For Those Who Are Struggling With Their Faith

[canard78]

It is an implicit test, though not an explicit test. The explicit tests are belief that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that he restored the gospel in the latter days. Belief in the truth of the BOM and the D&C is the lynchpin of the above. I don't see how one can accept the former, and still reject the latter.

I am sure partial belief is better than no belief; provided that one is moving towards full belief, and not moving away from it.

It seems to me that you have difficulty accepting revelation; without which a belief in the Restoration is not possible either.

While I appreciate you trying to diagnose my problems. Please don't worry. I do that already on a daily basis.

There is nothing explicit or implicit in the TR questions about the Book of Mormon's historicity. The closest is asked: Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

I'm comfortable saying yes. Reading The God Who Weeps recently was a brilliant illustration of how Joseph distilled some of the brilliant big picture principles of the gospel and plan that had been on earth before but had been lost - or at least diluted and dispersed. So he did indeed restore what I consider to be a fantastic expression of the gospel. But I might have a different perspective to you on the tools used to do that.

I am also comfortable accepting revelation. But I might have a different perspective to you on what revelation is.

[mathonihah]

While I appreciate you trying to diagnose my problems. Please don't worry. I do that already on a daily basis.

There is nothing explicit or implicit in the TR questions about the Book of Mormon's historicity. The closest is asked: Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

I'm comfortable saying yes. Reading The God Who Weeps recently was a brilliant illustration of how Joseph distilled some of the brilliant big picture principles of the gospel and plan that had been on earth before but had been lost - or at least diluted and dispersed. So he did indeed restore what I consider to be a fantastic expression of the gospel. But I might have a different perspective to you on the tools used to do that.

I am also comfortable accepting revelation. But I might have a different perspective to you on what revelation is.

If that is something that works for you, then I suppose it is okay. But I am not so sure that it does.

You are walking a fine line. Do not question others' spirituality.

[canard78]

Belief precedes being or becoming. What are you being or becoming, if you are not believing in anything?

I didn't say believing is not important at all and I didn't say I believe nothing (if I did please point me towards it). What I thought I said we will be judged for what we become, not what we believed that lead us to become such. I can use either running or cycling to become fit, believing both will make me fit. If the outcome is that I am fit it didn't matter whether I believed in running or cycling if I have ultimately become fit.

Of course you have to have a belief to then be and then become something. I believe many things very strongly. This leads to me trying very hard to be be a certain way because I believe it to be the way to being more Christlike.

But... it seems I don't believe the same things as you. I have no problem with that. You believe in one thing and I believe in another, if the outcome is we both become our best selves (2+2 servant or 5+5 servant) it doesn't matter.

[canard78]

If that is something that works for you, then I suppose it is okay. But I am not so sure that it does.

You are only 'not sure' that it wouldn't work for you. I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't work for me. It IS working for me.

Given this thread is about 'a plan' for people 'struggling with their faith' then I admit that there are aspects of LDS teachings and history that I struggle to accept as being important, truth or a historical reality and I have a plan for dealing with that.

If the alternative you propose to me is that I must accept every 'sunday school answer' or leave, that that is a scenario that will not work. I currently can't and don't accept every one. At least not in the way you seem to believe them. I'm fine with you having your personal understanding of what the answers are. I'm forming mine. If you ask me to accept what I perceive to be your understanding then I think (if I understand them) that I couldn't.

For the sake of the conversation: If the beliefs you have were mandated by the church as a test of faith and a requirement for membership (which thankfully they aren't), then it probably would not work for me.

However... they are not. And it does work for me.

[Tacenda]

You are only 'not sure' that it wouldn't work for you. I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't work for me. It IS working for me.

Given this thread is about 'a plan' for people 'struggling with their faith' then I admit that there are aspects of LDS teachings and history that I struggle to accept as being important, truth or a historical reality and I have a plan for dealing with that.

If the alternative you propose to me is that I must accept every 'sunday school answer' or leave, that that is a scenario that will not work. I currently can't and don't accept every one. At least not in the way you seem to believe them. I'm fine with you having your personal understanding of what the answers are. I'm forming mine. If you ask me to accept what I perceive to be your understanding then I think (if I understand them) that I couldn't.

For the sake of the conversation: If the beliefs you have were mandated by the church as a test of faith and a requirement for membership (which thankfully they aren't), then it probably would not work for me.

However... they are not. And it does work for me.

I think people like us might be like Joseph Smith in the beginnings of his faith struggle, sort of rough stones rolling. We're digging down deep into what our testimony of the church really is, my problem is, not yours I'm sure, is that I'm not nearly as faithful in the knowledge the Lord is my Saviour. That troubles me and I need to get a grip on it. My husband laughs at me because I talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to reading the scriptures and praying. But this board might have been a "God"send to help me along the lines of staying in the church until I figure it all out enough to "believe" again, it is possible, look at Don Bradley.

ETA: This is on Don Bradley's FB profile, I'm not a friend yet, just happened to see a post he made about Glen Beck that John Dehlin posted and clicked on Don's FB and read his favorite quotes, this was one of them......"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturb...ed, they will marvel, and will reign over all." - Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas

Isn't this awesome!?!?

Edited April 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

I don't know about that, and that is not an issue. When it says that it is true, it means, among other things, that it is correctly translated. Whether it is a word-for-word translation, or a thought-to-thought translation, is beside the point. In either case, it is a correct translation—if not the best possible translation. Either style of translation could be a good or a bad, accurate or inaccurate translation.

Well, I think that is an intriguing position but I respect your faith on the matter.

Personally, I struggle with our use of the word "translation" in this context. As my primary-aged kids get older, I am going to strive to always explain my belief that the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph through the power of God. Since we know that he didn't sit and translate, word-for-word, directly from the plates, I think that it is better to not create a potential stumbling block for my childrens' testimonies.

Further, since Joseph received the Book of Mormon while not always reading from the plates, it then follows for me that not everything had to have been contained on those plates. But, that doesn't mean that it is any less true. And certainly it isn't any less Divine (capital D).

Finally, your use of D&C 17 doesn't seem to show that one's salvation would, in any way, be dependent on a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I'm open to other references you might have.

[Avatar4321]

Salvation comes from believing in, and accepting the restored gospel; and the Book of Mormon is the keystone of that Restoration. You can't accept the Restoration without accepting the Book of Mormon as true, as the Lord has said.

I'm going to humbly disagree here. Not because I dont think it's important to accept the restored Gospel. Because it is vital to obtaining a the fulness of the blessings. It is through the ordinances of the priesthood that those blessings come.

But salvation comes from believing in Christ. The Restored Gospel and the Book of Mormon are tools to bring people to Christ. If they did not do that, they would be worthless in our salvation.

In fact, Nephi said:

"hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ." 2 Nephi 33:10

Nephi asks readers to believe in Christ, even if they don't believe in his words. I don't think he thought salvation would come only if they believed his words. Belief in Christ is what's vital.

Obviously, those who believe in Christ will ultimately believe in the Book of Mormon because they are Christ's words. But it's the belief in Christ that leads us to salvation.

[canard78]

If Lehi never existed, then neither did Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, Laman, or Lemuel; and if they never existed, then the whole of the Book of Mormon is a fiction; and if the the Book of Mormon is fiction (and so is the D&C, as you apparently believe), then how can you have a viable Restoration? What was Restored, and how?

I didn't say they were fiction. The D&C certainly isn't. We're fairly sure they are all dictated statements by Joseph Smith. That is undisputed fact. But the process of Joseph forming those ideas and statements are open to interpretation. I consider those statements to be inspired and inspiring. Not a fraud or fabrication. But delivered in the constraints of his understanding and language, so not perfect and not 'god breathed.' I gave the example of the Book of Commandments to show this was even explained as such.

I said also have said that I'm not certain that Lehi lived. He may have. I hope he did. I'd love to meet the heroes of the BoM one day. But I don't make that a requirement of embracing the book. I don't think it was a fraud and fabrication. I consider it an inspired book which may or may not have been based on historical events. I don't need them to have been. I accept and embrace the words of the book independent of its historical origins.

As said... I still think Joseph restored truth. A crumbling old house can be restored to its former glory, using a lot of the materials that are already available. My perspective on how the restoration happened is different to yours. But I still consider it a restoration and I still see him qualifying as a prophet for doing so.

[canard78]

I think people like us might be like Joseph Smith in the beginnings of his faith struggle, sort of rough stones rolling. We're digging down deep into what our testimony of the church really is, my problem is, not yours I'm sure, is that I'm not nearly as faithful in the knowledge the Lord is my Saviour. That troubles me and I need to get a grip on it. My husband laughs at me because I talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to reading the scriptures and praying. But this board might have been a "God"send to help me along the lines of staying in the church until I figure it all out enough to "believe" again, it is possible, look at Don Bradley.

ETA: This is on Don Bradley's FB profile, I'm not a friend yet, just happened to see a post he made about Glen Beck that John Dehlin posted and clicked on Don's FB and read his favorite quotes, this was one of them......"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturb...ed, they will marvel, and will reign over all." - Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas

Isn't this awesome!?!?

I love the quote. Thanks for sharing.

You're not the only one who could strengthen their faith in what matters most (Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ). It's a continual opportunity for all of us.

[canard78]

Well, I think that is an intriguing position but I respect your faith on the matter.

Personally, I struggle with our use of the word "translation" in this context. As my primary-aged kids get older, I am going to strive to always explain my belief that the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph through the power of God. Since we know that he didn't sit and translate, word-for-word, directly from the plates, I think that it is better to not create a potential stumbling block for my childrens' testimonies.

Further, since Joseph received the Book of Mormon while not always reading from the plates, it then follows for me that not everything had to have been contained on those plates. But, that doesn't mean that it is any less true. And certainly it isn't any less Divine (capital D).

Finally, your use of D&C 17 doesn't seem to show that one's salvation would, in any way, be dependent on a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I'm open to other references you might have.

Thanks rockpond. Agree with you on all points.

I recently had a conversation with my 10 year old daughter. She was talking about the Gold Plates. I mentioned that some of the time Joseph didn't have the plates in front of him because he received the words through the Spirit and inspiration, not like a professional translation of a document. I mentioned that sometimes he would use a seer stone in a hat to help him concentrate on what he was doing.

She wrinkled her nose a little as she processed the image... but then shrugged and was fine with it.

[mathonihah]

If that is something that works for you, then I suppose it is okay. But I am not so sure that it does.

You are walking a fine line. Do not question others' spirituality.

I am not questioning his spirituality at all. He has already told us he is having doubts. If his analysis of the BOM and D&C worked for him as well as he thinks it does, he shouldn't be having the kind of doubts that he says he does. I should have thought that was obvious.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I didn't say believing is not important at all and I didn't say I believe nothing (if I did please point me towards it). What I thought I said we will be judged for what we become, not what we believed that lead us to become such. I can use either running or cycling to become fit, believing both will make me fit. If the outcome is that I am fit it didn't matter whether I believed in running or cycling if I have ultimately become fit.

Of course you have to have a belief to then be and then become something. I believe many things very strongly. This leads to me trying very hard to be be a certain way because I believe it to be the way to being more Christlike.

But... it seems I don't believe the same things as you. I have no problem with that. You believe in one thing and I believe in another, if the outcome is we both become our best selves (2+2 servant or 5+5 servant) it doesn't matter.

Except that believing in the wrong thing may not always take you to where you want to go. In that case then believing in the right thing becomes important.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

You are only 'not sure' that it wouldn't work for you. I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't work for me. It IS working for me.

Given this thread is about 'a plan' for people 'struggling with their faith' then I admit that there are aspects of LDS teachings and history that I struggle to accept as being important, truth or a historical reality and I have a plan for dealing with that.

***

For the sake of the conversation: If the beliefs you have were mandated by the church as a test of faith and a requirement for membership (which thankfully they aren't), then it probably would not work for me.

However... they are not. And it does work for me.

When you say that it works for you, what does it actually mean? The impression I am getting is that it just enables you to cling on to the Church. I am sure it is better to cling on to the Church precariously somehow, than to fall off the cliffe entirely. But I think there are better ways of something “working” than that.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Well, I think that is an intriguing position but I respect your faith on the matter.

Personally, I struggle with our use of the word "translation" in this context. As my primary-aged kids get older, I am going to strive to always explain my belief that the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph through the power of God. Since we know that he didn't sit and translate, word-for-word, directly from the plates, I think that it is better to not create a potential stumbling block for my childrens' testimonies.

Further, since Joseph received the Book of Mormon while not always reading from the plates, it then follows for me that not everything had to have been contained on those plates. But, that doesn't mean that it is any less true. And certainly it isn't any less Divine (capital D).

You are now discussing an unknown quantity, about which nothing has been revealed—ie the the method of divine translation. You are Also making unjustified assumptions based on the observation that Joseph didn't have the plates in front of him when he translated. Since the Lord hasn't told us anything about any of that, and has called it a "translation," we must assume that translation means a translation, unless the Lord reveals to us that it means something else.

Finally, your use of D&C 17 doesn't seem to show that one's salvation would, in any way, be dependent on a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I'm open to other references you might have.

Well, if you believe that the Book of Mormon is a complete book of fiction, which would be the logical conclusion if Lehi never existed (and believe the same about the D&C), then I would say that your faith in the Restoration is a bit weak. It is possible to have a more sure testimony than that.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I'm going to humbly disagree here. Not because I dont think it's important to accept the restored Gospel. Because it is vital to obtaining a the fulness of the blessings. It is through the ordinances of the priesthood that those blessings come.

But salvation comes from believing in Christ. The Restored Gospel and the Book of Mormon are tools to bring people to Christ. If they did not do that, they would be worthless in our salvation.

In fact, Nephi said:

"hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ." 2 Nephi 33:10

Nephi asks readers to believe in Christ, even if they don't believe in his words. I don't think he thought salvation would come only if they believed his words. Belief in Christ is what's vital.

Obviously, those who believe in Christ will ultimately believe in the Book of Mormon because they are Christ's words. But it's the belief in Christ that leads us to salvation.

I am sure that is right, as far as it goes. The situation changes when one knowingly and wilfully rejects the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I didn't say they were fiction. The D&C certainly isn't. We're fairly sure they are all dictated statements by Joseph Smith. That is undisputed fact. But the process of Joseph forming those ideas and statements are open to interpretation. I consider those statements to be inspired and inspiring. Not a fraud or fabrication. But delivered in the constraints of his understanding and language, so not perfect and not 'god breathed.' I gave the example of the Book of Commandments to show this was even explained as such.

I said also have said that I'm not certain that Lehi lived. He may have. I hope he did. I'd love to meet the heroes of the BoM one day. But I don't make that a requirement of embracing the book. I don't think it was a fraud and fabrication. I consider it an inspired book which may or may not have been based on historical events. I don't need them to have been. I accept and embrace the words of the book independent of its historical origins.

As said... I still think Joseph restored truth. A crumbling old house can be restored to its former glory, using a lot of the materials that are already available. My perspective on how the restoration happened is different to yours. But I still consider it a restoration and I still see him qualifying as a prophet for doing so.

That is okay, I am not condemning that. But I think there are better and more sure ways of having a testimony of the Restored gospel than that.

[canard78]

I am not questioning his spirituality at all. He has already told us he is having doubts. If his analysis of the BOM and D&C worked for him as well as he thinks it does, he shouldn't be having the kind of doubts that he says he does. I should have thought that was obvious.

I appreciate the moderators intervention. It seems you are questioning it.

You seem to be working backwards. Why not tell a penguin to fly? Telling someone to stop doubting it 'because you say so' seems pointless. I do doubt the history as taught in the traditional story. I am not certain that Lehi existed in history. My doubts lie in the literal history and origins of the book and the church's foundation. There are some dubious claims which I don't currently fully accept. That could lead to one of two outcomes: reject the book and the religion that delivered OR embrace the book regardless of its uncertain origin. I continue to embrace it and the religion. And it works. I am edified, uplifted, instructed and inspired by it.

You seem to be saying 'just fly penguin, stop making excuses. Just accept that Lehi existed. Just say 'I believe the Book of Mormon is a work of documentary' even though you actually don't.'

I accept Lehi may have existed and Joseph's translation may have been a literal one which delivered the exact words from Gold plates that had been inscribed by Mormon 1600 years or so earlier. But I am not convinced they are. But that's ok. I don't need them to be. Given I consider it to be inspired and inspiring I've let go of the need for it to be historical. I never thought that would be the case back in the days when I 'knew' it was.

As mentioned before, if you were in control of the church and said I had to 'swear' that I 'knew' Lehi was a historical person then I would struggle to. That 'faith requirement' would not work. But it's not. So I don't know why you are so uptight.

An apostle made clear that 'I'm OK...':

.. If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

... There are some things we can't give away. There are some foundational stones. If you don't have those, you don't have anything. So the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, those are pretty basic things. ...

I agree with him that the First Vision and Book of Mormon are foundational stones. I accept both as key expressions of our faith. I do not ask the church to 'give them away.' I embrace both. But my understanding of what they are is apparently different to yours. And Elder Holland makes it clear that he's ok with that.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to rephrase this many more times. I don't have a certainty in all of the church's historical/foundational claims. But I do have a certainty that applying the principles work to make my life better. I'm comfortable that there's a chance it's a placebo. Given the possible placebo is working I'm not going to be foolish enough to stop taking the required dosage.

[canard78]

When you say that it works for you, what does it actually mean? The impression I am getting is that it just enables you to cling on to the Church. I am sure it is better to cling on to the Church precariously somehow, than to fall off the cliffe entirely. But I think there are better ways of something “working” than that.

It enables me to embrace and follow the simple commandments that create habits which form character which makes me 'become.'

It allows me to continue fellowshipping with people who are a positive influence

It helps me to keep reading inspiring materials that teach me how to be a better me, both the scriptures and the modern writing of leaders and others

It gives me the tools to find a way of developing my relationship with God

And you're right it also, during the time of deepest uncertainty about the origins of the church to 'cling on to the Church' - but it doesn't 'just' do that

[mathonihah]

I appreciate the moderators intervention. It seems you are questioning it.

You seem to be working backwards. Why not tell a penguin to fly? Telling someone to stop doubting it 'because you say so' seems pointless. I do doubt the history as taught in the traditional story. I am not certain that Lehi existed in history. My doubts lie in the literal history and origins of the book and the church's foundation. There are some dubious claims which I don't currently fully accept. That could lead to one of two outcomes: reject the book and the religion that delivered OR embrace the book regardless of its uncertain origin. I continue to embrace it and the religion. And it works. I am edified, uplifted, instructed and inspired by it.

You seem to be saying 'just fly penguin, stop making excuses. Just accept that Lehi existed. Just say 'I believe the Book of Mormon is a work of documentary' even though you actually don't.'

I accept Lehi may have existed and Joseph's translation may have been a literal one which delivered the exact words from Gold plates that had been inscribed by Mormon 1600 years or so earlier. But I am not convinced they are. But that's ok. I don't need them to be. Given I consider it to be inspired and inspiring I've let go of the need for it to be historical. I never thought that would be the case back in the days when I 'knew' it was.

As mentioned before, if you were in control of the church and said I had to 'swear' that I 'knew' Lehi was a historical person then I would struggle to. That 'faith requirement' would not work. But it's not. So I don't know why you are so uptight.

An apostle made clear that 'I'm OK...':

.. If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

... There are some things we can't give away. There are some foundational stones. If you don't have those, you don't have anything. So the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, those are pretty basic things. ...

I agree with him that the First Vision and Book of Mormon are foundational stones. I accept both as key expressions of our faith. I do not ask the church to 'give them away.' I embrace both. But my understanding of what they are is apparently different to yours. And Elder Holland makes it clear that he's ok with that.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to rephrase this many more times. I don't have a certainty in all of the church's historical/foundational claims. But I do have a certainty that applying the principles work to make my life better. I'm comfortable that there's a chance it's a placebo. Given the possible placebo is working I'm not going to be foolish enough to stop taking the required dosage.

I agree with that entirely. I have no problem with that. I am saying basically the same thing that Elder Holland is saying.

[mathonihah]

It enables me to embrace and follow the simple commandments that create habits which form character which makes me 'become.'

It allows me to continue fellowshipping with people who are a positive influence

It helps me to keep reading inspiring materials that teach me how to be a better me, both the scriptures and the modern writing of leaders and others

It gives me the tools to find a way of developing my relationship with God

And you're right it also, during the time of deepest uncertainty about the origins of the church to 'cling on to the Church' - but it doesn't 'just' do that

That is great. I am glad that it does. I am sure that if you persevere in that, you will eventually obtain the stronger assurance that you are looking for.

[bcuzbcuz]

You are now discussing an unknown quantity, about which nothing has been revealed—ie the the method of divine translation. You are Also making unjustified assumptions based on the observation that Joseph didn't have the plates in front of him when he translated. Since the Lord hasn't told us anything about any of that, and has called it a "translation," we must assume that translation means a translation, unless the Lord reveals to us that it means something else.

Well, if you believe that the Book of Mormon is a complete book of fiction, which would be the logical conclusion if Lehi never existed (and believe the same about the D&C), then I would say that your faith in the Restoration is a bit weak. It is possible to have a more sure testimony than that.

It seems ever since you were given a warning about questioning someone else's spirituality, that you have just brushed it off and attack with a renewed vigor. Be that as it may, your reasoning is circular, if nothing else.

You insist on your definition of the translation of the Book of Mormon as a "divine translation"' while several others question whether it can be called a translation without the actual plates being in front of Joseph. Your defense is that the Lord has called it a translation, therefore it Is a translation. And here's the circular part of your argument. Unless the Lord has said, personally, to you, in your own personal vision, or that God has declared in a loud enough voice so even the unbelieving can hear him say it, that Joseph "translated" the plates, then all you have is hearsay and secondary witnesses. You have chosen to believe these after the fact descriptions and the use of the word "translate" but you don't have any more proof of the Lord calling it that than any of the rest of us.

You even go so far as writing that you think Canard's faith "is a bit weak". How dare you?

Edited April 10, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[mathonihah]

It seems ever since you were given a warning about questioning someone else's spirituality, that you have just brushed it off and attack with a renewed vigor. Be that as it may, your reasoning is circular, if nothing else.

You insist on your definition of the translation of the Book of Mormon as a "divine translation"' while several others question whether it can be called a translation without the actual plates being in front of Joseph. Your defense is that the Lord has called it a translation, therefore it Is a translation. And here's the circular part of your argument. Unless the Lord has said, personally, to you, in your own personal vision, or that God has declared in a loud enough voice so even the unbelieving can hear him say it, that Joseph "translated" the plates, then all you have is hearsay and secondary witnesses. You have chosen to believe these after the fact descriptions and the use of the word "translate" but you don't have any more proof of the Lord calling it that than any of the rest of us.

You even go so far as writing that you think Canard's faith "is a bit weak". How dare you?

Canard is a very fine individual, and I have a lot of respect for him. Everyone's faith is weaker than it should be, including mine. We can all do with more faith than we have got. As the disciples said to Jesus, “Lord, Increase our faith” (Luke 17:5).

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[rockpond]

You are now discussing an unknown quantity, about which nothing has been revealed—ie the the method of divine translation.

Agreed... we know very little about the method of translation used by Joseph. But if we agree that its origins are divine - does belief in a particular method matter to one's salvation?

You are Also making unjustified assumptions based on the observation that Joseph didn't have the plates in front of him when he translated. Since the Lord hasn't told us anything about any of that, and has called it a "translation," we must assume that translation means a translation, unless the Lord reveals to us that it means something else.

We might be on the same page here... The assumption I'm making is that Joseph didn't always have the plates in front of him when he was doing what we refer to as "translating". If we agree that Joseph didn't always have the plates in front of him, then how did he dictate the Book of Mormon, if not by the power of God?

Well, if you believe that the Book of Mormon is a complete book of fiction, which would be the logical conclusion if Lehi never existed (and believe the same about the D&C), then I would say that your faith in the Restoration is a bit weak. It is possible to have a more sure testimony than that.

I assume that you are speaking generically here when you use "you" because I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction.

That said, I do firmly believe that we ought to have space for people in the church who don't have that belief in the literal existence of Lehi. I think that we should welcome and embrace anyone willing to strive to live the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon regardless of their belief in how it came to be.

I'm happy for you that you have that "more sure testimony" of the restoration. But, I would argue that it might not actually be possible for everyone.

[teddyaware]

It seems ever since you were given a warning about questioning someone else's spirituality, that you have just brushed it off and attack with a renewed vigor. Be that as it may, your reasoning is circular, if nothing else.

You insist on your definition of the translation of the Book of Mormon as a "divine translation"' while several others question whether it can be called a translation without the actual plates being in front of Joseph. Your defense is that the Lord has called it a translation, therefore it Is a translation. And here's the circular part of your argument. Unless the Lord has said, personally, to you, in your own personal vision, or that God has declared in a loud enough voice so even the unbelieving can hear him say it, that Joseph "translated" the plates, then all you have is hearsay and secondary witnesses. You have chosen to believe these after the fact descriptions and the use of the word "translate" but you don't have any more proof of the Lord calling it that than any of the rest of us.

You even go so far as writing that you think Canard's faith "is a bit weak". How dare you?

I think it's easier to understand where mathoniha is coming from if you consider the following approach: The present First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the chief standard bearers of the Restored Gospel to the world today; each of these brethren is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator of the Lord. Given the way these brethren teach and testify of the Restored Gospel (think specifically of the addresses each of these gave in the General Conference of last weekend), it's exceedingly difficult to imagine any of them would stand at the podium and teach the members and non-members throughout the world that they believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. If any of them ever did get up, put aside their prepared remarks, and improptu went on to say that the prophet Mormon is a ficticious character, and that no such person ever lived -- much less abridge sacred ancient American Christian writings -- it would cause a scene of tumult, followed by explosive, never-ending news coverage of the controversy.

With this highly unlikely and bizarre scenario in mind, it's easier to understand why one might opine that another Church member who denys the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon may have weak faith. Coming to that conclusion is perfectly understandable, and not necessarily uncharitable, because one could never imagine a living prophet, seer, and revelator saying or teaching the same thing (substitute any other such similar unorthdox pronouncement in this scenario if you like). The Latter-day Saints believe in living apostles and prophets, and since the faithful mainstream members take their cues from these brethren, and since it is unimaginable that any of them would make such renegade pronouncements, it's only natural to think that those who deviate from what the prophets and apostles would say or do are lacking in some way.

In our politically correct world, where speaking the truth is often tantamount to a major crime because it's unacceptable to hurt somebody's feelings (unless the person being skewered happens to be a conservative traditionalist), it's sad that one must hesitate to speak the obvious for fear of being marginalized. Nevertheless, it is also true that there are ways of speaking the truth -- by very carefully considering how one uses one's words -- that can convey the truth while simultaneously minimizing possible offence.

Edited April 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[mathonihah]

Agreed... we know very little about the method of translation used by Joseph. But if we agree that its origins are divine - does belief in a particular method matter to one's salvation?

I am sure it doesn't. I wasn't promoting a particular method of translation either. I thought you were!

We might be on the same page here... The assumption I'm making is that Joseph didn't always have the plates in front of him when he was doing what we refer to as "translating". If we agree that Joseph didn't always have the plates in front of him, then how did he dictate the Book of Mormon, if not by the power of God?

I agree. But whatever the process was, it was still a translation. When the Lord calls it a translation, we must assume that it is a translation, unless the Lord tells us that it was something else.

I assume that you are speaking generically here when you use "you" because I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction.

That is right.

That said, I do firmly believe that we ought to have space for people in the church who don't have that belief in the literal existence of Lehi. I think that we should welcome and embrace anyone willing to strive to live the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon regardless of their belief in how it came to be.

No problem with that either.

I'm happy for you that you have that "more sure testimony" of the restoration. But, I would argue that it might not actually be possible for everyone.

Well, it is possible to increase one's faith, and we are commanded to help each other to increase our faith:

“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118; 109:7)