correlated doctrines and history of the church and the BoM, and then ‘know’ it is true. bwaahahaahaaaaaaahahahah.

seeing the responses to the alternative dimension theory, versus the ‘you gotta be nuts’ theory is fascinating. and more, seeing which is welcome in the cinder-block plastic-steeple chapels and lds friendly websites is even more interesting. whatever it takes to believe – good. whatever discourages you or dissuades you – bad. regardless of facts or common sense.

Thanks Mayan. I’m glad I could tickle your funny bone.

I’m wondering how Blake knows that Lincoln does not have the spirit of prophecy? After all, Lincoln is active in his ward, holds the priesthood, and is in full fellowship in his ward. At baptism, he was given the gift of the Holy Ghost. The church promises that the Holy Ghost will be a church member’s “constant companion” and that the Holy Ghost is the source of prophecy. So, how does Blake know Lincoln does not have this gift?

I thought “Mayan” was the elephant in the room. :-)

Knowing Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s inadequacies, I have come to the conclusion that it is only proper for Mormons to follow Jesus Christ. After all, it is his Church, right? Pete, free agency gives you the right to choose whom you will follow. You can choose to follow the arm of the flesh (human leaders) blindly, but as for me and my house we will follow the Lord.

Well now Kaimi, its nice to see you. I’d love to participate with you and your friends on BCC, but was queued after one post. It’s nice to be able to associate with believers such as yourself, who support new and weird theories. I guess if people can call NOMs weird, then its OK to call unfounded irrational theories weird.

A true believer such as yourself must find beauty and awe in the ability to take whatever fanciful scientific theories exist in the world, and twist them inside out, in an effort to support 19th century religious documents. String theory is just that. A theory. Quantum mechanics gives some people just enough “evidence” to believe in a God. Neither of these theories have anything to do whatsoever with Book of Mormon geography. Come on. You’re a smart guy. You know that.

Unfortunately, unproven theories of physics have nothing to do with a 19th century document comporting to be an actual history of a Hebrew people that traveled to America. (In our dimension)

Your loyalty to the cause is commendable. Your intellectual ability limits your ability to argue for an extremely improbably theory. I understand the bind where you are caught.

P.S. For the record, Kaimi wanted the following to be known, “could one of you be kind enough to point out to the 16th President that I don’t blog at BCC? And that as a non-BCC blogger, I really don’t have anything to do with his banning (or whatever else) there.”