cujo22

AI has really sped up the time I spend keeping up with these conversations. For some reason the AI doesn't interest me, so I can skip past those long portions of AI. Hopefully I'm not missing much.

I'm not one of the debaters, but the point from my perspective is that a reasonable person could take in all the evidence and reasonably decide to accept the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as Joseph told it. Likewise, a reasonable person could take in all the evidence and reasonably decide to reject/revise the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as Joseph told it.

My memory might be off, but I think he did spend time with plates early in the process in early translation attempts or early in the process.

I just loved this ending quote from the article. Says a lot about this person that I hadn't heard of previously. And I guess I hadn't realized that I can relate somewhat: It's true. I'm moved by the lives of people around me and in the family histories I've read. I love sacrament meeting when I hear from beloved neighbors and ward-friends and about their triumphs and struggles and what they think about things. Years ago, Parshall imagined herself in heaven with such members. “I am moved by their lives far more easily than I am moved by holy scripture, and I am motivated more to pattern my life after theirs than I am after the stories of Israelites and Nephites,” she said in her 2011 speech. “Where those good people of the past — those in my own lineage, and those in my Mormon heritage — may be is where I want to spend eternity.”

I was excited to read your explanation cuz the science is so interesting, but I think ChatGPT didn't do it justice, or maybe I just need to read those books. From the ChatGPT summary, the religious argument seems to be... If spirits exist, then we should be able to do stuff to the brain or other parts of the body (eyes was mentioned somewhere) and it wouldn't have any impact. Is that the argument that is proven false with this science? That if spirits exist then we wouldn't need eyes to see? Perhaps some people do believe that argument. ?? Not me. I don't see how any of this has any bearing on whether spirits exist.

Your whole post is so so good. I like to say that revelation is a collaborative experience. I get frustrated that I continue hearing in church, even general conference, of some experience and they talk about wondering if the message was from my own thoughts or the Lord's. ?? What a confusing thing to say to kids (and adults too really). Like they're supposed to be hearing voices. Like I've got to be careful because I could have a thought that didn't come from my brain or something and was actually planted by the God or by the devil? Even the most lop-sided form of revelation that we can imagine relative to how collaborative it is (something like an angel appearing and delivering a message) at the very least gets processed through our brain. So we're always part of it. And nearly all (if not all) revelation is much much more collaborative than that and, in my opinion, the whole experience is much better characterized generally by phrasing the spiritual journey as a "walk with God" rather than a "trying to hear God's voice" or something like that. To walk with God is for God to always be with us, going through experiences together, trying to understand and make decisions together, even experiencing disappointments together. I like this much more than envisioning God as way over there and me way over here and trying to pick up signals and when I do get a signal it is obviously 100% total truth. That concept of the spiritual journey, still encouraged in some ways at church, can lead a person to dangerous places (like Chad Daybell), basically too much certainty. Your/my description of revelation inherently includes an important level of humility. There can be confidence by there should be "certainty", there's a humble growing and learning instead. We learn from Joseph and Brigham and Wilford and others that editing a revelation is OK, that we can learn and understand more.

This is kind of a difficult question that can put us in a bit of a corner in that it tends towards a member of our church saying something that we don't quite mean. Specifically, answering yes and no. I guess one might say we have to hedge a bit. Here's how I look at this. Within the LDS church we have a set of beliefs that is internally consistent (it pretty much makes sense) and that when taken in totality leads a human in a good direction as far as being a better human and making the world a better place. That set of beliefs includes that yes, Christ restored His church in the latter-days including the authority to perform ordinances such that they are recognized by God. So getting cornered, a member of our church might clarify that your baptism is not valid and you must join our church and so on, listen to our prophet, etc. On the other hand, the total set of beliefs that the church espouses is quite liberal overall with respect to the destination of souls (salvation or exaltation or whatever, I'm not a theologian). We belief all will have an opportunity to learn and grow into the afterlife. We belief with Paul in an afterlife sort of tailored to the individual, with somehow there being many different destination sort of like the stars differ in glory. So it's a general picture of an "judgment" that is merciful and just and leaves each of us as ourselves, not put in a box that doesn't make much sense (two boxes - heaven and hell, or four boxes - celestial, terrestrial, and telestial and outer darkeness or whatever). Furthermore, I treat all of our teaching about life before and after earthlife as temple teachings, they're designed to teach us some important principles, they're not designed to give us a rubric to help me know which box specific individuals will be in. In my opinion, that's the exact type of judgment that Jesus doesn't want me to do. But answering your question puts me in a corner where I'm being called on to hand out that kind of judgment and to reject the large portions of our teachings. Things like salvation being a family affair, that the temple ordinances are somehow going to help unite the entire human family and we can all go home together. The teachings keep me wanting the whole world to better off, to work together as brothers and sisters, to reduce suffering, all that. Deciding that you won't be going to heaven feel antithetical to all of that, to me. It's not something I think about, it's not something I think I need to worry about, cuz God's plan as we try to teach it is pretty expansive, and includes both me and you. So I think you're going to heaven, I mean what do I know? but I certainly have no reason to say you're not going to heaven. But I also believe my church is "true" as we like to say. Maybe some think that's a contradiction. But the "church is true" part probably helps keeps me committed to serving in the church and paying tithing so the church as a whole can continue to do a lot of good in the world, it probably helps me have confidence to do what I think is right as best I know when it's difficult to do so. For me at least, it doesn't keep me from basically assuming John Stockton and Whitney Houston are going to be in heaven. They aren't/weren't members or our church, but somehow I have faith in God and Jesus's power to save and I just think heaven is going to need John Stockton and Whitney Houston, cuz what a voice! and what a bounce pass! What? I'm going to be rewarded way more than them or something basically because of being raised in the church? Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I don't think the church's teaching are consistent with that idea. The "true church" pushes against a bad idea that: eh, don't worry about it, we're all going to be saved anyway, and also what's the rush to change, etc. So that teaching has it's purpose, but looking at our beliefs as a whole we can't conclude that you're not going to heaven cuz you haven't accepted LDS baptism. So the full set of beliefs leaves us in a somewhat difficult spot answering your questions. It's not perfect. But then again it also provides great answers to a lot of other hard questions. Like your question about someone who found a Book of Mormon on an island and decided to believe in Christ. What about the guy on an island who didn't find a bible or Book of Mormon or bible and didn't know about or believe in Christ? The totality of our teachings provides pretty decent answers for these questions. Also, does an afterlife that gets rewarded because somebody believed in Christ make much sense? I have lots of questions like that that I think the church, overall, provides pretty good answers to.

Eh, I see your point. Maybe talk about it in some way. If I could figure out how to phrase it so it is exactly what I mean to say, that's the hard part. I'm not going to stand up and say, "I know that God led them away from the church." I don't think that really furthers the mission of the church, which is ultimately to help people move towards God. I think it most appropriate in church to focus on what is clearly true. Simple truths. It's a church meeting, not my meeting to self-indulge or whatever, a chance for me to say something clever. So many people in so many places at a church meeting, it's really not a place to get cute with what is taught.

Yeah, I think people have to come to terms with that eventually. It puts the onus on each of us to weigh everything, learn all we can, to move towards God and try to draw close to him, and then with integrity make the best decisions we can. Catholics are doing that, Protestants are doing that, my friends who have left the LDS church are doing that. I mean, I can't know what's in someone's heart and mind, but nevertheless I accept that it's possible, that someone could weigh everything the best the can with integrity, and come to a different conclusion. In the midst of all that, we're all (hopefully) becoming more like God, our brains and hearts are growing. Doesn't that sound exactly like God's plan? Sounds like it's really working!! So I wouldn't get up in sacrament meeting and say that God led my friend away from the church (that's not really the place), but that's sort of what I think even if I can't get the words just right. It's part of their path to growing to be more like God. Somehow both my friend and I feel like we've grown. I don't disagree with you. Between family and church influences and personalities and whatever, some still envision other modes of communication. I mean, the fact that Joseph Smith edited the revelations makes it clear that he himself didn't set up the same paradigm that some today have. And this sounds more like the way Catholics or whoever claim, but that's the only way there is. It's crazy-making to embrace the paradigm that I need to try to hear voices in my head. That paradigm seems to work for some I guess, but not for me. And I do think it sets you up for disappointment eventually. The disappointment/pitfall you describe sounds to me more like the cost of being an adult. Yeah, things aren't crystal clear all the time.

Revelation is a collaborative activity. That's how I like to think about. Probably I'd agree that there is a spectrum as far as how much God and how much me. If God wrote on a rock, then that might be far on the God side of collaboration (mostly God). Nevertheless, the human is ALWAYS part of it. I just think there are so many pitfalls that come from envisioning our communication with God the same way as a phonecall. Or the radio analogy... getting tuned... not very helpful at all. Our efforts should be to walk with God, to strive for God, to wonder about God and what the right thing, and to trust our that our thoughts and feelings are being influenced by God. That's how Joseph Smith though about it, same with Wilford Woodruff; they had no illusions that what they called revelations were perfect in some way like God writing on a stone at Sinai. No, they were very comfortable course-correcting, editing, whatever, along the way as they understood more. There are so many pitfalls that this resolves.