If one does not accept the claims of JSJr about the origins, the provenance, of the Book of Mormon, why should it be accepted by that person as 'sacred text'?
Obvious question, obvious answer. If one does not believe and if one does not want to believe, one should not be a member. Yet another purposeless thread.
Chap wrote:Or are you thinking of what Kishkumen said?
Kishkumen wrote:I still consider the Book of Mormon a sacred text in a stronger sense personally, because I find some of its expressions and aspirations very profound and inspired.
If so, I really don't think Kishkumen would claim to be a TBM.
At this point I have no idea what a TBM is. I doubt I am one, in any case.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
DarkHelmet wrote:I must be in the minority. I don't see how a TBM could consider it both a 19th century creation and a sacred text. This is why the church will never go the "inspired fiction" route. It is impossible, in my opinion.
It was written by Joseph Smith, a 19th century man, and so it is a 19th century creation. And it is clearly inspired fiction unless God shows up and tells you it is true. Joseph Smith sets a high bar - gold plates, angels popping up, and even God shows up. I don't understand why people join the Church with no evidence of God because everything about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is improbable and simply does not happen in the normal course of a day.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
I don't know. The blood oaths are no longer considered to be inspired (allowing for their removal from the endowment ceremony) but I've heard apologists argue that they are still considered too sacred to discuss outside the temple.
If something can be both uninspired and sacred (and not just sacred, but too sacred to discuss openly) then I can't imagine there would be any problem with the Book of Mormon maintaining its sacred status, especially in light of the fact that it would still be considered inspired, if no longer of ancient origin.
Early in my journey out of the church, I met with and had a lengthy discussion with a standing bishop in a nearby ward.
He was a believing member in good standing, a Bishop and a CES Institute teacher.
And he enthusiastically agreed with me when I told him I considered the Book of Mormon to be fiction.
Of course, he considered it 'inspired' fiction, but fictional nonetheless.
The fact that he has a PhD in Mormon History and was employed by the CES probably had absolutely nothing whatever to do with his described world-view. I mean, just because he would lose his job and likely be unable to find another, given his background, if he were to ever lose faith in the LDS church... well, that's probably completely unconnected.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
I've heard inspired fiction from quite a few honest people in the Church. I prefer that to TBMs that say they feel it is true. They scare the living daylights out of me. I never know when they'll have have a feeling about something truly stupid or dangerous.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:I've heard inspired fiction from quite a few honest people in the Church. I prefer that to TBMs that say they feel it is true. They scare the living daylights out of me. I never know when they'll have have a feeling about something truly stupid or dangerous.
Or even worse, hallucinate a personal visit from God telling them to do something truly stupid or dangerous!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Tobin wrote:I've heard inspired fiction from quite a few honest people in the Church. I prefer that to TBMs that say they feel it is true. They scare the living daylights out of me. I never know when they'll have have a feeling about something truly stupid or dangerous.
Or even worse, hallucinate a personal visit from God telling them to do something truly stupid or dangerous!
Well, if that is a personal admission, I'll be sure to avoid you as well.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
This thread reminds me about Chevrolet dealers equivocating on whether the Ford Galaxy was actually a car. They more or less agreed that it was a car only for those who drove one and even then these deluded Ford drivers were missing the reality of the Chevrolet.
My problem is that by and large those millions who hold the Book of Mormon sacred do so on the premise of a lie told by JSJr as to what the Book of Mormon is, and how it came about. That it was a tool of his charlatan trade stains it even further, and in my view disqualifies it from being a worthy object of 'sacred' adoration. Its text extolls the virtues of honesty and truth, but the Book of Mormon is simply a lie. I do not doubt that there are millions that subscribe to the Book of Mormon as the word of god, the most perfect book on earth--a lie peddled in the name of god, who is billed as 'the author of all truth'. It simply drips with irony.
Sociologically, the book may be 'sacred' because there are so many under the spell cast by JSJr. But if there is anything but subjective meaning to the word, any objective meaning at all (and I am not speaking of divinity), then I take exception to this misuse of the word 'sacred'. It is simply profane, in my opinion, when it is so used, because it is used to telegraph to the listener/reader that with those who hold it 'sacred', the Book of Mormon should be off limits to voicing of any criticism or even critical analysis. I suppose I could go with the Book of Mormon being the 'sacred cow' of millions, but sacred text and what the term implies? No, not for me.