I read this one this morning:

"Discussions about whether the donkey really talked, or if Moses really parted the Red Sea, or if Lehi really did cross the atlantic do nothing but distract from the truths presented in these stories. I don't have to believe that any of those events are literally true to have the stories cultivate a rich experience with my spiritual faith, enhance my relationship with God, and inspire charity and service to my fellow human beings."
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865622426/The-authenticity-of-scripture.html

Do members really think like that now? That Lehi wasn't even real but they still accept the Book of Mormon as the most correct book on earth?

Ah, the old capital-T Truths vs. the truth argument. It's baloney, but INSPIRING baloney.

I don't get it I guess. When I was still a member, my thoughts would have been that if Lehi wasn't real then the Book of Mormon isn't true. It makes my head hurt to read comments like that.

I think the person is saying they're not going to worry about the facts because they've totally bought into the IDEA of Mormonism. It's like loving sausage and not caring how it's made.

I can see that with a talking donkey, but the part about Lehi not being real blew me away. It seems comparable to a non-LDS Christian saying "It doesn't matter if Jesus was even real, I'll be resurrected and live with god".

Exactly. This is what is so confusing. How does Lehi's not crossing the Atlantic develop your relationship with God and inspire charity and service to your fellow human beings? The BoM is not true, therefore it must be the word of God because other not true things, like parting the Red Sea, are also the word of God. Star Wars isn't true; therefore, every saying of Yoda makes me a better human being? Scientology isn't true, that's why it inpires me to charity and service? WTF?! Mormons can continue spouting this silly stuff because they don't have to respond to follow-up questions.

Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the most popular dictionary of the time when Smith was translating from the "Golden Plates" defines the word "mormo," with the 'n' following the word indicating it was used as a noun.

"mormo" n. bugbear, false terror. Also a Greek mythological-type character.

(An American Fraud, One Lawyer's Case Against Mormonism, Kay Burningham, page 207. )


Mormonism seems pretty mythological to me.

At least sausage is actually delicious to the taste and very desirable.

That comment can make a person's head hurt because it is a MORmON comment even more than an LD$ comment.

LD$ Inc does not really care about what is true or not true, the MORmON pirates only care about whatever it takes to jack some serious offering money out of stupid people willing to buy whatever line of MORmON crap that it will take to get the job done.

LD$ Inc doesn't care and that member who commented doesn't seem to care either. He doesn't care even if there were no gold plates. How could there be if Lehi wasn't real? No gold plates would mean that Joseph and the 11 witnesses lied. He seems to be saying that his relationship with a God is based on lies.

The story of the good Samaritan has value as a story that teaches good values. The Jew and the Samaritan in the story might not have existed, and events might not have transpired as described. The historicity of the story does not detract from the moral value of the story. Some mainstream christians apply the same logic to parts of the bible. It is not surprising that some mormons have picked up on the idea and are starting to apply the same logic to the book of mormon.

I don't agree with the approach, but I have almost gotten my head around how people believe it.

I can see how it is applied to some stories. That makes sense. But when it is applied to Lehi, it means there were no gold plates. It means that Joseph Smith and all 11 witnesses lied. I can't comprehend how someone could still claim to believe in the LDS church under that scenario.

Sure. That's the humanist approach to scripture. That's why you've got to analyse LDS scripture as scripture. Doing that shows Mormonism to be very wanting. JS was an ignorant rube, however charismatic he might have been. He was a fraudster, parodying scripture to sound convincing. Some very hard-working, good people were convinced and glorified Mormonism, because of what they added to Mormonism, not because of JS' creation. The current leaders are businessmen who know nothing about philosophy, psychology, or religion. The people who invented Mormonism knew nothing about religion either, and they didn't know much about anything else except folk magic.

That's why there was the conceit that JS--poor, ignorant farm boy--was selected by God to be God's mouthpiece, his Prophet. Now, to say, BoM doesn't contain facts means the God is not God? God revealed teachings, not truths? If one claims they are teachings only, then they stand on their own merits. There is no divine authority surrounding them not contained within the teachings themselves. Thus, no priesthood, no priesthood keys, no divine stewardship over whatever job someone picked for you. Your Bishop or SP are no better than anyone else at descerning the teaching. You've simply got humanism. I'm all for humanism; but, truly, Mormonism fails to measure up. Mormon "scriptures" are weak tea, indeed. And that's even assuming anyone can say what they mean. They are the silliest mumbo-jumbo, or are bad: God rewards goodness; God punishes badness. Really, how come bad things happen to good people? Well, that's a test. No. Good and bad are much deeper things than you think. They've got nothing to do with coffee, sleeves, tatoos, or piercings. Or defending your leaders at all cost.

"Doing that shows Mormonism to be very wanting."

Absolutely.

What blew me away this morning when I read his comment is that he is basically saying that he doesn't care even if it was founded on a lie. Maybe he hasn't thought it through, but if Lehi wasn't real, there would be no Moroni from ancient America to visit Joseph Smith. There would be no gold plates. Smith's claims would have been lies and 11 witness who swore they saw the plates would have been lies. Has Mormonism come to this? That the members feel good by reading a book while they don't even care if its foundation came from liars?

Also, don't forget how the church claims to believe the bible literally. That's an argument I had with my family when they say they don't believe everything literally. I remind them that that is contrary to church statements.

They have an out with the Bible because of their article of faith "as far as it is translated correctly". But a Mormon has no excuse to claim that Lehi never existed. No Lehi means there was no Moroni from ancient America to tell Joseph Smith where the plates were buried. There would have been no plates. It unravels everything, but some Mormons don't seem to even care about that.

The new apologists' defense will be:

"We believe the BOM to be the Word of Gawd; as far as it is translated correctly."

They have that one covered with the title page "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men". Good thing FAIR can fix everything for us so the prophet doesn't have to be bothered with getting revelation. Silly us for thinking a horse was a horse.

I noticed Ms Cherry Picking said nothing about slavery, stoning sinners or kicking out lepers to a separate camp. Oh, and no mention of how grabbing a man's no-no place while he was fighting an opponent was instant cause for death to her or sumthin' like that. Good family values, good times.

Her hand was to be cut off. Of course, before antibiotics or antiseptics that might easily kill her.

Family values of Jesus:


"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Of course he said that! Don't blame Jesus. Jesus was really about truth, not authority. If your father, your mother, and your mother -in-law are TBMs that would sacrifice their son, daughter, and daughter-in-law for the sake of social-climbing an authoritarian organization, of course Jesus would say "Oppose them! Be at variance to them!" You would say it too, rationalist01.

We've recently been introduced to a mother-in-law who wishes her daughter-in-law dead so that mommy-dearest can take the children, even though she believes they are "broken" due to their lack of valiance in the pre-existence. What should Jesus tell the daughter-in-law to do in this case? Go along to get along? I certainly hope not.

Yeah, but Jesus wasn't talking about actual evil family members. He was encouraging people to follow his absolutist cult. If there actually was a Jesus. And if that scripture wasn't an interpolation added in later centuries. And if the gospels weren't totally made up.

How do you know that Jesus wasn't talking about actual evil family members, that he was encouraging people to follow his absolutist cult? If he was ministering to lepers, he was pissing off a lot of mothers, fathers, and mothers-in-law. Someone in power pushed them off to a leper colony. The point was to separate them so they would feel their guilt. Someone else comforting them was defying authority. Even if Jesus never existed, breaking up the power structure is radical. The absolutist cult is the evil, authoritarian power structure itself.

Try reading Jesus in light of anti-authoritarianism and it's pretty sensible.

I really don't take anything supposed Jesus said as anything but occasionally wise fiction. I'm a Christ mythicist.

E.T.B. The Book Of Mormon. The keystone of our religion. I better review that and see what the prophet of my time said about this.

I can see how people would view scripture as symbolic. Like maybe Jesus never actually saved a prostitute from being stoned to death. It was just a story to teach us about an ideal way to behave. Something to aspire to.

But my problem is that if I have permission to view things as symbolic, then when the bishop tells me to pay exactly 10% of my money as tithing or tells me to sit in exactly 3 hours of boring meetings on Sunday, then I am not likely to follow him. I might say, "The commandment to pay tithing is just a story. Sort of an ideal to follow. And it should be the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Ten percent is just a number. I can pick any other percentage I want. And if times are tough, I don't have to pay any tithing. The story is designed to teach me an ideal of charity, not a commandment to give you a bunch of my money."

I might also say, "I do not have to go to church three hours every Sunday. That commandment is just symbolic. We are supposed to be unified with our friends and neighbors and community. We are supposed to meet often. But the scriptures do not define 'often.' They do not even say we have to meet at the church house. The spirit of this story is that we are supposed to be unified and sociable. Not that we are supposed to attend particular meetings every single week. So I think maybe I will just go to Sunday school and skip sacrament meeting this week. Maybe next week I will commune with friends and family out at the lake instead of going to church. Maybe I will skip fast and testimony meeting because it is kind of like open mike night at the comedy club and I don't enjoy it. The important thing is that the ideals of unity and community are in my heart."

I think leaders would have no control over their congregations if they go so liberal as to view scripture as not literally true and merely symbolic.

The LDS church better either stand by their claims about their keystone scripture or renounce and discard it. There is no middle ground. When it comes to Lehi's voyage to the Americas and Moroni the last record keeper and the gold plates delivered to Joe, either those Book of Mormon people are literal, not just a story or Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses lied about seeing Moroni and handling the plates. I can't find any other way to look at it. It isn't the same as the parables, it is either literal or a lie.

"and inspire charity and service to my fellow human beings."

JMO, but religion has successfully convinced way too many people that they need religion to be good people.

That logic would have saved Brian Williams reputation as a journalist.

"do nothing but distract from the truths presented in these stories" = pay no attention to that man behind the curtain !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 02:43PM by Dave the Atheist.

Will be interesting this GC time to see if there is any backup from the Black Suits for this type of interpretation.

I think this type of thinking has the possibility either to be pushed more and more by the church apologists per orders from the Back Suits or to be avoided entirely with FAITH being the principle that is pushed every onward and forward to carry the day.