New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Thinking]

Sure. When the prior claims of an actual translation don't hold up expand the options. Works every time!

 

Retroactive Apologetics

[Teancum]

But as I've tried to explain to you, this is ultimately not an academic argument, and the nature of it is such that we can't take out spiritual witness. Again, Mormons have as their sole intent to keep the question open so that one may feel reasonably confident to go to God in prayer about the matter. That is and always will be a personal, individual thing.

 

We don't say we can prove the Church's theological teachings academically; we have never made that claim; ergo we have no burden of proof. All we have to do is defend; to rebut the antagonist's arguments sufficiently enough that the question remains open. Until the antagonists prove the contrary -- and thereby close the question -- they have failed.

This really is a pretty low bar to use to defend God's one true church. If you are happy to hang your hat on that more power to you. But it seems clear to me that more and more this is all the LDS Church has to go on. It's claims are so fantastic and there is so much out there that certainly does create a scenario that is more and more indefensible that you have to argue "well it just maybe might be true so pray and see...." I think that course will ultimately result in slow to little growth and more and more loss.

[Teancum]

And of course to prove the contrary of the church's teachings they would have to have pictures of God as a being different than we know him, and have a recording of his words saying we were wrong, with scientific proof that indeed it was God speaking

 

A tad unlikely.

You do not KNOW God as any type of being nor do you KNOW what you claim. You have faith and believe it very strongly. You claim a spiritual witness which is totally subjective to the individual and not verifiable. Other religions make truth claims that differ from yours. Do you have evidence they are wrong? The LDS church makes fantastic claims for which there is little to know verifiable evidence, thus the burden of proof, especially based on the comment above is on you.

[Teancum]

What a drag it must be to be a detractor.

 

Once they realize what we are trying -- and not trying -- to do, they must then accept that we have beaten them on their own playing field. For they then must use purely academic argument to show that there can never any reason to take the question to God, never any possibility that He might answer the seeker.

 

And that's something they will never be able to accomplish.

Keep saying this and you will finally convince yourself. Honestly I am amazed you are arguing for such a weak proposition.

[USU78]

You do not KNOW God as any type of being nor do you KNOW what you claim. You have faith and believe it very strongly. You claim a spiritual witness which is totally subjective to the individual and not verifiable. Other religions make truth claims that differ from yours. Do you have evidence they are wrong? The LDS church makes fantastic claims for which there is little to know verifiable evidence, thus the burden of proof, especially based on the comment above is on you.

 

Only a radical materialist would make such a statement with such force and actually mean it.

 

Happily, there are relatively few who eschew completely all forms of gathering information about one's environment besides the 5 senses with or without mechanical enhancement devices.

[Teancum]

Only a radical materialist would make such a statement with such force and actually mean it.

 

Happily, there are relatively few who eschew completely all forms of gathering information about one's environment besides the 5 senses with or without mechanical enhancement devices.

And what do you think about the strong statement I was responding too?

[Teancum]

Only a radical materialist would make such a statement with such force and actually mean it.

 

Happily, there are relatively few who eschew completely all forms of gathering information about one's environment besides the 5 senses with or without mechanical enhancement devices.

Also instead of attempting to label me as something in order to diminish the substance of my argument how about dealing with it. If you claim to know God is the type of being the LDS church teaches and an orthodox Christian claims to know God is a different kind of being do they need to have a picture of God to prove it? Do you have such evidence? My response was to a poster who said that for anyone to to prove what he knows they need a picture of God and a recording of God with scientific evidence to prove it was God in order to prove what he knows is true. Is he a radical materialist as well?

[mfbukowski]

You do not KNOW God as any type of being nor do you KNOW what you claim. You have faith and believe it very strongly. You claim a spiritual witness which is totally subjective to the individual and not verifiable. Other religions make truth claims that differ from yours. Do you have evidence they are wrong? The LDS church makes fantastic claims for which there is little to know verifiable evidence, thus the burden of proof, especially based on the comment above is on you.

Lol.

All religions do.

 

You need to understand a little about religious "truth claims".  Incidentally, Rorty was an atheist philosopher without a dog in the fight except to present a logical position.  But most likely you will not listen to it,

 

[mfbukowski]

Also instead of attempting to label me as something in order to diminish the substance of my argument how about dealing with it. If you claim to know God is the type of being the LDS church teaches and an orthodox Christian claims to know God is a different kind of being do they need to have a picture of God to prove it? Do you have such evidence? My response was to a poster who said that for anyone to to prove what he knows they need a picture of God and a recording of God with scientific evidence to prove it was God in order to prove what he knows is true. Is he a radical materialist as well?

Of course we disagree in doctrine.  Do you think you are the first to figure this out?

 

Religion is about finding a story which makes your life have meaning.  God leads each of us in his own way to the truth- no one can see the whole picture,

 

We are the only church which teaches that progression toward truth continues for eternity.  We have thousands of lifetimes to figure it out after we know much more than we do now.

[Brian 2.0]

As many have said, the essay lays out the catalyst theory as an option.  It's lays out plenty of theories as options, many of which are mutually exclusive.  As for the catalyst theory, one thing seem to be clear, and that is that Joseph didn't believe that was the process.

 

Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”²³

 

 

 

Does anyone argue that Joseph believed the writings were NOT the writings of Abraham?  So it seems believing in the catalyst theory means you have to accept the fact that Joseph did not fully understand the process by which he was receiving the revelation, correct?

 

The bigger confusion for me is the text itself.  It's written in first person.  So with the catalyst theory, does it suppose that Joseph's revelation was in receiving the words of an ancient writing of Abraham, that Joseph did not have in his possession?  The BoA text is of Abraham, talking about writing it all down, so either there is an ancient Abrahamic text (which Joseph is getting via revelation) or the BoA is pseudepigrapha.  

 

The BoA text also has Abraham talking about placing a drawing at the start of his record.  Joseph Smith indicated that that drawing was Facsimile 1.  If one has a strict catalyst view and does not see the papyri as connected to the BoA at all, then did Joseph simply falsely attribute the Facsimile to Abraham?  And the text in the BoA is referring to a drawing on Abraham's ancient record, a drawing which is similar in looks to Facsimile 1?

 

I know there are varying degrees of the catalyst theory, but it seems there are significant issues with completely separating the papryi from the ancient Abrahamic text, especially when it comes to the facsimiles.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

It's a pilot project to increase baptism stats.  I've heard good things about it from wards in the US.  It's not as effective in wards outside the states. 

We're working on that.  Even the Japanese are adding tonnage lately.

[Teancum]

Lol.

All religions do.

 

You need to understand a little about religious "truth claims".  Incidentally, Rorty was an atheist philosopher without a dog in the fight except to present a logical position.  But most likely you will not listen to it,

 

I will listen to it but not tonight. It is late where I live.

[mfbukowski]

As many have said, the essay lays out the catalyst theory as an option.  It's lays out plenty of theories as options, many of which are mutually exclusive.  As for the catalyst theory, one thing seem to be clear, and that is that Joseph didn't believe that was the process.

 

 

 

Does anyone argue that Joseph believed the writings were NOT the writings of Abraham.  So it seems believing in the catalyst theory means you have to accept the fact that Joseph did not fully understand the process by which he was receiving the revelation, correct?

 

The bigger confusion for me is the text itself.  It's written in first person.  So with the catalyst theory, does it suppose that Joseph's revelation was in receiving the words of an ancient writing of Abraham, that Joseph did not have in his possession?  The BoA text is of Abraham, talking about writing it all down, so either there is an ancient Abrahamic text (which Joseph is getting via revelation) or the BoA is pseudepigrapha.  

 

The BoA text also has Abraham talking about placing a drawing at the start of his record.  Joseph Smith indicated that that drawing was Facsimile 1.  If one has a strict catalyst view and does not see the papyri as connected to the BoA at all, then did Joseph simply falsely attribute the Facsimile to Abraham?  And the text in the BoA is referring to a drawing on Abraham's ancient record, a drawing which is similar in looks to Facsimile 1?

 

I know there are varying degrees of the catalyst theory, but it seems there are significant issues with completely separating the papryi from the ancient Abrahamic text, especially when it comes to the facsimiles.

   

I think Joseph received revelation directly, and who are we to say that the words he received were NOT the words of Abraham?

I frankly don't care if they were or not- I look at the value of the BOA in my life- I look at the MESSAGE and not the words.  Same for the BOM.

God has confirmed to me that these messages are essential for the progression of my spiritual life and I have found that indeed God is right about that after years of studying them.

I honestly don't care if Joseph was staring at printed wallpaper and "translating" messages from God.  Millions think that an angel dictated the Koran to Mohammad- no texts, no papyrus, no plates.

Some "prophets" have stared into flames or read tea leaves- to me it is all the same.

 

I guess science would call it "intuitive thinking".  I have found in my own experience that I am most creative when doing a relatively mindless visual activity- like playing a silly game or driving, or watching waves, or even tv.  I think for Joseph it was also a visual activity.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Rob Osborn]

What thinking said...

 

yes, we don't have all the papyri, but a case can be made that the papyri we do have was used in the translation based upon the facsimile on the found papyri and the characters on the found papyri being included in the margins of some of the BoA manuscripts.

 

There is evidence, pretty decent evidence, presented to support the theory that the found papyri were used in translation process.

 

Hence... your statement is debatable.

Are you anti- mormon? Almost all anti-mormons get their evidences from antimormons and not dirwctly from church sources.

[Rob Osborn]

So let me see....the church had taught the claim made by Joseph Smith that he actually translated the BOA from papyrus. Now that there is evidence that it was likely not an actual translation the church tosses out the option that maybe the papyrus was a catalyst for revelation. Or it could be one or the other we just aren't sure. Yes indeed, I agree this is very strange. And absurd to the point of incredulity. You really think this is all just some test?

The church isnt waffling. They are clarifying the general same posirion they have held for decades. The church acknowledges that the translation process can include extra inspired words of clarification as the Spirit directs. The official position of the church still stands that we do not have the full sets of papyrus that Joseph had to translate the BoA. On this premise alone the validity of Joseph Smithstands as a pullar and testimoby of our faith. Only anti-mormons attack Joseph Smith and his ability to translate ancient texts.

[MiserereNobis]

I will listen to it but not tonight. It is late where I live.

 

It's his favorite video!  You really should watch it because 1) Rorty is an important philosopher and 2) you'll see that clip posted many more times in many other threads

[mfbukowski]

It's his favorite video!  You really should watch it because 1) Rorty is an important philosopher and 2) you'll see that clip posted many more times in many other threads

Daily.

[Brian 2.0]

Are you anti- mormon? Almost all anti-mormons get their evidences from antimormons and not dirwctly from church sources.

 

Joseph Smith Papers project has the evidence I mentioned.  Pretty sure that qualifies as a church source.

[Tacenda]

Joseph Smith Papers project has the evidence I mentioned. Pretty sure that qualifies as a church source.

You anti mormon you.

[Buckeye]

   

I think Joseph received revelation directly, and who are we to say that the words he received were NOT the words of Abraham?

I frankly don't care if they were or not- I look at the value of the BOA in my life- I look at the MESSAGE and not the words.  Same for the BOM.

God has confirmed to me that these messages are essential for the progression of my spiritual life and I have found that indeed God is right about that after years of studying them.

I honestly don't care if Joseph was staring at printed wallpaper and "translating" messages from God.  Millions think that an angel dictated the Koran to Mohammad- no texts, no papyrus, no plates.

Some "prophets" have stared into flames or read tea leaves- to me it is all the same.

 

I guess science would call it "intuitive thinking".  I have found in my own experience that I am most creative when doing a relatively mindless visual activity- like playing a silly game or driving, or watching waves, or even tv.  I think for Joseph it was also a visual activity.

 

So you don't care if Joseph was mistaken in believing/teaching that the BOA was contained on the papyrus?  I can see your point that the message can lead one towards good, towards God, regardless of whether Joseph was actually "translating" the physical document.  But accepting that Joseph got this wrong (which is required for the catalyst theory) necessarily opens the door to the possibility that past and current prophets are also making many other fundamental mistakes in their truth claims.

 

Maybe the saving ordinances really aren't necessary for our posterity, despite prophets' assertion that they are.  The prophets are mistaken and God is just allowing us to go through those motions as means to become one with our forebearers. 

 

Maybe the second coming isn't a real event that will happen as prophets have foretold.  God is just allowing prophets to make that mistake because an immenient event helps focus our mind on what is most important. 

 

Maybe heavenly messengers did not really visit Joseph/Oliver in Kirtland and give them keys . God is just allowing us to be taught this misinformation because having pretend keys gives us a sense of purpose.

 

What really troubles me about the essay isn't so much the catalyst theory, its the essay's approach that members can believe anything they want so long as they accept the BOA as scripture.  Also, the very disingenuous approach the essay takes in encouraging reliance on evidence where the BOA may comport with secular knowledge (Olishem, Elkenah) but taking the exact opposite approach for evidence where secular knowledge conflicts with the BOA.  We can't have it both ways.  If all that matters is spiritual confirmation, why have we always placed so much importance on evidence tying the spiritual to what can be discerned with mortal eyes? 

 

The fact is the church relies heavily on the BOM witnesses who saw the plates, on the two Mary's account of seeing the risen Christ, on Joseph's visitations, and many other historical claims.  If all that matters is the MESSAGE, well my kids get a lot more out of Calvin & Hobbes than they do the Old Testatment.  Maybe I should stay home with Les Miserables rather than go to gospel doctrine this week.  After all, as long as God can give a good message through the text, it doesn't matter if its "real" - whatever real is. 

[Rob Osborn]

Joseph Smith Papers project has the evidence I mentioned.  Pretty sure that qualifies as a church source.

CFR then showing we have the very Abraham text used to translate.

[Rob Osborn]

So you don't care if Joseph was mistaken in believing/teaching that the BOA was contained on the papyrus?  I can see your point that the message can lead one towards good, towards God, regardless of whether Joseph was actually "translating" the physical document.  But accepting that Joseph got this wrong (which is required for the catalyst theory) necessarily opens the door to the possibility that past and current prophets are also making many other fundamental mistakes in their truth claims.

 

Maybe the saving ordinances really aren't necessary for our posterity, despite prophets' assertion that they are.  The prophets are mistaken and God is just allowing us to go through those motions as means to become one with our forebearers. 

 

Maybe the second coming isn't a real event that will happen as prophets have foretold.  God is just allowing prophets to make that mistake because an immenient event helps focus our mind on what is most important. 

 

Maybe heavenly messengers did not really visit Joseph/Oliver in Kirtland and give them keys . God is just allowing us to be taught this misinformation because having pretend keys gives us a sense of purpose.

 

What really troubles me about the essay isn't so much the catalyst theory, its the essay's approach that members can believe anything they want so long as they accept the BOA as scripture.  Also, the very disingenuous approach the essay takes in encouraging reliance on evidence where the BOA may comport with secular knowledge (Olishem, Elkenah) but taking the exact opposite approach for evidence where secular knowledge conflicts with the BOA.  We can't have it both ways.  If all that matters is spiritual confirmation, why have we always placed so much importance on evidence tying the spiritual to what can be discerned with mortal eyes? 

 

The fact is the church relies heavily on the BOM witnesses who saw the plates, on the two Mary's account of seeing the risen Christ, on Joseph's visitations, and many other historical claims.  If all that matters is the MESSAGE, well my kids get a lot more out of Calvin & Hobbes than they do the Old Testatment.  Maybe I should stay home with Les Miserables rather than go to gospel doctrine this week.  After all, as long as God can give a good message through the text, it doesn't matter if its "real" - whatever real is.

Faith, our gospel requires faith. It sounds as if you have to have an actual eye witness account or you arent gonna believe anything.

[stemelbow]

So you don't care if Joseph was mistaken in believing/teaching that the BOA was contained on the papyrus?  I can see your point that the message can lead one towards good, towards God, regardless of whether Joseph was actually "translating" the physical document.  But accepting that Joseph got this wrong (which is required for the catalyst theory) necessarily opens the door to the possibility that past and current prophets are also making many other fundamental mistakes in their truth claims.

Maybe the saving ordinances really aren't necessary for our posterity, despite prophets' assertion that they are.  The prophets are mistaken and God is just allowing us to go through those motions as means to become one with our forebearers. 

Maybe the second coming isn't a real event that will happen as prophets have foretold.  God is just allowing prophets to make that mistake because an immenient event helps focus our mind on what is most important. 

Maybe heavenly messengers did not really visit Joseph/Oliver in Kirtland and give them keys . God is just allowing us to be taught this misinformation because having pretend keys gives us a sense of purpose.

 

What really troubles me about the essay isn't so much the catalyst theory, its the essay's approach that members can believe anything they want so long as they accept the BOA as scripture.  Also, the very disingenuous approach the essay takes in encouraging reliance on evidence where the BOA may comport with secular knowledge (Olishem, Elkenah) but taking the exact opposite approach for evidence where secular knowledge conflicts with the BOA.  We can't have it both ways.  If all that matters is spiritual confirmation, why have we always placed so much importance on evidence tying the spiritual to what can be discerned with mortal eyes? 

 

The fact is the church relies heavily on the BOM witnesses who saw the plates, on the two Mary's account of seeing the risen Christ, on Joseph's visitations, and many other historical claims.  If all that matters is the MESSAGE, well my kids get a lot more out of Calvin & Hobbes than they do the Old Testatment.  Maybe I should stay home with Les Miserables rather than go to gospel doctrine this week.  After all, as long as God can give a good message through the text, it doesn't matter if its "real" - whatever real is.

Very well said.

I wonder what it would look like if God did speak to us imperfect humans in a very spiritual non-understood way. When a Doctrine and Covenants passage speaks for the Lord or for God, as it claims what does that mean? Did Joseph recite precisely what was spoken to him? and if so spoken, how was it spoken? In his head? Was it an audible voice? Or did Joseph speak with liberties saying things as feeling extremely moved upon on certain topics and with that, felt inspired to attribute it all to God? And if that is the case, or anything similar what error could be introduced? And if error is introduced what effect can that have on us, and our understanding of things? Is it really just the message of the inspirations given to Joseph and others that are meant for us to take in and incorporate into our own spiritual journey and not take them as literally what God intends for each of us? That our inspirations are very much like scripture in that sense? And then there are multiple approaches to God? Oh I guess I could go on and on.

[Buckeye]

Faith, our gospel requires faith. It sounds as if you have to have an actual eye witness account or you arent gonna believe anything.

 

There is no such thing as faith in the abstract.  Faith is a belief in something - a person, a text, an event - coupled with action.  For example, I have faith that summer will arrive and therefore plant a garden in spring.  I have faith that other drivers will stay on their side of the road and therefore am comfortable when we pass each other on a narrow road going 55mph.  I have faith that Christ was raised from the dead and follow his teachings which promise me that I will also be resurrected. 

 

In each instance, faith is reflected in an action which then leads to experience and knowledge.  Thus, when my parents taught me to seek a college education I did so in faith on their life experience.  Now that I've received the education, my faith in that teaching is replaced with knowledge that it was correct.  And my faith in my parents is increased because their teaching proved correct.  The next time my parents give me counsel I'm more open to believe them. 

 

Faith can also be placed in false teachings.  For instance, I could wrongly believe that there will be no winter, plant a garden as an act on that faith, and then winter comes and my garden dies.  I then have knowledge that my faith was misplaced.

 

That's how faith works.  Faith in the gospel, prophets, and spritual things is no different.  When prophets taught me to not smoke, I chose to exercise faith in them.  Then I gained experience, my faith in the teaching became knowledge, and my faith in the prophet increased.  When prophets taught me that SSM was evil, I chose to exercise faith in them.  Then I gained experience, my faith in the teaching proved erroneous because I came to see that SS marriages produce good fruit, and therefore my faith in the prophet decreased. 

 

With respect to the issue at hand - Joseph's translation of the BOA - the fact that the church embraces a catalyst theory which runs contrary to what Joseph said he was doing with the papyrus necessarily decreases my faith in either the church or Joseph (or both).  That doesn't mean I have no faith in them.  Just that I have something less than a complete faith.   

[Bart Burk]

Why is the Book of Abraham even necessary? What harm would it do to decanonize it?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Bart Burk