Approaching Mormon History

[_Droopy]

Yes. And a double issue. For you see, not only are they now embracing the Newsroom, another Newsroom article with the Church's view on Church history includes the historicity of the Book of Mormon as doctrine; "literal".

Hmmmmmmmmm...

That's going to create "no small stir and division." It also slams some window sills down hard on some very sensitive fingers. The "19th century production" thesis isn't open for either the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, for those still in the Church but who don't quite want to be of it.

[_Darth J]

Yes. And a double issue. For you see, not only are they now embracing the Newsroom, another Newsroom article with the Church's view on Church history includes the historicity of the Book of Mormon as doctrine; "literal".

Hmmmmmmmmm...

That's going to create "no small stir and division." It also slams some window sills down hard on some very sensitive fingers. The "19th century production" thesis isn't open for either the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, for those still in the Church but who don't quite want to be of it.

I guess we'll have to rely on sources other than anonymous, self-serving PR statements from the Church to make determinations such as these. It's too bad that those who are not enlightened by the restored gospel must instead turn to objective reality to evaluate the truth value of a given claim.

[_zeezrom]

Can Jeff Holland have faith in me?

[_Nightlion]

for those still in the Church but who don't quite want to be of it.

I do not understand what he means by in the Church but not of it. Because the Church is in the gospel but not of it. And their gospel is in the scriptures but not of it. And the Scriptures are in the Church but the Church is not of the scriptures, meaning they do not DO ACCORDING TO THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN. So how can you be in the Church and not of it? There can be no such designation. Everyone IN the Church is not OF it. What does he mean?

[_Fence Sitter]

Will Bother Newsroom be speaking at the next conference?

[_bcspace]

Will Bother Newsroom be speaking at the next conference?

Wouldn't matter....until he's officially published. You could speak in Conference (or write an article for the Ensign) and if published, it would be official doctrine.

[_Alfredo]

Something I hadn't noticed is not long after the Church published it's excellent summary on doctrine, it also published this:

Approaching Mormon History

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was asked how faith interacts with history. He emphasized that ultimately spiritual matters cannot be empirically verified, but require faith: “It will forever come to faith, or it isn't religion in any way that I understanid religion.” Furthermore, Elder Holland said that there is no need to hide from Church history and that it should be accepted for what it is.

Exclusive faith in the Mormon paradigm, more correctly.

It is admitted that trust in any religious paradigm will forever be reduced to faith, but it will never be admitted that, by definition, adopting faith in one paradigm is no more a valid presupposition than faith in any incompatible paradigm.

The nature of faith requires that all possible subjects of faith are equally valid foundations for whatever exclusive determinations might ever choose between incompatible subjects of faith.

Having exclusive faith will never make any sense because faith is a helplessly broken and epistemically unreliable idea.

So sure, nothing matters but faith...

Makes it super simple to refute any Mormon idea in one elegant stroke.

[_bcspace]

Makes it super simple to refute any Mormon idea in one elegant stroke.

Only for one who is faithless.

[_Alfredo]

Makes it super simple to refute any Mormon idea in one elegant stroke.

Only for one who is faithless.

There were several words in my last post. You seem unaware that most of them clearly explained why it will never make sense to hold exclusive faith. That is, the stance from which you give this response makes no sense.

I'd prefer a discussion to unsupported assertions.

[_sock puppet]

Something I hadn't noticed is not long after the Church published it's excellent summary on doctrine, it also published this:

Approaching Mormon History

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was asked how faith interacts with history. He emphasized that ultimately spiritual matters cannot be empirically verified, but require faith: “It will forever come to faith, or it isn't religion in any way that I understand religion.” Furthermore, Elder Holland said that there is no need to hide from Church history and that it should be accepted for what it is.

Indeed. It comes down to faith--belief in that for which there is no evidence. Count me out. And I've accepted Church history for what it is--the story of a fraud being concocted and perpetrated.

What more needs to be said?