Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_charity]

Charity, you have made the claim over and over on this board that information has come out lately in support of the Book of Mormon. Yet you provide nothing to back this up. Just because someone wants so desperately to believe something does necessary make it true.

I have presented this information. But then critics come back that the only information they will accept is archeological in nature. They want to see a road sign that says "Zarahemal, 1 mile." Or they refuse to look at anything which is researched or written by LDS and refuse to consider anything written by a Mormon.

This double standard is frustrating. The sites of mor than 60% of Biblical events are at present not located, amd those which are were continuously occupied. Most archeologists who are and have explored Bible lands are either Christian or Jewish. Critics also refuse to acknowledge the difference between researching archeological sites in the dry lands of the Bible events, and the humid lands of the Book of Mormon events.

Are you interested in examining anything written by LDS which supports the Book okf Mormon as a historical document? If so I can provide you with a lot of sources.

[_charity]

It says essentially what I said. It does matter. The Lord has gone to great lengths to say that it matters. But people who want to believe something different are certainly welcome in the Church, so long as they do not try to teach this doctrine to others, or convert others to this view.

Opinions. Nothing more. I do not see anywhere where Jesus Christ is even hinting that if someone doesn't believe in the factual, historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon he or she is not a good Latter Day Saint.

Until there is official doctrine that one is required to believe in the factual, historical, accuracy of everything in the Book of Mormon, (or they are not considered a good member of the LDS church), members are free to believe as they wish.

And until YOU have the authority from God to judge others regarding their beliefs, heart, holiness, membership, and life, maybe it would best for YOU to let it go.

If the prophets, leaders, and God are accepting of those members whose testimonies are of an inspired religious text albeit not literal, why not follow their example?

From the FAIR wiki article you site:

If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net. That person cannot go around teaching his heterodox views on the subject, but if he is willing to keep them to himself, he can be a contributing, active member of the Church, simply bracketing the historicity issue.

(Bold Mine)

~dancer~

Truth Dancer, just so you will see. I am place the two paragraphs right after each other. This one is mine:

"It says essentially what I said. It does matter. The Lord has gone to great lengths to say that it matters. But people who want to believe something different are certainly welcome in the Church, so long as they do not try to teach this doctrine to others, or convert others to this view."

This paragraph is from the wiki article.

"If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net. That person cannot go around teaching his heterodox views on the subject, but if he is willing to keep them to himself, he can be a contributing, active member of the Church, simply bracketing the historicity issue."

Please read those two paragraphs. Notice that they are pretty much identical, and then back off on your charges that I am judging, it is only my opinion, and that I have no right to talk about this issue.

[_truth dancer]

Charity here is YOUR quote:

Apostates, you mean. There is no way a believer can deny that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is and still be a believer. A nominal Mormon, a cultural Mormon, a "new" Mormon, but not a true Latter-day Saint. To believe the Book of Mormon "inspired fiction" is to believe that every prophet of the Church has been an liar, that every Saint who has had a witness of the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is deluded.

Reread what you wrote here.

The FAIR article and your statements are opinions. As much as you may wish they were doctrinal, they are not.

Opinions from self-appointed apologists are not official doctrinal statements from the LDS church.

It doesn't much matter what you or other apologists state, it really doesn't.

You and the folks at FAIR are not the prophet, spokespeople for the LDS church, or representatives of Jesus Christ.

Until you can demonstrate that the LDS church has official doctrine supporting YOUR claim, your claim is nothing but your opinion.

Again, rather than post an article from FAIR apologists, you need to give us some official doctrinal statement from a leader of the LDS church that states those faithful, dedicated, TRI holding believers who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction are not "true Latter Day Saints".

My observation is that prophets and leaders of the LDS church would certainly embrace all those who have a testimony of the CoJCoLDS and the Book of Mormon however they may understand it.

in my opinion your opinion and judgments do not reflect the teachings and examples of the LDS leaders.

~dancer~

[Guest]

It says essentially what I said. It does matter. The Lord has gone to great lengths to say that it matters. But people who want to believe something different are certainly welcome in the Church, so long as they do not try to teach this doctrine to others, or convert others to this view.

Opinions. Nothing more. I do not see anywhere where Jesus Christ is even hinting that if someone doesn't believe in the factual, historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon he or she is not a good Latter Day Saint.

Until there is official doctrine that one is required to believe in the factual, historical, accuracy of everything in the Book of Mormon, (or they are not considered a good member of the LDS church), members are free to believe as they wish.

And until YOU have the authority from God to judge others regarding their beliefs, heart, holiness, membership, and life, maybe it would best for YOU to let it go.

If the prophets, leaders, and God are accepting of those members whose testimonies are of an inspired religious text albeit not literal, why not follow their example?

From the FAIR wiki article you site:

If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net. That person cannot go around teaching his heterodox views on the subject, but if he is willing to keep them to himself, he can be a contributing, active member of the Church, simply bracketing the historicity issue.

(Bold Mine)

~dancer~

TD, to help you out, I am placing MY statement and the Wikie statement side by side. They say essentially the same thing. So please, now can you play nice?

ME:
It says essentially what I said. It does matter. The Lord has gone to great lengths to say that it matters. But people who want to believe something different are certainly welcome in the Church, so long as they do not try to teach this doctrine to others, or convert others to this view.

Wiki
If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net. That person cannot go around teaching his heterodox views on the subject, but if he is willing to keep them to himself, he can be a contributing, active member of the Church, simply bracketing the historicity issue.

Capeesh?

[_Runtu]

I thought you said they and you thought it was inspirational fiction. Inspired is not the same as inspirational.

Then you don't have very good reading comprehension, as I have never called it "inspirational" fiction, nor have my friends.

Then please tell me what they think when the Prophet stands up and says the Book of Mormon IS an ancient document translated by Joseph Smith? What do they think when they read the Title Page where this statement is unequivocally made? Talk about cognitive dissonance!

I have no idea. I am not them. All I know is that they believe that God revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, even though it is not an ancient document. Have you never talked to anyone who holds this belief?

I don't think anyone who wants to come to Church and participate in any way should be told they can't. But it is clear that the person who believes the Book of Mormon is NOT an ancient document has a mistaken idea. n just the same way that the person who believesthat the Word of Wisdom is optional, or that if it is inconvenient to go to Church you shouldn't be bothered, and that tithing is paid if you have anything left over at the end of the month.

Acknowledging that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document is not a mistaken idea at all. What you should be grateful for is the fact that these people still believe in the gospel and the church, anyway. I will never understand this demand for all church members to be exactly on the same page. You have been in the church long enough to know that virtually no one in the church accepts every last little detail, though if anyone does, it's you. Shouldn't the ultimate judge of what a member must believe be God, not you? What do you think God would say is more important? Faith and repentance, or the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

But if they stick around, they may come to a knowledge of the truth. I am all for that.

The truth according to you, of course. I honestly don't know how people maintain faith in the church once they figure out what the Book of Mormon really is, but I am kind of shocked at people like you and Bob who criticize them for trying to maintain that faith. Weird.

[_charity]

I thought you said they and you thought it was inspirational fiction. Inspired is not the same as inspirational.

Then you don't have very good reading comprehension, as I have never called it "inspirational" fiction, nor have my friends.

Then please tell me what they think when the Prophet stands up and says the Book of Mormon IS an ancient document translated by Joseph Smith? What do they think when they read the Title Page where this statement is unequivocally made? Talk about cognitive dissonance!

I have no idea. I am not them. All I know is that they believe that God revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, even though it is not an ancient document. Have you never talked to anyone who holds this belief?

Only on message boards.

[

I don't think anyone who wants to come to Church and participate in any way should be told they can't. But it is clear that the person who believes the Book of Mormon is NOT an ancient document has a mistaken idea. n just the same way that the person who believesthat the Word of Wisdom is optional, or that if it is inconvenient to go to Church you shouldn't be bothered, and that tithing is paid if you have anything left over at the end of the month.

[
Acknowledging that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document is not a mistaken idea at all. What you should be grateful for is the fact that these people still believe in the gospel and the church, anyway. I will never understand this demand for all church members to be exactly on the same page. You have been in the church long enough to know that virtually no one in the church accepts every last little detail, though if anyone does, it's you. Shouldn't the ultimate judge of what a member must believe be God, not you? What do you think God would say is more important? Faith and repentance, or the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

The fact that this is the TRUE Church means there is truth. Some things are true and some things aren't. The idea that anyone can believe anything they want is the "old sectarian falsehood." When the Lord reveals the truth, we are bound by that truth.

Does any one person understand all the truths that God has revelaed? Probably not. Do some people after years of study undrstand a good piece of it? You bet.

The ultimate judge is the Lord. But eveyrone who comes on this board talks about logic, and information, and common sense. But that seems to apply only to non-LDS or critics? I can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? I have to say, "Golly gee, Billy Bob, you can believe just ANYTHING you want, and that's fine, because no one gets to say there is any truth, it's all up the air and at some future time, God will judge."

That's a crock.

Okay, Shades. Would I say that to my favorite Grandma? Probably not. If she wasn't making sense, I would probably wink at anyone else in the room, and then would pat her hand, and say, "Grandma, is it time for your nap now?"

But if they stick around, they may come to a knowledge of the truth. I am all for that.

The truth according to you, of course. I honestly don't know how people maintain faith in the church once they figure out what the Book of Mormon really is, but I am kind of shocked at people like you and Bob who criticize them for trying to maintain that faith. Weird.

Oh, runtu, please stop that. If I were having a private conversation with someone who was expressing their view that the Book of Mormon really wasn't an ancient document, I would not argue. If someone else was in their presence, I would present the information to counter their idea, as that would be my responsibility.

I never say anything to anyone to criticize their activitiy in the Church.

[_Yoda]

The ultimate judge is the Lord. But eveyrone who comes on this board talks about logic, and information, and common sense. But that seems to apply only to non-LDS or critics? I can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? I have to say, "Golly gee, Billy Bob, you can believe just ANYTHING you want, and that's fine, because no one gets to say there is any truth, it's all up the air and at some future time, God will judge."

That's a crock.

Okay, Shades. Would I say that to my favorite Grandma? Probably not. If she wasn't making sense, I would probably wink at anyone else in the room, and then would pat her hand, and say, "Grandma, is it time for your nap now?"

In my opinion, the comment is fine. You're not attacking anyone specifically. You're entitled to your view just as much as anyone else here, and you're entitled to be frustrated if your view is marginalized because of how you came to certain conclusions.

Edited to add---Besides, Runtu is a big boy. I think he can handle it. ;)

[_Runtu]

Only on message boards.

I have news for you. There are a lot more out there, and they don't necessarily post on message boards.

The fact that this is the TRUE Church means there is truth. Some things are true and some things aren't. The idea that anyone can believe anything they want is the "old sectarian falsehood." When the Lord reveals the truth, we are bound by that truth.

No one is arguing that church members can believe what they want, but there are certain fundamentals, and the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not one of them.

Does any one person understand all the truths that God has revelaed? Probably not. Do some people after years of study undrstand a good piece of it? You bet.

No one said they didn't.

The ultimate judge is the Lord. But eveyrone who comes on this board talks about logic, and information, and common sense. But that seems to apply only to non-LDS or critics? I can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? I have to say, "Golly gee, Billy Bob, you can believe just ANYTHING you want, and that's fine, because no one gets to say there is any truth, it's all up the air and at some future time, God will judge."

To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." When have I said that you can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? That's what I expect you to do as a member of the church. And when have I said church members can believe ANYTHING they want? The subject here is whether one can be a faithful member of the church and not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

That's a crock.

It's also a strawman.

Okay, Shades. Would I say that to my favorite Grandma? Probably not. If she wasn't making sense, I would probably wink at anyone else in the room, and then would pat her hand, and say, "Grandma, is it time for your nap now?"

I'm not going to respond to your sneering. Save it for someone else. It's most unbecoming someone who claims to be a Christian.

Oh, runtu, please stop that. If I were having a private conversation with someone who was expressing their view that the Book of Mormon really wasn't an ancient document, I would not argue. If someone else was in their presence, I would present the information to counter their idea, as that would be my responsibility.

I never say anything to anyone to criticize their activitiy in the Church.

Then why do you say they can't be faithful members if they don't believe in the historicity of the church?

[_charity]

In my opinion, the comment is fine. You're not attacking anyone specifically. You're entitled to your view just as much as anyone else here, and you're entitled to be frustrated if your view is marginalized because of how you came to certain conclusions.

Edited to add---Besides, Runtu is a big boy. I think he can handle it. ;)

Thanks, liz. Shades took me to the woodshed before and told me to treat everyone here as if they were my favorite grandma. I was trying to head him off.

[_charity]

Only on message boards.

I have news for you. There are a lot more out there, and they don't necessarily post on message boards.

Good, then they must be obeying counsel and not publishing their heterodoxy. Which is what they are supposed to do.

The fact that this is the TRUE Church means there is truth. Some things are true and some things aren't. The idea that anyone can believe anything they want is the "old sectarian falsehood." When the Lord reveals the truth, we are bound by that truth.

No one is arguing that church members can believe what they want, but there are certain fundamentals, and the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not one of them.

This is where the prophets disagree with you. I prefer to stand on their side.

The ultimate judge is the Lord. But eveyrone who comes on this board talks about logic, and information, and common sense. But that seems to apply only to non-LDS or critics? I can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? I have to say, "Golly gee, Billy Bob, you can believe just ANYTHING you want, and that's fine, because no one gets to say there is any truth, it's all up the air and at some future time, God will judge."

To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." When have I said that you can't use logic and information and the words of prophets to support a position? That's what I expect you to do as a member of the church. And when have I said church members can believe ANYTHING they want? The subject here is whether one can be a faithful member of the church and not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

When I do use logic and information it is swept away as my own personal opinion held by no one else?

And the subject here, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, is analogous to what I said, not accepting the Word of Wisdom, etc.

Here is a piece of information for you. One of the things a person must do to enter the temple is affirm that they sustain the propeht of the Church. And if he has said the Book of Mormon is a historic document, and you don't beleive that, you aren't sustaining the prophet.

[

Okay, Shades. Would I say that to my favorite Grandma? Probably not. If she wasn't making sense, I would probably wink at anyone else in the room, and then would pat her hand, and say, "Grandma, is it time for your nap now?"

I'm not going to respond to your sneering. Save it for someone else. It's most unbecoming someone who claims to be a Christian.

And I am really getting tired of your "unbecoming as a Christian" line. I didn't sneer. I was referring to Dr. Shades and his injunction that in this forum we were all supposed to pussyfoot around and act like we were speaking to a grandma. I wouldn't tell Grandma her idea was a crock. That was the point of that.

And if I did "sneer" at you, are you judging me? Isn't God the only person who can judge? Or is this another anti-Mormon/critic tacitc. You judge, but I can't. You can use information and logic, but I can't.

Oh, runtu, please stop that. If I were having a private conversation with someone who was expressing their view that the Book of Mormon really wasn't an ancient document, I would not argue. If someone else was in their presence, I would present the information to counter their idea, as that would be my responsibility.

I never say anything to anyone to criticize their activitiy in the Church.

Then why do you say they can't be faithful members if they don't believe in the historicity of the church?[/quote]

I didn't say any specific person. I said that believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is ONE of the essentially beliefs as a fully orthodox Mormon.