So, it would be prudent for Mormons to be aware that what is being taught, revealed, preached, or expected of them today, may end up being defined in the future as limited and lacking in knowledge, and from a place of darkness.
Using the phrase 'line upon line and precept upon precept' is incorrect then, as that phrase implies building upon and adding to, not trashing something and starting over.
Yes. You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead, and then you cannot trust a word he said.
Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Yes. You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead, and then you cannot trust a word he said.
Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago
On the contrary. I, for one, enjoyed this thread immensity. I learned some things, thanks to all who contributed.
MG should be forgiven somewhat. He was in over his head, as he was trying to use AI to harvest some responses to what you were saying. As was the case in his other attempts to do this, neither he nor AI was quite up to the task.
Yes. You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead, and then you cannot trust a word he said.
Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago
It was not a waste of time, from my perspective. Your thoughts exposed, to me, the “fungibility of truth” (as expressed earlier by Morley) associated with Mormonism.
It remains fascinating to me that a person could make a foundational truth statement like “the Book of Mormon is true,” or “the Priesthood ban is true” while simultaneously understanding that a future prophet could alter that baseline truth.
I’ve read the comments since I left the thread. I haven’t seen/read anything that causes me to think that.
What has occurred, however, is a thoughtful dichotomy contrasting different points of view coming from various presumptions as to how truth may be disseminated to mankind. As usual, some would like to see things through the lens/filter of ‘black and white’. I don’t see it that way. Some things are, some things aren’t.
I’ve read the comments since I left the thread. I haven’t seen/read anything that causes me to think that.
What has occurred, however, is a thoughtful dichotomy contrasting different points of view coming from various presumptions as to how truth may be disseminated to mankind. As usual, some would like to see things through the lens/filter of ‘black and white’. I don’t see it that way. Some things are, some things aren’t.
That’s where things get interesting, right?
Regards,
MG
Also different points of view about whether truth is "disseminated" to mankind, since dissemination seems to presuppose a disseminator.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
I’ve read the comments since I left the thread. I haven’t seen/read anything that causes me to think that.
What has occurred, however, is a thoughtful dichotomy contrasting different points of view coming from various presumptions as to how truth may be disseminated to mankind. As usual, some would like to see things through the lens/filter of ‘black and white’. I don’t see it that way. Some things are, some things aren’t.
That’s where things get interesting, right?
Regards,
MG
Also different points of view about whether truth is "disseminated" to mankind, since dissemination seems to presuppose a disseminator.
True enough.
By the way, for those interested, I've listened to the most recent Michael Shermer podcast where his guest is Charles Murray who many of you may know has changed his worldview from atheist/agnostic to recognizing religiosity as being part of his life as he searches for meaning. His wife, Catherine (if I remember her name correctly) , is a Quaker and over the years as they've talked and as he has grown in experience and wisdom, he has come to realize, similar to Ross Douthat, that religion, and specifically Christianity, makes sense in a post twentieth century world that might have been a bit too 'full of themselves'.
He and Shermer throw quite a bit around as they refer to various philosophers and religionists. I was waiting for Shermer to say, "Thou almost convinceth me to be a Christian". It didn't happen this time around.
Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago
On the contrary. I, for one, enjoyed this thread immensity. I learned some things, thanks to all who contributed.
MG should be forgiven somewhat. He was in over his head, as he was trying to use AI to harvest some responses to what you were saying. As was the case in his other attempts to do this, neither he nor AI was quite up to the task.
Well, only slightly forgiven. He knows Shades has ruled he isn't supposed to cut and paste AI but he has done so multiple times recently, and quite egregiously. But in over his head? Yes, definitely. He can't seem to get his AI to accurately reflect the Mormon doctrine we've gotten from him in the past, so his cut and pastes end up a jumble of contradictions. Cheating with AI honestly seems like far more work than just stating one's opinion.
Yes. You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead, and then you cannot trust a word he said.
Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago
Interaction with MG is always a waste of time if you are expecting anything other than to go round in circles with MG refusing to accept anything other than he’s right and you’re wrong. He’s special and you’re not. And he will never, ever, acknowledge when he’s made a mistake or that you’ve demonstrated a flaw in his thinking. And look out if you’re a female poster. You’re in for a whole load of disparaging sexism.
Now that’s the picture I’ve built up based on his interactions on this board. You’ve met him. Have you any reason to believe his behaviour in real life is similar to his behaviour on this board?
Last edited by I Have Questions on Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a grove of trees near his parents’ home in western New York State when he was about 14 years old.
Did he? In the first account (written 27 years after it was supposed to have happened) he only mentions seeing one person.
Why wait 27 years to jot it down and mention it?
Why only mention seeing one person of you clearly saw two?
The time lapse and inconsistencies are what undermine the credibility of the story. Add to that the Church putting words into Joseph’s mouth (leading the witness I think that’s called), and we have a testimony that would not be believed under any other circumstances than “religion”.
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.
As usual, some would like to see things through the lens/filter of ‘black and white’. I don’t see it that way. Some things are, some things aren’t.
MG, I truly mean no offense, but it cracks me up every time I see that you've typed out this sort of thing. Most of the time, I'm able keep my fingers from responding, but this time, I can't seem to be able to stop myself.
You're probably the most 'black-and-white' thinker on this board. You frame every question and shape every idea into a Christ-is-the-cornerstone vs. secular humanist dichotomy. You re-form every thought puzzle into a restorationist limerick that highlights and celebrates your own particular brand of 'creator God'. You remold every reality and turn every truth into a ball of Mormon Jesus that fits your own preconceived notions. That you think of yourself as someone who thinks 'outside the box,' while every other perspective 'lacks nuance,' is both hilarious and sad.
