Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

450 Excellent

About churchistrue

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,601 profile views
  1. I thought Grant Hardy was mostly aligned with Carmack/Skousen. No?
  2. Several parts of the interview left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and what you say here is largely why.
  3. Question for Scott Lloyd. Anyone else who views things similarly, please weigh in. Many faithful LDS view the BoA as a modern revelation, not tying to anything ancient. The church even endorses the catalyst theory now. Robin Jensen and Brian Hauglid (bad example now I guess) clearly view it that way. Terryl Givens said this when talking about potential BoA source material: My question is why would someone with apologist inclinations use the phrase "to fabricate the BoA" when talking about using potential source material. Is your view of Joseph Smith and the restoration truly so conservative and black-and-white that you would lose your testimony and go Exmo if you found that he was using source material and that it wasn't ancient? Or are you just trying to poison the well so to speak by framing the question ludicrously like that? Are you aware of the Adam Clarke JST stuff or do you deny that source material also? It seems we're past the point of denying Joseph used any source material at all. Aren't we? I feel like arguments like this and especially framing arguments like this with the phrase "fabricate the BoA" are basically pushing people out the church. Wouldn't it be better to say something like: "I think BoA is ancient and Book of Jasher and Josephus were not used and only loosely correlate to the BoA. However, if you think he used the Book of Jasher and Josephus as source material, it still doesn't mean that it's a fabrication. Many faithful LDS believe he did exactly that, and that he was inspired to take the very best doctrines of available source material in an inspired syncretist way. That's not my personal belief, but it's a very valid belief. So either way it doesn't even matter." Isn't that much more effective? Is your desire or demand for the literal/traditional view becoming your own sacred cow?
  4. I listened. I think the only part that he might not have felt comfortable saying until after he retired was that in the last few minutes of the interview he mentioned vaguely about stepping slowly away from the church, that he only went to sacrament meeting now to support his wife, and that he was against some church policy such as LGBT+ issues. But he also seemed to imply this was a new development and not something that he's been suppressing for a long time to talk about until he retired. Nothing he said related to the BoA or his research is any different than he's been saying for several years in articles and presentations, as far as I understand. I took the desire to wait until his retirement to do the interview primarily as to minimize the conflict he had with a colleague--not church related.
  5. I haven't listened to all of it, but I don't think he said anything relative to the BoA he hasn't said over the past few years. He disagrees with Gee, but he's not taking a critical approach, imho. The last little bit of the interview he mentioned something vaguely about stepping away from church activity. Is that what you mean? I have to admit, I was a little bummed about that.
  6. Randomly, I released my Book of Abraham podcast episode at the same time as this controversy. I also rely heavily on Brian Hauglid quotes in this episode. https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/podcast-episode-8-book-of-abraham-and-jst/
  7. If you (or anyone else here) get a chance, check out my podcast episode I did recently that goes into this exact kind of logic. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fcr-004-book-of-mormon-content/id1516616452?i=1000478162500 I'd love to hear what you think.
  8. Maybe you don't use it the way others use "fiction" in this case. Would you call the endowment video story a "fable" or "fiction"? The word you use for that is the same word I'd like people to use for the inspired non-historical view of the BOM.
  9. Please don't poison the well. And to answer you, yes, I think that's what people in this thread are saying.
  10. The inspired fiction (can we please stop using that word fiction--it poisons the well) 19th century scripture view of the BOM usually is accompanied with other nuanced/liberal views of the Church where God is allowing human free agency and not directly managing things. For example, one might view the Church as a good church but not the "one and only true church". I wouldn't say that's *always* the case for someone who takes the inspired 19th century scripture view but is more likely, I would guess. So, you have to view the entire paradigm shift to make sense of it. I agree that if one believes this is God's one true church and that God is very tightly managing things through the restoration and a modern prophet, that the inspired 19th century scripture view of the BOM doesn't make a ton of sense.
  11. I'll let you know when I get the transcripts up.
  12. smac. If you have three hours, you might be interested in the last three podcast episodes I've done that go into my views on the Book of Mormon. If you want to understand why a Latter-day Saint would adopt an inspired but non-historical view, this would give you that insight. Here's the most recent episode. https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/podcast-episode-5-book-of-mormon-translation/
  13. I think it's more accurate to say the promulgators of the "Inspired Fiction 19th Century" view are not promulgating at all, but are sitting quietly through Sunday meetings hoping to avoid the wrath of border police like Smoot and wondering how long they can feel authentic without making their beliefs known in at least a small way. A lot of them are sending me private facebook posts thanking me for my work. Many times they are parents of large, active Mormon families and serving in local leadership callings.
  14. I'd just like to note I don't advocate for the inspired 19th century view. I advocate for seeing at as scripture to the people who already view it as a 19th century work. And I advocate to my fellow apologists to be more tolerant of this view.
  • Create New...