The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[Limnor]

It’s funny you’d say that, because that’s precisely the literary mechanism my explanation describes.

The Book of Mormon itself is a long exercise in “putting words into the mouths of the dead.”

Do you believe in or have faith/hope that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected from the dead and exists/lives today?

Regards,
MG

Yes, I do believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. What that means to me is personal, though, and it doesn’t really hinge on any institutional explanation.

[MG 2.0]

Do you believe in or have faith/hope that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected from the dead and exists/lives today?

Regards,
MG

Yes, I do believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. What that means to me is personal, though, and it doesn’t really hinge on any institutional explanation.

May I ask what your beliefs/thoughts are in relation to some of the questions I’ve asked of PseudoPaul in this thread? Do you think a seed was planted and then sprouted? If so, into what?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Yes, I do believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. What that means to me is personal, though, and it doesn’t really hinge on any institutional explanation.

May I ask what your beliefs/thoughts are in relation to some of the questions I’ve asked of PseudoPaul in this thread? Do you think a seed was planted and then sprouted? If so, into what?

Regards,
MG

Sure.

I think you are following a line of reasoning straight out of the Book of Mormon’s debate playbook.

The “Antichrist” stories all work the same way: one side forces a yes/no confession about belief, then uses the answer to escalate into authority and obedience questions.

Asking a question about the “seed” feels like the setup for that same sequence—each answer leading to the next doctrinal trap. I’m fine saying yes, but I’m also aware of the script.

So, in an effort to skip all that, I’ll simply say I believe His influence continues in more than one form—anywhere people are trying to embody what He taught. I don’t think that life or work can be reduced to one organization, even one that carries His name; the outgrowth is larger than any single structure.

Please recall I am not here to proselytize, destroy anyone’s faith, or participate in theological debate.

I’m here to talk about a book.

[MG 2.0]

May I ask what your beliefs/thoughts are in relation to some of the questions I’ve asked of PseudoPaul in this thread? Do you think a seed was planted and then sprouted? If so, into what?

Regards,
MG

Sure.
I think you are following a line of reasoning straight out of the Book of Mormon’s debate playbook.

The “Antichrist” stories all work the same way: one side forces a yes/no confession about belief, then uses the answer to escalate into authority and obedience questions.

Asking a question about the “seed” feels like the setup for that same sequence—each answer leading to the next doctrinal trap. I’m fine saying yes, but I’m also aware of the script.

So, in an effort to skip all that, I’ll simply say I believe His influence continues in more than one form—anywhere people are trying to embody what He taught. I don’t think that life or work can be reduced to one organization, even one that carries His name; the outgrowth is larger than any single structure.

Please recall I am not here to proselytize, destroy anyone’s faith, or participate in theological debate.

I’m here to talk about a book.

Thanks for sharing. Your mention of doctrinal traps and scripts I find interesting. I would imagine that in your mind they have led to some places and away from others.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Sure.

I think you are following a line of reasoning straight out of the Book of Mormon’s debate playbook.

The “Antichrist” stories all work the same way: one side forces a yes/no confession about belief, then uses the answer to escalate into authority and obedience questions.

Asking a question about the “seed” feels like the setup for that same sequence—each answer leading to the next doctrinal trap. I’m fine saying yes, but I’m also aware of the script.

So, in an effort to skip all that, I’ll simply say I believe His influence continues in more than one form—anywhere people are trying to embody what He taught. I don’t think that life or work can be reduced to one organization, even one that carries His name; the outgrowth is larger than any single structure.

Please recall I am not here to proselytize, destroy anyone’s faith, or participate in theological debate.

I’m here to talk about a book.

Thanks for sharing. Your mention of doctrinal traps and scripts I find interesting. I would imagine that in your mind they have led to some places and away from others.

Regards,
MG

They have, yes—and at this point, after having gone through that cycle several times, I mostly just find the whole conversation exhausting.

Every time a good discussion starts to get interesting, it seems to turn back into a test of belief or orthodoxy.

After a while that sequence wears thin, even when the intent is sincere.

[malkie]

Do you think He is alive today? And if the answer is yes, would you not think that there would be a religion that would carry His name throughout the world doing so in His name? And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name?

If not, what do you see the modern day outgrowth of the resurrected Christ (if you believe He is alive)? It seems to me that if Jesus was indeed the Christ that the seed He planted would be represented on the earth in a way that it can continue to spread forth and grow.

Wouldn't you think?

Is Jesus dead or alive? Important question.

Regards,
MG

I’m reasonably confident that the modern day outgrowth of the resurrected Christ would not have recently been fined $5,000,000 for deliberate financial misconduct, in a effort to try and hide funds from members and the SEC using a shell company scheme that coerced innocent members into making fraudulent statements.

Jesus may be alive, he may be dead, but he’s definitely not running the SLC LDS Church.

Regardless of whether Jesus is dead or alive, if the name of the church is important there's plenty of choice.

May I recommend https://thechurchofjesuschrist.ca/

Clearly, just about any organization can "carry [Jesus Christ's] name throughout the world doing so in His name[] And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name".

The field is wider if you also accept Church of Christ (the original name under which the church was organized), without requiring the word "Jesus" to appear.

By the way, from your criterion concerning the name, I'm sure that you are aware that for about four years (1834-38) the church did not "carry [Jesus Christ's] name throughout the world". Was it apostate during that time?

[MG 2.0]

Thanks for sharing. Your mention of doctrinal traps and scripts I find interesting. I would imagine that in your mind they have led to some places and away from others.

Regards,
MG

They have, yes—and at this point, after having gone through that cycle several times, I mostly just find the whole conversation exhausting.

Every time a good discussion starts to get interesting, it seems to turn back into a test of belief or orthodoxy.

After a while that sequence wears thin, even when the intent is sincere.

I think that expressions of faith based on certain beliefs are to be commended. There have been times here when I’ve so much wanted to get even a tid bit of someone’s ideology or belief structure but have been disappointed. It’s more of what is not believed rather than what is believed. That’s why I appreciate your willingness to share a small snapshot and share the fact that you have a belief that Jesus rose from the dead and lives today.

There are many Christians that are not members of the CofJCofLDS and never will be. That’s not reason to not move forward in a common faith that results in living according to the gospel teachings as recorded in the New Testament for those of us that make claim to being disciples of Christ. Loving God and loving our neighbor being primary.

As I’ve already expressed to you, I think you’ve got it wrong in regard to Joseph Smith and what I see as his divine calling, but I don’t see that as any reason not to find common ground and live/settle with that without judgement. Everyone comes to their ideologies and journies of faith having come from different directions.

It’s no surprise that we may end up in different places.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m reasonably confident that the modern day outgrowth of the resurrected Christ would not have recently been fined $5,000,000 for deliberate financial misconduct, in a effort to try and hide funds from members and the SEC using a shell company scheme that coerced innocent members into making fraudulent statements.

Jesus may be alive, he may be dead, but he’s definitely not running the SLC LDS Church.

Regardless of whether Jesus is dead or alive, if the name of the church is important there's plenty of choice.

May I recommend https://thechurchofjesuschrist.ca/

Clearly, just about any organization can "carry [Jesus Christ's] name throughout the world doing so in His name[] And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name".

The field is wider if you also accept Church of Christ (the original name under which the church was organized), without requiring the word "Jesus" to appear.

By the way, from your criterion concerning the name, I'm sure that you are aware that for about four years (1834-38) the church did not "carry [Jesus Christ's] name throughout the world". Was it apostate during that time?

Yes, there are churches that carry the name of Jesus Christ. How many of them are carrying the gospel message throughout the whole world in a similar manner as the CofJCofLDS?

Does that matter scripturally?

By the way, the link you’ve provided to this Bible based church in Canada is one I haven’t heard of before. There are a LOT of churches professing Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

There have been times here when I’ve so much wanted to get even a tid bit of someone’s ideology or belief structure but have been disappointed. It’s more of what is believed rather than what is believed.

I’m going to be very frank, but not with an intent to be impolite.

I simply don’t trust you. It isn’t personal, I generally don’t trust anyone who is pushing a religion. You might not trust me either, and I’m ok with that.

That’s not reason to not move forward in a common faith that results in living according to the gospel teachings as recorded in the New Testament for those of us that make claim to being disciples of Christ. Loving God and loving our neighbor being primary.

MG, I think you can agree that we read the New Testament very differently, but it’s not something I care to debate about.

As I’ve already expressed to you, I think you’ve got it wrong in regard to Joseph Smith and what I see as his divine calling, but I don’t see that as any reason not to find common ground and live/settle with that without judgement. Everyone comes to their ideologies and journies of faith having come from different directions.

I don’t expect you to see Joseph the same way I do, nor am I trying to change your mind. I don’t have an agenda. I suppose you could try and change my mind, and I might listen, but there is a lot of historical evidence that you would have to overcome.

Where did the judgment line come from? Are you interpreting my “investigation” as judgment of you personally? This is an example of the “trap” I mentioned.

I’ll say it again, I came here to talk about a book—specifically from a naturalistic origin point of view. I like the format of this board, and I appreciate the sharp minds who post here—I am interested in feedback from others’ of like mind about its naturalistic origins. I already understand the faithful point of view.

I think it was Gad who said the gulf of our differences about its origins is probably too far to cross. Or something like that.

[Limnor]

I’ll give you the evidence that is codified in the Book of Mormon that influences my distrust:

Alma 18:22 Now Ammon being wise, yet harmless, he said unto Lamoni: Wilt thou hearken unto my words, if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee.

23 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.

According to LDS-oriented commentary sources (though not necessarily official “First Presidency” doctrinal statements), that phrase is explained as follows:

- The word guile historically can mean “deceit or trickery.” However, in this context commentators argue it means an intelligent strategic approach, rather than deception. For example:

Although the word guile is frequently used to mean ‘deceitful cunning’ or ‘treachery,’ it can also denote the use of strategy. It is evidently used in the latter sense in Alma 18:23; in other words, Ammon planned or used strategy in arranging the questions he asked King Lamoni.”

https://Book of Mormon.online/ammon/41

“Guile” is redefined and built in to the previously mentioned “script.”