Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by churchistrue

  1. I don't understand the criticism on this. I was once involved in a civil matter with someone in my stake, and the first counselor of the stake presidency was representing the other party, and the stake president asked me details in an elder's quorum PPP and advised me in a way to encourage me to settle or otherwise go along with what the other party wanted. It was totally inappropriate. There are many reasons for the church to give this policy. It's not just a CYA thing.
  2. I thought Grant Hardy was mostly aligned with Carmack/Skousen. No?
  3. Several parts of the interview left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and what you say here is largely why.
  4. 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
  5. 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 ye
  6. 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.
  7. 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/
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Please don't poison the well. And to answer you, yes, I think that's what people in this thread are saying.
  11. 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 believe
  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.
  15. How would you classify him or how would you define liberal theologians? Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly.
  16. I'll eventually get the transcripts out, if you want to wait for that.
  17. I mostly give the credit to the liberal theologians Marcus Borg, Pete Enns, etc, where I first found this in a format that was defined enough to understand it. I have learned a lot from the great mfbukowski from mormondialogue, though. I will try to get you a name mention.
  18. Meh. I don't really think Joseph's vision tells you any of that anyway. Does it? Really think this through. Let's say you obtained the following information: that The First Vision was real, in the sense that it was a real event in Joseph's life, and that he experienced it as something dramatic and important and real to him BUT that the nature of the experience was such that Joseph was unable to separate what was true and real in an absolute way and what was a participatory or contributory element created by Joseph or so heavily interpreted by Joseph that it left nothing to be taken as absolute
  19. In exactly what way does your religious experience on a daily basis change if God actually appeared to him or if he didn't?
  20. OK. And? I don't see this is being such a big hurdle. So, Joseph might have exaggerated something. Can we get past that? Further, I think there are elements of Joseph's story that seem clearly _____. Fill in the blank: deluded, fraudulent, off, sketchy, dark-glass-looking, whatever. I'd like to find a little bit more faithful language to express this concept, but it's difficult. But the point is that super clean version of Joseph is already compromised, so I don't think it's wise to try to hold BOM creation to that standard.
  21. My primary goal is to help people who love the church and go through faith crisis and can't make it work with the traditional FairMormon type explanations, for those people I would like them to consider staying in the church with the paradigm I share rather than leave. My secondary goal which relates to my post here is to have the established power brokers in the faith crisis world (ie FairMormon and other Apologists or defenders) accept my paradigm as a valid, albeit inferior, form of perspective/testimony of the church. And to relieve the tension between those in my camp and those in t
  22. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think 100 years ago people made similar arguments about things like a young Earth or a global flood that now even conservative religionists incorporate into their worldview. Maybe I'm 100 years too early. Or maybe it will never go that far.
  23. I don't want to be viewed as spamming my material, but here is a link to the blog post with the first episode for reference.https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/mormon-faith-crisis-podcast-episode-one/
  • Create New...