Posted by:
Ex-CultMember
(
)
Date: October 24, 2021 02:09AM
Then,
A) these "Mormons" would likely be ex-Mormons on ex-Mormon discussion boards, like this one, chatting it up with us bitching about they used to be in a cult and,
B) there would be no "church" besides whoever is still tasked with managing the billions in assets the organization legally owns.
Btw, my personal opinion but I think people are misconstruing and exaggerating what Nelson said about the Book of Mormon being a "historical text."
I don't think he's saying it's not historical. I can't say what he REALLY believes when it comes to the historicity of the BoM but I think he was trying to say, we shouldn't use the BoM for historical purposes and only use it for "spiritual" purposes.
I'm sure he realizes, at this point, that trying to prove or defend the historicity of the BoM will only cause problems as a whole for the church and so he is trying to get members to stop focusing on the historicity of it and, instead, just focus on the religious or spiritual aspect of it which, in religious terms, doesn't require evidence or facts, only faith and religious bias.
There's a reason the church put out that statement that it doesn't claim to know where the BoM specifically took place (because THEY DO NOT KNOW where it took place).
Religion requires faith, NOT evidence.
It reminds me of being on my mission when the two smart and highly regarded AP's had completely different theories about where the Hill Cumorah and Book of Mormon took place. They were both COMPLETE believers in the historicity of the BoM but they both COMPLETELY disagreed about where it took place. One believed in the "one Cumorah" theory and the other believed in the "two Cumorahs" theory. One was absolutely convinced there was only one Cumorah and that it was in New York and that the Book of Mormon took place in NE USA. The other was convinced it took place in Mesoamerica but that Moroni made the journey to New York state to bury the plates.
Either theory is fraught with real world historical and archaeological problems but it only makes things worse for fragile testimonies to be exposed to these problems. To preserve as many Mormon testimonies as possible, it's better for Mormons to simply ignore and not think about the evidence than to try and make it work into their preconceived notions of the BoM historicity.
Any time I dig too much into ANY subject, my opinion always changes. I'm sure Nelson knows this too and that MORE members will lose their testimonies, than be preserved, if they focus too much on the "temporal evidence" vs the "spiritual evidence."
It's like the Wizard of Oz. When he says do not look behind the curtain, he's not intentionally implying that "the wizard" is not real or "all powerful," he just doesn't want them to look behind the curtain because he knows it will expose him for what he is. He COULD just say, "I'm the wizard and I have no special powers" but instead he is trying to keep the remaining believers from being exposed to the troublesome evidence behind the curtain that that pesky little dog already knows.
"Look, just don't worry about all those pesky, little details." Ignorance is "bliss" as they say. The details will only confuse you.