Email from my GA friend

[_cinepro]

Posted: Today, 6:52 am

That's a good one. But this guy should start a blog....

[_Dr. Shades]

Well, Runtu? If you weren't April Fooling us, is Neil Linden Andersen the guy with whom you've been exchanging e-mails?

[_beastie]

well, if this was an April Fool's joke, then fate certainly has played a helpful hand. I have been listening to Elder Andersen's interview with reporters, and in response to a question about what the calling of apostle meant to him (or something along those lines) he said (paraphrasing, of course), that he could bear certain witness that JC is the Savior. Nothing remarkable there - but he said something like "AT LEAST IN THAT ONE AREA" he could bear that sure witness, and then something about the calling provoking further growth.

Of course, this is hardly any solid evidence, but, as I said, the way it helped the "joke" along is funny.

[_Trevor]

I hope his interesting answer does not indicate that he is uncertain about many of the LDS Church's unique claims. I have no desire to see the Utah church go the way the Midwest one did. I have no problem with the CoC, but I like the idea of a diversity of views existing, and I don't like the reduction of Mormonism into yet another flavor of Protestantism. This is one reason why I am not overly fond of the theological arguments of Ostler, Peterson, et al. I found myself much more sympathetic to the views of Eugene England on the nature of Deity. I also like Bushman's discussion of narrative theology. No offense to the philosophers, but there is something about their enterprise that does not appeal to me (and I actually like philosophy).

[_beastie]

Trevor,

Did you listen to his interview yourself and notice the same thing? I'd like to hear from others who heard it to reassure me that it wasn't a preexisting bias that made me "hear" it in the way I did.

I do agree that if the LDS church goes the way of RLDS it will dramatically alter its future. I've thought they've been at a crossroads for a while, and the fork in the road is a more liberalized theology versus standing firm in the trenches. To me, given my area of interest, a lot of this revolves around how the Book of Mormon will be interpreted - or allowed to be interpreted - in the future.

[_Trevor]

Trevor,

Did you listen to his interview yourself and notice the same thing? I'd like to hear from others who heard it to reassure me that it wasn't a preexisting bias that made me "hear" it in the way I did.

I am sorry, beastie; I did not actually hear the interview. I probably share your bias. It could be that he was simply saying that he pretends to no great knowledge and prophecy beyond his testimony of Christ.

do agree that if the LDS church goes the way of RLDS it will dramatically alter its future. I've thought they've been at a crossroads for a while, and the fork in the road is a more liberalized theology versus standing firm in the trenches. To me, given my area of interest, a lot of this revolves around how the Book of Mormon will be interpreted - or allowed to be interpreted - in the future.

You have hit on something that has really got me thinking lately. It seems that the historicity of the Book of Abraham is something that is being increasingly nuanced by the apologists. Recent comments by David Bokovoy were very intriguing. It seems that the most important aspect of the Book of Abraham's historicity is, in the end, the validity of its truths, not in Smith's translation, the precise nature of the documents it was inspired by, etc. Could it be that Book of Mormon historicity will gradually come to be seen in the same way? If apologists disagree, I would like to know what makes the Book of Mormon fundamentally different outside of the vanishing of the plate which, ironically, would seem to make the claim to that book's antiquity more resilient.

[_Jersey Girl]

I want to know about this portion of your post, Trevor.

You have hit on something that has really got me thinking lately. It seems that the historicity of the Book of Abraham is something that is being increasingly nuanced by the apologists. Recent comments by David Bokovoy were very intriguing. It seems that the most important aspect of the Book of Abraham's historicity is, in the end, the validity of its truths, not in Smith's translation, the precise nature of the documents it was inspired by, etc. Could it be that Book of Mormon historicity will gradually come to be seen in the same way?

Two questions.

1. When you say "truths" are you thinking in terms of philosophical truths only?

2. If so, what philosophical truths are contained in the Book of Mormon that are not found in the Bible?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Trevor,

I hope his interesting answer does not indicate that he is uncertain about many of the LDS Church's unique claims. I have no desire to see the Utah church go the way the Midwest one did. I have no problem with the CoC, but I like the idea of a diversity of views existing, and I don't like the reduction of Mormonism into yet another flavor of Protestantism. This is one reason why I am not overly fond of the theological arguments of Ostler, Peterson, et al. I found myself much more sympathetic to the views of Eugene England on the nature of Deity. I also like Bushman's discussion of narrative theology. No offense to the philosophers, but there is something about their enterprise that does not appeal to me (and I actually like philosophy).

I actually do hope the LDS church moves in a direction similar to the CoC or modern Protestantism because I see these religions (and others) progressing toward equality and acceptance. (Not that there isn't some resistence).

Actually, I think there will come a time when the church has to move toward more mainstream values and beliefs to be accepted, just like they had to change their views on blacks, marriage, birth control, Native Americans, Evolution, etc. etc. etc.

You know, further light and knowledge and all that!

The LDS church moves along with society they just follow behind by a few decades or so.

~td~

[_truth dancer]

You have hit on something that has really got me thinking lately. It seems that the historicity of the Book of Abraham is something that is being increasingly nuanced by the apologists. Recent comments by David Bokovoy were very intriguing. It seems that the most important aspect of the Book of Abraham's historicity is, in the end, the validity of its truths, not in Smith's translation, the precise nature of the documents it was inspired by, etc. Could it be that Book of Mormon historicity will gradually come to be seen in the same way? If apologists disagree, I would like to know what makes the Book of Mormon fundamentally different outside of the vanishing of the plate which, ironically, would seem to make the claim to that book's antiquity more resilient.

About four years ago, in the LDS Sk Conference, there was a rather shocking talk given by a prominent member in our area where he basically came out and said the Book of Mormon was not to be taken literally or historically. Not exactly in those words but close enough; the whole talk was about what one could or could not have a testimony of. It caused quite a bit of interest to many people including my TBM DH who looked at me in shock. (I actually posted this on the FAIR board at the time).

I don't hear many talks from GAs about anything historical in the Book of Mormon anymore; seems to me they are altering their approach to focus on the teachings that are "true" rather than the Book of Mormon as a true book.

[_Trevor]

I actually do hope the LDS church moves in a direction similar to the CoC or modern Protestantism because I see these religions (and others) progressing toward equality and acceptance. (Not that there isn't some resistence).

They are also, arguably, hurdling toward utter irrelevance. I have no problem with values like "equality" and "acceptance." The question is whether simply joining the Protestant fold is the only or best way of going about this. Now, the CoC leadership made a deliberate decision to move in that direction, and I think that even some of them think they went a little too far. I believe it is possible to embrace the same values without becoming more like everyone else in terms of theology and practice.