Hello to Tim Griffy

[Kishkumen]

A veteran of online Mormon discussions! I see you there! Welcome!

[tagriffy]

Thanks! I've been looking for a discussion to jump into, but haven't found anything that has appealed enough yet.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks! I've been looking for a discussion to jump into, but haven't found anything that has appealed enough yet.

What kind of topic would pique your interest? I’m sure more than a few board members would be happy to accommodate you.

- Doc

[tagriffy]

One thing I'd like to discuss is how to write about Book of Mormon interpretation from an explicitly Smithian point of view. I broached the topic on the other board. While there has been some useful discussion, I still have many uncertainties about how to move forward.

[Gadianton]

I'd say a great place to start would be the Reverend's own theory about the gold plates as an attraction. That conversation must have implications for how to interpret it from Smith's point of view.

[tagriffy]

Do you happen to have a link handy? If I know the Reverend well enough, our thoughts aren't too far apart.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What would be a “Smithian point of view”? That’s a term that can mean a lot of things.

- Doc

[Moksha]

What would be a “Smithian point of view”?

That you can walk on water with a few well-placed boards hidden under the surface.

[Kishkumen]

Have you had a chance to read Don Bradley’s book, Tim?

[tagriffy]

What would be a “Smithian point of view”? That’s a term that can mean a lot of things.

- Doc

As I'm using it, it denotes that Joseph Smith was the human author of the Book of Mormon. A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, the usual term was "environmentalist." But as the discussion on the other board established, that is now too confusing.

My working thesis is that Joseph was a mythmaker extraordinaire and the Book of Mormon is a modern myth.