Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

semlogo

What are the implications if the BoA is false?

Recommended Posts

And these testimonies are (typically) remarkably like LDS testimonies in one very odd way: They usually refer to the subject's "feelings", which, when it happens to a Saint, Evangelicals pooh-pooh and say we cannot trust our feelings, that only the Bible is good enough to believe. Phrases like "I felt in my heart," and "I felt God in my room/heart/soul," are common among them. We, however, are not allowed to have the biblical "burning in the bosom" to justify our testimonies.

Yet another double standard we Saints are not allowed to meet.

Lehi

This is precisely the point I have tried to make with Mr Bowman repeatedly, and he has never ever been willing to discuss.

I hope now he is.

All my discussions with him about how he "knows" the Bible is true have been to get him to admit that he knows the same way I do- because of personal testimony.

Indeed that is the only way to know.

Like you, Lehi, I find this inconsistency unfathomable!

Perhaps it is because then they would have to explain how we can have testimonies of the Book of Mormon, and they do not- so they reject the whole notion of that.

Our doctrine can accommodate the apparent inconsistency because we believe that God leads us where he wants us, and that we will continue learning in the after life, while they are stuck with the notion that no such thing occurs.

If I was a drunk on skid row, and the Salvation Army folks found me and taught be about Christ, could I have a valid "testimony" that what they taught me was "true"?

I don't think there is a Latter Day Saint alive who would not acknowledge that even a partial understanding of the gospel is better than none at all, and that indeed God might very well give such an individual a "testimony" of such things, knowing that he could obtain "further light and knowledge" in the hereafter.

In fact I think most Evangelicals are in this situation themselves- they have an understanding of Christ, a testimony that they are "saved"- which they are- not as "saved" as they could be, but "saved" in one sense- and THINK they have taken it as far as they can.

Of course we know differently, but we could acknowledge such a thing about them- but they can never ever return the favor for us, because their limited doctrine will not allow it.

I had a good personal discussion over lunch with my buddy Richard Abanes about this very point, and he did not really respond either.

Share this post


Link to post

<SNIP>

Don't be surprised with his continued avoidance of this issue. It is one of many FATAL FLAWS in evangelicism.

He will avoid it like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post

By "accurate", I assume you mean the story of how we got the BoA, not just the contents of the BofA.

If the story of how we got the BoA is inconsistent with the facts then your faith will go through an alteration if you keep it at all. My brother is "out" because of the BoA. To me it isn't a deal breaker.

The BoA is scripture. It is also Joseph Smith's creation, as is the BoM and his "translation" of the Bible. I believe that scripture is writing under an intense influence or "contact" with the metaphysical realm in your mind. Joseph Smith, I allow, believed that he had a gift. What he was, evidently, was hyper spiritual, i.e. he had a very strong connection to the metaphysical. Therefore we have received a very high "scriptural" content in his writings.

Finally, scripture does not have to be consistent to be scripture. If that is your requirement, then you can start by tossing huge chunks of the Bible....

The metaphysical realm? You mean he was an occult channeler?

Share this post


Link to post
I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false? Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless? I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

If the BoA is false, then the LDS Church is false. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
The metaphysical realm? You mean he was an occult channeler?

You do realize that "Questing Beast" is not a Saint, right?

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

If the BoA is false, then the LDS Church is false. Simple as that.

Indeed!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever even met an evangelical? :huh:

It is a commonplace among evangelicals that "God doesn't have grandchildren" -- that is, that each person must have a personal faith in Christ, not merely accepting the faith of another. Hence, the evangelical insistence on knowing Christ as "one's personal Lord and Savior." Evangelicals also typically have personal "testimonies" about how they came to Christ and what he has meant in their lives. These testimonies are also not transferable.

Yes, I know evangelicals well, both personally and academically.

As LeSellers suggests, it is true that evangelicals will often speak as though they are "called" or "led by the Lord" or the Spirit to do such and such, but that is a very vague concept -- which is belied by near total commitment to the principle of sola scriptura, and a deep-seated fear of Pentecostalism (the holiness churches).

Thus, although many a revival (and Billy Graham Crusade) has seen self-identified "born again" persons come forward in response to the preaching of the Gospel -- a commendable act by any measure -- to "give their lives to Christ," what is truly emphasized thereafter is rational interpretation of Scripture, a very vague concept of "faith," and the priesthood (authority) of the believer.

Evangelicals are particularly condemnatory of the personal testimonies of Mormons because that to them means mere, undependable "feelings," not to mention a powerful realization that mere existence of the Mormons calls into serious question the authenticity of evangelicalism.

The upshot is that the lack of use of the Holy Spirit to aid in interpreting Scripture leads evangelicals into rampant denominationalism (since sola scriptura is a circular and centrifugal concept) and to denigration of those to whom the restoration of early, authentic Christianity is paramount.

Share this post


Link to post

If the BoA is false, then the LDS Church is false. Simple as that.

True enough, but perhaps not so simple.

Share this post


Link to post

semlogo:

I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false?

I'm sincerely curious as to the criteria (and assumptions) one might establish in order to determine whether or not the "translation is accurate," given what we know about how the book came about, and given the available "evidence" of that process.

As one who is probably as familiar with the extant original source materials as anyone, I cannot see how--outside of personal revelation--one could confidently reach any kind of "scientific conclusion" concerning the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Abraham. To the extent it derived from revelation (similarly to the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses), then what test might one apply to determine its accuracy? I am not aware of any definitive evidence sufficient to disprove the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Abraham.

Contrary to what many critics of Mormonism have long believed (largely due to the fog of ignorance that has surrounded the pertinent materials) I am now personally convinced that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers do not serve to discredit Joseph Smith's restoration of the text we know as the Book of Abraham.

For those who have not yet availed themselves of the opportunity, I would recommend viewing the following: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Share this post


Link to post
semlogo: "I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false?"
semlogo:

I'm sincerely curious as to the criteria (and assumptions) one might establish in order to determine whether or not the "translation is accurate," given what we know about how the book came about, and given the available "evidence" of that process.

As one who is probably as familiar with the extant original source materials as anyone, I cannot see how--outside of personal revelation--one could confidently reach any kind of "scientific conclusion" concerning the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Abraham. To the extent it derived from revelation (similarly to the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses), then what test might one apply to determine its accuracy? I am not aware of any definitive evidence sufficient to disprove the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Abraham.

Contrary to what many critics of Mormonism have long believed (largely due to the fog of ignorance that has surrounded the pertinent materials) I am now personally convinced that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers do not serve to discredit Joseph Smith's restoration of the text we know as the Book of Abraham.

For those who have not yet availed themselves of the opportunity, I would recommend viewing the following: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

semlogo's saying that dealing with the production and other evidence is hard, so let's not talk about it . . . isn't that about the size of it?

Share this post


Link to post

semlogo's saying that dealing with the production and other evidence is hard, so let's not talk about it . . . isn't that about the size of it?

The irony is that, for over 40 years now, people have superficially examined the "evidence" allegedly associated with the production of the BoA and casually pronounced it definitive proof of Joseph Smith's fraudulence. They are quick to condemn what they view as a lack of rigor in those who hold to faith, but frequently manifest just such a lack when it comes to their facile acceptance of arguments that erode faith.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false? Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless? I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

It is the same implication that one faces if they consider whether the Bible is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×