New Interpreter Hit-Piece

[_Dr Moore]

The list sure could go on. Whether polygamy was inspired or just Joseph experimenting with an inspiration to love the women in his life? Where does the man end and God begin, and who gets to decide? If the deciding vessel is proven unreliable about some things (you know, pesky things we can now test and show scientifically), then what is to be done about the mystical, unprovable things?

I agree on Alma 32 can allow someone to gain perfect knowledge of, say, the goodness of serving others. But what experiment would you propose to know of a surety that the Book of Mormon is historical?

[_mentalgymnast]

The list sure could go on. Whether polygamy was inspired or just Joseph experimenting with an inspiration to love the women in his life? Where does the man end and God begin, and who gets to decide? If the deciding vessel is proven unreliable about some things (you know, pesky things we can now test and show scientifically), then what is to be done about the mystical, unprovable things?

I agree on Alma 32 can allow someone to gain perfect knowledge of, say, the goodness of serving others. But what experiment would you propose to know of a surety that the Book of Mormon is historical?

About the closest I can come to answering your question is by going back to a Primary answer/song.

Feast upon the word and search, ponder, and pray.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/mus ... g=eng&_r=1

It’s like Pres. Hinckley said, the sure evidence isn’t to found without the Book of Mormon, but within its pages.

Regards,
MG

[_Dr Moore]

I agree that evidence of the Book of Mormon as a spiritually inspiring Christian text is to be found within its pages. But my question specifically was what experiment would you propose to establish it as historically true?

The question clearly has relevance today to church leaders, because we continue to see assertions of Lamanite blood here, Moroni the angel there, and Christ in America as a critical event distinguishing Mormon Christianity from all others.

It can be ahistorical and still edify the soul wonderfully. The two are different questions entirely.

To me, the one and only difference is that if the book isn’t historical, then the group of men whose claimed priesthood authority descends from Joseph Smith have no more claim to God that any other spiritual advisor in the world. That also doesn’t take away from the book’s spiritual power, but it matters a lot to me when it comes to where I aim my devotions, time and resources.

[_Dr LOD]

But if Joseph Smith was wrong about that, what else could he have been wrong about?

What was he wrong about? ...........

Just about everything he said about the people formerly known as Lamanites.

[_mentalgymnast]

What was he wrong about? ...........

Just about everything he said about the people formerly known as Lamanites.

That they became enemies of the Nephites?

That they were cursed because of their unrighteousness?

That their animosity ran deep in their hatred of the Nephites?

That at least one time during their history they became more righteous than the Nephites.

These would be at least a few of the exceptions, right?

Regards,
MG

[_consiglieri]

OK. OK. Everything that can be scientifically tested he got wrong. Everything that is unfalsifiable he got right. Happy now?

[_Dr Moore]

Just about everything he said about the people formerly known as Lamanites.

That they became enemies of the Nephites?

That they were cursed because of their unrighteousness?

That their animosity ran deep in their hatred of the Nephites?

That at least one time during their history they became more righteous than the Nephites.

These would be at least a few of the exceptions, right?

Regards,
MG

That’s an odd response. The Lamanites did not exist. So no, none of those are exceptions. How funny.

[_Dr LOD]

Just about everything he said about the people formerly known as Lamanites.

That they became enemies of the Nephites?

That they were cursed because of their unrighteousness?

That their animosity ran deep in their hatred of the Nephites?

That at least one time during their history they became more righteous than the Nephites.

These would be at least a few of the exceptions, right?

Regards,
MG

Great mental gymnastic routine, limit the scope of question to what is only in the text. Ignoring almost 200 years of prophetic utterances. Just about everything Joseph Smith said or that he claimed was revealed to him about Lamanites that was external to the Book of Mormon text. Such as D&C 109.

The church in the polygamy essay uses a 1831 WW Phelps transcription of a revelation by Joseph Smith to justify the Fanny Alger affair. In that now pretty much accepted as cannon revelation the “Lord” was very specific on who and where some Lamanite women were. So those missionaries could “marry” them even though the men were already married. Why don’t we check that DNA from that tribe?

[_Lemmie]

That they became enemies of the Nephites?

That they were cursed because of their unrighteousness?

That their animosity ran deep in their hatred of the Nephites?

That at least one time during their history they became more righteous than the Nephites.

These would be at least a few of the exceptions, right?

Regards,
MG

That’s an odd response. The Lamanites did not exist. So no, none of those are exceptions. How funny.

Not to mention that, asDr LOD just noted, all of those are things Smith made up about a fictional people. That’s like saying it’s important to note that Asimov got the details right about The Three Laws.

[_Dr LOD]

That’s an odd response. The Lamanites did not exist. So no, none of those are exceptions. How funny.

Not to mention that, asDr LOD just noted, all of those are things Smith made up about a fictional people. That’s like saying it’s important to note that Asimov got the details right about The Three Laws.

When the church included that revelation it also messed up the FARMS/FAIR apologist M2C model. At least until Perego slipped his vault routine of one line about the genealogical paradox.