Lucifer's Lantern

It looks like the topic of horses and the Book of Mormon is going to crop up every few months like a nasty case of eczema, so I feel it’s worthwhile to summarize the debate as it currently stands. There's another post on this blog  about more recent research, but it always goes back to the (in)famous analysis done by Matthew Roper and his colleagues at BYU, John Clark and Wade Ardern, all the way back to 2005. But first, let's look even further back.  What the Book of Mormon Said The word “horse” appears 14 total times in the Book of Mormon in the context of domesticated livestock, with half of those references being connected with pulling chariots of war. Both Lamanite and Nephite peoples equated these horses with those described in Isaiah 2:7 and 5:28, which Nephi expressly quotes in his own record (compare 2 Nephi 12:7 and 15:28), with no distinction made between them. The horses of the Americas, per the Book of Mormon, are intended to be the same in form and function to ...

   In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson delivered a devotional at BYU that outlined what he called the “ 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. ” The message spread widely within the church and shaped how Latter day Saints came to understand prophetic authority. Even if someone never read the original talk, the ideas appeared in lessons, leadership trainings, and casual conversation across generations. The fundamentals build a system that places the prophet above every competing source of guidance. When read together, they create a model of obedience and hierarchy that rests on the idea that one man speaks for God. 1. The prophet is the only person who speaks for God in everything  This first principle elevates one individual above all other voices. If only one man speaks for God, then any disagreement with him becomes a spiritual issue rather than a difference in interpretation. The structure relies on absolute trust in a single leader. 2. The living prophet is more important than script...

  Dallin H. Oaks’s talk “Reading Church History” reflects a defensive stance toward the discipline of history. Rather than encouraging open historical inquiry, Oaks frames church history as something to be read through faith, not skepticism.  He warns against what he calls “secular” or “critical” readings that might lead believers to doubt prophetic authority. His argument assumes that divine purpose supersedes historical context and that imperfect records should not shake testimony. There are several issues with his approach. 1. Scientific Uncertainties Oaks opens by discussing how media coverage around church history can be unreliable because of incomplete scientific evidence—clearly referring to the Mark Hofmann forgery scandal then unfolding. He warns against assuming early reports are accurate. Fair point. The irony is that he was right for the wrong reasons: Hofmann’s documents were forgeries, but his warning served more to defend the church than to protect truth. ...

In response to my thoughts regarding the 2013 study on the LDS Faith Crisis , I had someone suggest that I read a talk by Lawrence E Corbridge. After a quick Google search, I found the talk they were referring to and wanted to share some thoughts on it. Here is the relevent exerpt from Corbridge's 2022 BYU devotional: ---------- Primary Questions and Secondary Questions: Begin by answering the primary questions. There are primary questions and there are secondary questions. Answer the primary questions first. Not all questions are equal and not all truths are equal. The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate. There are only a few primary questions. I will mention four of them. 1. Is there a God who is our Father? 2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world? 3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet? 4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? By contrast, the secondary questions are unending...