Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Gadianton]

So Limnor, what about you? My impression was that you grew up Mormon and at some point left the Church. Correct? If so, why do you think you picked up the New Testament afterward.

[Limnor]

So Limnor, what about you? My impression was that you grew up Mormon and at some point left the Church. Correct? If so, why do you think you picked up the New Testament afterward.

Not quite. Actually not even remotely. I didn’t grow up Mormon, and have never been one. Twenty years ago I would’ve described myself as an evangelical Christian, and before that I was Catholic. At this point I’m not really aligned with any institution, at least not in an organized way. I think, and maybe incorrectly or in an oversimplified way, that “wherever two or more are gathered in my name” is a “church.” “Believer” is probably the best label, though even that seems off. Maybe “seeker.”

As for why I picked up the New Testament, it was about returning to the questions themselves after having left an institution. Catholicism in this case. I wanted to study the book on its own terms, without dogma or tradition. Sometimes that has resulted in surprising insights, but other times I’ve looked at it critically. But it’s always been personal to me. I suppose I’m still interested in what is left when you take away the figures that try to tell you what the text must mean. I suppose I wonder if that is the same when leaving other large institutions, like the LDS church. Is it?

I picked up the Book of Mormon in response to a co-worker who quoted the James passage at me. I’ve said elsewhere that it genuinely puzzled me how an otherwise reasonable person could believe in something that, from the outside, looks so implausible. So I read it. At first I resisted the “pray about it” instruction, and I certainly didn’t get a burning in the bosom—some passages are so dreadful that I honestly don’t know how anyone could. But the deeper question for me was whether God would give any indication at all that the book was “true,” and what that would even mean. Through a lot of reading and research over the years, I eventually came to the conclusion I’ve described here: the book “is true,” just not in the way it’s presented as ancient.

Sometimes I ask myself why I still care. I’m really not sure there’s a tidy answer. I’ve said before that people inside the system often seem trapped, and people who get out are brave. I suppose I’ve wanted to understand that better and maybe help where I can, particularly since I think I’ve “cracked the code” about the book’s origin. Maybe that’s naïve, I don’t know. It seems like people who are out don’t care and the ones who are in probably wouldn’t believe it even if there was a certainty about the origins—a signed document or something. I’m pretty sure that document would be scrutinized to death—which is ironic, considering the lack of scrutiny placed on other claims.

The impulse comes and goes every few years, and I generally migrate back to this board. I like the format, and I think there are deep thinkers here—not just about Mormonism, but philosophy in general.

Hope that helps explain W. M. Limnor a little more clearly.

[Gadianton]

Definitely one of the more unique journeys out there, Limnor. You certainly have most of us life-long members beat in terms of knowledge of the Book of Mormon. I don't quite understand the result of your journey, the truth that you've found in the Book of Mormon, but it's fun following along your theories.

[Limnor]

Yeah it’s drawn my interest from time to time.

I’m honestly a little surprised to hear you say that about the lack of familiarity with what’s actually in the book, given the whole “read and pray” emphasis in missionary work. I don’t have any insight into what’s taught before a mission or at BYU, but I always assumed the training involved fairly deep engagement with the text.

Is it really more like proof-texting to support a missionary pitch, rather than any kind of deep study?

And on the academic side, I’ve seen people here talk about Nibley teaching at “the Lord’s university,” which made me assume the Book of Mormon would have been dissected in detail there—almost like how the Johannine comma in the Bible has been analyzed to exhaustion. I imagined something closer to textual criticism.

I also regret getting pulled into the MG discussions; that wasn’t my posting intent. My original interest was to see whether anyone else reads the book the way I do, or sees additional markers suggesting encoded real lives. Something like, “Hey, the doubling of Mathon/Mathonihah might point to a single historical figure like Martin Harris,” or “if you consider the doubled similar-sounding names, these twelve disciples map onto the 3 + 8 witnesses,” that sort of thing.

I do want to clarify that I don’t find “truth” in the Book of Mormon like you might think. Rather I think the actions that we read about in the book were “true actions.” They just weren’t ancient. I think that is how Oliver Cowdery could say he “positively knew” it to be true. Because he lived it.

[Limnor]

I’d been halfheartedly working on a couple of lines of thought before straying off:

If someone were writing from a place where they felt morally compromised, would the “bondage” language in the book naturally apply as a metaphor for that condition? (This might apply to the Book of Abraham as well)

If Joseph really said “Why can I not get them?” in reference to the plates, does the line makes more sense if he wasn’t talking about literal golden plates at all, but about a preexisting document or record he believed he should have access to?

[Gadianton]

Is it really more like proof-texting to support a missionary pitch, rather than any kind of deep study?

Yes, that's all it is. In my time, there was a 1/2 hour a day reading requirement, but it's all on your honor, so most of us never did it. The only thing they care about is the appearance of engagement. In my time, there were 3 verses I believe an "investigator" was given to read on a first discussion. One of them was Moroni 10:4 (?) about reading/praying. On a follow up visit, you don't ask, "what do you remember from the verses you read?" you ask, "how did you feel when you read the verses?" Their response is usually, "okay I guess", and to that you say, "Oh wow, so you felt calm and peaceful and good? That's the holy spirit testifying to the truth of it!"

Of course, that doesn't ever work on anybody. In principle the manipulation could, but you have no idea how clumsy these discussions are pulled off. The missionaries are trying to get through a script and are nervous as hell. Investigators mainly become interested due to interest in the missionaries, so it's a personality thing. And there isn't much more read from the Book of Mormon after the first discussion. The Church intends the Book of Mormon as the bait, what will get people interested in their fascinating religion. My theory is it works as a first discussion for the quick weed out. Instead of like the JWs or Kirby vacuum salesman who avoid telling you who they are with as long as possible, just get it out in the open.

There is no deep study of the Book of Mormon at BYU. Nibley's version of the Book of Mormon class was one of a kind, nobody else was allowed to teach like that, but even his class wasn't scholarly in a normal way. Normally, that class, is fluff material like seminary. The stricter classes might make you memorize verses but depth is off limits. There may be an occasional senior or grad level class about the Book of Mormon that isn't fluff, but requires prior authorization to enroll. Truth be told, I probably knew the Book of Mormon okay all those years ago but my memory has never been good so now, it's all gone.

Quickly on Nibley, I read many of his books before my mission. Nibley is the greatest Mormon scholar of all time, but his work prepares you to fail. He doesn't do normal scholarship. He makes fun of normal scholarship all the time. Like, "Oh the big fuss about who borrowed from who! Enough of the nonsense! These feeble minded professors who never memorized the Patrologia like I have!" And so armed with all this pseudo Nibley knowledge that made me super popular with a few members, I got into a bash with some quasi-JWs. Went to the University library close by to get the answer to one of their issues and it wasn't that they were right and we were wrong. But after reading one chapter from the Interpreter's Bible, I was like -- oh, so that's what real scholarship actually is. Twenty pages of that learned me more than 8 books by Nibley and his random observations about things. I never read another word by Nibley and it was all downhill after that in terms of my belief.

[Gadianton]

I had Hugh Nibley for the only religion class I ever took at BYU, and I’d call him a convert too. Dude was converted from regular crazy to crazy crazy. Pre-internet, shuffling around with his little recipe cards, smelling like he’d been sealed in a root cellar, rambling through whatever popped into his head. The man was a walking footnote with no main text. Fascinating in a spectacle way, but still nuts.

And as for “reason,” the Nibley era had its own rule: if you needed evidence for a conclusion, you just declared whatever you had to be the evidence you needed. Any scrap could be repurposed into “proof” if you squinted hard enough and waved your hands fast enough. Your comment makes me wonder if that sort of logic was appealing to a theology student enough that they would convert to Mormonism and Mormon apologetics circa 1990's

It's interesting that Nibley as an eccentric weirdo left you with a negative impression whereas you're otherwise all about eccentric weirdos. If it were a smelly old retired diesel mechanic who was a brilliant inventor and obsessed with a flat earth and right-wing politics, you'd think the guy was the greatest thing ever.

[Marcus]

I had Hugh Nibley for the only religion class I ever took at BYU, and I’d call him a convert too. Dude was converted from regular crazy to crazy crazy. Pre-internet, shuffling around with his little recipe cards, smelling like he’d been sealed in a root cellar, rambling through whatever popped into his head. The man was a walking footnote with no main text. Fascinating in a spectacle way, but still nuts.

And as for “reason,” the Nibley era had its own rule: if you needed evidence for a conclusion, you just declared whatever you had to be the evidence you needed. Any scrap could be repurposed into “proof” if you squinted hard enough and waved your hands fast enough. Your comment makes me wonder if that sort of logic was appealing to a theology student enough that they would convert to Mormonism and Mormon apologetics circa 1990's

It's interesting that Nibley as an eccentric weirdo left you with a negative impression whereas you're otherwise all about eccentric weirdos. If it were a smelly old retired diesel mechanic who was a brilliant inventor and obsessed with a flat earth and right-wing politics, you'd think the guy was the greatest thing ever.

I didn't take a Nibley class, but something must have been brewing in the back of my mind, because I didn't take the typical freshman BYU religion classes, and instead opted for world religions. It was me and 6 or 7 returned missionaries, If I recall correctly all from missions in Asian countries. I learned more in that class than in any other BYU, hs seminary, and a lifetime of gospel doctrine religion classes combined.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It's interesting that Nibley as an eccentric weirdo left you with a negative impression whereas you're otherwise all about eccentric weirdos. If it were a smelly old retired diesel mechanic who was a brilliant inventor and obsessed with a flat earth and right-wing politics, you'd think the guy was the greatest thing ever.

I didn't take a Nibley class, but something must have been brewing in the back of my mind, because I didn't take the typical freshman BYU religion classes, and instead opted for world religions. It was me and 6 or 7 returned missionaries, If I recall correctly all from missions in Asian countries. I learned more in that class than in any other BYU, hs seminary, and a lifetime of gospel doctrine religion classes combined.

Marcus,

That was one of my favorite classes. Was your class taught by Spencer Palmer?

[Whiskey]

I had Hugh Nibley for the only religion class I ever took at BYU, and I’d call him a convert too. Dude was converted from regular crazy to crazy crazy. Pre-internet, shuffling around with his little recipe cards, smelling like he’d been sealed in a root cellar, rambling through whatever popped into his head. The man was a walking footnote with no main text. Fascinating in a spectacle way, but still nuts.

And as for “reason,” the Nibley era had its own rule: if you needed evidence for a conclusion, you just declared whatever you had to be the evidence you needed. Any scrap could be repurposed into “proof” if you squinted hard enough and waved your hands fast enough. Your comment makes me wonder if that sort of logic was appealing to a theology student enough that they would convert to Mormonism and Mormon apologetics circa 1990's

It's interesting that Nibley as an eccentric weirdo left you with a negative impression whereas you're otherwise all about eccentric weirdos. If it were a smelly old retired diesel mechanic who was a brilliant inventor and obsessed with a flat earth and right-wing politics, you'd think the guy was the greatest thing ever.

I am so damned over this damned BS, Gad. I know you think it is funny, and it was, but it ain't. Your idiotic friend panny has taken the fun out of your joke. I can't put that trolling spamming needling POS panny on ignore, but can damn sure ignore your "you think" revelations. Cool? And sure, cry me a river about the profanity, but when you do, tell me what I think again.