Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[huckelberry]

It would be more accurate to say that the LDS Church is just one among many other systems of belief and worship that claim to be different than all the other beliefs and systems, as their beliefs are the real extraordinary beliefs that are really True.

Just as multiple cosmological models that I provided compete with each other to explain the universe, and only one, or possibly none, may ultimately be correct, the wide and varied number of religious truth claims doesn’t imply relativism...it just underscores the difficulty of discernment.

Cosmologists don’t dismiss all models because there are many...they test, refine, and seek coherence. In the same vein many members of the LDS church engage in a process of study, prayer, and life experience which leads us to conclude that the LDS Church is not just another bubble, but something qualitatively different.

The presence of many bubbles as I mentioned earlier doesn’t preclude the possibility of a baby. The real question is: what criteria do we use to tell the difference?

And at the very top of the list of criteria is the question of "Is there a Creator God?" And also that the means necessary to determine this question involves something other than the 'tools' that secular/agnostic/atheist critics are willing to use.

So, we end up at an impasse. Every time.

Regards,
MG

MG , I think you are correct to say that the number of other religions that exist does not determine whether LDS is true or not true oe perhaps a mix of both(my view). So what criteria do we use. Believing there is a creator God would be a step toward believing LDS. However numerous millions believe there is a creator God. For believers claiming an Angel involved is not a complete deal breaker. Further criteria arise. Consider the historical evidence. People also should ask if beliefs help human growth understanding and care. People can ask if a religions ideas are coherent and not contradictory enough to encourage learning and not demanding unthinking acceptance.

For Christian believers the question arises as to how well the current idea stands on the foundations of the faith.

[MG 2.0]

Just as multiple cosmological models that I provided compete with each other to explain the universe, and only one, or possibly none, may ultimately be correct, the wide and varied number of religious truth claims doesn’t imply relativism...it just underscores the difficulty of discernment.

I didn't say it implied relativism, I'm just saying you can't one-up other religions by saying things like, "we know ours is true while you only believe yours is." You seem to be arguing for the veracity of the truth claims by insisting on the fervor of the truth claims; putting a capitol "T" on yours as if nobody ever thought of doing that with theirs.

Conviction doesn't necessarily prove anything. Look around, right? And fervor isn't a substitute for evidence. Granted. I suppose the question might be asked, " What criteria shall/are we to use to distinguish the signal from the noise?" I've brought that up previously. I suppose any one of us ought to be humble enough to recognize that our own filters might be flawed.

If conviction alone were currency many religious persons would be billionaires. Those within the CoJCofLDS might shout "True!" along with other folks that have various religious impulses and traditions. We are attuned to a certain frequency/filter just as many others are.

My intent now and in the past is not to "one up" on any other religious system as long as they are bringing people to a healthy place where they don't harm themselves or others. Joseph Smith taught the same. We don't always succeed on an individual level. Thus, the need for repentance daily. All people should be free to exercise their own impulses and have a clear conscience towards their own beliefs.

Including those, such as yourself, that choose nonbelief as the default.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Just as multiple cosmological models that I provided compete with each other to explain the universe, and only one, or possibly none, may ultimately be correct, the wide and varied number of religious truth claims doesn’t imply relativism...it just underscores the difficulty of discernment.

Cosmologists don’t dismiss all models because there are many...they test, refine, and seek coherence. In the same vein many members of the LDS church engage in a process of study, prayer, and life experience which leads us to conclude that the LDS Church is not just another bubble, but something qualitatively different.

The presence of many bubbles as I mentioned earlier doesn’t preclude the possibility of a baby. The real question is: what criteria do we use to tell the difference?

And at the very top of the list of criteria is the question of "Is there a Creator God?" And also that the means necessary to determine this question involves something other than the 'tools' that secular/agnostic/atheist critics are willing to use.

So, we end up at an impasse. Every time.

Regards,
MG

MG , I think you are correct to say that the number of other religions that exist does not determine whether LDS is true or not true oe perhaps a mix of both(my view). So what criteria do we use. Believing there is a creator God would be a step toward believing LDS.

Yes. That is foundational.

However numerous millions believe there is a creator God.

Yes, they do.

For believers claiming an Angel involved is not a complete deal breaker.

If one can bring themselves to a reasoned belief in a creator God, it seems as if believing in other 'eternal beings' would not be much of a jump.

Further criteria arise. Consider the historical evidence.

Indeed.

People also should ask if beliefs help human growth understanding and care.

Yes. As I've said, if a religion does not teach, as a religion, that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught, one might want to be wary. And the religions don't have to have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it.

People can ask if a religions ideas are coherent and not contradictory enough to encourage learning and not demanding unthinking acceptance.

Up to a point, yes. But as a religious movement evolves one might expect that there are going to be further developments towards understanding...which requires learning, as you say.

For Christian believers the question arises as to how well the current idea stands on the foundations of the faith.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean in regard to this last statement of yours. I appreciate your insights and thoughts, huckelberry.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Back to the threads subject, the role of Sydney Rigdon is an alluring puzzle. Casting him as middle man for a Spaulding document is very lame to my view(and some other folks) Limnor is proposing Rigdon contributed the religious material
and an inspiration of story start from Spaulding. I think that is more realistic. There is the difficulty of no established connection prior to Book of Mormon being published and Rigdons lifelong denial. I see no reason to bet on the possibilities here. Joseph may have taken the religious teachings without awareness of Rigdon. Joseph may mirror the usurping of authority this entails in the Book which I understand Limnor to be observing. The observation is as valuable whether or not the source(s)knew of the theft.likely Cambell was the source, he being published and discussed.

I find myself thinking Rigdon was following Cambell then broke from him due to his ,Rigdons, interest in communal living and economics. I am not remembering those ideas being taught much in the Book of Mormon yet it figured in the church with Rigdon helping lead it.

I might see both Rigdon and Smith following Cambells beginning but Smith much more aggressively seizing authority.

I am inclined to see a conspiracy with only Joseph Smith actually in the know. Alvin as contributing is interesting but being dead would not count as being in the know. Maybe older brother helped(?)

[malkie]

...

People also should ask if beliefs help human growth understanding and care.

Yes. As I've said, if a religion does not teach, as a religion, that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught, one might want to be wary. And the religions don't have to have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it.

...
Regards,
MG

That's quite a statement!

I don't know of any non-Christian religions that teach "that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught" - perhaps you do?

Anyway, to say that "one might want to be wary" of any religion that does not teach people to follow Jesus, even if it does not have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it (whatever that means) seems a bit over the top to me. Likewise to imply that there's something superior about a religion simply because it does so teach. I might go as far as to say that this is a clear case of religious prejudice, if not bigotry.

Perhaps you meant to say something different?

[MG 2.0]

...



Yes. As I've said, if a religion does not teach, as a religion, that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught, one might want to be wary. And the religions don't have to have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it.

...
Regards,
MG

That's quite a statement!

I don't know of any non-Christian religions that teach "that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught" - perhaps you do?

His name doesn't have to be used. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Native American religions, etc., etc. It's His teachings, mainly the Sermon on the Mount teachings and the like, that are universal...essentially...to other religious systems.

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Blessed are the peacemakers.
3. Forgive others.
4. Do not judge, lest you be judged.
5. Seek first the kingdom of God.
6. Store up treasures in heaven, not on earth.
7. The greatest among you will be your servant .
8. Turn the other cheek.
9. Love your enemies.
10. You cannot serve both God and wealth.

Etc. Christianity doesn't have to be stamped on the nameplate. Each of the things I've listed, along with many others, are universal truths but may be taught practiced using different language and/or cultural application.

Anyway, to say that "one might want to be wary" of any religion that does not teach people to follow Jesus, even if it does not have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it (whatever that means) seems a bit over the top to me.

I hope I've added clarification. One can follow, in the main, Jesus...without even knowing His name or being an adherent of Christianity. Other religions essentially teach principles that if followed, are following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Likewise to imply that there's something superior about a religion simply because it does so teach. I might go as far as to say that this is a clear case of religious prejudice, if not bigotry.

Again, I hope I've added some clarification that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

That's quite a statement!

I don't know of any non-Christian religions that teach "that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught" - perhaps you do?

His name doesn't have to be used. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Native American religions, etc., etc. It's His teachings, mainly the Sermon on the Mount teachings and the like, that are universal...essentially...to other religious systems.

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Blessed are the peacemakers.
3. Forgive others.
4. Do not judge, lest you be judged.
5. Seek first the kingdom of God.
6. Store up treasures in heaven, not on earth.
7. The greatest among you will be your servant .
8. Turn the other cheek.
9. Love your enemies.
10. You cannot serve both God and wealth.

Etc. Christianity doesn't have to be stamped on the nameplate. Each of the things I've listed, along with many others, are universal truths but may be taught practiced using different language and/or cultural application.

Anyway, to say that "one might want to be wary" of any religion that does not teach people to follow Jesus, even if it does not have the stamp of 'Christianity' on it (whatever that means) seems a bit over the top to me.

I hope I've added clarification. One can follow, in the main, Jesus...without even knowing His name or being an adherent of Christianity. Other religions essentially teach principles that if followed, are following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Likewise to imply that there's something superior about a religion simply because it does so teach. I might go as far as to say that this is a clear case of religious prejudice, if not bigotry.

Again, I hope I've added some clarification that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Regards,
MG

Christian/Mormon hubris spotted here!

If I were an adherent of any of the (non-Christian) religions you seem to approve of, especially those older than 2000 years, I might be insulted by your characterization of them as "following" Jesus. But perhaps that's just me. You probably also know that these religions are all likely to fail at least one of your 10 criteria: seeking the kingdom of God, at least if you are referring to the Mormon god. Some of them don't even include a concept of a kingdom of God, or of heaven. It seems that your criteria are cherry-picked to favour your choice of religion.

By the way, do you believe that a person needs to follow a religion - especially one that you approve of - in order to be good? Because you seem to imply that one should also "be wary of" the non-religious as a group.

[Gadianton]

My intent now and in the past is not to "one up" on any other religious system as long as they are bringing people to a healthy place where they don't harm themselves or others.

Going back to Steuss, you asked us to choose between a natural and a supernatural explanation. Steuss wondered why we should give special consideration to Mormonism's supernatural claims rather than the thousands of others. You respond, appearing to misunderstand Steuss's point, saying that all these religions can't be true. Only one can ultimately be true. That doesn't go against anything Steuss said, in fact, it goes hand-in-hand with what Steuss said. You claim Mormonism is special. But you haven't put any time into seriously investigating any of the others. You weren't born into another religion, and so you have no idea how that lived experience compares to yours. Your claim that Mormonism is the baby in the bathwater is an empty claim, because you don't know enough about the bubbles to differentiate them from the baby. People generally go along with the religion they were brought up in. That means, in your analogy, that people other than Mormons generally grow up thinking their bubble in the bath is a baby. How would they know the difference? They would need to splash around more and investigate other bubbles. The person lucky enough to be born holding the baby has no better reason to think it's a baby than those who think a bubble is the baby without any knowledge of what a bubble is.

Your problem is, MG, as both Steuss and your own self showed, is to make the claim that Mormonism is extraordinary requires you to pursue at least a healthy sample of other religions and attempt to live them with an open mind, enough to overcome the bias of your upbringing, in order to determine what religion is ordinary and what is extraordinary. That could be a lot of years on your part. If you think I, Steuss, and others, who were born and raised Mormon, many of us went on missions and graduated from the Y, if you think we still "haven't given Mormonism a chance", then how many more years do you need to devote to Islam to be really sure it's just ordinary and you're not missing something extraordinary about it?

[MG 2.0]

His name doesn't have to be used. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Native American religions, etc., etc. It's His teachings, mainly the Sermon on the Mount teachings and the like, that are universal...essentially...to other religious systems.

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Blessed are the peacemakers.
3. Forgive others.
4. Do not judge, lest you be judged.
5. Seek first the kingdom of God.
6. Store up treasures in heaven, not on earth.
7. The greatest among you will be your servant .
8. Turn the other cheek.
9. Love your enemies.
10. You cannot serve both God and wealth.

Etc. Christianity doesn't have to be stamped on the nameplate. Each of the things I've listed, along with many others, are universal truths but may be taught practiced using different language and/or cultural application.



I hope I've added clarification. One can follow, in the main, Jesus...without even knowing His name or being an adherent of Christianity. Other religions essentially teach principles that if followed, are following in the footsteps of Jesus.



Again, I hope I've added some clarification that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Regards,
MG

Christian/Mormon hubris spotted here!

If I were an adherent of any of the (non-Christian) religions you seem to approve of, especially those older than 2000 years, I might be insulted by your characterization of them as "following" Jesus.

Ha. I don't think I'd necessarily come right out and say that. I'd be more likely to talk about them as a person and their goals, family, ideas, etc.

You probably also know that these religions are all likely to fail at least one of your 10 criteria: seeking the kingdom of God, at least if you are referring to the Mormon god.

I realize that. But for example, with the 'kingdom of God' we would see that Hinduism directs the seeker to realize Brahman (ultimate reality) through devotion; Buddhism emphasizes Nirvana as the same inward awakening Jesus described as “the kingdom within”.

Is it a one-to-one match? Of course not.

Some of them don't even include a concept of a kingdom of God, or of heaven. It seems that your criteria are cherry-picked to favour your choice of religion.

No. I'm saying that within many of the world religions and beliefs we can find commonalities. Many of these are similar to and/or parallel the teachings of Jesus.

By the way, do you believe that a person needs to follow a religion - especially one that you approve of - in order to be good?

I will assume you are kidding.

Because you seem to imply that one should also "be wary of" the non-religious as a group.

I did say that if a religion does not teach, as a religion, that people should follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the things that He taught, one might want to be wary.

I'm sure that by now you can see that I am referring to the general teachings of Jesus that have commonalities across the spectrum of humankind and the religions and systems of philosophy and thought that have evolved over millennia.

Oh, by the way, you mentioned hubris. I don't think so. If anything, I find the breadth and depth of humanity and their ways to be fascinating and in many ways enlightening. Even a bit of 'holy envy' now and then.

Mormons don't have a corner on the market for goodness and uprightness by any means. On the other hand, I don't necessarily appreciate what I see as a form of religious racism, which includes stereotyping, that I see from some critics.

I went into depth on that elsewhere.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My intent now and in the past is not to "one up" on any other religious system as long as they are bringing people to a healthy place where they don't harm themselves or others.

Going back to Steuss, you asked us to choose between a natural and a supernatural explanation. Steuss wondered why we should give special consideration to Mormonism's supernatural claims rather than the thousands of others. You respond, appearing to misunderstand Steuss's point, saying that all these religions can't be true. Only one can ultimately be true. That doesn't go against anything Steuss said, in fact, it goes hand-in-hand with what Steuss said. You claim Mormonism is special. But you haven't put any time into seriously investigating any of the others. You weren't born into another religion, and so you have no idea how that lived experience compares to yours. Your claim that Mormonism is the baby in the bathwater is an empty claim, because you don't know enough about the bubbles to differentiate them from the baby. People generally go along with the religion they were brought up in. That means, in your analogy, that people other than Mormons generally grow up thinking their bubble in the bath is a baby. How would they know the difference? They would need to splash around more and investigate other bubbles. The person lucky enough to be born holding the baby has no better reason to think it's a baby than those who think a bubble is the baby without any knowledge of what a bubble is.

Your problem is, MG, as both Steuss and your own self showed, is to make the claim that Mormonism is extraordinary requires you to pursue at least a healthy sample of other religions and attempt to live them with an open mind, enough to overcome the bias of your upbringing, in order to determine what religion is ordinary and what is extraordinary. That could be a lot of years on your part. If you think I, Steuss, and others, who were born and raised Mormon, many of us went on missions and graduated from the Y, if you think we still "haven't given Mormonism a chance", then how many more years do you need to devote to Islam to be really sure it's just ordinary and you're not missing something extraordinary about it?

I won't claim that I have looked at every other bubble exhaustively. But I have looked wide and far in some depth. Afterall, I've been around for a while now and have always had an interest in other humans and what makes them who and what they are. Part of that is looking into their cultures and beliefs. I don’t claim to have “splash-tested” every bubble in the bath, but I’ve tried to get my hands wet. And what I’ve found is that many traditions echo profound truths. And they more or less resonate with the teachings of Jesus. You seem to be concerned as to why I find Mormonism as the baby in the bathwater. It's not because I have determined that others don't have something beautiful, but because the theology of the LDS faith seems to challenge and inspire me in ways that I believe are qualitatively different.

Again, while at the same time admitting that I haven't spent a lifetime in each and every religion on the planet looking at them from the inside out exhaustively.

I do think there’s value in the kind of lived inquiry you and Steuss have undertaken, and I respect it. My own father has done the same, and I respect him. If anything, your journeys make me want to keep splashing, keep questioning, and keep listening. I can only speak for myself when I say that I have a high confidence level that I believe I've found the baby and not just another bubble. I say that, again, knowing that I have not bathed in every tub...but I have peered over the edge.

I don't claim to have finished the work of discovering truth at 100%. I live by faith. I'm still in the tub, still splashing, still listening. But I am comfortable where I am and believe that I am on the right track. But let me say, if I haven't made it clear, I can only speak for myself. No one else.

Regards,
MG