[napsack]

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

After reading the responses and thinking about this more, it seems that lots of people come to the conclusion that there is a distinction between the validity (or “truthfulness”) of the church vs. the validity of the church as a source for good teachings that help you get closer to God. The church can still be “good”- that is teach good things and bring people closer to God- while not being “true”. People who struggle with doctrine or history end up either adopting a view that alternate interpretation of the doctrine is okay because it still brings them closer to God, or they decide it should be true, isn’t, and end up leaving the church. I don’t hear many people struggling with this stuff and then adopting a “it is all 100% true” perspective, but I guess its possible.

nibbler wrote:

Take the Bible for instance, there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that I no longer view as being historical in nature, but the real value in the Bible is from the lessons that I can extract from it and apply to my life in the here and now. Noah’s ark. Probably didn’t happen but it teaches me that it’s a good idea to make a backup of all my important stuff before reformatting my hard drive. If I’m willing to extend that principle to the Bible why not to the BoM as well… or any book for that matter (fiction or non-fiction).

Heber13 wrote:

It is not all historical fact, or all made up by Joseph. There are other options.

DarkJedi wrote:

For me, the Book of Mormon fits in that same realm. It doesn’t matter to me if the stories of Adam and Eve or parting the Red Sea or Jonah or Nephi are contrived – they teach a principle that can people closer to God/Christ.

So let me maybe restate what I am hearing here. The LDS church (or really any religion) doesn’t need to be 100% “true”. Rather, we should seek out good things in all forms and from all sources, and if the LDS doctrine and scripture do that for us, then it is serving its purpose.

I totally accept this idea, and I have always felt that truth exists in all religions and in all studies. By this logic, though, there is no reason to be a member of the LDS church over any other church or no church altogether. Really, the big problem here is that the LDS church bases its entire purpose and existence on being the “one true church”, restored perfectly by God, with sole authority and sole collection of saving ordinances. This idea can’t really coexist with an idea that the church isn’t all true.

To clarify, my argument here is largely against the rhetoric of the LDS church that it is the only true church and that everything hinges on the BOM. If the church did not so heavily preach this (and in fact require their membership to believe this), then it would be very easy (and refreshing) to adopt a less strict interpretation of “one true church”.

nibbler wrote:

But it could be possible that Christ did appear to people on other continents. Maybe they didn’t label themselves as Nephites, but there’s beauty in the message that Christ ministered to everyone… whether he actually did or not.

This is a good point. I’ve thought about this, specifically that this could be a metaphor for Christ’s earthly ministry in general. I’ve always thought the descriptions of Christ’s appearances to the Nephites were really beautiful summation of Christ’s ministry as told in the New Testament.

nibbler wrote:

When I can see it, I try to divorce myself from an all or nothing approach.

I really appreciate hearing this, even though I am clearly failing at it. I actually really hate the all or nothing approach and wish that the church didn’t build itself on this notion. I feel like I can personally come to the conclusion that the BOM isn’t all “true” in history, origin, etc., but that puts me in direct conflict with the church that tells me it absolutely is true. So if the Brethren tell us it is ALL true, then they are not really providing its members much room to adopt alternate views.

I also think that the big problem here is that JS and the church for over 150 years have heavily promoted that it is all historical fact. Even now we hear it over the pulpit and in Sunday School, and the church’s recent essays still heavily lean in this direction. I feel that in some regards the church is lying about what it is (or isn’t), and this is what really gets me. If the church is not being fully honest, I have a hard time accepting its teachings because they seem so sanitized.

This has been really useful in helping me think through all of this, thanks guys!

[Author]

Posts