Kevin Christensen is one of my favourite LDS writers. He doesn't blog, but he participates in certain forums. There have been several comment he has made which have made a lasting impression on my perspectives.
This post, on 19th Aug 2013 was particularly resonant:
I've posted on "true and living" and "well pleased" many times in the past. Since D&C 1:6 says that what follows is a formal declaration "mine authority and the authority of my servants," D&C 1 bears close and careful reading. I note that it is expressly non-exclusive with respect to revelation (v18, v34) and virtue, and openly declares the weakness of the LDS and the limitations of their knowledge (v24-27), and the conditions upon which further revelation comes (v26, 28). All of that that rules out a reading of only correct, or only perfect, or only truth, or only virtue. It is simply the only well pleasing gathering, relative to the presence of revelation, priesthood, ordinances and covenants. The Biblical uses of "true vine", true treasure, truth and life, living waters, living bread, "living way...through the veil" (Heb. 10:20), and so forth, all demonstrate that true and living refer to revelation priesthood authority, ordinances, covenants, and temple. D&C 23 is not a formal statement of authority, but a statement to an individual. What does true church mean? The report in the 1838 account of Joseph's vision talks about creeds as abominable. It helps to see what Joseph Smith himself said about the problem with creeds. "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 327). The issue is not so much with false beliefs, because all of us have them. All of us lack omniscience. All hold false ideas. The issue with whether we will repent. Static creeds bind a person to a static state of knowledge and place them beyond repentance. What could be more abominable than that? "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84. (Luke 9:)50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. Notice that the context here is doing good. In the superficially contradictory statements, notice that the context is different. In those cases, Jesus is addressing his formally appointed missionaries. His priesthood holders. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. The "I never knew you" statement has the same context of priesthood authority. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no man cometh to Father but by him. Yet, he also says that "All things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of him." (2 Nephi 11:4) That is behind Nephi later statement that "he remembereth the heathen" (2 Nephi 26:33, a wonderful statement in a culture in which "godless heathen" is a common cliche). Joseph Smith often taught that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. Nephi says "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their understanding." (2 Nephi 31:2). As Alma 29:8 says, "the Lord doth grant unto all nations...all that he seeth fit that they should have." FWIW Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA
I'd encourage anyone to read the Givenses' God Who Weeps. It portrays a "friendly" God and does so from a wonderfully broad range of sources. It could probably be just as well titled "The God who is our friend."
I have no real idea or certainty whether the Givenses are right in their portrayal of God. But it's "truth that works" and leads to more good. Which in turn, I believe, leads me to more "godliness."
My only slight critique of the book is that the world doesn't extend much further east than Athens and Jerusalem. The book seems to be setting out to show that the distilled wisdom of the world is found in Mormonism. But they dip only into the wisdom of the west and near east. I'd have enjoyed a little of the wisdom of the countries further round to the right of the map; especially as I was reading the book while on holiday in Thailand.
Of course Asia is in our East; "over there" and out of sight and mind for many. It's naturally not the case if you're looking at an older map of the world made by China, in which case the Americas are in the far east. The Chinese for 'China' is 中国(zhōng guó), meaning "middle: 中," "country: 国"
"Zhōng": (中) is one of my favourite Chinese characters. A simple symbol to remind me that wherever "I" stand, the rest of the world extends in every direction from me. My petulant teenage self was right: the world really does revolve around me. Just as it does for each single 7 billion of us. The fusion of Daoism and Confucianism in Chinese philosophy understands the important balance of "I" and "we." I've heard it called "individualistic collectivism."
We are always at the middle (中) of our own experience. Anything that falls outside of the mental/physical space around "I" is meaningless. It might as well not exist because, for the individual, it does not.
Elder Uchtdorf put it far more eloquently:
"There is a sublime truth behind the idea that we are always in the middle. If we look at our location on a map, we are tempted to say we are at a beginning. But if we look more closely, wherever we are is simply in the middle of a larger place.
As it is with space, so it is with time. We may feel we are at the beginning or end of our lives, but when we look at where we are against the backdrop of eternity—when we realize that our spirit has existed for time beyond our capacity to measure and, because of the perfect sacrifice and Atonement of Jesus Christ, that our soul will exist for an eternity to come—we can recognize that we are truly in the middle.
Being always in the middle means that the game is never over, hope is never lost, defeat is never final. For no matter where we are or what our circumstances, an eternity of beginnings and an eternity of endings stretch out before us.
I recently watched a fantastic lecture on religion and science. The following quote is a section that articulated something that has been on my mind for a while and is worth further exploration:
Quote
There are certain live, momentous and forced options which people face and can’t be decided by anything that some would be willing to call evidence.
An option is live if we can't help thinking about it; if we can't help feeling it's important. Options that are live for some people are not live for other people. People's sense of importance differs.
It's momentous if, unlike the option of going to the movies or staying home and working, decision between the alternatives will have far reaching effects.
It's forced if there's no way of splitting the difference, no way of fudging the issue. It cannot be decided on intellectual grounds if there is no consensus in the relevant community of what criteria should be used for arriving at a decision.
I don't believe anyone changes their life or reaches new conclusions because unsought evidence lands on their lap.
People don't join the church because truth interrupts them. Almost every conversions story whether into or out of Mormonism (indeed many faith or no faith expressions and transitions) happen in reaction to one of those three possible influences.
People say "I had a tragedy and started looking for..." or "I was at a stage in my life when I felt a desire to..." or "There was a problem that I needed a solution for..." Both into and out of the church. People don't radically change their life when there is no reason to. It happens when circumstance leads to questions that are "live, momentous and/or forced." I think these often exist without us consciously being aware of it.
For example, I don't care for a minute whether Zoroaster really had a vision of God and his Amesha Spentas some 3,500 years ago. Partly because I only heard of him last week but mainly because it really has no bearing on my life. The reality or not of his vision is neither live, momentous nor forced. I will have probably forgotten about it in a few months time. Is that irresponsible? Do I have a duty to go and explore every claim of divine interaction? No. There are more divine stories that hours in my life. There has to be a triage system.
So when people leave or join the church, or when people read and are troubled by church history vs reading the same thing and shrugging it off, it is not simply the history that is the issue.
The issue of accepting or rejecting the historic evidence of Joseph as a prophet really has a deeper root. When people leave the church, it's almost always not a "desire to sin" as some characterise it or a laziness at not wanting to be a saint anymore. But it is also not simply a cold and rational reading of historical information.
It is far more likely that "something" has happened which causes the same evidence to lead to a different conclusion.
E.g. If my wife converted to Zoroastrianism then suddenly the question of what happened to the faith's founding prophet would become live and somewhat momentous. Until then he's a curious but forgettable footnote in history.
The "something" motivates us to seek the evidence. This drives the exploration. Without that "something" people will either ignore the evidence/history entirely, or will engage with it from a different perspective and objective.
This doesn't invalidate the conclusion reached. It doesn't mean that those who doubt or leave are weaker or more ignorant than those who stay or vice versa. It simply means that life's experiences has lead to a different set of "live, meaningful and/or forced" options. The "something" is different for everyone. The same "something" in two or more people can also lead to different conclusion. I believe that both we and God are involved in crafting the personalised curriculum that leads to these different circumstances, options and conclusions. This is also why I'm very comfortable with the notion of individualised vehicles for travelling the path to godliness.
I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. It's making more in my head. I'll give it a bit more 'mulling' time.
Terryl Givens is apparently leading a program, for the church, to write 13 essays answering the big issues of Mormonism. He is also involved with several others who are working on helping members who have doubts.
The problem is, there are certain issues that simply have no good answers, even if they wrote 130,013 essays.
There remains, for me, questions that I've read all of the FAIR material on and have debated for many 100s of posts on MDDB and there are still no good answers. Two examples that are among the most challenging (for me) are:
1) Why did BY introduce a ban on blacks having priesthood/temple ordinances (and even auxiliary leadership clings) even though JS had ordained black men and called them to leadership positions? Why is there no evidence this was introduced by even claimed revelation and yet was taught as God's will and doctrine for over 130 years?
2) Why do passages from the KJV of the Bible, that were added in 200AD with no evidence of being original, also appear, identically, in the Book of Mormon (Mark 16/Mormon 9)?
I maintain a belief in God and from that stems a partial solution to my concerns.
I compare this solution to my perspectives on humanity, God's crowning creation: I believe God is the ultimate source of life. But I was created by people (my parents) and as such, came in to being with imperfections and fallibility.
I consider the same to be the case for Mormonism.I believe God, like for many other religions, was the ultimate source of inspiration, but the organisation and scriptures were delivered by people, which leads to imperfections and fallibility.
Given the clear potential for error and fallibility in our leaders and scripture I don't feel a need to have a total acceptance of everything they teach and expect. I adopt and adapt in a personalised approach. Mormonism remains "my way." But I accept and support those who, like my wife, find approaches that fit and work for them in better way. I believe God does too.
The "West" of course was still scrabbling around. 610-570 Sappho was starting to write romantic poetry, but Plato would take another 300-400 years to turn up.
Just a thought... For the next "Teachings of the Presidents" manual could they break with convention and do "Teachings of a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70?" B.H. Roberts has some of most quotable content in all of Mormon writing:
"I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context -- with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found -- then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom." B. H. Roberts Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, pp. 26-34
-----------------------------------
"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.” Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912), pg. v - "
“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.
What do we know about him beyond the short verses in the Bible?
Via Joseph we also have John's testimony of Christ in D&C 93, which is among the most beautifully expressed that I'm aware of:
7 I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us....15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.
Some have questioned whether this was John the Beloved or John the Baptist, due to its similarity to St John 1.
Reading the text that is given I have presumed it to be John the Baptist, especially due to this verse in D&C 93:
15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.
Bruce R. McConkie said this:
From latter-day revelation we learn that the material in the forepart of the gospel of John (the Apostle, Revelator, and Beloved Disciple) was written originally by John the Baptist. By revelation the Lord restored to Joseph Smith part of what John the Baptist had written and promised to reveal the balance when men became sufficiently faithful to warrant receiving it...Even without revelation, however, it should be evident that John the Baptist had something to do with the recording of events in the forepart of John's gospel, for some of the occurrences include his conversations with the Jews and a record of what he saw when our Lord was baptized-all of which matters would have been unknown to John the Apostle whose ministry began somewhat later than that of the Baptist's. There is little doubt but that the Beloved Disciple had before him the Baptist's account when he wrote his gospel. The latter John either copied or paraphrased what the earlier prophet of the same name had written.
Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1973], 1: 71.
Also, the Oct 1999 Ensign it discusses this and suggests that John the Beloved is quoting John the Baptist in the first chapter of The Gospel of John:
"...it is likely that the John who “saw and bore record” is John the Baptist. John the Beloved probably either copied from John the Baptist’s own written record or originally recorded it in his Gospel. 14 The record which the Lord says “is hereafter to be revealed” may be that of either or both of these faithful servants. This pattern is similar to the first chapter of the Gospel of John, wherein the writer, John the Beloved, is quoting the speaker, John the Baptist, and both are testifying of Christ." - JONN D. CLAYBAUGH
What's interesting about D&C 93 is it follows a model that often reoccurs. When Joseph quotes an ancient patriarch (sometimes with unknown/newly restored texts) it is often to introduce or reaffirm a new concept or doctrine. Or at least one that may have been new to the early saints.
As Claybaugh observes:
Among the great truths we learn from and have confirmed in section 93 are the following: Christ was in the beginning before the world was; the worlds and all things were made by Christ; He is the life and light of men; the Savior did not receive of a fulness of knowledge, power, and glory at the first, but progressively received grace for grace; Jesus eventually received all power, both in heaven and on earth; and if we are faithful we shall receive the fulness of the record of John.
And the JSP Editors observation on the 6 May 1833 Revelation is:
But most of this revelation is distinctly theological in nature. The circumstances surrounding the revelation are not certain, although this text possibly illuminated doctrinal issues raised in recent sessions of Kirtland, Ohio’s school of the prophets. It also may have been prompted by JS’s revision of the New Testament, which was completed in February 1833. Regardless, this revelation was of great importance to the early church.
In the King Follett discourse Joseph wryly observes:
It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.
I suppose we have the same today. General Conference is full of Prophets quoting Prophets. One of the things I really appreciated about The God Who Weeps was the appreciation of how brilliantly Joseph gathered truth. Not just a restoration but a distillation. And one that was not completed but is ongoing.
I need to give it further thought. Here are my notes of the highlights:
It seems too simple to say life and the world can be
described one way on Sundays for religious purposes and another day on weekdays
for all other purposes.
Acquiring a belief in God is more like falling into or
out of love than winning or losing an argument.
Scientific beliefs give us the ability to predict space
and time in a practical useful way. Religious beliefs give meaning to our lives
in an emotionally satisfying context.
Science oversteps its bounds when it tells us we have
no right to believe in God now that we have better explanations for the
phenomena that God was previously used to explain.
Abandon the idea that there is one way the world really is
and Science & Religion are competing to tell us what way that really is.
There is no such thing as the search for truth if that
search is distinct from the search for greater human happiness.
We call a belief true when no competing truth serves
the same purpose equally well.
We want prediction and control and scientific beliefs
give us that. We also want our lives to have significance. We want to love
something with all our heart and soul and mind and philosophical and religious
beliefs sometimes help in that attempt.
Different human needs give rides for different beliefs. One
description is satisfactory for one human need but not satisfactory for all
human needs.
Some suggest that if belief is established on
insufficient evidence the pleasure is a stolen one. It is sinful because it is
stolen in rejection of our duty to mankind. It is wrong to believe anything on
insufficient evidence.
Is evidence something that floats free? Or does it
satisfy a human need? It's reasonable to demand evidence when in a common
enterprise. But when searching for meaning it's not clear that we have an
obligation to produce evidence.
Our passional nature must decide an option between
propositions whenever it is a genuine option that cannot, by its nature, be
decided on intellectual grounds.
There are certain live, momentous and forced options
which people face and can’t be decided by anything that some would be willing
to call evidence. An option is live if we can't help thinking about it; if we
can't help feeling it's important. Options that are live for some people are
not live for other people. People's sense of importance differs.
It's momentous if, unlike the live option of going to the
movies or staying home and working, decision between the alternatives will have
far reaching effects. It's forced if there's no way of splitting the
difference, no way of fudging the issue. It cannot be decided on intellectual
grounds if there is no consensus in the relevant community of what criteria
should be used for arriving at a decision.
What counts as a live, forced and momentous option will
vary between cultures and individuals. Some people raised agnostic will not
think about religion at all. The option of becoming a religious believer is not
live. It may become "live" if they fall in love with someone who
refuses to marry a non-catholic.
There are no options that all of humanity has the
responsibility to confront because options vary with each physical location. Should
we withhold belief in the absence of evidence and be bound to belief when consensus
of evidence is reached?
To search for
truth is to search for beliefs that work. For beliefs that get us what we want.
One human pleasure is in finding beautiful comprehensive
theories. We have no responsibilities to something called truth but only
responsibilities to other human beings.
The question of whether there is evidence for a belief is
the question of whether there exists a certain human community which takes
certain relatively non controversial propositions as providing good reason for
that belief.
(25:34) Where
there is such a community to which we want to belong we have an obligation to not
to believe a proposition unless we can give some good reasons for doing so; reasons
that the community takes to be good ones. Where there is no such
community, we don’t.
Nobody knows what would count as non-question-begging
evidence for the claims of the Catholic or Mormon Church to be “the one true
church.” But that does not and should not matter to the Catholic or Mormon
communities.
Some see it as a question between intellectual grounds
and emotional needs. That suggests humans having two distinct faculties with two
distinct purposes; one for knowing and another for feeling. This picture has to
be abandoned, once one gives up the idea that there is a special human purpose
called “knowing the truth;” or getting in touch with the intrinsic nature of
reality.
Instead we should see human minds as webs of belief and
desire; so interwoven with each other that it’s not easy to see when a choice
has been made on purely intellectual grounds or on merely emotional grounds.
Nor is it useful to divide areas of culture or life into those in which there
is objective knowledge and those in which there is only subjective opinion.
These traditional epistemological distinctions are misleading ways of making a
distinction of areas where we do have an obligation to other people to justify
our beliefs and desires and areas in which we don’t have such an obligation.
Replace the intellect/passion distinction with what needs
justification and what doesn’t. A business proposal needs intellectual justification,
a marriage proposal doesn’t. This makes possible a less rigorous ethics of
belief. This pragmatist ethics says our right to happiness is limited only by
others rights not to have their own pursuits of happiness interfered with. This
right to happiness also includes the right to believe. It includes the rights
to faith, hope and love. These often cannot be justified and shouldn’t need to
be.
This ethics of belief is an extension of utilitarianism. The
only time we can criticise another person’s belief is when that person’s belief
is made an excuse for interfering with other human projects.
Some will call this a godless creed. Beware of
pragmatists baring gifts. They may say beware of the belief that anyone has the
right to believe anything as long as their doing so doesn’t compromise any
co-operative enterprise to which to which they have committed themselves. They
may suggest that utilitarianism can only be accepted by someone with no
religious feelings.
If Christ taught that “love is the only law,” then all
other beliefs and creeds are secondary to this overriding obligation. A life
that rejects such service, no matter how many sacraments are received, does not
meet the obligation.
It’s possible to include utilitarianism in this idea. All
humans suffer pain on a moral par. They all deserve to have their needs
satisfied in so far as this can be done without harm to others. Humans have
been taught for centuries that God’s will was for humans to love one-another; that
all men are brothers.
In 1978 LeGrand Richards gave an interview on blacks and the priesthood restoration.
"WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?
RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will... Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing."
Setting aside the whole mess of blacks and the priesthood for a moment (and it really was a mess), Elder Richards says something that got my attention. These days we seem to be distancing ourselves from the idea that all Native Americans are descended from Lehi (via Laman and Lemuel).
Some apologists suggest that they are a few ancestors among millions of others. A person living today would trace back to millions of different ancestors in 600BC (2+4+8+16 etc. start at 1 on a calculator and keep pressing x2 for parents. Do it 100 times and you'll soon see what I mean. More ancestors than have ever lived). So if a living Native American can trace one of 1000s of family lines back to Laman or Lemuel (and Lehi), does that make him a Lamanite when every other line goes back to other races/ethnicities? Is their skin colour explained solely in the way described in 1978 by an apostle?
I remember an odd conversation with an American.
Me: "I'm English" Him: "Me too, my great, great grandmother emigrated from England." Me: "Uhh... my great, great grandfather was from Sweden but... Uuh... never mind."
I think it's pretty clear that even until very recently the Native Americans were considered Lamanites in a very literal view of race and ancestry. The Richards interview above shows that the Apostles considered the reason for an "Indian's" dark skin to be because of the curse on Laman and Lemuel.
Nowadays people seem to take the approach of distancing themselves from that literal perspective and instead creating a case for a diluted DNA, which means they're not really Lamanites at all, just like I'm not Swedish. You could say I have Swedish ancestry but I'm neither racially nor ethnically Swedish. That may be true of the native Americans today. If you could trace every line you might eventually find Lehi. But for the Native Americans to be called Lamanites, as they have been for 150 years in our church seems to be a pretty loose definition.
I can also see a general category name of all Native Americans/Polynesians being "Lamanites." As in "natives to these continents, not of Causcasian/European parentage." But that doesn't really fit with the descriptions of the D&C and the prophets later. Richards specifically talked about "Indians" of the 1970s having dark skin because of the curse on Laman/Lemuel (which could later change colour through faithfulness). He's not the only one to do so.
Or maybe it's better to shuffle it all into myth and legend and just see the promise to the "Lamanites" as a prodigal son alegory. In the end, however far we have fallen (and Moroni 9 has the Lamanites fall a very long way) we are always able to be rescued* and get back towards our progress on the path to godliness.
These days the whole Book of Mormon seems to work best in that category.
I'm starting to reach some partialy formed perspectives on the Book of Mormon.
So here are my beliefs as I understand them today:
- I believe God inspires men to write scripture in different times and cultures.
- I believe the affect of applying the principles of scripture is a better test of its validity than praying about it or in studying its historical origin, but I accept the last two still have merit.
- I don't think Joseph was an intentional fraud or con artist. Nor do I think his successors were.
- I think it's possible for both Joseph to be a prophet and for Nephi etc to have never existed.
- I think the Nephites might have existed. I doubt this will ever be proven by historical study. But historical study can show that they could have existed.
- I think there is viability to some of the evidence for the Book of Mormon's ancient origin, but not all of it. Some of it is just coincidence.
- I think there is viability to some of the evidence for the Book of Mormon's modern origin, but not all of it. Some of it just coincidence.
- I believe that whoever was the original author (Nephi/Mormon or Joseph) that ultimately the inspiration for the content came from a divine source. Probably not word for word, but the principles and lessons are divine, not entirely man-made.
- I do not believe Skousen/others theory that Joseph was simply an AV system for God. I don't believe he was reading off a spiritual TelePrompter.
How did Joseph produce the Book of Mormon? I believe exactly what we claim. He dictated the book by revelation/inspiration.
My 'hung verdict' on the origin is a different process of study to the question of whether the words in book that exists today are of divine origin or not.
I intend to continue investigating both. But the conclusion of the first will not make or break the conclusion of the second.
