Lemmie wrote:Great assessment- fictional avoids the physical proof issues at first, but then, eventually, one has to ask, what’s the draw of a fictional doctrine?
The doctrine doesn't have to be fictional, the stories are fictional. The priesthood and salvation can still be real. An angel appearing could be real. How can one be drawn to a story in the same way one can be drawn to a real event? (if that was part of what you were asking)
This is my main point: I don't know how, I just know that one can, because I know that: it seemed impossible just a few years ago to be drawn to documents that have nothing to do with Joseph's supposed translations. If we can believe Joseph and co. were deceived about translating, while we are still drawn to the product as mystical, then the next generation will understand that we were deceived about historicity, and still be drawn to the fictional product as mystical.
God let's each generation act within its own play, so to speak; each generation peels off another layer of the onion.
fifty years from now, Kiwi107 will either be telling those of his day that it was an anti-Mormon lie that the Book of Abraham is historical, or that it was believed, but not by the educated who had access to the future writers of Mopologetics.