The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[MG 2.0]

To each his own. I believe that Jesus knew His mission of redemption and resurrection and teaching The Way. The seeds were planted. His work on earth as a mortal man was complete when He was crucified by the Romans.

Regards,
MG

Historically speaking, this idea is just not defensible.

History is an interpretive discipline, not an exact science. It's also shaped as much by perspective as by evidence. Historical knowledge is provisional, always subject to revision and reinterpretation in many instances.

I don't know that I would place all my eggs in any one basket of Bible scholarship. I suppose that I would give a preference, however, to those that had/have good reason to see Jesus as being something other than just an ordinary man. I suppose that's where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

So, today your God is Hari Seldon?

Your argument gets more and more incoherent. If God knows the end from the beginning and can perfectly predict the every flip of a coin, why does he have to rely on “patterns?”

“The time is now.” — Unofficial slogan of Christianity since the 1st Century.

Props for the Asimov reference!

Love it.

[MG 2.0]

As an active Mormon I did not spend much time over the years actually reading the Book of Mormon -- this goes for you also, I believe.

I will admit that earlier in my life I did not spend much time reading the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon. Pretty much only what I had to read for early morning seminary and church on Sunday. During my mission I did start to take the scriptures more seriously. After my mission and as I started college, got married, had kids, and began my career I did get into a more or less regular study of the Book of Mormon. Not an 'uber reader', honestly, but I have and continue to read the Book of Mormon and other scriptures fairly consistently along with conference talks.

I try and make it a daily habit as much as possible.

I will admit, however, I also like to read widely on a lot of different subjects and enjoy good fiction also. I do think that, in part, it is the regular reading of the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, that allows the Spirit of the Lord to communicate with my mind so that I can better understand life, meaning, and purpose.

Gadianton, it hasn't been just a few times where you've said something you believe about me and have been wrong. I continue to find that I feel like I ought to 'course correct' what you are saying about me.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Props for the Asimov reference!

Love it.

since when did Mormons believe
God knows every flip of the coin? I
Do not see that fitting an exalted creature working with natural laws. I remember rather liking the idea of avoiding the absurdity of knowing every detail of the future.

[bill4long]

I'm not a Jew or a literal believer in the Torah or Tanakh. I am entertained by how Rabbi Tovia Singer can dismantle the claims of Christianity and the New Testament. Worth a take, if you don't know him. He's a master of the Bible, New, Old, church fathers, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/@ToviaSinger1/videos

More than once I've heard him say, "why did Hashem (God) allow Mormonism to exists? So that Christians would know what it's like to be a Jew."

[Gadianton]

I will admit, however, I also like to read widely on a lot of different subjects and enjoy good fiction also. I do think that, in part, it is the regular reading of the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, that allows the Spirit of the Lord to communicate with my mind so that I can better understand life, meaning, and purpose.

I think that if you have such experiences as communication with the Spirit of the Lord, and if you believe that this happens due to reading the scriptures, that you will need little external motivation to read.

Consider drug addiction for a moment. It is far more likely that shooting heroin results in attending the shooting alley than hanging out at the shooting alley results in doing heroin. There aren't cases of folks hanging out at the shooting alley who forget to do heroin for an entire year and must commit to it in order to get back in the habit.

It's far more likely that reading the Book of Mormon regularly is a result of actively attending church, it's not the other way around. Reading the Book of Mormon is most likely a causal dead end, it leads to no other interesting behaviors, it simply correlates with obedience in general. You don't become obedient because you read the Book of Mormon, you read the Book of Mormon because you are obedient. Church leaders take Book of Mormon reading as an obedience marker, but they preach it as a causal factor to obedience, which it is not. It's a stunning and important contradiction.

Your example of the Spirit of the Lord expanding the mind like the spice Melange after reading the Book of Mormon, if true, would result in the Church simply handing people Books of Mormon in order to get the effect of spiritual awakening that leads to tithing and church attendance. They would not need to plead with people to read it. You would not struggle to get through five minutes a day if this communication effect was so pronounced.

[Limnor]

Your example of the Spirit of the Lord expanding the mind like the spice Melange after reading the Book of Mormon, if true, would result in the Church simply handing people Books of Mormon in order to get the effect of spiritual awakening that leads to tithing and church attendance. They would not need to plead with people to read it. You would not struggle to get through five minutes a day if this communication effect was so pronounced.

You know what’s funny? Years ago I was actually afraid to read it. I had this spooky sense that there was some kind of magic in it, like if I opened it the right (or wrong) way, it would do something to me.

I don’t think that anymore, but it says a something about the strange mystery surrounding the book.

[PseudoPaul]

Historically speaking, this idea is just not defensible.

History is an interpretive discipline, not an exact science. It's also shaped as much by perspective as by evidence. Historical knowledge is provisional, always subject to revision and reinterpretation in many instances.

I don't know that I would place all my eggs in any one basket of Bible scholarship. I suppose that I would give a preference, however, to those that had/have good reason to see Jesus as being something other than just an ordinary man. I suppose that's where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

History is based on evidence and probability. If you're intentionally choosing a belief that goes against the historical evidence, I guess you'd have to ask yourself why? It can't be because you're searching for truth. When people care about truth they go where the evidence leads. If they don't want that, usually there's some kind of emotional motivation keeping them away from following the evidence. That's as true for religious beliefs as it is true for moon landing denialists and anti-vaxxers.

If you're waiting for history to vindicate your theological views, you'll be waiting a long, long time (spoiler: it will never happen).

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Your example of the Spirit of the Lord expanding the mind like the spice Melange after reading the Book of Mormon, if true, would result in the Church simply handing people Books of Mormon in order to get the effect of spiritual awakening that leads to tithing and church attendance.

[MG 2.0]

History is an interpretive discipline, not an exact science. It's also shaped as much by perspective as by evidence. Historical knowledge is provisional, always subject to revision and reinterpretation in many instances.

I don't know that I would place all my eggs in any one basket of Bible scholarship. I suppose that I would give a preference, however, to those that had/have good reason to see Jesus as being something other than just an ordinary man. I suppose that's where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

If you're waiting for history to vindicate your theological views, you'll be waiting a long, long time (spoiler: it will never happen).

My previous post seems to show that there are reasons to consider my theological views/beliefs as being reasonable...or at least in the ballpark of being so.

And then there is faith...

Regards,
MG