Let's see where we can get with this

[_Drifting]

I find your contributions well considered and well put.
In terms of the Book of Mormon as fiction - the Church cannot do this no matter what it thinks. Too many members and leaders have testified of it's 'truthfulness'. Inspired fiction would mean they lied.

I agree.

It would be like stating that the Bible is inspired fiction. I don't see that one happening either.

Please don't give stem the credit for my words!

[_Fionn]

I agree.

It would be like stating that the Bible is inspired fiction. I don't see that one happening either.

That's precisely how I treat all holy writs, but I know that I am an exception to that rule. However, I do find those books more meaningful once they are divorced from the literal interpretation of them.

That said, I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but I do suspect that the passage of time forces this to happen to all religions. Eventually. World literature and mythology is littered with texts and ideas which were once believed to be literally true, but are no longer revered by anyone. It seems to me that the very same inspiration which creates religion/belief/god worship also leads to its eventual demise. In other words, the very need to believe also creates the need to alter cherished beliefs in order to make them more meaningful and relevant to the people who practice them.

On the macro level, Mormonism will adapt and change like all the religions which have come before it. On the micro level, this will happen so slowly as to be nearly undetectable.

Again, a bit rambly. I blame the DayQuil. ;)

[_Yoda]

I agree.

It would be like stating that the Bible is inspired fiction. I don't see that one happening either.

That's precisely how I treat all holy writs, but I know that I am an exception to that rule. However, I do find those books more meaningful once they are divorced from the literal interpretation of them.

That said, I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but I do suspect that the passage of time forces this to happen to all religions. Eventually. World literature and mythology is littered with texts and ideas which were once believed to be literally true, but are no longer revered by anyone. It seems to me that the very same inspiration which creates religion/belief/god worship also leads to its eventual demise. In other words, the very need to believe also creates the need to alter cherished beliefs in order to make them more meaningful and relevant to the people who practice them.

On the macro level, Mormonism will adapt and change like all the religions which have come before it. On the micro level, this will happen so slowly as to be nearly undetectable.

Again, a bit rambly. I blame the DayQuil. ;)

I don't think that your posts are rambly at all! Sorry you have to take DayQuil, though. I hope you get over your cold.

As an official Church stance, I have a hard time imagining that the literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon will ever change. I do, however, see more members, albeit maybe privately, interpreting the scriptures as inspired fiction.

[_Themis]

I have no problem discussing the details of LDS truth claims. My issue, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain, is the critic often postures that if a certain truth claim is untrue then the whole kit and caboodle goes down the tubes. Its all a big ol’ hoax. I can’t buy that because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, for instance. I don’t think all the truth claims made by the Church are necessarily true. I don’t see the Church as inerrant. In some instances there is evolution of thought and teaching in the Church. Critics in this way can play quite a role in helping us refine doctrine.

Some truth claims need to be true in order for the church to be true as LDS define it to be true. Things like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. Polygamy, or how Joseph went about it, is just one of so many things that just point to Joseph Smith creating the narrative for his religion, and makes it less likely that God was involved. I agree with Fionn that it is not one issue that caused me to realize the church is not true, but a multitude of issues, and very little in support of Joseph's core truth claims. Even looking at the spiritual expereince objectively one sees that we are just interpreting it the way we have been taught or the way we want, and that is not limited to LDS.

[_Fionn]

I don't think that your posts are rambly at all! Sorry you have to take DayQuil, though. I hope you get over your cold.

Thank you kindly, ma'am.

As an official Church stance, I have a hard time imagining that the literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon will ever change. I do, however, see more members, albeit maybe privately, interpreting the scriptures as inspired fiction.

I believe this is how it begins. Imagine the church 50 years in the future. Assume that among American Mormons, particularly in the Intermountain West, NOMs are now the majority among both membership and leadership. Let's also further assume that there are more Mormons living outside the U.S. and, more probably, outside what we now consider to be industrialized nations. What kind of impact do you think such a situation might have on doctrine, theology and even Mormon culture? I see the potential for change there to be monumental. We're already seeing the impact that becoming a global church is having on individual believers. If the membership statistics keep trending this way, I don't see how the church can remain static. In other words, the institution must change itself eventually to come more into line of the majority of members otherwise it contracts and dies. So the choice becomes stick with the status quo and risk losing potential converts or change to placate the new majority?

Eventually, unless there's a Reformation of sorts designed to pull the entire church back to its roots (possible), the institution simply begins to reflect the beliefs and culture of the majority. And if that majority is non-American, non-Pioneer Stock Mormons, but still BIC, the institution will reflect that demographic change.

I find it fascinating to think about what such a church would look like.

[_stemelbow]

I have no problem discussing the details of LDS truth claims. My issue, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain, is the critic often postures that if a certain truth claim is untrue then the whole kit and caboodle goes down the tubes. Its all a big ol’ hoax. I can’t buy that because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, for instance. I don’t think all the truth claims made by the Church are necessarily true. I don’t see the Church as inerrant. In some instances there is evolution of thought and teaching in the Church. Critics in this way can play quite a role in helping us refine doctrine.

For me, it's more like death by a thousand cuts. Any singular issue where bad judgement or unethical practices are showcased in early Mormonism didn't by themselves lead me to disbelief. Rather, it's many instances of bad behavior combined that tilt the scales. In other words, it isn't any one singular thing, but many issues combined together that lead me to believe Joseph Smith Jr wasn't a good man and therefore I am justified in walking away from the religion he created.

When I left Mormonism, I didn't care if it was true or not. I just knew it wasn't good for me and I had to leave it behind. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that I revisited the early history and foundational claims of Mormonism. So it is only with hindsight that I find my position justified. But even then, I find myself more fascinated by the history than disgusted by it. That said, there is enough troubling history there, I think, to justify the departure of anyone who is disturbed by these many historical issues.

As for evolution of thought, yes, this is something critics, both inside and outside of the church, can contribute to. However, like many other religions, Mormonism is very slow to change, especially if it sees that change as conforming to worldly standards. It is also unfortunate that sometimes the institutional church seems, initially, more interested in quashing dissent than taking it as an impetus to evolution and betterment of itself.

I agree with virtually everything you said above, more or less. And I find your take interesting and thoughtful.

How likely do you think it is the institutional church will walk away from the "Book of Mormon as Truth" stance it now holds and more toward treating the book as an inspired fiction?

The Church would rather disappear than take that position, I think. You raise an interesting point. There is a line in which church positions can’t really be changed or evolve if the Church is to remain in tact—at least from the Church’s perspective.

Personally, I think changing to this stance would make life much easier for the church, at least in some ways. But, conversely, the church has invested so many years and so much energy propping up the truth claims of the Book of Mormon that it would take a major shift in leadership and philosophy for this to happen that is seems unlikely to ever happen. But who knows? Maybe in 50 years, NOMs will be the norm.

Sorry this was a bit rambly. I've got a cold and am a bit loopy this a.m.

You’re probably already aware I’m not the best communicator so I have no problems with someone getting a bit rambly. I do it often with no cold or loopiness as the cause.

[_Fionn]

The Church would rather disappear than take that position, I think. You raise an interesting point. There is a line in which church positions can’t really be changed or evolve if the Church is to remain in tact—at least from the Church’s perspective.

So, you think, given the choice between adapt or die, the institutional church would opt for death? I'm not so sure I believe that. It is my experience that institutions seek to remain relevant rather than opting out of the game entirely. But I'll allow there may well be exceptions to this and that, perhaps, the LDS Church is such an exception.

[_Buffalo]

How likely do you think it is the institutional church will walk away from the "Book of Mormon as Truth" stance it now holds and more toward treating the book as an inspired fiction?

The Church would rather disappear than take that position, I think. You raise an interesting point. There is a line in which church positions can’t really be changed or evolve if the Church is to remain in tact—at least from the Church’s perspective.
.

No way. At one time polygamy was THE premier doctrine of the church. Given enough incentive, they'll abandon anything as long as the institution is perpetuated.

[_stemelbow]

So, you think, given the choice between adapt or die, the institutional church would opt for death? I'm not so sure I believe that. It is my experience that institutions seek to remain relevant rather than opting out of the game entirely. But I'll allow there may well be exceptions to this and that, perhaps, the LDS Church is such an exception.

I may be wrong on that. It seems to me the Church holds strictly to the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient proposition. But, I suppose its not big deal if a Mormon chooses to accept the teachings of the Book of Mormon yet consider the book itself a 19th century creation. In the end I can see that that remains a possibility.

[_Chap]

So, you think, given the choice between adapt or die, the institutional church would opt for death? I'm not so sure I believe that. It is my experience that institutions seek to remain relevant rather than opting out of the game entirely. But I'll allow there may well be exceptions to this and that, perhaps, the LDS Church is such an exception.

I may be wrong on that. It seems to me the Church holds strictly to the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient proposition. But, I suppose its not big deal if a Mormon chooses to accept the teachings of the Book of Mormon yet consider the book itself a 19th century creation. In the end I can see that that remains a possibility.

Suppose we went that route. Then what are the distinctive contributions of the Book of Mormon in terms of major teachings found therein and not otherwise known in the Christian tradition?

Remember, if it is fiction, including its record of Jesus appearing to the Nephites, it has no function as a 'second witness' to Jesus Christ. So if it serves a useful purpose it has to be in terms of new doctrine. If it just repeats old and previously known Christian doctrines, there are plenty of other books that do that already, some of them (like Pilgrim's Progress) being fiction that many might think superior to the Book of Mormon in literary quality.