mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Many arguments that the critics make are conveniently not falsifiable One of these is that religious matters should be proven by scientific evidence. That is itself a belief accepted on faith.
readstoomuch Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I think some of the same controversy that links Masonry with the Temple Endowment also apply to the Book of Abraham and the papyrus. There is some relation between the document/organization and the practice or scriptures in the LDS Church. The question is how are they related. At the very least Masonry and the papyrus led or inspired Joseph Smith in some way that was visionary to him. Objects seem to be a big deal in that process. The seer stone led to revelations. The plates and the Urim and Thummim were that way with the Book of Mormon. At some point the plates didn`t have to be present for him to translate. I think Karl Sandberg`s Dialogue article called Knowing Brother Joseph Again explains this about as well as anything that I have read. It works for me. Abraham went to Egypt. The Islamic lore and Jewish writings are filled (filled, exploding, pregnant with ideas about Abraham in Egypt) and we have a few measly little crumbs in the Old Testament as Christians. Joseph Smith comes in contact with the papyrus and his mind expands upon the lack of clarity and information available. Remember this is after most of the work on the Inspired Version of the Bible. I think it fell on his mind that there was something missing in the Universe about Abraham. He was able to then expand and put together the missing pieces that the Lord thought needed to be there. The literal translation of the papyrus is not that of the Book of Abraham. That fight is over for me. I accept that. Not worth talking about. Case over. The question in my mind is what does the Book of Abraham say and how does it bring together Old Testament principles with New Testament fulfillment. What parallels with the Book of Abraham are in ancient writing of the Old Testament cultures as well as the early christians? What do the Apocrypha and pseudopigrapha say about Abraham? Maybe I`m a simpleton and there is some kind of theory or finding out there that shows me to be wrong/wrong-headed. It all seems beautiful and makes sense. It(see above) is the only way of making sense to me. 2
cinepro Posted February 25, 2015 Author Posted February 25, 2015 I fail to see the problem. Joseph was looking at the manuscript and thought that is what it said literally, but he was receiving revelation, not understanding that it was revelation and not a literal translation. So what? That's the question. In what way could Joseph receive revelation that inspired him to say that Facsimile 1 was a depiction of the story in Abraham Chapter 1? What was he "translating" when he said that? The reference to Facsimile 1 in the actual text creates a very strong (and problematic) link between the papyrus and the Book of Abraham. As with the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses (and as has been pointed out here), it would be much better for everyone if the papyrus had been lost to the ages. Then there wouldn't be any need for creative theories or essays on the Church website.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 That's the question. In what way could Joseph receive revelation that inspired him to say that Facsimile 1 was a depiction of the story in Abraham Chapter 1? What was he "translating" when he said that? The reference to Facsimile 1 in the actual text creates a very strong (and problematic) link between the papyrus and the Book of Abraham. As with the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses (and as has been pointed out here), it would be much better for everyone if the papyrus had been lost to the ages. Then there wouldn't be any need for creative theories or essays on the Church website.It appears you didn't even read what I said I said this:Joseph was looking at the manuscript and thought that is what it said literally, but he was receiving revelation, not understanding that it was revelation and not a literal translation. NONE of these books were "translated" in the conventional sense. You don't add books to the bible out of whole cloth and call it a "translation". This shows us that Joseph was using the word in a different way We need to get over this and look at what he wrote and stop worrying about how he wrote it. This is so totally obvious I cannot understand why it is not obvious to everyone. Face in a hat looking at a seer stone, no manuscript as evidence. Is that a "translation" in the conventional sense? Looking at a papyrus and writing what he was inspired to write. Is that a translation in the conventional sense? Re-writing the bible at will and adding chapters as he felt necessary. Is that "translation" in a conventional sense? Receiving the Book of Moses out of thin air. Is that a "translation"? Receiving the D&C as pure revelation and saying "thus saith the Lord". No pretense at translation. When are we going to get over all this nonsense and just say that Joseph was a prophet and received revelations and that is that??? Maybe he did not know the process himself. Prophets seldom do. Who cares? We need to evaluate the MESSAGE, not how the words got on the page. Who cares? 1
omni Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 We need to evaluate the MESSAGE, not how the words got on the page. Who cares?I care and so do many others. You should realize by now that right or wrong, you are in a disinct minority with your position. It is important to us to know how Joseph translated the BoA, it is important for us to know if Nephi was a historical figure, and it is important for us to know if Joseph actually saw (not dreamed) The Father and Christ as he said he did. We realize for you the "details" aren't important, but for many of us they're what separates this church from any other well-meaning organization. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) I care and so do many others. You should realize by now that right or wrong, you are in a disinct minority with your position. It is important to us to know how Joseph translated the BoA, it is important for us to know if Nephi was a historical figure, and it is important for us to know if Joseph actually saw (not dreamed) The Father and Christ as he said he did. We realize for you the "details" aren't important, but for many of us they're what separates this church from any other well-meaning organization.Oh I know I am in the minority, trust me. That is exactly why I post here at all. People need to know there are other positions which are NOT literalistic. That is what keeps people in the church when they have issues with alleged "truth claims" when no one can even define what "truth" means, or don't understand that these are just semantic problems. If you can define the difference between seeing what no one else sees and a "dream" please tell me. If you can tell me that seeing what no one else sees is a "hallucination" or not, please explain it. Good luck on that. Someone needs to think these issues through. Edited February 25, 2015 by mfbukowski 2
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 That is exactly why I post here at all. People need to know there are other positions which are NOT literalistic. That is what keeps people in the church when they have issues with alleged "truth claims" when no one can even define what "truth" means, or don't understand that these are just semantic problems.The Church claims that the Book of Mormon is, literally, the religious histories of different civilizations and containing the history of people who lived in the Americas for over 1000 years. If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) The Church claims that the Book of Mormon is, literally, the religious histories of different civilizations and containing the history of people who lived in the Americas for over 1000 years. If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?Never did I say it was not "real history". I have a testimony that it is. Perhaps you need to read more carefully. Edited February 25, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Never did I say it was not "real history".If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) I see.Shall we examine everything you take without evidence? Do you really want to go there? Why do you think scientific evidence has anything to do with religious matters?What is your scientific evidence that it is wrong to kill babies for fun? What theory proves that? What experiment?What scientific evidence do you have for believing that you love your wife?With all due respect MFB, I don't think that love for a spouse or the morality of infanticide really prove your point. Please explain further. Also, is the catalyst theory a religious idea? Can we test it against available data? Is it congruent with available data? Can create hypotheses and test them with the available data? I think we can. I'm not saying that we can know the truth, but we can make good use of the available data. Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?what is wrong with you? Read that post again.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 With all due respect MFB, I don't think that love for a spouse or the morality of infanticide really prove your point. Please explain further.Please show then how those beliefs are based on evidence.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 what is wrong with you? Read that post again.There is nothing wrong with me. Consider it a hypothetical question.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?I never once said they are not really true. CFR and I am holding you to it
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 With all due respect MFB, I don't think that love for a spouse or the morality of infanticide really prove your point. Please explain further.For that matter show why only propositions which can be proven with evidence are "true".Prove it or retract your statement.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I never once said they are not really true. CFR and I am holding you to itI never claimed you said it wasn't true. I'm asking you a question ... it might require you to use your imagination.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I never claimed you said it wasn't true. I'm asking you a question ... it might require you to use your imagination.Ask a coherent question and I will answer.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Ask a coherent question and I will answer. If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?
rodheadlee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 That's fine; but don't pretend that there is virtue in believing baseless ideas. Bro.Hey bro I taste the fruit (evaluate the message) not the method of transmission (there is not enough information available). 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history? Surely a bible believer should not ask that question implying that observable evidence has anything to do with the value of scripture.Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on?What evidence does that say about the alleged scripture that contains these fantasies?You actually believe your sins are forgiven because Jerusalem exists??How many times do we have to repeat this ? Edited February 25, 2015 by mfbukowski
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Surely a bible believer should not ask that question implying that observable evidence has anything to do with the value of scripture.Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on?What evidence does that say about the alleged scripture that contains these fantasies?Good grief. Ever get called down for avoidance behavior?Why not just say that answering the question is not allowed by the church.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Good grief. Ever get called down for avoidance behavior?Why not just say that answering the question is not allowed by the church.Huh?What are you talking about?
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Huh?What are you talking about?You, earlier, claimed a non-literalistic view regarding the questions of historicity. You believe the message is more important than the questions surrounding the history. Yet the church itself claims a literal history - that Hebrew civilizations thrived in the Americas for over 1000 years. Despite your position, it appears that it is worthwhile to investigate these claims that the church makes about itself and its scriptures. It keeps coming up, much to your chagrin. So, if these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 You, earlier, claimed a non-literalistic view regarding the questions of historicity. You believe the message is more important than the questions surrounding the history. Yet the church itself claims a literal history - that Hebrew civilizations thrived in the Americas for over 1000 years. Despite your position, it appears that it is worthwhile to investigate these claims that the church makes about itself and its scriptures. It keeps coming up, much to your chagrin. So, if these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history? BOTH THESE ARE COMPATIBLE POSITIONS. The civilizations really existed but NOT all the scriptures are literal. They do not require the history to be true to be true scripture.Same as the bible. Jerusalem existing does not prove the atonement. Why is this so difficult? 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 To you everything is black or white. If the history is true, so is the scripture.Jerusalem is real so the earth was created in 6 days.I cannot follow that logic.
Recommended Posts