Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm being a bit facetious when using the word "convert". Although I would expect that many here are more willing to look at almost any kind of environmental/naturalistic explanation rather than what Joseph Smith testified/said in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

How much time have you spent exploring the supernatural origins of Zoroastrianism, or Islam? Do you assume environmental/naturalistic explanations for Chukwu, Roog, Olodumare, Ngai, Nyame, Mawa-Lisa, Tirawa, or Viracocha?

Have you spent as much time seeking divine confirmation of the prophet movements of the Winnebago, or the second Ghost Dance? Do you assume the reality of Maui and Ulupoka? Do you revere and worship Sina, or Hina? Do you accept the divine origins of the atua, or do you assume environmental/naturalistic explanations?

Have you devoted an equal amount of time exercising faith in the curanderos as you have the priesthood? Have you spent as much time listening to the counsel of the Goldes and Moluccan shamans as you have the LDS general authorities?

Obviously these are all rhetorical questions, as the answer is obvious. Perhaps in exploring these questions though, you might find why the default position isn't a supernatural story of angels, slippery treasures, peep stones, sending people on missions and then marrying their wives, and pre-Columbian Israelites.

I don't need to explain how the oral traditions of the atua came to be any more than I need to explain how the Book of Mormon came to be. The answer to those two is the same as the 10,000+ other deities, and oral/written holy traditions throughout history. Humans doing human things. But hey, maybe you got lucky, and just happened to be born in a time and place where you could be one of the .001% of people to ever live who actually got to worship the right deity and holy tradition, and it's just by chance that the one right religion happens to be so obviously ridiculous to the majority of people.

[MG 2.0]

I'm being a bit facetious when using the word "convert". Although I would expect that many here are more willing to look at almost any kind of environmental/naturalistic explanation rather than what Joseph Smith testified/said in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

How much time have you spent exploring the supernatural origins of Zoroastrianism, or Islam? Do you assume environmental/naturalistic explanations for Chukwu, Roog, Olodumare, Ngai, Nyame, Mawa-Lisa, Tirawa, or Viracocha?

Have you spent as much time seeking divine confirmation of the prophet movements of the Winnebago, or the second Ghost Dance? Do you assume the reality of Maui and Ulupoka? Do you revere and worship Sina, or Hina? Do you accept the divine origins of the atua, or do you assume environmental/naturalistic explanations?

Have you devoted an equal amount of time exercising faith in the curanderos as you have the priesthood? Have you spent as much time listening to the counsel of the Goldes and Moluccan shamans as you have the LDS general authorities?

Obviously these are all rhetorical questions, as the answer is obvious. Perhaps in exploring these questions though, you might find why the default position isn't a supernatural story of angels, slippery treasures, peep stones, sending people on missions and then marrying their wives, and pre-Columbian Israelites.

I don't need to explain how the oral traditions of the atua came to be any more than I need to explain how the Book of Mormon came to be. The answer to those two is the same as the 10,000+ other deities, and oral/written holy traditions throughout history. Humans doing human things. But hey, maybe you got lucky, and just happened to be born in a time and place where you could be one of the .001% of people to ever live who actually got to worship the right deity and holy tradition, and it's just by chance that the one right religion happens to be so obviously ridiculous to the majority of people.

Which model of the universe is the true model? Is the actual truth of this answer absolute? Can all the models be true? In this case is truth 'relative' ?

Cyclic/Oscillating Universe Models
Steady-State Theory
String Theory and Brane Cosmology
Eternal Inflation

In your sample size showing various belief systems or modes of worship is the actual truth to the answer requested absolute? Can all of the belief systems and/or modes of worship be true? In this case is truth 'relative' ?

If there WAS one of these belief systems or modes of worship that IS true, how would you know? What would you look for?

You're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right?

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

You're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right?

Regards,
MG

You're not clinging to one of the thousands of bubbles in the bath, claiming it's actually a baby, right?

[MG 2.0]

You're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right?

Regards,
MG

You're not clinging to one of the thousands of bubbles in the bath, claiming it's actually a baby, right?

I'm more interested in your comments in response to the other questions I asked.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

You're not clinging to one of the thousands of bubbles in the bath, claiming it's actually a baby, right?

I'm more interested in your comments in response to the other questions I asked.

Regards,
MG

I'm not a physicist, so I have no idea which one the cosmological theories has the most evidence for it currently. Are there physicists going around bearing their testimonies that one of these is the one true model, and not a theory at all?

Since you appear to think that cosmological theories are analogous to what I posted though:

You're saying that all of the other religions and deities I mentioned are equally "true" as Mormonism, and Mormonism is merely one theory that potentially has equal validity to Norse Paganism? Or are you saying that there are mathematical models, and observational studies, which have been employed and published in peer reviewed journals advocating for Mormonism above all other religions?

Personally, I don't know that physics, mathematics, and observational data has much to offer in determining that an angel with a flaming sword commanding adultery is the most likely religious theory out of the tens of thousands.

[MG 2.0]

I'm more interested in your comments in response to the other questions I asked.

Regards,
MG

I'm not a physicist, so I have no idea which one the cosmological theories has the most evidence for it currently. Are there physicists going around bearing their testimonies that one of these is the one true model, and not a theory at all?

Since you appear to think that cosmological theories are analogous to what I posted though:

You're saying that all of the other religions and deities I mentioned are equally "true" as Mormonism, and Mormonism is merely one theory that potentially has equal validity to Norse Paganism?

No. Only one of the theories of the beginnings of the universe is true. Or another theory that hasn't been proposed as of yet. I'm suggesting that the same may be true with religions. They may all have connections with the unknown. But not all of them can be absolutely true. That honor can only go to one.

Or are you saying that there are mathematical models, and observational studies, which have been employed and published in peer reviewed journals advocating for Mormonism above all other religions?

I don't think God works in that fashion. If God reveals His truth he does it through either the Light of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. Both of these modes of inspiration/revelation being uniquely packaged and delivered to individuals 'where they are'.

Personally, I don't know that physics, mathematics, and observational data has much to offer in determining that an angel with a flaming sword commanding adultery is the most likely religious theory out of the tens of thousands.

I wouldn't expect so either.

I do think there is more to LDS theology than what you are claiming here.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

If Mormonism is true, Mormon God coerced Emma Smith with an angel with a flaming sword.

I have enough intrinsic morality to know that was wrong. And I’ll be happy in one of the 5,000 levels of Mormon heaven away from that despicable being.

[MG 2.0]

If Mormonism is true, Mormon God coerced Emma Smith with an angel with a flaming sword.

I have enough intrinsic morality to know that was wrong. And I’ll be happy in one of the 5,000 levels of Mormon heaven away from that despicable being.

The story of the angel with the flaming sword is one of the more troubling elements in early LDS history, and it understandably raises serious ethical concerns. Believers look at this narrative asking questions as to how it fits into broader questions about divine command and human agency.

I respect your stance. If there are 5,000 levels of heaven, I hope yours comes with good coffee, no flaming swords, and a robust moral philosophy department.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right?

Regards,
MG

You're not clinging to one of the thousands of bubbles in the bath, claiming it's actually a baby, right?

Regarding this bizarre mopologist claim that supernatural 'communications' should be considered equivalent to things learned through the application of science, your response summed up the issue perfectly:

...Personally, I don't know that physics, mathematics, and observational data has much to offer in determining that an angel with a flaming sword commanding adultery is the most likely religious theory out of the tens of thousands...

[MG 2.0]

You're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right?

Regards,
MG

You're not clinging to one of the thousands of bubbles in the bath, claiming it's actually a baby, right?

You seem to be saying that mistaking something ordinary (a bubble) for something extraordinary (a baby) is what is going on here as I point out that Mormonism is actually different than the other religions...in/as being True. It is true that the LDS Church is just one among many other systems of belief and worship. As there are also a number of ways/theories of looking at the origins of the universe. The question at the end of the day and what I've been proposing is that the CofJCofLDS is not "ordinary" but "extraordinary". I can't prove that to you just as I can't prove any one of the four models of the origins of the universe as being extraordinary over the others.

It isn't a perfect apple to apples comparison, I know. And it's different strokes for different folks.

But I think it supports the point I'm trying to make. Many people after doing their homework in study/prayer/reasoning defer to the LDS church as being extraordinary among all other systems of belief and worship. Not to discount the value that those other systems of belief and worship might not be of value as are various theories of universe origins.

Regards,
MG