Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon

[salgare]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can only speak for myself but I find his business model distasteful.

Are you sure you have Ponderized this thoroughly?

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, salgare said:

Are you sure you have Ponderized this thoroughly?

I do not have a licensed Ponderizing notebook or Ponderizing chair so I Cannot be sure.

[theplains]

On 07/08/2016 at 1:48 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

When we apply the doctrine of the Book of Mormon to our daily lives in furtherance of the above, then it matters not whether one views it as inspired fiction, allegory, parable or non-historical. The real power of the Book comes from its teachings and not its history, or nonhistory.

If the Book of Mormon is non-historical, much of what is printed in LDS Church manuals and spoken of in Conferences
will have to be disavowed.  Any book can be considered to have 'real power' if it changes one's life; even one that speaks
of the lost city of Atlantis or aliens helping to build the great pyramids of Egypt.

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, salgare said:

You seem to have avoided my whole question/point.  I asked who might come out of the closet first.  You played like you had no clue what I was talking about.  When I elaborated who would be the first to publicly proclaim they did not believe in a historical BoM you seem to be bashing the childish fairy faith of right wingers that do hold rigidly to a historic BoM.

Funny part is Scott thumbs up your post and I'd peg him as one of this rigid right wingers?  What do you say Scott, can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be Exalted? 

Might Robert F. Smith be the first to come out of the closet? 

 I see that you still avoid the context of the OP here, salgare, and an avoidance response usually indicates discomfort of some sort.  A number of us take these issues seriously, as in the case of Grant Hardy (and Scott Lloyd), and you will note that we use our actual names.  The best you can do is to skulk around talking about coming out of the closet?  Really?!  Well, by all means come on out, salgare.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

If the Book of Mormon is non-historical, much of what is printed in LDS Church manuals and spoken of in Conferences
will have to be disavowed.  Any book can be considered to have 'real power' if it changes one's life; even one that speaks
of the lost city of Atlantis or aliens helping to build the great pyramids of Egypt.

Jim

Yeh, Minecraft changes lives too, but does it have the ultimate power to save?  You appear to be mixing apples and oranges, Jim.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Wasn't it amazing that Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with Dehlin, Snuffer and Runnells in that whole Swedish Rescue II speech?

What is it about BOM geography that makes FAIR-ites see red?

I spoke with Scott Gordon about that Swedish thing, which seemed so out of character for him, and he assured me that he did not intend for Meldrum to be grouped with apostates, and he agreed that he should be more circumspect in future.  As usual, the point was taken out of context.

[juliann]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've wondered about this too.  My theory is that FAIR perceives their Meso-American model as being on an scholarly high ground and they see the obvious flaws in the Heartland model which they think discredit that explanation. 

FM's been quite transparent about this.. It is one thing and one thing only....calling those who won't believe the Heartlanders "apostates." Including prophets, BTW. If there was not something else going on besides geography, FM would have the same reaction to all theories outside of MesoAmerica. But they don't. Because geography isn't a deal breaker. And Meldrum using hoaxes is an issue, too, of course.

Quote

   Ironically they seem to be oblivious to the flaws in the Meso-American model or any ancient origins model for that matter.  

See above, the model isn't the point.  And there isn't "A" Meso-American model anyway.  

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, salgare said:

Perhaps I have pegged Scott wrong.

Scott with a focus on Mormonism only, do you consider yourself:

1. Right wing
2. Left wing
3. Conservative
4. Liberal
5. Orthodox

Part of your problem here, salgare, is use of words which you do not understand, especially items 3 -4.

There is no such thing as orthodoxy within Mormonism, but only orthopraxy -- for Mormons, actions speak louder than words, and it is praxis which tells us who a Mormon really is.  Were Mormons more theologically oriented that might not be true, but most Mormons do not think theologically.  Mormonism is more a way of life than a belief system.  A similar problem exists for the terms "liberal" and "conservative," which are meaningless emotive terms.  Even the best scholars are unable to define them.  Labeling people is an inane practice at best.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[salgare]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I see that you still avoid the context of the OP here, salgare, and an avoidance response usually indicates discomfort of some sort.  A number of us take these issues seriously, as in the case of Grant Hardy (and Scott Lloyd), and you will note that we use our actual names.  The best you can do is to skulk around talking about coming out of the closet?  Really?!  Well, by all means come on out, salgare.

Please explain where I have avoided the context of the OP?  The OP mentions DCP blog in which he came out in favor of GH's statement that one could be Exalted with out a testimony of the historicity of the BoM.  I believe that DCP has heretofore been considered a right wing, orthodox, conservative Mormon.  Perhaps he is seeing the writing on the wall per your assessment given in this thread for his type of right wing Mormonism.

Why would I have discomfort with this topic?  It seems you are projecting your own discomfort with this subject.  As for a number of you taking this seriously, perhaps Scott can answer the questions I've put to him because of the obvious conflicts in his personal feelings butting heads with his desire to be on the bandwagon.  Of course throwing on the age old anonymous tactic is always a sure sign that you are lost for any serious response.

I comment about who will be the first Nuanced Mormon to come out of the closet and admit they are no longer willing to defend a non-historical BoM.  It is a perfectly honest and logical question that I'm sure many are asking.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Part of your problem here, salgare, is use of words which you do not understand, especially items 3 -4.

There is no such thing as orthodoxy within Mormonism, but only orthopraxy -- for Mormons, actions speak louder than words, and it is praxis which tells us who a Mormon really is.  Were Mormons more theologically oriented that might not be true, but most Mormons do not think theologically.  Mormonism is more a way of life than a belief system.  A similar problem exists for the terms "liberal" and "conservative," which are meaningless emotive terms.  Even the best scholars are unable to define them.  Labeling people is an inane practice at best.

yea yea, I know all about your orhopraxy.  If all the Nuanced Mormons really believe that all that is required for Exaltation is to be able to answer all of the TR questions with the appropriate answer, then there is absolutely no reason why you should not be able to reject the historicity of the BoM without fear of punitive action and negative support from family and ward members.

And poor Scott, if not for Calm and you to answer for him what would the poor soul do?

[Peppermint Patty]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If the Book of Mormon is non-historical, much of what is printed in LDS Church manuals and spoken of in Conferences
will have to be disavowed.  Any book can be considered to have 'real power' if it changes one's life; even one that speaks
of the lost city of Atlantis or aliens helping to build the great pyramids of Egypt.

Jim

Jim, I don't know if much would have to be disavowed. Just look at the Book of Abraham for examples and parallels. The main difference between the BoA and the BoM is that we have the papyri, but we no longer have the plates.  I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest the plates could have served as sort of a catalyst for inspiration to Joseph much the same way the papyri did for the BoA.  You seldom see members of the Church today claiming that the BoA is exactly what Joseph claimed it was, like they do with the BoM. This wasn't the case for a large part of our history.

Also, I think many members don't feel a necessity that they must believe in a historical BoM.  For many, they don't need an alternative explanation of how the BoM came to be.  Many just have faith that it's God's word, and don't worry or care if it's historical or not. I've seen this with many members, and I think it's growing.

[Peppermint Patty]

23 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I wonder how they deal with Moroni.  How does a real Moroni come from a non-historical book?

Probably the same way they deal with Noah, Job or any of the other countless non-historical stories in our scriptures.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

If there was not something else going on besides geography, FM would have the same reaction to all theories outside of MesoAmerica.

There are some interesting models that FAIR hasn't touched. Baja, Malay and Del DowDell's model haven't yet made the list.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Models/Limited

FM does have the same reaction to all theories outside Meso. Ignore.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

yea yea, I know all about your orhopraxy.  If all the Nuanced Mormons really believe that all that is required for Exaltation is to be able to answer all of the TR questions with the appropriate answer, then there is absolutely no reason why you should not be able to reject the historicity of the BoM without fear of punitive action and negative support from family and ward members.

And poor Scott, if not for Calm and you to answer for him what would the poor soul do?

You have explicitly defined yourself as "dazed and confused," and it is apparent that the reason is that you simply don't understand the issues.  You haven't studied them, and you don't have adequate tools with which to analyze them.  If I thought that you sincerely wanted to understand the issues, and to engage them, I'd suggest spending a few years studying them formally at a local college or university.  A good class in critical thinking would do wonders for you, as would some courses in history and religion.  You could start out with the basics, which it is clear you have not yet had.  Then you might be able to come on a board like this and carry on a coherent discussion.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Wasn't it amazing that Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with Dehlin, Snuffer and Runnells in that whole Swedish Rescue II speech?

 

What is it about BOM geography that makes FAIR-ites see red?

Not all Fairmormons "see red" on this issue.  Iirc, Scott Gordon grouped Meldrum with the others because his approach can set up people for a faith crisis and apostasy just as the other three can.  Or Scott may have included him because he misrepresents church teachings and in essence attacks church leadership by claiming/implying they are intentionally not teaching what Joseph revealed about the BoM.  Pointing out where people are misrepresenting the faith and/or its leadership hardly is seeing red.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

yea yea, I know all about your orhopraxy.  If all the Nuanced Mormons really believe that all that is required for Exaltation is to be able to answer all of the TR questions with the appropriate answer, then there is absolutely no reason why you should not be able to reject the historicity of the BoM without fear of punitive action and negative support from family and ward members.

And poor Scott, if not for Calm and you to answer for him what would the poor soul do?

You really are behaving like a twit of the first order.*

I have not been following this thread closely, but even if I had been, why should I dignify you with a response when you act this way?

I have been very clear on this thread and elsewhere about my solid belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I gave a rep point to a post from Robert F. Smith because I agree with him that some members grow so rigid in their adherence to certain items of Mormon folklore that they can't abide it when they find those unauthoritative beliefs and assumptions are discredited. I don't put the historicity of the Book of Mormon in that category, as that has always been established as doctrine and the official position of the Church.

That is the long and the short of it, and it is sufficient to the moment.

*Edited to add:

Does this (posted on another board under your old screen name "rockslider") amount to your obnoxiousness manifesto?

Quote

I've pushed the limits as I don't care if they ban me. I ended up on limited from badgering mfb over his brand of Mormonism

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/9/2016 at 9:00 AM, hope_for_things said:

I think this is a case and point example for why discussing the BoM as anything but an ancient historical text, would turn a discussion sideways at the ward/stake level.  Your statement that you would "not abide advocacy in my classroom", shows that you are unwilling to even entertain conversations that don't agree with your sensibilities.  This kind of prideful stubbornness would be antithetical to open conversations where we all learn from each other.  

I'm not asking that the church actively preach for a 19th century influenced text as the one and only explanation for the BoM.  I would just love to see the inclusiveness of discussions where we can consider alternative perspectives about the origins of the BoM at the local level.   

 

If I were to declare that the Church ought to include in its Sunday School classes and other venues a discussion and advocacy of the "heartlander" theory of Book of Mormon geography, I'm fairly certain I would get some rather vehement pushback -- and rightly so. Questioning the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is, in my view, far more at odds with the position of the Church than is anything promulgated by the Meldrumites.

The historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the established doctrine and official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Has been from the beginning, always will be.

It is one thing to express tolerance for Church members who harbor erroneous views pertaining to the origin of the Book of Mormon. It is quite another to entertain in its classes, meetings and worship services the advocacy and promulgation of what, in the final analysis, is false doctrine.

Maintaining the purity of the doctrine is one of the responsibilities of Church leaders on every level. And, if I remember correctly, the persistent teaching of false doctrine after one has been corrected is one of the things that warrant the administration of discipline in the Church.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Neither should the Mesoamerican theory be taught in Sunday School, the oneI am biased to and believes can bring great insights into the book that naturally flow as opposed as insights that get imposed upon thr book due to too much expectations.

I don't think seminary and institute should not automatically exclude discussion, but it needs to be done as 'these are geography theories and not tests of our faith, so we should examine them as we would geography theories on the paths, if any, of Marco Polo's travels, theories that may or may not match to the text and the text is all important since it is the primary evidence and if you, the students, are interested in examining the theories for plausability and accuracy, be sure not to confuse what you are doing for religious practice and treat the theories not with faith, but the tools of the academic field those questions belong in and don't assume by demonstrating their lack that has any correlation to inherent lack in one's faith.

Had to take sleeping pill to sleep tonight due to minimigraine and grankidding tomorrow.  It has been awhile and the letters are playing their 3-Dlind dancing games again so I am hoping my very slow care in typing is enough to keep it coherent as it is hard to comprehend once I shift to reading from writing.  Please don't ask me to explain how it works.  I am looped, that is all.

[salgare]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have explicitly defined yourself as "dazed and confused," and it is apparent that the reason is that you simply don't understand the issues.  You haven't studied them, and you don't have adequate tools with which to analyze them.  If I thought that you sincerely wanted to understand the issues, and to engage them, I'd suggest spending a few years studying them formally at a local college or university.  A good class in critical thinking would do wonders for you, as would some courses in history and religion.  You could start out with the basics, which it is clear you have not yet had.  Then you might be able to come on a board like this and carry on a coherent discussion.

Since you continue to avoid addressing my point and can only answer with ad-homenim attacks, I'll take it you concede my points or can not give answers for them.  Back to your closet, close the door.

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does this (posted on another board under your old screen name "rockslider") amount to your obnoxiousness manifesto?

Funny how you can get away with violating the rules on cross posting from MDB isn't it.  I've pushed the limits here by saying what I think and not being willing to be censured.  I'm quite certain that I was banned this past week for cross posting about country boy but assume some software glitz or wrong buttons pushed created a bit of a mess.  Or decisions where changed based on the posting happening on MDB over the bannings (CountryBoy, Jeanne and me) which highlights the childishness of this long standing animosity amoung old timers with lots of scars.  A 37 page thread was tossed out because of that cross posting.  But how about the protected Scott Lloyd?  Nope he's good to go.

Why did you stop there in your quote of me from MDB?  How about the part where I suggested all the soft critics (censured critics) here quit posting for a month?  Where this board has nothing to offer these critics and yet this board is dead with out them?

Pushing the limits,  i.e. being unwilling to be censured by fear of banning, go figure.  Still this immature crap about "the site that can not be named" - bannable, go figure. I could not care less if this board bans me.  This thread proves there is little intellectual conversation to be had here.  As I also said yonder Kevin Christensen is likely your only remaining saving grace.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[USU78]

On 8/8/2016 at 7:23 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

Don't forget about those evil Malay Peninsula folks, too.  And those disreputable Baja Peninsula theory guys should be wiped out also.

You mean you aren't a member of the Palestine Revolutionary People's Front?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

Since you continue to avoid addressing my point and can only answer with ad-homenim attacks, I'll take it you concede my points or can not give answers for them.  Back to your closet, close the door.

 

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Funny how you can get away with violating the rules on cross posting from MDB isn't it.  I've pushed the limits here by saying what I think and not being willing to be censured.  I'm quite certain that I was banned this past week for cross posting about country boy but assume some software glitz or wrong buttons pushed created a bit of a mess.  Or decisions where changed based on the posting happening on MDB over the bannings (CountryBoy, Jeanne and me) which highlights the childishness of this long standing animosity amoung old timers with lots of scars.  A 37 page thread was tossed out because of that cross posting.  But how about the protected Scott Lloyd?  Nope he's good to go.

Why did you stop there in your quote of me from MDB?  How about the part where I suggested all the soft critics (censured critics) here quit posting for a month?  Where this board has nothing to offer these critics and yet this board is dead with out them?

Pushing the limits,  i.e. being unwilling to be censured by fear of banning, go figure.  Still this immature crap about "the site that can not be named" - bannable, go figure. I could not care less if this board bans me.  This thread proves there is little intellectual conversation to be had here.  As I also said yonder Kevin Christensen is likely your only remaining saving grace.

It has to do with sincerity, salgare.  There are plenty of boards which are pretty much the wild west.  They cater to irresponsible and insincere claptrap.  We try to do something different here:  Responsible, meaningful discussion, rather than name-calling.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Funny how you can get away with violating the rules on cross posting from MDB isn't it.  I've pushed the limits here by saying what I think and not being willing to be censured.  I'm quite certain that I was banned this past week for cross posting about country boy but assume some software glitz or wrong buttons pushed created a bit of a mess.  Or decisions where changed based on the posting happening on MDB over the bannings (CountryBoy, Jeanne and me) which highlights the childishness of this long standing animosity amoung old timers with lots of scars.  A 37 page thread was tossed out because of that cross posting.  But how about the protected Scott Lloyd?  Nope he's good to go.

Why did you stop there in your quote of me from MDB?  How about the part where I suggested all the soft critics (censured critics) here quit posting for a month?  Where this board has nothing to offer these critics and yet this board is dead with out them?

Pushing the limits,  i.e. being unwilling to be censured by fear of banning, go figure.  Still this immature crap about "the site that can not be named" - bannable, go figure. I could not care less if this board bans me.  This thread proves there is little intellectual conversation to be had here.  As I also said yonder Kevin Christensen is likely your only remaining saving grace.

 

I think a person's publicly announced intention elsewhere to "push the limits" on this board warrants having the light of day shined on it. If that amounts to an exception to a rule, so be it.

But no, I'm aware of no "protected" status that has been afforded me. If it appears that way, perhaps it is because I generally do not find it difficult to function within the established guidelines here and I thus rarely need moderation.

But you seem to imply access to inside intelligence about the goings-on here. Do you have some sort of operative or mole working for you? Or are you merely making assumptions?

FYI, the board was down for roughly 48 hours over the weekend. That seems to be happening quite often lately. Is that why you think you were banned? Maybe you are flattering yourself into thinking a general board glitch is all about you.

Finally, are you trying to say censored with your repeated use of the term "censured" as in "I am not willing to be censored"? They are different words with quite separate and distinct meanings. Look them up. (This is another of my pet peeves with popular but incorrect use of English.)

 

[salgare]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

It has to do with sincerity, salgare.  There are plenty of boards which are pretty much the wild west.  They cater to irresponsible and insincere claptrap.  We try to do something different here:  Responsible, meaningful discussion, rather than name-calling.

Since Scott has opened this thread to cross board comments, perhaps he/you saw what I had to say about you?  I said something to the effect that I used to have a lot of respect for you, but there was just something that I could not put my finger on.  I suppose it was exactly what you have done here, turn to intellectual/polite insults instead of sticking to your vast intellectual experience.  Perhaps you have also seen heard the sour names I have for Kevin Christensen?

Please, let me gain that respect for you once again.  See Kevin's posts for what that might look like.

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think a person's publicly announced intention elsewhere to "push the limits" on this board warrants having the light of day shined on it. If that amounts to an exception to a rule, so be it.

But no, I'm aware of no "protected" status that has been afforded me. If it appears that way, perhaps it is because I generally do not find it difficult to function within the established guidelines here and I thus rarely need moderation.

But you seem to imply access to inside intelligence about the goings-on here. Do you have some sort of operative or mole working for you? Or are you merely making assumptions?

FYI, the board was down for roughly 48 hours over the weekend. That seems to be happening quite often lately. Is that why you think you were banned? Maybe you are flattering yourself into thinking a general board glitch is all about you.

Finally, are you trying to say censored with your repeated use of the term "censured" as in "I am not willing to be censored"? They are different words with quite separate and distinct meanings. Look them up. (This is another of my pet peeves with popular but incorrect use of English.)

 

This is getting ugly.  Might we all just breath and walk away?  If it's deeper than it appears, then do what you must, I guess.