The “One Straight Line Through Two Points” Analogy

[The Nehor]

Why would that be any different than theorizing a translation process that is both "loose" and "tight"? Why couldn't an angel allow some parts to be "false" in the Book of Mormon, while paying close attention to make sure other parts are "true"?

Because such an angel would be, In my ever so humble opinion, deranged.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why not both?

Ditto

[Magyar]

There is no nit so small it can't be picked, nor simply beautiful point that can't be marred. .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, but if the analogy doesn't work, discard it! No matter how beautiful. Like the Ptolemaic conception of the universe, or St. Patrick's shamrock.

[wenglund]

Yes, but if the analogy doesn't work, discard it! No matter how beautiful. Like the Ptolemaic conception of the universe, or St. Patrick's shamrock.

There is no analogy so viable that the pedantic can't view it as not workable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rivers]

I didn't like how he limited the Book of Mormon origins to either ''from God'' or "from the devil." Another option would be to say that it is the creation of a guy with a really big imagination. Not that I'm saying its the correct option.

I did enjoy the talk for the most part but I thought his logical arguments were very poor,

[zerinus]

I can’t count how many times I have heard the Bible & Book of Mormon straight-line analogy given by Tad R. Callister during the Sunday Morning session. It sounds nice, but there are some problems with it.

1. He classifies the Bible as a single witness of Jesus Christ and compares it to a single geometric point. Yet the Bible is a collection of writings and testimonies by multiple people, hardly a single witness.

2. If the Book of Mormon and the Bible create one straight line so there is just “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” how do we explain the groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church, yet still believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible? M. Russell Ballard even references these groups during his talk in the same session.

Could it be possible that there are multiple interpretations of the doctrine contained in the Bible because humans are imperfect beings, not because the doctrine needs to be clarified?

This analogy comes from the Book of Mormon itself.

2 Nephi 3:

12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

Perviously it had said:

1 Nephi 13:

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon (and the rest of the modern scriptures of the Church) is to clarify many doctrinal ambiguities that exist in the Bible, which has resulted in great theological controversies in Christendom. It doesn’t say that it will do that for everybody. It will do that for those who will believe in it. Paul says in another place:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Looking at Christian history, and all the theological controversies that have raged in every generation of Christendom until now, resulting in the diversities of theological systems and denominations, it is obvious that after two centuries of Christian history, St. Paul’s expectation that “we all come in the unity of faith” has not been realized. And the reason why it hasn’t been realized (according to his own words) is because the “prophets and Apostles” have disappeared. The “continuing revelation” has disappeared. Uninspired men declared the canon of scripture closed. We are left with what we have got! The Book of Mormon challenges and reverses that false perception. We now have the required revelations to resolve the centuries old disputes and controversies. That is what the Book of Mormon and other scriptures of the Church is designed to do. It doesn’t say that it will do that for everybody. It will only do that for those who will believe. Those don’t believe will continue to be rocked by false doctrines and controversies about who is right and who is wrong, as Paul also prophesied: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth;” and “deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:7, 13).

The analogy is true; but it doesn’t apply to everybody. It only works for those who believe.

[Doug the Hutt]

A variant on his analogy that I have heard in the 70's & 80's is a board with a single nail can be spun around in a circle, but when a second nail is hammered in, the board is fixed and cannot be moved.

(me: having a little fun reworking analogies...)

0. I grew up with that analogy. I think I even used it while doing my share of door-to-door belief-selling.

1. How well does a board spin which has 66 -79 nails holding it to a surface? Granted, not all nails are created equally -- some are longer and thicker, some more diminuative. But the sum of them all keeps the board from going anywhere -- if you put that many nails in a 5'^2 piece of 3/4" exterior plywood into a solid backing it ain't movin'. The differences of opinion regarding how the board is fastened come from people standing on different parts of the same 2-dimensional plane focusing most of their attention on the area around their favorite group of nails when the most accurate perspective comes perpendicular to the whole plane where the entire surface can be seen at once.

2. A a whole collection of writings coming from the same general area in the world, ammassed over thousands of years by many disparate people only makes a single message when you stand as far away as you can until you can't distinguish the differences. If you alter the standard enough you can make anything say anything you want (give credit to our brains' abilitiy to create abstractions whenever we need them). From 900' away the group of nails packed into a 6"^2 area might appear to be one point; from 2' away it's far easier to distinguish differences. And another few dozen nails to the board still won't make the board turn any less than it does now -- that just makes yet another area on the board where these newcomers can do the same old thing and focus on their group of favorite nails. Until someone lofts into the 3rd dimension to gain that perspective it's going to be the same song & dance of finger pointing and calling each other apostates to the real, true faith.

3. I have to agree with Cobalt-70's analysis (who hit the nail on the head on one point, pun intended) -- the two-points-analogy is completely arbitrary. It's also a bit self-serving and I think it shouldn't be used anymore.

4. I might be 100% wrong, and I'm evil-genious-doktor-man-enough to recognize it.

(Wade, go easy on me....the phenylephrine hydrochloride made me do it!!!)