“This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God… If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it… If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments – by evidences adduced from scripture and reason…” — Elder Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2
“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…” –President Ezra Taft Benson
“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.” — Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64
“Some who term themselves believing Latter-day Saints are advocating that Latter-day Saints should abandon claims that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. They are promoting the feasibility of reading and using the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a pious fiction with some valuable contents. These practitioners of so-called “higher criticism” raise the question of whether the Book of Mormon, which our prophets have put forward as the preeminent scripture of this dispensation, is fact or fable–history or just a story.” — Dallin H. Oaks
These or similar statements are a familiar refrain to every Latter-Day Saint. If you’re like me, you heard it from seminary teachers, youth leaders, bishops, and mission presidents. You heard it at church, in general conference and at EFY.
No one can argue that these are bold assertions of testimony in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. They carry a significant rhetorical weight, as they draw from their audience immediate reaction and demand an immediate (at least, internal) judgment. The inherent problem with this though, is that something like the historical status of the Book of Mormon is not something that can be determined in an immediate way.
The bigger problem for many of those struggling with doubts and questions, is that they HAVE confronted this question head on, and after considerable effort and exhaustive research, have still come up short. If a person weighs the available evidences for and against the truth claims of a historical Book of Mormon, often they can’t reconcile them enough to honestly affirm it’s veracity.
At that point, the counsel of their own leaders seems to demand that they abandon the church, or even, you could argue, that they denounce it. Church leaders often accuse apostates of dishonest intentions (I.e. pride, desire to sin), but it could be argued that the church essentially demanded absolutist responses when they set up this false dichotomy.
And it IS a false dichotomy. Because like almost everything in life, the matter of the truth or falsity of the Book of Mormon record is not that simple.
Suppose, for example, it is all lies and hogwash… Suppose every word of it was manufactured by Joseph or Sidney or Oliver. Can you deny the force for good that Mormonism has been in the world? When you dismiss the idea that native Americans could have descended from ancient Israelites, do you, of necessity, also dismiss the millions of lives of Christian discipleship the words of the book has inspired?
Likewise, if the Book of Mormon is true, does that mitigate the horror of the massacre at Mountain Meadows? Does it justify the treatment of blacks or women in the church? Should the fact of its veracity render our leaders immune to criticism? Even when the criticism amounts to, “Be less like the Nephites”? (D&C 38:39)
When you consider the implications of the keystone dichotomy, it becomes much easier to accept the possibility that truth is actually somewhere in the muddy middle. Maybe the Book of Mormon doesn’t have to be a historical record to be inspired scripture. Maybe what is taught in the book demands more of us than weighing evidences regarding its origin.
For my own part, I have decided it teaches us to put the needs of other people before myself. Thus, spending all of one’s time at the scales of historicity is a luxury a disciple does not have.
Jared Mooney
Jared Mooney is a video and audio systems engineer from Boston, MA. He has the world's awesomest wife, daughter and puppy. Argue if you must.
All posts by Jared Mooney
I reject the keystone idea, and those strong statements from many leaders. I like Hugh B. Brown’s quote from his talk Freedom on the Mind. “Revealed insights should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers—that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not…”
The book of Mormon has been a positive influencing factor on my life and I believe it contains much good. While I can’t prove whether it is historical or not, and I personally think the evidence against it being historical is more compelling, I can say that for me it contains many teachings that I find compelling and motivating and pointing to the gospel of Jesus. I appreciate the good while also acknowledging some of the more troubling elements in the text. In this way, it is a good companion to other scriptures that also contain inspiring and challenging issues in them.
I have never understood the argument that if the Book of Mormon is historical then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s true Church on the earth. For one thing, this ignores the other Mormon movements that are/have been in existence–the Community of Christ, The Strangites, the various polygamous off-shoots, and most of the early Apostles. These all believed the Book of Mormon to be true but none of them believe in the divine authority of the modern LDS church.
QED
Great idea, “the Book of Mormon doesn’t have to be a historical record to be inspired scripture.” But church leaders do claim that it is historical, and they connect the value of its inspiration to its historicity.
The “muddy middle” you wish to live in may be accepted by leaders in private, but their public declarations do not accept it. This “bizarre middle ground” you wish to take “is an unacceptable position to take-morally, literarily, historically or theologically.”
When it comes to declaring church positions, should I listen to the reasoned opinion of a blogger named Jared, or the oft repeated statements of the self-proclaimed prophets, seers, and revelators of the LDS religion?
The “keystone dichotomy” is exactly what church leaders wasn’t. It is a line in the sand to get one either all in or all out. They don’t want luke warm members. They want folks who’ll give 10% of their money, 1.5-2 years of their lives (or at least their children’s), donate 5+ hours/week to the church, and accommodate ones politics and lifestyle to church standards.
The church would rather be the few but organized than the many but disorganized. I see very little falseness in these quotes. It’s a very powerful idea designed trump ones own reasoning and doubt your doubts.
I think the point the author is trying to make is that if the book is fiction, that does not automatically make it evil like the past prophets and apostles have said. That’s the false dichotomy. If you conclude the book is true, then yes you should be all in. But if you cannot conclude the book is true – either you conclude it is fiction or remain undecided – this doesn’t lead to the automatic opposite of condemning it to “hades” in the words of melodramatic Holland. You are left in a much more difficult position. He author is essentially arguing for a pragmatic approach, which you are condemning. On the contrary, I think this is a prudent and acceptable position (although I am more conclusive against the book as historical). William James, one of the most prominent and insightful american philosophers and psychologists argued the pragmatic position. He did not specifically apply this to the Book of Mormon, but his approach is very similar to the author of this article. I think you are rashly dismissing a reasonable viewpoint.
"Can you deny the force for good that Mormonism has been in the world?" When I look at the self-hatred, criminal and political persecution, and spiritual destruction it's caused in my own life as a Gay man, yes. Yes, I can deny it.
I look forward to this rational, because I can’t see how it doesn’t matter: if the Nephities didn’t exisit, there is no record and no angel to Kickstart the whole thing, and Joseph clearly was lying for power, money and women. That means that no matter how much good is done by Mormons, following it’s teachings help no more than those of Hindus, Muslims, Jedi or monster hunter- and provides no more answers. Am I missing something?
♡
Nona,
That was supposed to be directed at Connell above.
"Suppose, for example, it is all lies and hogwash… Suppose every word of it was manufactured by Joseph or Sidney or Oliver. Can you deny the force for good that Mormonism has been in the world? When you dismiss the idea that native Americans could have descended from ancient Israelites, do you, of necessity, also dismiss the millions of lives of Christian discipleship the words of the book has inspired?" No, because these people, like others in different churches believe in Jesus Christ. All of the Christian Churches have some degree of truth in them. They also have varying degrees of error. Errors were introduced as early as the first century. There is no perfect church; that is to say, all organized religion is corrupt. In Romans, Paul tells us what we must do to be saved. Most scholars accept Paul as author of Romans and that he wrote it about 54-55 AD.
I would feel so much better about remaining in the Church for the community and the important social interactions. However, the Church invariably has found itself on the wrong isde of history. It promoted that horrible oppressive institution of polygamy, considered slavery "Divine institution", is against the ERA, is homophobic, and at its core cannot escape the racist doctrines of "white and delightsome" vs "dark and loathsome".
KMarkP,
That’s because the argument only really works if you only talk about the watered down version of Church History. If you throw all those complexities into it, then it loses power. I think that’s the biggest argument people make for NOT bringing those complexities into lesson manuals and church publications.
As Elders Oaks and Packer would remind us, not everything that’s true is useful. In this case, the Church doesn’t see taking away that powerful argument to be a useful thing, therefore there is a good reason to avoid bringing up any complexities. That’s why the missionaries never teach it. We don’t learn about it in Primary or youth Sunday schools. The Church will make you go out of your way to find that information, because the simplified version has proven so “useful”.
I remember as I began going through my crisis of faith, I drew out a giant mind map of things that I “knew” with certainty, all because of my answer to a prayer about the Book of Mormon. Because of that, everything else had all fallen into place, because I’d always been taught that all those pieces were there and fit together perfectly… that was the only key to finding out if the whole thing was for real. When I started to have questions about the BoM and JS, my whole world came crashing down ,and I really did believe I’d have to toss the entire thing, as that’s what I’d been taught as well.
I think that for the Church, this simplified history, and strong form of this argument have been very useful. I think it will continue until the complexities make their way to enough people to make the number of people undergoing similar crises exceed those who stay strong because of it. Then, give it another generation, and the Church will pull away from it and make some positive changes. (Maybe that’s just the cynic in me)
I joined the church at 15, served a mission and married in the temple. I a what you would call a true believing member. The only doubts I have are those things that question what I know to be true.
I found the Book of Mormon. I converted me to Christ. It is what it claims to be, a record of a destroyed civilization. The proof comes from the Holy Ghost. That will never change or I should say, the church will always use the process that leads us to seek inspiration from the HOly Ghost.
Understanding the Holy Spirit is what helps member when we have faith crisis. I had mine and the missionaries lifted me out of it when they told me about Joseph Smith Jr.
I found out about everything from the missionaries to do with the church. If it were not true, I would be an agnostic like I had intended before discovering the book of Mormon.
If it is hogwash, so is the God who deceived me in telling He was there only to deceive me again that the missionaries taught His Truth in the fullness.
I cannot un-have my experiences with God. I say the church is the closest organization on earth to that which is run in heaven.
Does God allow His church to make mistakes? Yes, growing pains. He will never let our course take us away from His goal, to exalt us through His Son Jesus Christ.
No one said the people who officiate on God’s behalf in the church are perfect. The doctrine is pure and the people are open to revelation. That is enough to guide us through our weakness and heal any wounds inflicted by priesthood bans and other issues.
He will try our faith. I know that! He will see if we will treat his sons and daughters who happen to have same sex attraction with the compassion He would.
He will see if we treat the new Black family in the ward like brothers and sisters in love or as oddities and novelties.
I am so sick of priesthood ban discussion!
Also, burning a Black church is horrible, but it will mot destroy society and the church the way same sex marriage will if the teachings of heterosexual marriage are not identified early and constantly as the Lord’s stand.
I expect we will be hearing about proper marriage until there is an amendment enforcing the traditional form of marriage or the Savior returns to do away with evil governmental practices.
Thank you for the testimony Rodric. It has to be pointed out however, that those same spiritual promptings you site are not unique to Mormonism. In fact, converts to any religion will site the same feelings as they change from Christian to Mulsim, or Mormon to Evangelical. Many BIC Mormons try their whole lives to have such feelings and don’t, leaving them feeling broken and unworthy of God’s love (myself included).These feelings are a well studied physcological phenomia. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s not God speaking to the person (you in this case) but it does mean we should find evidence to back up feelings and promptings to know they are of divine origin and not the desires of our heart. Rodric Johnson,