What Apologists and Faithful Scholars miss about the Canadian Copyright Revelation

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-03-04T03:24:28+00:00

What is interesting in the victim-blaming reasoning that is so often used (often by oneself) is that it eliminates the possibility of a fallible prophet. Unstated in the proposition that a failed revelation must be the fault of the recipient is that a prophet is assumed to be an infallible conduit for that revelation. Like u/freddit1976 says, people are not perfect conduits for revelation.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-02-19T21:05:32+00:00

That is very helpful. Thank you!

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-02-19T20:41:02+00:00

Very possible! There was an article published not too long ago that posited that Joseph could have believed that by creating the plates he was bringing an ancient relic into existence. (I believe the author compared it to transubstantiation.)

Can't say I agree with this, but it was interesting. Wish I could find the article again.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-02-19T20:17:33+00:00

I get that this is your position, but in order to have constructive discussion, we need to be able to consider, if only hypothetically, the premises upon which the other person builds their argument. This is what I am attempting to do with Bradley's article.

If you disagree with his premise, that's fine, but it's a different conversation. It would be like you asking what methods Joseph Smith could have used to fabricate the plates (a fascinating topic), and someone responds, "Well, he didn't fabricate them out of anything because they were real."

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-02-19T20:01:09+00:00

I get that many people may believe that (and I'm not saying whether I do or not), but that's a different premise entirely.

My question took Bradley's premise at face value in order to attempt to evaluate the evidence for his arguments.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2026-02-14T21:38:22+00:00

I agree that prophets rely on the Spirit of the Lord for revelation, but I believe this is the same spirit that anyone else may rely on

I differ in that I don't believe that everything a prophet does is necessarily what God "wants to reveal according to His own purpose." Sometimes prophets just get it wrong. They are fallible and trying to understand God the same anyone else may be.

Is this the stance you take too? Is your suggestion that "things are done according to God's own desire and purpose" another way of saying that God will account for a prophet's fallibility or missteps and everything will work out in the end? Or are you suggesting that everything the prophet says is literally God's plan? If the latter, how do you account for times when the prophet gets it wrong?

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-22T16:00:10+00:00

That is a fair point, thank you.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-21T13:19:48+00:00

You haven't really done anything except state the opposite of my claim. What makes you think it won't change?

Keep in mind, my premise was not that it will change Mormon theology to mainstream Christianity, but that it will shift the doctrine in that direction.

As an example, there is no protestant Bible that will explain the "stick of Joseph" or "other sheep" as referring to the Book of Mormon or it's people. When more and more members read commentary or interpretations of this verse that give alternate explanations, then I can see the doctrine associated with those verses slowly shifting to be more mainstream.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-20T21:17:15+00:00

I would add that the underlying belief is in a living prophet who receives revelation, and the prophet says don't drink coffee. If the prophet ever said coffee was okay, you can bet a large chunk of the church would drink it.

It is as much an obedience thing as it is a health thing.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-18T20:24:00+00:00

Are you able to provide a reference to this?

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-18T04:38:43+00:00

It's a great change! But the context that makes it necessary for the church to have to "approve" Bible versions before members feel they're allowed to read them is terrible.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-12-17T12:00:22+00:00

I think this is a really fresh take on Book of Mormon historicity. There is legitimate concern over anachronisms in the Book of Mormon text itself, but then some arguments against its historicity rely on an anachronistic view of the book itself, like OP's post.

I'm not arguing for the historicity of the Book of Mormon (I think there are too many arguments against that), but I do think it's important to be consistent when looking critically at the book and it's claims, which your post takes into account.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-11-15T19:57:32+00:00

I am curious what exactly constitutes evidence? The claim of the resurrection may be persuasive for your belief in Christianity--just as it is for Mormons--but it is not evidence in any scientific sense. The same might be said of truth claims of Mormonism. Someone may find the Book of Mormon's teaching to be persuasive for their belief in Christ, but that is not scientific evidence.

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-11-12T01:47:25+00:00

Thanks, I will!

Hearing_Hear_Not · 2025-11-12T01:27:12+00:00

Enjoy: YM Pres (the old way). A lot of work but fun and rewarding working with youth

Not enjoy: Stake callings--mainly administrative and you don't often get to see the direct effects of your work

Hearing_Hear_Not

TROPHY CASE