cujo22

That was fun. Now I need a class on how to interpret the breakdown.

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.