Clarification so as to be clear.

[Limnor]

The battles, cities, and civilizations don't need to span continents even though that might have been the original view that was seen through the interpretive lens.

I wonder if the battles have significant meaning to current doctrine.

I could be wrong - is there an explanation for the battles that is relevant to day-to-day life?

Do the concepts of the Church Fathers in their explanations that Old Testament battles represent or symbolize a believer’s internal battle against sin correlate to LDS explanations?

[I Have Questions]

I listened to a podcast yesterday about a 72-year-old man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime he said he didn't commit. He was offered parole if he would just 'own up' to a heinous murder that had been committed. He said over and over again that he couldn't admit to something that he didn't do.

Interesting, what was the podcast and who was the man?

[huckelberry]

Yes, I think it does. It's like the difference between believing the earth is flat vs. spherical. Some foundational claims aren't just symbolic and/or metaphorical, they shape everything built upon them. If the Book of Mormon is ancient, it's not just spiritually relevant/meaningful, it's part of the historical arc of history where God/Christ are part of and participative in the affairs of man.

I’ll go back to the point about the trouble malkie has pointed out with the FV.

If ongoing revelation can alter (or build upon the scaffold of) historical events, then how could anyone have confidence that the story of the discovery of the book was a fact or something built upon?

Prediction: within ten years the Book of Abraham will be considered a catalyst for revelation not based on factual writings of Abraham, and in twenty years, the Book of Mormon will be considered similarly, without the LDS Church collapsing.

Limnor, I can see a point to noticing how the idea of revelation can facilitate change. That is after all what LDS uses to offer corrective to traditional beliefs and problems like people thinking every body not baptized or professing Jesus or believing creeds go to hell. Revelation is also the basis of LDS covenants and ongoing authority. The claim to revelation by the church leader is based upon the Book of Mormon , particularly how it was received, a real historical record of Jesus appearing in the America's and establishing his church

I think MG estimate of the books centrality to LDS claims and strength is accurate. Seen as fiction it may inspire a bit but does not offer much support to the idea of Mormon authority. Perhaps community could hold it together but I think new ideas of authority would be necessary for that to work.

[Limnor]

I can see a point to noticing how the idea of revelation can facilitate change.

If the baseline truths can be shifted - including changes to foundational truths - “revelation” becomes a mechanism of adaptation and doesn’t place a great value on absolute truth.

While that can make sense within a theology that treats truth as progressive, it also complicates bedrock claims of consistency and continuity.

Because, under those conditions, revelation is able to redefine the foundation it builds on.

Houses built on sand and all that.

If the brethren one day said the Book of Mormon was a catalyst towards establishing revelation, I’d expect the majority of the faithful to nod in agreement.

That potentiality is fascinating to me.

[Marcus]

I’ll go back to the point about the trouble malkie has pointed out with the FV.

If ongoing revelation can alter (or build upon the scaffold of) historical events, then how could anyone have confidence that the story of the discovery of the book was a fact or something built upon?

Prediction: within ten years the Book of Abraham will be considered a catalyst for revelation not based on factual writings of Abraham, and in twenty years, the Book of Mormon will be considered similarly, without the LDS Church collapsing.

Limnor, I can see a point to noticing how the idea of revelation can facilitate change. That is after all what LDS uses to offer corrective to traditional beliefs and problems like people thinking every body not baptized or professing Jesus or believing creeds go to hell. Revelation is also the basis of LDS covenants and ongoing authority. The claim to revelation by the church leader is based upon the Book of Mormon , particularly how it was received, a real historical record of Jesus appearing in the America's and establishing his church...

I think Limnor's point is that if the claim to revelation is based on the Book of Mormon and other founding stories (like the first vision), then using said power of revelation to change the story of the Book of Mormon, the first vision, etc., would call into question that claim.

I agree, it's like when a mopologist wrote in an Interpreter article that he had absolute, definitive proof that J. Smith was intended to be the leader of the Restoration. I was curious to see this 'proof', but it turned out to be nothing more than a verse from the Book of Mormon, which was written by Smith. Using circular logic like that, or more specifically, using the conclusion you're trying to prove as your starting assumption in the proof, is simply not a valid argument.

If this is why or how the LDS church changed the first vision into what contemporary leaders wanted it to be, we are by definition not dealing with Smith's vision of a church anymore. (Not that I think Smith's "vision" was anything more than a vehicle for an immoral conman to get what he wanted, but that's a different topic.)

[Marcus]

I can see a point to noticing how the idea of revelation can facilitate change.

If the baseline truths can be shifted - including changes to foundational truths - “revelation” becomes a mechanism of adaptation and doesn’t place a great value on absolute truth.

While that can make sense within a theology that treats truth as progressive, it also complicates bedrock claims of consistency and continuity.

Because, under those conditions, revelation is able to redefine the foundation it builds on.

Houses built on sand and all that.

If the brethren one day said the Book of Mormon was a catalyst towards establishing revelation, I’d expect the majority of the faithful to nod in agreement.

That potentiality is fascinating to me.

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If the baseline truths can be shifted - including changes to foundational truths - “revelation” becomes a mechanism of adaptation and doesn’t place a great value on absolute truth.

While that can make sense within a theology that treats truth as progressive, it also complicates bedrock claims of consistency and continuity.

Because, under those conditions, revelation is able to redefine the foundation it builds on.

Houses built on sand and all that.

If the brethren one day said the Book of Mormon was a catalyst towards establishing revelation, I’d expect the majority of the faithful to nod in agreement.

That potentiality is fascinating to me.

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

For Mormonism, it's not a house on sand so much as a house built on bedrock that is occasionally drilled, blasted and pulverized into gravel.

[Limnor]

If the baseline truths can be shifted - including changes to foundational truths - “revelation” becomes a mechanism of adaptation and doesn’t place a great value on absolute truth.

While that can make sense within a theology that treats truth as progressive, it also complicates bedrock claims of consistency and continuity.

Because, under those conditions, revelation is able to redefine the foundation it builds on.

Houses built on sand and all that.

If the brethren one day said the Book of Mormon was a catalyst towards establishing revelation, I’d expect the majority of the faithful to nod in agreement.

That potentiality is fascinating to me.

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

It is baffling to me why anyone would place confidence in such a system.

[Limnor]

For Mormonism, it's not a house on sand so much as a house built on bedrock that is occasionally drilled, blasted and pulverized into gravel.

The thread title has become more “clear” the longer this conversation goes on.

“Clarification to be clear” can be seen to support “the truthiness of truth at this given time,” all that is missing is a caveat.

Perhaps it could be better rendered: “clarification to be clear as far as it is translated correctly at this present moment.”

[malkie]

For Mormonism, it's not a house on sand so much as a house built on bedrock that is occasionally drilled, blasted and pulverized into gravel.

The thread title has become more “clear” the longer this conversation goes on.

“Clarification to be clear” can be seen to support “the truthiness of truth at this given time,” all that is missing is a caveat.

Perhaps it could be better rendered: “clarification to be clear as far as it is translated correctly at this present moment.”

Some thoughts:

Colbert was/is a genius in more than one way, as illustrated by his coining of "truthiness".

There are times when I feel really sorry for the emptor

How about "A doomed-to-eventually-fail attempt at clarification"