If the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, then it isn’t what it claims to be and the Church isn’t what it claims to be. A lot of things fall out of bed once you start accepting that it’s a fictional tale generated by Joseph and perhaps others for the purpose of setting themselves up in the religion business.
The Book of Mormon actually holds more value to me as a 19th century work. I don’t find much spiritual insight in it that is unique outside of a 19th century setting, except maybe in its alterations from its biblical source texts. But trying to uncover what or whom its characters represent has made the text far more interesting to me than pretending it’s ancient.
A question for MG: Why is it important to you that the Book of Mormon be ancient? Is your answer essentially what IHQ has proposed, that if it isn’t ancient, the Church isn’t what it claims to be?
If the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, then it isn’t what it claims to be and the Church isn’t what it claims to be. A lot of things fall out of bed once you start accepting that it’s a fictional tale generated by Joseph and perhaps others for the purpose of setting themselves up in the religion business.
The Book of Mormon actually holds more value to me as a 19th century work. I don’t find much spiritual insight in it that is unique outside of a 19th century setting, except maybe in its alterations from its biblical source texts. But trying to uncover what or whom its characters represent has made the text far more interesting to me than pretending it’s ancient.
A question for MG: Why is it important to you that the Book of Mormon be ancient? Is your answer essentially what IHQ has proposed, that if it isn’t ancient, the Church isn’t what it claims to be?
Seeing the book as real history makes it function as very solid evidence that Jesus rose from the dead with divine power and God is attending humanity with the same gospel fundamentals deep in time.
Without the Book of Mormon a person must relate to the fainter historical evidence for resurrection, the development of ideas in the Old Testament and the murky beginnings of the faith in historical terms.
If the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, then it isn’t what it claims to be and the Church isn’t what it claims to be. A lot of things fall out of bed once you start accepting that it’s a fictional tale generated by Joseph and perhaps others for the purpose of setting themselves up in the religion business.
The Book of Mormon actually holds more value to me as a 19th century work. I don’t find much spiritual insight in it that is unique outside of a 19th century setting, except maybe in its alterations from its biblical source texts. But trying to uncover what or whom its characters represent has made the text far more interesting to me than pretending it’s ancient.
A question for MG: Why is it important to you that the Book of Mormon be ancient? Is your answer essentially what IHQ has proposed, that if it isn’t ancient, the Church isn’t what it claims to be?
The provenance of the Book of Mormon is a balancing act with issues/evidences that will act as reasons for belief or disbelief in ancient origins by different researchers and data gatherers who come to different conclusions.
Dan adds to the mix of the investigations performed by various academics that ultimately provide data points for further investigation.
As it is, there are reasons to choose ancient origins and reasons to choose 19th century origins or somewhere in between. Faith in divine involvement or non involvement comes into the mix.
McClellan's currently researched data points have taken him in the direction of a non historical Book of Mormon. That's fine. Last time I checked one's views on this topic are not contingent and/or based as to whether or not a member can hold a temple recommend.
The provenance of the Book of Mormon is a balancing act with issues/evidences that will act as reasons for belief or disbelief in ancient origins by different researchers and data gatherers who come to different conclusions.
Oh? What evidence for ancient-ness do you think outweighs the evidence for 19th century composition?
Seems odd that a person could hold a temple recommend if they don’t believe the foundation story of the Restoration.
Using a phrase like "balancing act" when discussing a yes or no question like this just muddies the water. From an article online discussing this type of fallacy:
“False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability. While well-intended, it is all too frequently a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is scientifically contentious, when it is not. This ultimately means that even urgent issues such as climate change can be dismissed as a mere difference of scientific opinion. This confounds not only public perception of science, but creates an aura of doubt, which can be abused to create a toxic inertia, beguiling us to sleep-walk into disaster or placidly accept situations we should vocally protest.”
Seems odd that a person could hold a temple recommend if they don’t believe the foundation story of the Restoration.
Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Seems odd that a person could hold a temple recommend if they don’t believe the foundation story of the Restoration.
Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
I am glad that the LDS Church does not require people like Dan to believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. It isn't. It would be perverse to demand that someone believe something that is so poorly supported by the evidence.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Seems odd that a person could hold a temple recommend if they don’t believe the foundation story of the Restoration.
Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
I don’t have a lot of insight into what goes into a temple recommend, but it’s starting to sound like so long as you give them your money and recognize their leadership you can get a ticket. Oh and don’t drink that evil coffee.
Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
I don’t have a lot of insight into what goes into a temple recommend, but it’s starting to sound like so long as you give them your money and recognize their leadership you can get a ticket. Oh and don’t drink that evil coffee.
Scam.
A bit more to it:
Temple recommend questions:
Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).
Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?
Do you obey the law of chastity?
Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
Are you a full-tithe payer?
For new members seeking a recommend to perform proxy baptisms and confirmations: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing?
Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
(This question is omitted when interviewing a child or youth.) Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?
If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
(This question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
(This question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances? (Read the “Wearing the Temple Garment” statement, included below, to each member.)
Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?
I would disagree that having to qualify to go into the House of the Lord is a "scam" as you put it. There are worthiness requirements/expectations for those who enter into a specific covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ and their Heavenly Father.
