Historicity of the BOM

[Archaea]

In your study of him for your profession is that what you learned?

[MikeWaters]

I personally never came to the conclusion that the GAs should be teaching me about the details of polygamy and polyandry.

I have suspected that it is something to study on my own, and where I still have questions, ask other saints who have studied the issue.

For many of us who believe, it is not a matter of just weighing facts and history. It is about a belief in personal revelation. I never challenge people when they say something has been revealed to them. I may ask some questions about it, and I may have doubts occasionally, but because I believe in the process, I have no power to deny it from another person.

It is also my personal prejudice that it is rare for someone to leave the church over a historical point. It is much more complicated than that.

[creekster]

To be fair to iluvatar, I think he is saying that the GAs/prophets should clarify these issues, as what is the point of having a prophet if not to get clarifiaction on such things. This is different from saying these doctrines should necessarily be taught in Sunday School. Nonetheless, I agree with Archaea's commnet that we need to pursue persohnal revelation on these topics.

Iluvatar's skepticism is rooted deeper than a quarrel over unresolved polyandry practices, as he stated at one point that he doubts the existence of God. If so, than the question of polyandry is just a minor rest stop on the road he is taking.

[Archaea]

If one receives a testimony, then you must lose its conviction gradually, not as a result of disagreement of a historical fact.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

It's all there for anyone to see! I don't care what Compton personally believes about JS's intentions, etc. I can regard or disregard his opinions. This I cannot; POLYANDRY ocurred, and you didn't even appear to know about it until our little discussion on the Tithing settlement thread. So don't act like the authority here...have you ever even read Compton's book? Or did you just read someones criticism of it, and pass it off as your own opinion?

Such information in fact is not new ... it's been around a very long time in every anti-Mormon peice of literature available. Polyandry and poligamy are intertwined. Nothing you wrote or for that matter Compton has written shocks me. I am well read and fully aware of ALL so called skeletons in the church's closet.

What's truly interesting is that so many spend so much time examining the past and its so called controversies in place of examining the doctrine they live. let me put a thought into your mind ... if I am sealed to my wife and my wife is sealed to her father ... ?? let's consider another thought. God is just and Justice is absolute ... I have a very good friend who lost her husband to cancer at a young age, they had two children. She is remarried in the Temple, not sealed to the new husband and has since had two more children with the new husband ... what will justice demand on behalf of the children, the wife and the first and second husbands?

I prefer spending more time examining the doctrine as opposed to playing the victim and protesting that I have been lied to. Perhaps the brethren do respond to such issues by teaching THE SAME doctrine over and over again.

As far as the introduction of the BofM is concerned you focused and pointed to ONE aspect, even one to three words in the entire introduction -that is dealing in half-truths. Your post made it sound as if that is all the introduction has to say, when in fact it says so much more.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

You're right, the tone of my posts are a little more edgy thean non-sequitur's. I'm still a little pissed about having been lied to. I'm a little bent that the church has failed to officially address any of these things at all (why should we be left to work it out all on our own when there is a prophet of god on earth?). I'm a little ticked that I've paid a full and honest tithe (tens, and tens of thousands of dollars) since I was a child, only to find out that the bretheren haven't been so straight forward in their dealings with me.


I don't expect our church leaders to be perfect. I don't expect the intro to the BOM to be perfect either. I do expect, however, for the brethren to admit that mistakes have been made, and rectify them. You have to think that the bretheren know about these things. The silence from SLC concerning these issues is deafening.

I felt a lot of what you seem to feel when I first learned of Polyandry back in 1998. I felt like it should have been something I was told, having grown up in the church. I also get frustrated when somebody tells me that it didn't happen. There are certain things that will never be the same for me now as they were when I knew nothing about the practice. However, I don't think the church owes me an apology on this matter. I don't believe that the fact that polyandry occurred necessarily leads one to conclude that it was a mistake. As I've said before, I believe that Joseph was commanded to practice the doctrine. Was there a proper way to go about it? From the journal entries available to us, it sure looks like there were better ways to go about implementing the doctrine. There are certain things he did that I certainly don't understand. Most of them you've already mentioned. But, I've never believed that he was perfect. I think he applied the doctrine in the same manner that he laid the foundation of the church; the best way he knew how.

As far as the title page issue goes I can also see your point. It's not an issue that bothers me and so I haven't spent much time researching it. I don't think that the evidence currently available necessitates an apology or admission of error from the church. Archaea made a pretty good argument here and I tend to feel the same. Bottom line for me: is it possible that leaders of the church since the inception of this church have overstated the Native American/Lamanite link? Yes, it's possible. Does it bother me? No, not personally. Can I understand why it bothers you? Yes.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

Iluvatar's skepticism is rooted deeper than a quarrel over unresolved polyandry practices, as he stated at one point that he doubts the existence of God. If so, than the question of polyandry is just a minor rest stop on the road he is taking.

If you can get to the point where you believe in God and that he takes an active interest in what happens here on earth, then I think you can reconcile just about any of the doubts you might have. Even if Joseph Smith were nothing more than a Charlatan and made it all up, that does not rule out the possibility that God nevertheless used him to build up the Church at this time in history. If you can make the leap of faith that God exists, then believing that he uses imperfect people to do his work here on earth is not much of a stretch.

As far as the charge that the Church is lying to us by not addressing difficult issues, I don't have much of a problem with that. I've done lots of things in my life that I'm not proud of, and I don't go around advertising those things now. I continually encourage my children to do things that I didn't do when I was their age. Does that make me a hypocrite or a liar? I don't think so. It's a lot more important what I'm doing today than what I was doing 20 years ago.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

let's consider another thought. God is just and Justice is absolute ... I have a very good friend who lost her husband to cancer at a young age, they had two children. She is remarried in the Temple, not sealed to the new husband and has since had two more children with the new husband ... what will justice demand on behalf of the children, the wife and the first and second husbands?

Excellent point.

[All-American]

I think the Mormon church, its scholars, and its people are being as open regarding its history as ever. Bushman's book is one of the best examples of this. We have plenty of people trying to figure out to what extent the Lamanites were the primary anscestors of Native Americans. As for me, it bothers me not one whit that we have left the language as saying they were. The question is undefined and unsettled-- why retract the statement now?

Besides, if I find out some day that the Lamanites actually comprise only 1% of the ancestry of Native Americans, that doesn't disprove the book of Mormon. The reason the church does not focus on the warts of its history is because they are ultimately unimportant. Anything Joseph Smith did, Brigham Young taught, or Bishop Fillintheblank said to you is subordinate to the ultimate question regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon. That book cannot be disproven with one questionable statement written in the introduction.

The veracity of the church rises and falls on the truth of the Book of Mormon. If a fatal flaw can be found in that book and exposed for the world to see, the church would crumble apart. Instead of hiding the book and its potential to destroy the church, we instead ask the world to read it and have been doing so for 170 years. Just this year the prophet has pleaded with the members of the church to read the Book of Mormon. That to me is a strong argument in favor of the book.

If you're looking for a perfect book, a perfect prophet, a perfect bishop, or a perfect church, you will not find it, and none of the above claim to be it. My experience has been that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be-- another testament of Jesus Christ, and through obedience to the precepts in the book, a man may become closer to God than by any other book. I've seen it in my life, and in many other lives. If the book of Mormon is true, and I believe that it is, a hundred thousand mistakes may plague Joseph Smith and the LDS church throughout the remainder of its history without changing the ultimate fact that he was a true prophet and the church is Christ's church restored in our day.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Having been around politics, management and law, the Church leaders do a very admirable job of governing a large mass of now dissimilar persons. They simplify doctrine because that's what a large body wants and needs. The more complicated stuff is there for personal divination.

Here is the key which most members miss. We are to follow the prophetic counsel, learn the Spirit until we receive constant personal revelation consistent with general guidelines and we are in fact prophets for our own domains.

History, any accurate history, never lends itself to a Sunday School version.

Originally Posted by All-American

I think the Mormon church, its scholars, and its people are being as open regarding its history as ever. Bushman's book is one of the best examples of this. We have plenty of people trying to figure out to what extent the Lamanites were the primary anscestors of Native Americans. As for me, it bothers me not one whit that we have left the language as saying they were. The question is undefined and unsettled-- why retract the statement now?

Besides, if I find out some day that the Lamanites actually comprise only 1% of the ancestry of Native Americans, that doesn't disprove the book of Mormon. The reason the church does not focus on the warts of its history is because they are ultimately unimportant. Anything Joseph Smith did, Brigham Young taught, or Bishop Fillintheblank said to you is subordinate to the ultimate question regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon. That book cannot be disproven with one questionable statement written in the introduction.

The veracity of the church rises and falls on the truth of the Book of Mormon. If a fatal flaw can be found in that book and exposed for the world to see, the church would crumble apart. Instead of hiding the book and its potential to destroy the church, we instead ask the world to read it and have been doing so for 170 years. Just this year the prophet has pleaded with the members of the church to read the Book of Mormon. That to me is a strong argument in favor of the book.

If you're looking for a perfect book, a perfect prophet, a perfect bishop, or a perfect church, you will not find it, and none of the above claim to be it. My experience has been that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be-- another testament of Jesus Christ, and through obedience to the precepts in the book, a man may become closer to God than by any other book. I've seen it in my life, and in many other lives. If the book of Mormon is true, and I believe that it is, a hundred thousand mistakes may plague Joseph Smith and the LDS church throughout the remainder of its history without changing the ultimate fact that he was a true prophet and the church is Christ's church restored in our day.

Amen.