The Joseph Smith Translation

[TAO]

Bold mine. JS lack of correction of Biblical additions either institutes the ineptness of such correction or the validity of such additions.

Incorrect. Question, have you seen Nack's story on translation, and how it works, especially considering the BoM? The translation is not perfect in wording, it is perfect in meaning. And truly, is that not the only thing that matters?

No I don't think it is a greater problem for non-LDS Christians. We can recognize the concept that it was likely an addition to the text and deal with it. I have.

But like it or not, if such is proof that God did not protect his word, then even more so it is certainly a proof that JS wasn't able to restore it either. Certainly it devalues the credibility of JST.

When you look at the translation as a literal translation, yes. When you look upon it as a spiritual translation, nah, not so much =).

That is possibly the best ad hoc offering Lehi. But it's ad hoc nonetheless. Your insertion of metaphor into Christ's statement is convienient.. does it make the whole statement metaphorical? I mean is any of the other signs metaphorical... no harm from poison, laying hands on the sick, speaking in new tongues?

Or do you choose to believe that Christ was charging the apostles to literally lay hands on the sick and let them know they would speak in tongues and be unharmed by poison.. but tossed them a metaphor about handling Satan for some reason?

Snakes can be literal or physical I suppose. It depends on the verse. We have fiery serpents in the Bible, which were physical and metaphorical. We have regular snakes in the Bible, which were physical, and then we have metaphorical snakes representing Satan. Which one of the three it meant, I have no clue. Or perhaps something else not represented by those three. This is a good page on that: http://lds.org/scrip...ng=eng&letter=s

As of such, if we are going to discuss physicalness or metaphoricalness, we should discuss it on the merits of both, to figure out which one best fits. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited June 25, 2011 by TAO

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Yes, oops.

TSM?

[Mortal Man]

Looking at the Marcan Appendix, it depicts Christ as saying something to the effect of," Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Mormon 9:22b-24

Edited June 25, 2011 by Mortal Man

[mfbukowski]

As of such, if we are going to discuss physicalness or metaphoricalness, we should discuss it on the merits of both, to figure out which one best fits. =)

The problem is that when you get to quarks or strings or whatever the latest poem is about what is "out there" even "physicalness" starts looking pretty metaphorical.

I would argue that pretty much all that is left is metaphor- all we can know is what we can put into language- and words are not things, nor do they truly represent "things"

[Nathair/|\]

The problem is that when you get to quarks or strings or whatever the latest poem is about what is "out there" even "physicalness" starts looking pretty metaphorical.

I would argue that pretty much all that is left is metaphor- all we can know is what we can put into language- and words are not things, nor do they truly represent "things"

Latest poem, that's perfect. The verbal component of the music of Eru Ilúvatar,

[zerinus]

If you think the statement I quoted from Joseph Smith is "rather ambiguous," there is no hope for us to get any further on this point. As for B. H. Roberts, I grant you that he didn't make it to LDS Church President, but I'm guessing he made it a bit further up the ladder than you have. Unless your initials are TSM and you've been posting here incognito.... And in any case, if you think Joseph's statement is ambiguous, no statement on the matter from even President Monson could possibly help clarify the matter any further for you.

Yes, in the light of the passage I quoted in post #51, it is ambiguous. And given the fact that these were not preprepared talks, and the recording of them were not verbatim, it casts a pale of uncertainty over a lot of things. Did Joseph Smith stumble in what he was saying? Did the person recording it hear everything correctly? Did he miss anything that was said, or fail to remember and write it fast enough to be accurate? Did he make up things in his mind when he no longer remembered accurately what was said, as he tried to catch up with the next bit of information? There are a lot of ambiguities that makes the thing uncertain. That is why the standard works are the official source of LDS doctrine, not the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is great that we have what we have of them; but they are not a reliable source of LDS doctrine.

[zerinus]

TSM?

Perhaps he made a Freudian slip with ULM.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Yes, in the light of the passage I quoted in post #51, it is ambiguous. And given the fact that these were not preprepared talks, and the recording of them were not verbatim, it casts a pale of uncertainty over a lot of things. Did Joseph Smith stumble in what he was saying? Did the person recording it hear everything correctly? Did he miss anything that was said, or fail to remember and write it fast enough to be accurate? Did he make up things in his mind when he no longer remembered accurately what was said, as he tried to catch up with the next bit of information? There are a lot of ambiguities that makes the thing uncertain. That is why the standard works are the official source of LDS doctrine, not the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is great that we have what we have of them; but they are not a reliable source of LDS doctrine.

My observation is that Mormons treat TPJS as a reliable source of LDS doctrine except when it gets them into trouble. In any case, I was treating it only as a reliable source of information about Joseph Smith's handling of the Bible. Given the emphatic and repeated nature of the relevant remarks, there is little chance that Joseph misspoke or that his words were sufficiently misrepresented.

[zerinus]

My observation is that Mormons treat TPJS as a reliable source of LDS doctrine except when it gets them into trouble.

Well it is not canonized, therefore it is not on par with the standard works.

In any case, I was treating it only as a reliable source of information about Joseph Smith's handling of the Bible.

It is not necessarily a reliable source for that either. The Teachings are a mixed bag of everything, some of which are more reliable than others. Some were from carefully written texts, while others were incomplete notes taken by Church members as he preached to them in the open air without a written manuscript.

Given the emphatic and repeated nature of the relevant remarks, there is little chance that Joseph misspoke or that his words were sufficiently misrepresented.

I don’t agree, you are making too many assumptions. Take for example the passage that you had quoted, with your emphasis still on it:

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and

John discovered that

God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,

you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And

where was there ever a father without first being a son?

Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence

if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?

I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that “John discovered that . . .” refers to Revelation 1:6; whereas it needn’t do. It could be referring to some other passage in the Gospel of John for example which Joseph Smith interpreted that way. It could even be that Joseph Smith had mentioned which passage in John he was referring to, but whoever took those notes couldn’t write fast enough to record it. You are making too many assumptions based on too many unknowns to make your conclusions reliable.

Edited June 25, 2011 by zerinus

[David T]

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that “John discovered that . . .” refers to Revelation 1:6; whereas it needn’t do. It could be referring to some other passage in the Gospel of John for example which Joseph Smith interpreted that way. It could even be that Joseph Smith had mentioned which passage in John he was referring to, but whoever took those notes couldn’t write fast enough to record it. You are making too many assumptions based on too many unknowns to make your conclusions reliable.

Wow.

[zerinus]

Wow.

I am glad you are trying to support his arguments and not mine. I would be embarrassed if I had you on my side.

[David T]

Frankly, sometimes Mormons defending the indefensible weakens our credibility as a whole. I tend to seek to defend that which is meaningful and requires defense, rather than try to make everything fit into a neat and perfect little box. My faith doesn't require Joseph to be Doctrinally and Scripturally Inerrant in all things to be a legitimate prophet.

Some Mormons feel it's their duty to disagree with everything someone from another faith says, even if there may be a legitimate point to it (although they'd never agree the opponent has a legitimate point). This is not helpful.

[Calm]

I dunno why you would suggest that Moses grew up in a "prophetic" milieu, he grew up as an Egyptian not a Hebrew.

Hey, Mudcat, this is what Lehi meant when he stated "Abraham, Moses, and a very few others excepted".

[Rob Bowman]

Let me recap a point that I think has been sufficiently defended and ask those who have not yet commented how they would respond to this point. We have shown, first, that Joseph Smith, in his sermon at the grove in June 1844, claimed that Revelation 1:6 KJV ("God and his Father") referred to God and God's Father, thus revealing that God the Father himself had a Father. Second, we have shown that this interpretation of Revelation 1:6 is exegetically untenable. What John was saying is that we have been made priests to Christ's God and Father, not to Christ's God and that God's Father. The proper conclusion here seems to be that Joseph was mistaken.

Now, one response (from zerinus) has been to deny that Joseph drew that conclusion from Revelation 1:6. That response is simply not credible, as nackhadlow has also pointed out.

A second possible response is to argue that Joseph Smith might have been right about Revelation 1:6. Now that the exegetical reasoning for rejecting Joseph's interpretation has been presented, I wonder if anyone wishes to continue maintaining this position. Frankly and honestly, I just don't see this as a viable response, but I'm open to seeing it defended.

The only response left would seem to be to conclude that Joseph was mistaken, as nackhadlow seems to have concluded. For those who would land here, I wonder how far this goes. Specifically, if Joseph was wrong about the meaning of Revelation 1:6, his main proof text for the doctrine that God the Father himself had a Father, doesn't this undermine any basis for confidence in that doctrine? Or can Joseph have been inspired by God to reveal a doctrine and base it on a proof text that does not in fact support it? Surely, if Joseph could be mistaken in his understanding of the Bible, he could also be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine.

[cdowis]

Frankly, sometimes Mormons defending the indefensible weakens our credibility as a whole. I tend to seek to defend that which is meaningful and requires defense, rather than try to make everything fit into a neat and perfect little box. My faith doesn't require Joseph to be Doctrinally and Scripturally Inerrant in all things to be a legitimate prophet.

It is an interesting study in the scriptures to look at the wording of some of the prophetic pronouncements -- some are direct statements from the Lord, others are "I think this is the way it works", with various shades in -between.

But we often just see it as "Thus saith the Lord" regardless of what they say.

[mfbukowski]

Surely, if Joseph could be mistaken in his understanding of the Bible, he could also be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine.

I really don 't wish to comment on this particular scripture because I don't think it has much significance.

But I would like to comment on something I think you miss quite often when commenting on this board- and I do it because I honestly think you do not understand this point about us at all, and I wish you would because this is crucial to Mormonism, and I get tired of making the same point again and again.

Again, putting this particular scripture aside for the moment, we freely acknowledge that Joseph might have been mistaken from time to time. Prophets make mistakes, even on doctrine. We do not believe in inerrancy of scripture or anyone or anything else. Many would ague that Brigham Young was massively incorrect in his Adam-God theory, for example.

The crucial factor for us, is testimony. We believe that each of us has the ability to confirm or dis-confirm these beliefs based on what the Spirit testifies to each of us individually.

I have repeatedly tried to draw you into a discussion about these things and have failed; of course it is your privilege to answer what you want, and I suppose this thread is not the place to handle this anyway.

But I think that you DO need to handle it eventually. We nearly got to it once when talking about the Evangelical practice of "altar calls" wherein I maintained that surely what was happening was that the person approaching the altar in a sense, "heard Jesus" and had some kind of spiritual witness knowing that he was to do what was necessary in his perception to be "saved". I am certain that this is what I would call a "testimony experience"- but for us such an experience is paramount to "knowing the gospel is true".

Should you be inclined to sell short what we would call such a testimony experience, please think of all the Evangelicals who have been invited to the altar by such a feeling (as the BOM invites us to test Moroni 10:4) and tell me whether or not those individuals were mistaken to respond to such a "testimony experience" and indeed that they are not "saved" because they responded to an emotional appeal.

The bottom line is that God does direct us individually, and while I do not rule this out for Evangelicals, in my experience, Evangelicals rule this out in discussions with Mormons while privately affirming it every day.

My wife works with many many Evangelicals- her job virtually "selects" for an ethnic group known to be highly Evangelical, and all of them "ask God" questions regularly and believe they receive answers,

I own books written by Evangelicals speaking of "talking to God" and praying about what is right- but never have I seen such a thing acknowledged in a discussion with a Mormon. Yet THIS is precisely how we can know if Joseph was mistaken in a given instance or not.

So I am afraid that until we discuss this I will always see your usual argument that "If Joseph was wrong in this, then he could not have been a prophet" as simply the usual straw man and avoidance of the same issue that the only way we can know the Bible is true is the exact same way that Mormons know that the BOM is true- and that is through personal testimony.

[mfbukowski]

Frankly, sometimes Mormons defending the indefensible weakens our credibility as a whole.

I would suggest they have a different perception of what is "defensible" than you do. Fortunately, we are all pretty free to construct our own understandings - and perhaps misunderstandings- of the gospel. It always cuts both ways, doesn't it?

[David T]

Specifically, if Joseph was wrong about the meaning of Revelation 1:6, his main proof text for the doctrine that God the Father himself had a Father, doesn't this undermine any basis for confidence in that doctrine? Or can Joseph have been inspired by God to reveal a doctrine and base it on a proof text that does not in fact support it?

I am actually confident that this happened many times. Out of context Proof texts are often used to bolster authority for something you already believe from another unrelated source.

For example, there are many proof-texts NT writers use from the (usually greek) OT to show a prophetic foreshadowing to events in the life of Christ. If it is determined that the context of the original scriptural source was saying something very different, that doesn't mean to me that the event in the life of Christ didn't necessarily happen, just that it wasn't specifically foreshadowed in detail anciently.

Rob, is it your view that all of the Gospel writers correctly parse the context and meaning of every original Hebrew scriptures they are citing when they use them as proof-texts for events or significance in the ministry of Jesus? Do you believe the Gospel writers could be inspired to bear witness of a true event they independently witnessed (or heard someone tell them about), and base its significance on a proof text that does not in fact support it?

Surely, if Joseph could be mistaken in his understanding of the Bible, he could also be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine.

I agree. I also believe very much that revelation is evolutionary and progressive, and that not even biblical prophets and apostles always had (nor have) a full and complete knowledge (or understanding) of metaphysical TRUTH.

Encounters with revelation do not equate to full comprehension of that revelation in my book. I also do not equate the written and spoken expressions of the revelation with the experience of revelation to the individual itself.

Edited June 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Xander]

TAO,

Perhaps. It sure can seem that kopli is onto something though. In the least, it refers to Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. If not more

If not more? No, the point is, Joseph Smith believed it did refer to more, but no Bible scholar agrees.

Also... scholars sometimes get things very wrong

That's beside the point. But are you saying they are all wrong on this point, and that Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father and God the Grandfather?

As of such, I wouldn't say it's a 'misunderstanding', simply because some scholars disagree with it. Even most scholars.

Not, some or most, but all. Of course you could easily refute this by presenting just one that support Joseph Smith's reading.

Oh... also... did you know that JS himself translated that very verse, Rev 1:6? It reads

So what you're saying is Joseph Smith disagreed with his own "inspired" Translation.

From where did you think he used Revelations 1:6 to support exaltation exactly? What was your source, in other words? =)

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. I am referring to his sermon on the plurality of gods given June 16, 1844, roughly a decade after his "inspired translation" of that verse.

Kolipoki09,

Which Mormon Bible scholars have come out and claimed Joseph interpreted Rev. 1:6 incorrectly? I'd like to see specific references.

That isn't what I said. I said I know of at least one Mormon Bible scholars who agrees that Rev 1:6 doesn't refer to God the Father's Father. David Bokovoy.

Also, which non-Mormon Bible scholars (that is, those in academia) have addressed Joseph's use of Rev. 1:6 specifically and published on it (preferably in peer-reviewed academic journals on the subject).

Why would we expect professional Bible scholars to publish on the misunderstanding of a 19th century religious figure? The point is, Joseph Smith got excited with this verse. He thought he uncovered a hidden truth in there and based an entire sermon on it. His interpretation was based on a translation found in the KJV. Subsequent scholarship has revealed that the KJV's rendering is ambiguous, and has since been corrected. No Bible scholar on the planet challenges this correction. So while no one has addressed Joseph Smith's interpretation, per se, they have resolved the ambiguity in the KJV, from which Joseph Smith's erroneous interpretation was based. I doubt any Bible scholar outside the LDS Church really knows about Joseph Smith's goof on this issue.

To assume Bible scholars reject Joseph's interpretation that this verse (and a number of others) regarding the significance of kingship and deification in the New Testament is a gross overstatement.

You're shifting your ground and trying to change the argument. The argument has nothing to do with the "significance of kingship and deification." It has to do with Joseph Smith's erroneous claim that John the Revelator believed God the Father has a Father.

Read this, and get back to me.

I've owned that book for about a year now, which is why I know it has nothing to do with argument at hand. If you had read the book, instead of someone's review, you'd probably realize that it focused on the Hebrew Bible, which of course is the Old Testament; actually, if you even read the review you'd probably know this.

Zerenius,

I am not aware that Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 anywhere as scriptural evidence that God the Father had a Father. He quotes this verse as proof text that the Godhead, or the Trinity, consisted of three separate Gods. He does not use it as evidence of God the Father having a Father.

No, you are incorrect. The problem with your citation of Teachings is that you did not provide the full context - quite possibly because the Church didn't publish the full context. In any event, if you had read the full sermon from which this excerpt is based, then you'd know Joseph Smith stated rather explicitly: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also." Hence, Joseph Smith did in fact believe Rev 1:6 taught that God the Father, has a Father.

[LeSellers]

Okay.. so the JST was just a training exercise.

No, it was more than a training exercise. But it did fulfill that purpose, among others. And that was, at least in my mind, the most important of the purposes.

I dunno why you would suggest that Moses grew up in a "prophetic" milieu, he grew up as an Egyptian not a Hebrew.

Sorry? I said Moses, Abraham and a few others were excepted from that rule.

JS lack of correction of Biblical additions either institutes the ineptness of such correction or the validity of such additions.

What Joseph was doing was multifaceted.

First (after the training process), he was restoring doctrine, as it was revealed to him.

The translation of the JST, as Joseph and his scribes revealed to us, was that he'd read a passage, and then, if it "felt right", they passed over it. It was only when something didn't mesh well with what Joseph knew or didn't pass the spiritual 'smell test', he'd reflect on it, and pray for the inspiration needed to make the passage correct. That's why it was never finished. He kept going back and, knowing more himself, found more and more places that needed additional revisions.

I am a technical writer. When I am writing a manual, there are pieces that don't make sense to me in the source materials. It's then that I ask the engineers what they are trying to get across. It was roughly the same with Joseph. When the document was good enough, it was good enough.

No one I know claims that the JST was an endless stream of revelation, with Joseph dictating the word of the Lord word-for-word as He revealed the entire Bible to this generation. See Doc&Cov 9.

But like it or not, if such is proof that God did not protect his word, then even more so it is certainly a proof that JS wasn't able to restore it either. Certainly it devalues the credibility of JST.

Only if you assume that the process was different from what it actually was, and that the JST was something more than what we really have.

That is possibly the best ad hoc offering Lehi. But it's ad hoc nonetheless. Your insertion of metaphor into Christ's statement is convienient.. does it make the whole statement metaphorical? I mean is any of the other signs metaphorical... no harm from poison, laying hands on the sick, speaking in new tongues?

Or do you choose to believe that Christ was charging the apostles to literally lay hands on the sick and let them know they would speak in tongues and be unharmed by poison.. but tossed them a metaphor about handling Satan for some reason?

I have no problem having a mix of the two. God's word is loaded with such things, and has been since the Book of Remembrance Adam kept.

Lehi

[shalamabobbi]

Joseph could be mistaken in his understanding of the Bible, he could also be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine.

Um, no. I think you may be projecting here.

you are thinking Scriptures-> Doctrine

JS Spirit -> Doctrine -> Scriptures

The foundation is revelation, scriptures arise from the process of recording revelation, whether anciently or today.

Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven..

And upon this rock I will build my kingdom..

Note that neither did a study of the then extent scriptures reveal it unto Peter, but it was revelation after which came understanding of the scriptures, even if it can be argued that their understanding didn't square with the *original intent* of the scriptures..

Either there is a God who reveals things through the Spirit or there isn't any revelation. If the latter is the case then there is very little point in minding the scriptures since they aren't what they claim to be anyhow. But if they came by revelation originally, then it would take the same spirit resting upon an individual to correctly interpret and understand them.

So if revelation has ceased, so has correct understanding of past revelation along with it..

As to the topic at hand I haven't a clue, but the idea of God having existed as an exalted man from all eternity has deep logical problems..

[Xander]

No, it was more than a training exercise. But it did fulfill that purpose, among others. And that was, at least in my mind, the most important of the purposes.

What was he "training" for?

First (after the training process), he was restoring doctrine, as it was revealed to him.

This begs a couple of questions: 1) What was he training for? and 2) Did hid doctrines represent a true "restoration"?

Only if you assume that the process was different from what it actually was, and that the JST was something more than what we really have.

The JST was intended to tell us what the original manuscripts of the Bible said. If he wasn't finished, and it was incomplete at every level, then the Church had no businesses publishing it with the other scriptures, leaving it to anyone's best guess which verses were fully complete and which ones were in the early stages of what you assume to be a "training exercise."

So if revelation has ceased, so has correct understanding of past revelation along with it

So Joseph Smith's failure to properly interpret Rev 1:6 is just an exception to your rule?

Edited June 26, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

zerenius,

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that “John discovered that . . .” refers to Revelation 1:6; whereas it needn’t do. It could be referring to some other passage in the Gospel of John for example which Joseph Smith interpreted that way.

Did you really just say that?

I mean.... really?

[kolipoki09]

That isn't what I said. I said I know of at least one Mormon Bible scholars who agrees that Rev 1:6 doesn't refer to God the Father's Father. David Bokovoy.

Here's what you said:

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet. No one thinks Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father's Father, including Mormon Bible scholars.

So you know of "at least one Mormon Bible scholars" (sic) and you assume there are others, you just can't substantiate that claim.

Also, where does Bokovoy deny Joseph Smith's teaching that God Himself had a Father?

How does my belief about the verse being central to the concept of kingship and deification (among several other verses) deny the notion that God Himself had a Father?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I really don 't wish to comment on this particular scripture because I don't think it has much significance.

Well, I think you would regard it as having more significance if the scripture was one that seemed to you to pose a problem for evangelicals. On this issue, you wrote:

Again, putting this particular scripture aside for the moment, we freely acknowledge that Joseph might have been mistaken from time to time. Prophets make mistakes, even on doctrine. We do not believe in inerrancy of scripture or anyone or anything else. Many would ague that Brigham Young was massively incorrect in his Adam-God theory, for example. The crucial factor for us, is testimony.... So I am afraid that until we discuss this [the subject of testimony] I will always see your usual argument that "If Joseph was wrong in this, then he could not have been a prophet" as simply the usual straw man....

We may indeed never see eye to eye on these things. From your perspective every apparent problem in Mormonism -- every mistake Joseph Smith made, every contradiction in LDS scripture, every piece of evidence against LDS historical claims, etc. -- doesn't have "much significance" because you have a testimony that the LDS Church is true that trumps all factual considerations. I don't deny that you strongly feel that to be so. I respectfully disagree.

In any case, this forum discusses such factual considerations all the time. Mormons and non-Mormons bring such matters up for discussion. The proper response in this context is to engage the issue if you can or wish, or to leave it alone. You view each factual objection as a "straw man" argument. I view each factual objection as at the very least another piece of straw in a very high and heavy pile of straw. I grant you that Mormons are comfortable with the idea that Joseph Smith was not inerrant and that he made mistakes. But how many there seem to be! And how confidently -- how over-confidently -- he presented his mistaken claims as truth, as in fact exemplifying his unique position as the Prophet! At some point, it seems to me, a reasonable person might begin to wonder how many such "straws" his or her testimony can carry before the back of that testimony is broken.

Much of your post sought to draw an equivalency between the Mormon testimony and the evangelical testimony -- testifying to different claims, but supposedly of the same type. I don't agree. Perhaps in a separate post, or better yet in a separate thread, we can discuss this question. I can tell you this, though: I would discourage any evangelical from sloughing off intellectual difficulties by appealing to his or her "testimony." I never do this, and I don't think it's a proper response for an evangelical.