Clarification so as to be clear.

[malkie]

And my suggestion is that people should "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture" when they can get along perfectly well without them. You could too!

Keeping them in the picture isn’t about dependency, it’s about orientation and direction. They’re not crutches, as you imply, they’re compass points. I’ve found that when I center my life around 'seeking after the divine', I am able to navigate complexity with more clarity. This gives me a sense of peace in an otherwise chaotic and in many respects nonsensical world.

I am not in any way trying to say that you should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens. If that is what brings you joy and peace, that is good. I'm encouraging others to find their own path with my encouragement to seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them. I'm sure that you would agree that if this is what brings someone joy/peace/purpose that is good.

Regards,
MG

I think we're saying different things here. I don't think that I'm saying what you say I'm implying.

You would like people not to "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture", because you experience benefits in your life from including them. And that's good for you - I'm genuinely happy for you. You have found clarity and peace through your beliefs - again, good for you.

I'm acknowledging that the majority of people in the world are doing just fine without God and/or Jesus Christ in their lives, and suggesting that you (well, mostly your church) should let them continue to do so, especially when it's well known that the vast majority of people who have been introduced to Mormonism have rejected it as (likely) of no value to them. Why should people, with your encouragement, "seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them" when there's clearly little appetite for your views?

If you are truly "not in any way trying to say that [ I ] should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens", why not afford others the same consideration?

[MG 2.0]

Bridging the gap can be tricky when we use the same words but mean different things.

For example, the terms “origin” and “translation” are framed differently.

On another thread, you said it wasn’t important to you to prove the Jaredites were ancient - from that viewpoint, do you see much difference in the terms “origin” as I view it vs how you see it?

My claim is the book is true, as is yours - but we differ on what “true” means, particularly when framed as “origin.”

In the end, if the result for you is that your life is lived according to your values as defined by your beliefs, does it matter if the “origin” is ancient?

Yes, I think it does. It's like the difference between believing the earth is flat vs. spherical. Some foundational claims aren't just symbolic and/or metaphorical, they shape everything built upon them. If the Book of Mormon is ancient, it's not just spiritually relevant/meaningful, it's part of the historical arc of history where God/Christ are part of and participative in the affairs of man.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Keeping them in the picture isn’t about dependency, it’s about orientation and direction. They’re not crutches, as you imply, they’re compass points. I’ve found that when I center my life around 'seeking after the divine', I am able to navigate complexity with more clarity. This gives me a sense of peace in an otherwise chaotic and in many respects nonsensical world.

I am not in any way trying to say that you should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens. If that is what brings you joy and peace, that is good. I'm encouraging others to find their own path with my encouragement to seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them. I'm sure that you would agree that if this is what brings someone joy/peace/purpose that is good.

Regards,
MG

I think we're saying different things here. I don't think that I'm saying what you say I'm implying.

You would like people not to "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture", because you experience benefits in your life from including them. And that's good for you - I'm genuinely happy for you. You have found clarity and peace through your beliefs - again, good for you.

I'm acknowledging that the majority of people in the world are doing just fine without God and/or Jesus Christ in their lives, and suggesting that you (well, mostly your church) should let them continue to do so, especially when it's well known that the vast majority of people who have been introduced to Mormonism have rejected it as (likely) of no value to them. Why should people, with your encouragement, "seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them" when there's clearly little appetite for your views?

If you are truly "not in any way trying to say that [ I ] should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens", why not afford others the same consideration?

Fine by me! I don't think I've said anything qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Yes, I think it does. It's like the difference between believing the earth is flat vs. spherical. Some foundational claims aren't just symbolic and/or metaphorical, they shape everything built upon them. If the Book of Mormon is ancient, it's not just spiritually relevant/meaningful, it's part of the historical arc of history where God/Christ are part of and participative in the affairs of man.

I’ll go back to the point about the trouble malkie has pointed out with the FV.

If ongoing revelation can alter (or build upon the scaffold of) historical events, then how could anyone have confidence that the story of the discovery of the book was a fact or something built upon?

Prediction: within ten years the Book of Abraham will be considered a catalyst for revelation not based on factual writings of Abraham, and in twenty years, the Book of Mormon will be considered similarly, without the LDS Church collapsing.

[I Have Questions]

I am not in any way trying to say that you should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens. If that is what brings you joy and peace, that is good. I'm encouraging others to find their own path with my encouragement to seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them.

Why have you assumed that people on a Mormon discussion board need your encouragement to look for a path to seek your version of God to find out what purposes that God might have for them? Can you think of a single poster on this board that fits that description?

[MG 2.0]

Yes, I think it does. It's like the difference between believing the earth is flat vs. spherical. Some foundational claims aren't just symbolic and/or metaphorical, they shape everything built upon them. If the Book of Mormon is ancient, it's not just spiritually relevant/meaningful, it's part of the historical arc of history where God/Christ are part of and participative in the affairs of man.

I’ll go back to the point about the trouble malkie has pointed out with the FV.

If ongoing revelation can alter (or build upon the scaffold of) historical events, then how could anyone have confidence that the story of the discovery of the book was a fact or something built upon?

Prediction: within ten years the Book of Abraham will be considered a catalyst for revelation not based on factual writings of Abraham, and in twenty years, the Book of Mormon will be considered similarly, without the LDS Church collapsing.

The Book of Mormon is different. Its origin story is too central, too embedded in the Church’s self-understanding, to be fully reframed without seismic consequences. The keystone is indeed the keystone. If the arch falls the church cannot be rebuilt into something else without a crumbling of its core message/truths.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I’ll go back to the point about the trouble malkie has pointed out with the FV.

If ongoing revelation can alter (or build upon the scaffold of) historical events, then how could anyone have confidence that the story of the discovery of the book was a fact or something built upon?

Prediction: within ten years the Book of Abraham will be considered a catalyst for revelation not based on factual writings of Abraham, and in twenty years, the Book of Mormon will be considered similarly, without the LDS Church collapsing.

The Book of Mormon is different. Its origin story is too central, too embedded in the Church’s self-understanding, to be fully reframed without seismic consequences. The keystone is indeed the keystone. If the arch falls the church cannot be rebuilt into something else without a crumbling of its core message/truths.

Regards,
MG

I think that polygamy was considered the new and everlasting covenant by those who practiced it at the time. It was thought to be essential for salvation into the highest level of heaven by those who practiced it at the time. I understand that Mormons now see it differently, but to me that is evidence that even the most important and fundamental parts of Mormonism can be changed. And the church didn’t just survive, it flourished after the change.

[MG 2.0]

The Book of Mormon is different. Its origin story is too central, too embedded in the Church’s self-understanding, to be fully reframed without seismic consequences. The keystone is indeed the keystone. If the arch falls the church cannot be rebuilt into something else without a crumbling of its core message/truths.

Regards,
MG

I think that polygamy was considered the new and everlasting covenant by those who practiced it at the time. It was thought to be essential for salvation into the highest level of heaven by those who practiced it at the time. I understand that Mormons now see it differently, but to me that is evidence that even the most important and fundamental parts of Mormonism can be changed. And the church didn’t just survive, it flourished after the change.

I still think there is line that can't be crossed with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith and other prophets up until the present have reinforced and testified of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Granted, they typically don't spend much time talking about the location of Zarahemla, etc., but the emphasis has always been that the Book of Mormon people lived and breathed in the Western Hemisphere. It's not just the 'founding prophets' that have taught this, it's all of them.

One might think that they really believe it.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about a 72-year-old man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime he said he didn't commit. He was offered parole if he would just 'own up' to a heinous murder that had been committed. He said over and over again that he couldn't admit to something that he didn't do. I think that the prophets and apostles really do believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its origins (angels, plates) and they can't admit otherwise.

It would be an untruth, and they believe they would be accountable before God. Similar to the 72-year-old man. His conscience wouldn't let him lie.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think that polygamy was considered the new and everlasting covenant by those who practiced it at the time. It was thought to be essential for salvation into the highest level of heaven by those who practiced it at the time. I understand that Mormons now see it differently, but to me that is evidence that even the most important and fundamental parts of Mormonism can be changed. And the church didn’t just survive, it flourished after the change.

I still think there is line that can't be crossed with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith and other prophets up until the present have reinforced and testified of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Granted, they typically don't spend much time talking about the location of Zarahemla, etc., but the emphasis has always been that the Book of Mormon people lived and breathed in the Western Hemisphere. It's not just the 'founding prophets' that have taught this, it's all of them.

One might think that they really believe it.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about a 72-year-old man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime he said he didn't commit. He was offered parole if he would just 'own up' to a heinous murder that had been committed. He said over and over again that he couldn't admit to something that he didn't do. I think that the prophets and apostles really do believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its origins (angels, plates) and they can't admit otherwise.

It would be an untruth, and they believe they would be accountable before God. Similar to the 72-year-old man. His conscience wouldn't let him lie.

Regards,
MG

We've already changed the historical narrative quite a bit. Mormons like DCP realize that there is no place for a Book of Mormon to exist in the vast majority of pre-Columbian America. They've created the limited geography theory to try and make the Book of Mormon so tiny as to be undetectably small. It's like claiming Atlantis really existed, but it was a population of 20 people in a couple underwater caves. Is that really the Atlantis people think of? Is the Limited Geography model really what faithful Mormons think of when they read about battles of millions, cities, swords, trade, etc?

[MG 2.0]

I still think there is line that can't be crossed with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith and other prophets up until the present have reinforced and testified of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Granted, they typically don't spend much time talking about the location of Zarahemla, etc., but the emphasis has always been that the Book of Mormon people lived and breathed in the Western Hemisphere. It's not just the 'founding prophets' that have taught this, it's all of them.

One might think that they really believe it.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about a 72-year-old man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime he said he didn't commit. He was offered parole if he would just 'own up' to a heinous murder that had been committed. He said over and over again that he couldn't admit to something that he didn't do. I think that the prophets and apostles really do believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its origins (angels, plates) and they can't admit otherwise.

It would be an untruth, and they believe they would be accountable before God. Similar to the 72-year-old man. His conscience wouldn't let him lie.

Regards,
MG

We've already changed the historical narrative quite a bit. Mormons like DCP realize that there is no place for a Book of Mormon to exist in the vast majority of pre-Columbian America. They've created the limited geography theory to try and make the Book of Mormon so tiny as to be undetectably small. It's like claiming Atlantis really existed, but it was a population of 20 people in a couple underwater caves. Is that really the Atlantis people think of? Is the Limited Geography model really what faithful Mormons think of when they read about battles of millions, cities, swords, trade, etc?

Faithful members more often than not may not always think in terms of geography when they read the Book of Mormon. When we read the Book of Mormon we are thinking more in terms of meaning, spiritual growth/transformation, faith, and testimony of Jesus.

Granted, the narrative has evolved in regard to geography. There has been a maturing of the interpretive lens.

When it comes down to it, the scale of size doesn't necessarily impact or diminish the message and meaning of the Book of Mormon. In otherwards, the geography and the adjustments that have been made do not shrink the Book of Mormon into irrelevance. It's purpose is to act as a second witness of Christ and His mission and atonement for all of mankind.

When I refer to refining/maturing of the "interpretive lens" we might compare that to adjusting a telescope. At first, we might think we're looking at the whole galaxy, but as the focus sharpens we realize that we are seeing a single constellation more clearly. The battles, cities, and civilizations don't need to span continents even though that might have been the original view that was seen through the interpretive lens.

The willingness to wrestle with complexity is not always easy. Engaging with that wrestle can often keep faith alive because a person may refuse to settle for easy answers. More study can actually increase faith. Book of Mormon geography is one of those issues that up to this point has not had any easy answers.

Regards,
MG