Themis wrote:What distinctions are you referring to?
There are no distinctions worthy of objection. It is your assertion that some religious paradigms are not "truth" compared to other religious paradigms.
... What value do they get? Is is all good? Is some of it causing harm? Do they recognize some of the harm it may be causing? On another thread some brought up some of the harm the LDS church causes. Now I would say other groups do as well. Some more, some less.
Yes, it is all "good" as long as it works for them and they don't cause harm for others. Harm is entirely separate from religious dogma, since the very same dogma can be entirely harmless if the believers choose so. The LDS Church does not cause harm because of the dogma, the harm is caused by the way it is practiced.
I am sure much of it is, but it has some real history from the start. The Book of Mormon never has, and still does not, other then from the 1800's.
The Bible's "history" is entirely manufactured to fit accepted facts. That Cyrus, et al. a handful of historical persons are included is obviously because the Bible was compiled contemporary to said-persons, or soon enough after them to deliberately make the Bible seem historically grounded; e.g. "There was in the days of Herod, king of Judea...."
You are right about the Book of Mormon being a composite of 19th century origins and influences such as popularly held conceptions vis-a-vis ancient American origins, etc. But it does include some fascinating pieces which defy explanation without going far beyond the simplest explanation, which is that God inspired the book and Joseph Smith dictated it. That is far more miraculous and implicit of God's will than the old, tired mishandled Bible. So critics look for an empirical explanation, even if it makes Joseph Smith even more unlikely than being a simple "conduit" of metaphysical inspiration.
Elsewhere I have proposed that all of the strange "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon are pointless objections, since "God" is not an anachronism! Every jot or tittle of historical fact (and "alternate historical" fact) is within the omniscient purview of "God". And "God" evidently has a sense of humor that peeks out of the entire debate over Book of Mormon origins.
Very incorrect. First these associations are not verified, and look to be the usual parallelism that is popular in apologetics. The Bible has known geography, people, and even some events.
So does the Book of Mormon. It starts in grounded Jewish historical tradition, in the "real world" of old archaeology. Ancient American archaeology is not nearly as inhabited or venerable a field as Old World archaeology of which biblical archaeology is a part.
Abraham is not a known person, he is mythical; so are Moses, David and Solomon, other than perhaps a singular extra-biblical artifact with a name that might be David's or Solomon's. There is no "temple of Solomon". No mighty city of Jerusalem at the time required for either king's reign. There is no Egyptian exodus or sojourn in the Sinai wilderness for forty years, no conquest of Canaan, etc. Inclusion of Egyptian Pharaohs et al. historical persons is quite immaterial as "fact" if the mention of such is in a mythical context.
The church makes me feel good. Therefore Joseph saw God and the Book of Mormon is a real story about a real people.
That does not follow. The Church makes me feel good, but personally I don't believe in "real people" being knowable. Too much water/time has passed under the bridge to make them more than remotely accessible. Humans rewrite their "history" continually and so "history" is not really what happened, it is what we say happened.
People can believe what ever they want to. I tend to think the truth is better. More accurate beliefs allow individual or groups to make better decisions for themselves that would be more likely to create success and happiness. Less accurate. less likely.
"What is truth?" The question remains. If "God" reveals truth to you it won't match someone else's truth, or the truth of six billion other souls.
Even Mormon truth does not form a monolith of agreement among the membership and does not admit close examination. That is why the questions are few and general. Specifics will point out right away the huge variation in personal "truthiness".
As long as your truth and my truth don't go to war, we should find sufficient room to coexist....