Re: The Truth About the COC -- The Blind Leading the Blind Discussion Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Since our proposed approach in the curriculum is
>not subject-oriented,
>we shall in all likelihood be saved from having to
>tackle some of
>the extremely thorny; issues of the Book's
>historicity in our curriculum
>materials themselves.
>

Nevertheless, when the Book as a phenomenon is
>treated, we propose
>that it shall be done in the context of that
>segment of Restoration
>history out of which it emerged, without a
>dogmatic emphasis on
>it as a depository of facts about Ancient American
>history or culture.
>It would thus appear to be prudent to avoid any
>specific dogmatic pronouncements
>as to the ultimate nature and origin of the Book, in
>light of the present
>scantiness of data by which our opinions may be
>inferred. Dogmatically
>affirming its actual historicity, or asserting that it
>is definitely to
>be understood in other than historical
>categories-either of these alternatives
>would deny our stance of "strategic caution" which now
>seems to be most
>wise in the face of our insight into the complexities
>of the issues involved.
>

In many instances this stance will manifest itself
>in terms of a discreet
>silence in areas where hitherto Book of Mormon
>teachings have been
>invoked. However, since in
>the Book there can
>be found various passages that may serve to illustrate
>or illuminate a
>persistent life need of the students, such passages
>may very well be utilized
>in the development of a lesson for any age level. Thus
>each instance of
>potential use of Book of Mormon material must be
>judged in light of all
>the various factors surrounding the individual set of
>circumstances in
>which its use might appear to be helpful and
>appropriate.
>

In this work, we are not primarily concerned
>with the origin of
>the Book of Mormon, from Whence it came, nor the
>manner in which it
>was brought forth.
>
�
>
�
>

Kathy Widner asked this question on the Friday
>night "chat", April 7th
>, 2000:
>

� Do you believe the Book of
>Mormon to be the
>actual historic record of the early inhabitants of
>this continent, delivered
>through divine means?
>
�
>

�� Kathy, I do not
>want to beg your question
>at all, but it is an extremely complex one that is
>difficult to respond
>to in this format.� I believe the Book of Mormon
>to be scripture.�
>All scripture has a historical rootedness
>that need
>to be understood, whether it is the Bible or
>the BofM or the D&C.
>
� But I cannot
>declare unequivocally
>that the BofM is an "actual historical
>record...."in the way you
>describe.� There are diverse pieces of
>evidence about that and
>I would be less than honest if I did not acknowledge
>it.
>

>Our task is not to spend an abundance of�
>our time trying to PROVE the historicity of the Book
>of Mormon.
>Our task is to use it as a second witness of Jesus
>Christ, to the extent it may speak to us in our
>individual ministry, and then to be ABOUT THE TASK of
>being the disciples described
>therein.
>

There are many places
>where the writers of
>the present "Restoration Studies 1-8 have stated much
>the same thoughts.�
>However, we are told that we should not believe what
>they say; we should
>instead believe that they actually say things that
>they do not believe
>or state. >color="#000099">
>

If� these same men
>were put on the stand
>in a court of law, they would have to tell the truth,
>or be guilty of perjury. >color="#000099">
>

Joanne
>
�
>
�

I find it humorous. Grant says that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ. A book cannot be a witness. It does not have the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, or touch. You can have a book in a room that a murder occurs in, and the book is no more of a witness than any other inanimate object.

Perhaps Grant misspoke. The LDS church refers to the Book of Mormon as Another Testament of Jesus Christ. If this is true, every word in the book would be written by people who actually witnessed Jesus Christ. But only a small part of the Book of Mormon is such a testimony. The part is found in the book of 3 Nephi. In 3 Nephi, Jesus appears to the Nephites and expounds His doctrine and gospel to them, along with establishing His ordinances and sacrament with them. Other parts of the Book of Mormon do contain a record of men who were visited by angels, or had visions, or spoke under the influence of the Spirit to reveal the things of God unto men. But those other parts are not testimonies of direct experiences with Jesus Christ. Does this take away from the Book of Mormon? Not at all.

The Book of Mormon is an ancient record containing the abridged history of people that lived on the American continents many centuries ago. This record contains testimonies of men who actually witnessed the Savior Jesus Christ, as well as the writings of other men who God revealed things to. If Grant had claimed this, I would have no problem with his answer. But he didn't. He said that he could not declare that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record. So, if the Book of Mormon is not an actual historical record, what does Grant mean when he says it is a second witness of Jesus Christ.

The obvious conclusion that we can arrive at is that Grant feels that the Book of Mormon is simply a product of the age that Joseph Smith lived in, and has no other value than other books and commentaries written by Reformers and Catholics alike. It would seem that the Book of Mormon, along with the Doctrine and Covenants, are just literary works of Joseph Smith, just like the books that were written by Martin Luther, John Wesley, Thomas Aquinas, and other theologians. If this conclusion is correct, then the Book of Mormon would not be a witness or testimony at all, since Joseph Smith would have written a fictional account of a people in ancient America, who wouldn't have existed or he could not know if they actually existed. The only thing written by Joseph Smith that could be a witness of Jesus Christ, is the first vision, because I think this is the only time that Joseph Smith saw or heard Jesus Christ, if Joseph was telling the truth about his experience. If Grant still holds to his statement, he would be a liar, because the Book of Mormon, if it is a book of fiction, would at best be hearsay, not a second witness or testimony. But the only way it could be hearsay, is if Joseph Smith had actually seen the people he would have written about or heard the testimonies of these people that he would have written about in the Book of Mormon.

It is clear that Grant put his foot in his mouth when trying to answer Kathy's questions. Now he knows what his shoe tastes like.

It will not be long before the Book of Mormon disappears entirely from the Community of Christ. With all the good books out there, why waste your time on a book that you do not believe is historically accurate or true.

Cezoram

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]