What would you say was your biggest “doubt” or “concern” and how did you resolve it after ten years?
Didn't Jeremy Runnels publish his CES Letter in 2012? How long was your faith crisis again? 20 years?
No. When I say "Jeremy Runnells stuff" that means that I had already seen most if not all of the stuff he came out with AFTER I'd already been there, done that. I read the CES letter and listened to the podcasts. There was really nothing new to me. I'd already been around the block what seemed like a zillion times.
My first online participation was way back in the Mormon-l era. Not long after c-prompt went away.
Maybe back before you grew hair in strange places.
Are you trying to trap me? I don't like that. But it's something I must put up with.
So the earliest MG could’ve seen it was April 2013
Well, it looks like MG was caught in another lie. Either that or MG's faith crisis lasted 20 years.
Or he is losing his memory. Whichever way it is, one cannot rely on MG 2.0 to “be accurate” in his comments.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Well, it looks like MG was caught in another lie. Either that or MG's faith crisis lasted 20 years.
Or he is losing his memory. Whichever way it is, one cannot rely on MG 2.0 to “be accurate” in his comments.
I don't know how old either one of you are. I'm seventy. I run (well, sort of). I work out with weights. I hike. I'm out and about with family. I read a lot.
Guess what guys? Your memory is going to fade in some respects. You can criticize someone else for what occurs naturally over time or you can accept the fact that I was quite honest in my responses in regards to Dialogue and Sunstone. The exact timeline was not all that important in the scheme of things.
It didn't seem to matter at all to you that I may have been more well read than either one of you at an earlier age.
You harp on stuff that is superfluous and unimportant to what the actual meat/point of the discussion is about. Nit pick. Nit pick.
Or he is losing his memory. Whichever way it is, one cannot rely on MG 2.0 to “be accurate” in his comments.
I don't know how old either one of you are. I'm seventy. I run (well, sort of). I work out with weights. I hike. I'm out and about with family. I read a lot.
Guess what guys? Your memory is going to fade in some respects. You can criticize someone else for what occurs naturally over time or you can accept the fact that I was quite honest in my responses in regards to Dialogue and Sunstone. The exact timeline was not all that important in the scheme of things...
Did you not remember what you are talking about? Or are you attempting to deflect?
I don't know how old either one of you are. I'm seventy. I run (well, sort of). I work out with weights. I hike. I'm out and about with family. I read a lot.
Guess what guys? Your memory is going to fade in some respects. You can criticize someone else for what occurs naturally over time or you can accept the fact that I was quite honest in my responses in regards to Dialogue and Sunstone. The exact timeline was not all that important in the scheme of things...
Did you not remember what you are talking about? Or are you attempting to deflect?
Well, it looks like MG was caught in another lie. Either that or MG's faith crisis lasted 20 years.
if you really didn't remember, my condolences.
Given how he treated grindael, that’s very understanding of you.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Sam Taylor author of an interesting article in Dialogue How to Read a Mormon Scholar was what I would think be considered a "liberal Mormon"
Note how he deals with historians who want to tell the truth but have to protect themselves.Hide the difficult comments in a footnote. Bushman does this in Rough Stone Rolling page 570 footnote 30. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_131.pdf
He was a son or grandson of a LDS prophet. He wrote I think scripts in Hollywood https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 02_19s.pdf
This post is from a different thread but I think it fits here. Or at least I would like to respond to it here.
This is a trenchant comment which I find hard to simply dismiss or to reply to. I have spent much of the last 30 years holding Christian views that would be somewhat progressive. I thought such understandings were gaining strength. I have felt brutally disappointed by the realization illuminated by politics in the past ten years that it is the other extreme which has been growing in strength.
Perhaps it is simple , Kishkumen is right.
I thought to post first that I think that there is an authority claim contest between Community of Christ and the Salt Lake group both holding to a restoration with the Book of Mormon. It is a contest SL has been more convincing with and holds inertial advantage in. I thought perhaps growing more progressive was an alternate strategy to make up for the authority question disadvantage.
Progressive Christianity can mean different things and some of those can be pretty vague. Vague purpose and vague belief does fit vague and limited reason to be there. I think progressive can have definite purpose and beliefs, perhaps not even terribly complicated ones. But perhaps people prefer those purposes which fit culture wars and finding other people to criticize or condemn.
A possibility I see so will suggest is that perhaps people prefer to understand and picture God with a clear vein of cruelty. Such a god is more human like and not such a problem for human desires.
There is a heresy that is almost universally popular in Christianity today:
1. Hell, being eternal damnation
Universal salvation is consistent will a loving God who is all powerful. Without divine love and universal salvation, you can’t address the problem of evil. Clement, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa were right.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
