Not historical?

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Angel
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 8:26 am

Not historical?

Post by Angel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:32 am

"President Nelson clarified that the Book of Mormon is not a historical textbook. Instead, it further defines many Bible teachings — while revealing new concepts and refuting many falsehoods, including the notion that revelation ended with the Bible and that one can be saved by grace alone."

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... sowfWpltjI

??
“You have learned something...That always feels at first as if you have lost something.” George Bernard Shaw
When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by 2bizE » Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:58 am

This isn’t the first time RMN has said this about the BoM. He told new mission presidents the same thing a few years ago. He must believe it. Does the BoM teach that we are not saved by grace alone?
~2bizE

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by nibbler » Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:08 am

I think people read too much into his statement. Saying the BoM is not a historical textbook is not the same as saying that the BoM stories are not historical.

If asked to clarify I think Nelson would say that the BoM relates real historical events but the value of the BoM is not in relaying history, it's in its teachings about Jesus.
We see things not as they are, but as we are ourselves. - H.M. Tomlinson

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by jfro18 » Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:47 am

I think this is probably Nelson's way of trying to diminish the importance of the historical truth while still maintaining that space for believers.

It's a good way to work with potential converts too because it can sidestep the historical issues and just say "it's based on historical events but still written by men, but the importance is the lessons that it teaches."

It also feels like what has been a very, very slow watering down of the historicity of the BoM by the church, where they are... I believe... going to eventually get to a point where they refer to it as a revelation and nothing more. We'll see on that one, but I think Soares really kicked that off at GC last year when calling it a revelation and not a translation.

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3189
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Not historical?

Post by wtfluff » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:02 am

Gaslighting: It's what LD$-Inc. does.
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

The Beauty of Gray

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: Not historical?

Post by Corsair » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:53 am

Neither historicity nor testimony of the Book of Mormon is a required belief in the temple recommend interview. This is one area of belief where wiggle room can be discussed. If you can provide the correct answers to the temple recommend questions and keep you mouth shut on any other issues then continuing church membership is not a problem.

Red Ryder
Posts: 3414
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:31 am

Perhaps it’s time they refresh the appearance of the book.

Get rid of the dark blue cover. Change it to a nice environmentally friendly green. Change the font to something warm and friendly. Perhaps one of those warm Mormon mommy blog fonts?

We should have a contest to redesign it.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by Yobispo » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:46 pm

This isn't really new, "not a textbook" has been said before. He also went on to talk about Jesus personally ministering to the people in the Americas, so he's still leaving room for it being historical, just not a "textbook". The bigger takeaway (I actually watched the whole talk) was his comment that it doesn't mention ALL of the people who were here. I think these little nuggets are the first steps in a baby-step process that will land on "it's a revealed story" in about 75 years. 75 years from now the most ardent TBM will scoff at the idea that God cursed people with dark skin.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by 2bizE » Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:02 pm

When RMN delivered this “not a historical textbook” statement, there is great irony in the other events around this visit. While there, the church presented a check for $2 million specifically for the First Nations (American Indians) to discover their ancestors….the dark skinned Lamanites of the BoM. Maybe that is why he said the BoM is not historical??
~2bizE

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 5722
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by Hagoth » Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:28 pm

It's weasel words.

Church: The Book of Mormon is true and historical.
Human: Then why isn't there any evidence to support it? And so much that refutes it?
Church: It's generally, overall true and historical but it's not a freakin' textbook, so don't think you can pin it down to specific, textbook style facts.
Human: So why shouldn't I be able to use the same metrics of truth and historicity that I would use elsewhere?
Church: The Book of Mormon is true and historical.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Angel
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Not historical?

Post by Angel » Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:11 pm

2bizE wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:02 pm
When RMN delivered this “not a historical textbook” statement, there is great irony in the other events around this visit. While there, the church presented a check for $2 million specifically for the First Nations (American Indians) to discover their ancestors….the dark skinned Lamanites of the BoM. Maybe that is why he said the BoM is not historical??
$2million... data fabrication business is getting greedy...

I mean... how generous of a charitable donation for the church, and wouldn't it be interesting if the church found data that no one else found validating its history....
“You have learned something...That always feels at first as if you have lost something.” George Bernard Shaw
When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

hmb
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:43 am

Re: Not historical?

Post by hmb » Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:40 am

So the Book of Mormon belongs in the Historical Fiction section. It fits in with The Work and the Glory series (South Park is more accurate). Maybe it's more along the lines of Aesop's Fables. Fictional characters to teach moral lessons in life. I grew up hearing the BOM was 100% correct while the Bible had human flaws. So now the BOM is not 100% correct?

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 5722
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by Hagoth » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:48 pm

hmb wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:40 am
So the Book of Mormon belongs in the Historical Fiction section. It fits in with The Work and the Glory series (South Park is more accurate). Maybe it's more along the lines of Aesop's Fables. Fictional characters to teach moral lessons in life. I grew up hearing the BOM was 100% correct while the Bible had human flaws. So now the BOM is not 100% correct?
But even historical fiction requires some basis in actual historical events. Sci-fi/fantasy is a better fit.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3189
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Not historical?

Post by wtfluff » Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:50 pm

Image

Ya'll know that the Corp.™ has changed the article to remove the word "historical" right?
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

The Beauty of Gray

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 4088
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Not historical?

Post by moksha » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:43 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:31 am
We should have a contest to redesign it.
I would like to see some Lord of the Rings-style maps.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 5722
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Not historical?

Post by Hagoth » Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:30 am

wtfluff wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:50 pm
Ya'll know that the Corp.™ has changed the article to remove the word "historical" right?
Wow, that's hilarious. Yet again the Mouthpiece of God has been censored by the Mouthpiece of the Mouthpiece of God. I hear they are going to metal-plate and wire his garment markings so his Remote Scrutinizer can deliver a painful corrective shock whenever he starts to drift off-message.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests