That's a great point. Why doesn't the official LDS church position go that route?
DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.
I see. I haven't followed this too closely, but just thinking it through as a person who grew up LDS, I can see the point. It would be catastrophic for my older generation of LDS relatives to have to admit the Book of Mormon was not actually historical. They were willing to destroy people's lives and reputations over that, and to admit it now would be impossible, because they would also have to acknowledge how many people they shunned and or drove away. My younger LDS relatives, as far as I can tell, don't even discuss the issue or address the concerns, at all. They don't because they can't. They seem to be engaging in Mormonism more like its a social club. Interestingly, it's a social club they have no problem including my children in, even though they are not LDS.
It's good to see, because in the end, family meant more than religion. If just took the loss of a generation (mine) to get there.
That's a great point. Why doesn't the official LDS church position go that route?
DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.
For the Book of Mormon this observation makes sense. It is possible to run a church on a Book of Mormon as fiction but it would loose what makes it individual and what holds it together. Perhaps the Community of Christ can find its way past these impasses.
I am not Strauss expert but I understand he did not think there was enough historical knowledge to base faith on but the story holds due to its mythical strength and the truth element in that myth. That general idea could have value for even a variety of views on the degree of historical reality to the Jesus story. (I understand Strauss thought there was some sort of real Jesus.)
But the whole question of history and scripture that Kishkumen pointed out is tricky and at least effects how one understands scripture. The Bible is certainly historical on the level of chronicling the development and experience of faith for a real group of people. (There may be sequence ambiguities in the presentation of that development.) That presentation includes poetry oratory exhortation and fiction. There are episodes where fact and fiction are difficult to distinguish. It is throughout the words of real people giving voice to their inspiration, understanding, and hope. I think these historical connections are critical to giving the Bible value and make it usable ongoing even if some material in it is primitive and out of date. Reading the Bible is undertaking a pilgrimage of faith, a path towards the future, a historical trajectory.
drumdude wrote:DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.
What about Zelph? The apologists have a concerted effort saying Joseph Smith was wrong about Book of Mormon geography as he clearly assumed much of it took place at the hill Cumorah. Heartlanders feel the same way about the LGT. There is clearly plenty of room for denying Book of Mormon history and remaining faithful, as the apologists have paved this path themselves.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
drumdude wrote:DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.
What about Zelph? The apologists have a concerted effort saying Joseph Smith was wrong about Book of Mormon geography as he clearly assumed much of it took place at the hill Cumorah. Heartlanders feel the same way about the LGT. There is clearly plenty of room for denying Book of Mormon history and remaining faithful, as the apologists have paved this path themselves.
I think it’s the way forward. But it does pain me to see how the Community of Christ has floundered since taking the approach.
I can definitely understand why the LDS leaders would want to wait and delay taking this approach as long as possible.
What about Zelph? The apologists have a concerted effort saying Joseph Smith was wrong about Book of Mormon geography as he clearly assumed much of it took place at the hill Cumorah. Heartlanders feel the same way about the LGT. There is clearly plenty of room for denying Book of Mormon history and remaining faithful, as the apologists have paved this path themselves.
I think it’s the way forward. But it does pain me to see how the Community of Christ has floundered since taking the approach.
That's a great point. Why doesn't the official LDS church position go that route?
DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.
Not only that, where would it leave the Witnesses? Cruise Lady? I suspect DCP is less concerned about the implications for the Church, and is more bothered about where such a shift would leave his own credibility. He’s heavily invested in its historicity.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
General Heber J. Zelph roamed far and wide outside of the Limited Geographic Area, but he did so on the express permission of the Nephite Brethren. He was not loan-shifting or using any means of illicit travel.
General Zelph helped spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, and MG can give you citations about that which came to pass.
