The Folk Prophet

I would be interested in hearing more on this (or having it sourced to read on my own) as the handed-down theory has sort of been my go to understanding of it (in as much as I even care...which I don't, that much, really care where the endowment comes from, because, as you have stated, I believe it is of divine origin regardless).

You went there, huh?

I have, distinctly, learned things. That means changing my beliefs, does it not? And, legitimately, that makes sense. I didn't believe what I didn't know. Now I know it. Now I believe it. I have recently learned things from omega (that doctrine has been quite narrowly defined by some leaders of the church), and from askandanswer (the quotes on the priesthood never leaving the earth from Joseph Fielding Smith -- although I haven't entirely reconciled this as to my complete "beliefs" on the matter). I would hope I am continually learning and thereby, line upon line, changing my beliefs. I would hope that is true of all men (and women). I would hope that my intention to share, explain, proclaim, and defend the gospel even in these forums is useful in helping others make needed line-upon-line belief changes to bring them closer to the people they need to be. Although, sadly, I do expect that most people are merely stubbornly set in their ways and never learn much of anything or change their thinking to much of a degree their entire lives. As to some big life-altering paradigm shift in one's beliefs... From a forum? I think that likely exceedingly rare.

The end of the world.

Somehow I don't think that is the message the Book of Mormon is meant to convey. I don't necessarily entirely disagree with MoE's thoughts on the matter (other than the "have to" idea as to what is important to understand). If anything, I think they're simply applied too far-reaching and some conclusions drawn or implied (or perhaps, to be fair, inferred) are thereby faulty. However, I would suggest that a good argument (depending, of course on the meaning of this...so to be clear I'll rephrase as "legitimate" argument) cannot be made from falsehood. The bottom line is that Laman and Lemuel were in the wrong. Their point of view, therefore, isn't particularly compelling as an important one for consideration as to legitimacy. Why? Because they were unwilling to do that which the Lord asked them to do, which is to humble themselves and obey. Therefore, Nephi's imperfections don't really matter. I have no illusions that Nephi was perfect. There was only ever one perfect man on the earth. Certainly Nephi made mistakes in his interactions with Laman and Lemuel. These mistakes don't legitimize their point of view or choices however, because what was asked of them was to obey and follow in humility in spite of any imperfections in Nephi's words or actions. This, of course, is true of us as well when it comes to our interactions with prophets. I have no doubt that from Laban's perspective getting his head cut off and his stuff stolen (though I expect the first was the greater insult) was unfair. And I have no doubt that the view of what Nephi was and did as held by the Jews who remained behind in Jerusalem was that he was a thief and a murderer and completely in the wrong. That view, however, despite the law of the land, was mistaken. There can be no validity in a view that sides against the will of God.

The problem with this idea is that the lessons they are trying to teach us is built right into what happened to them. Moreover, if they did, actually, demonstrate racist intolerance for their neighbors, does that not teach something? It's also somewhat difficult to write these things off as somehow unimportant when many of the so-called intolerantly racist ideas are from God himself.

There is a fairly wide gap between this and the conclusion that Laman and Lemuel had legitimate complaints against Nephi.

I would temper this idea just slightly with "if God revealed it to them". I have a bit of a hard time with the idea that Mormon and Moroni blamed everything on unrighteousness but it wasn't really the case and they were just too quick on the draw with such conclusions. These were prophets who wrote by revelation.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/25/first-full-body-transplant-two-years-away-surgeon-claim

I am black and white about gospel truths. Not history, man-made-philosophy, or even (if you knew my sad education history) mathematics.

Why? Because I'm an unthinking, brainwashed, sheep who gullibly accepts anything without any thought given to it that my mommy and daddy told me? I don't see any problem with believing that some aspects of the Book of Mormon may be driven by the same historical bias that all history is. I do, however, as a general rule, take the concepts therein as either A. factual or B. meant to be described the way they are to teach truths even if the expression may be point-of-view rather than concrete reality. In other words, I think there is a distinct different between having a general understanding of potential historical bias and writing off anything one disagrees with or views as problematic (particularly based on our own cultural biases, which for some reason in today's world everyone seems to think we're somehow above). To treat the Book of Mormon as nothing but a historical record is mistaken. It is, primarily, scripture. That places it firmly into a different category of communication, and changes how we should accept and view the things therein. It is not a historical record that just happens to contain some religious thought. It is a religious text that just happens to contain some history. And it's writing, editing, preservation, and translation were under the control and domain of the Almighty. But did the Nephites have a small-world, us vs. them, self-cultural-centric understanding of the world? Obviously.

As to the personal thing, I agree. Sharing specifics about how we pray is...personal. It also feels like it runs the risk or either pulling judgment down upon us unfairly by others (for example, I now know that because Vort fails in his morning prayers that I can never trust him again...) or coming across as holier-than-thou. But the questions are, without a doubt, useful to consider, and the discussion of how we can improve our prayer practices is definitely valuable. I would suggest, perhaps, that the lack of preparing for prayers may be one of the reasons that some of us fail to get as much out of them as we might otherwise.

How do you know I disagree on that point? Of course, I'm not sure what point you mean? If you mean (as I presume) that the Book of Mormon contains historical bias, and you believe that I think it does not, then you are mistaken.

Those missionaries were dunderheads -- bless their hearts. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is historical reality, but the only ones who were guilty of it were those who perpetrated it, and whereas there are those who claim that "the church" was behind it, there's is no proof to that. Moreover, even if concrete evidence came to light that Brigham Young was behind it, there would still be no way to know what his motivations behind it were or were not, and if, therefore, any "repentance" was even required (see MarginOfError's remarks on Nephi's thieving (and, I might add, murderous) ways for reference if my meaning is not clear).

I guess it's not controversial enough. The only thought I had in reading through the questions is that we need to be mindful of the fact that God already knows our thoughts and hearts. But that doesn't necessarily change the fact that we should tell Him our thoughts and feelings, so... I would also suggest that your list of questions is lacking in the gratitude suggestions department.

None of this justifies the thought that one "has to" accept the Book of Mormon that way. Even if we take your point of view here as indisputable fact, just for the sake of moving forward, my question is, what, exactly, is harmful about viewing the Book of Mormon as 100% fact with no historical bias?

Why does one "have to" acknowledge this?

It doesn't matter if it is a lie or not with regards to what it teaches the children. My contention is not with the sin of lying. It is with the message it gives, and, frankly, with the message the article was trying to impress on the world. And I believe this is anatess's concern as well -- that offense is, somehow, the greatest offense. Offense is an offense. But there are greater offenses. Overall this particular story is actually probably rather innocuous, but the principle remains.

Would a B.C. human vaguely recognize a cell phone?

Why can't the brain develop within the bonds of marriage?

It's an interesting question. Possibility 1: The missionary is overly aggressive and overstepping. Possibility 2: The missionary is making sure that someone is legitimately prepared for the covenants they are going to make and is being led by the Spirit. I suppose there are other possibilities, of course, but my point is, really, that it is beyond this forum to determine which of these or any other possibilities is the truth. In theory, I can see both sides of the matter. There is no reason to expect someone to have a full understanding of everything prior to baptism. Conversely, there is a great danger in how many are baptized without actually understanding the key important things they are committing to. It could be that this missionary understands that acceptance of the Book of Mormon being 100% true is a matter of faith and not of understanding -- that, as omega pointed out, if one accepts that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then one cannot, legitimately, hold out that the BOM is false. Or, in other words, if one is not certain, by faith, that the Book of Mormon is true, then one clearly also does not fully accept Joseph Smith to be what he claimed to be. So, like I said, an interesting idea, but entirely beyond any of us to accurately advise upon.

It's one thing to have a "secret language" with your spouse. It's something else entirely to teach your children something inadvertently even if it's nothing more than a secret message that really means "I love you". I'm afraid I side with anatess on this one. The message to the children is lie to others so you don't offend them. Trying not offending others is a fine message. Lying in order to do it is not.

Upon looking closer at tubolath's thought, I agree with you Vort that it's a real stretch to read "should" as "ought". However, I also think the whole Three Nephite explanation (even as given by the likes of Joseph Fielding Smith and J. Reuben Clark) is insufficient to explain Moses 5:59. Stating that there were men on the earth with the priesthood but who were not authorized to use it is functionally equivalent to not having the priesthood on the earth. Moreover, as you've point out, the scripture is really about the "gospel". And more than that, the scripture is speaking of ordinances. Having beings on the earth who technically have the priesthood but are unauthorized to use it to perform saving ordinances doesn't read to me as the gospel being on the earth to some level as an unbroken chain from Adam on. And we know the chain was broken. Whether translated beings held the priesthood or now, the authority for them to pass it on never came. The pilot light idea fails in that regard. My take is that this scripture is a promise of restoration. It is saying that the gospel will be restored. The continuity of it is no more implicit than a husband promising a new bride that he'll always be there for her. This is why, in my mind, the Three Nephite/John explanation is lacking.

It strikes me that the quotes you drew your question from also answer your question.

I very much agree with bytor2112 on this. By the world's standards I am a textbook homophobe (and a textbook male chauvinist as well). This doesn't bother me much. I care what I am by the Lord's standards of love, not the world's. I also believe that in many ways we could seriously use a 50 year or more step backwards. The idea that anything newer is better is garbage. There are things, of course, that were worse 50 years ago. There other things that are, without question, significantly worse now. The world's concept of morality and sex is one of those things. Our standards of truth and right should never change, not matter how "progressive" the world becomes. Most everything about this new-found, worldly, so-called understanding of homosexuality is a lie.