Where are we with the Book of Mormon

[salgare]

18 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

There's no temple recommend question on BOM historicity.

Goodbye orthodoxy, hello orthoproxy.  I recently asked my children if they thought they should start teaching their children orthoproxy verses the correlated (orthodox/doctrine) gospel, because as you point out as the historicity continues to deteriorate there needs to be something left, and since Mormon orthoproxy is based on the TR questions ... no problems.

The above statements about us telling the church what we decide is more than just a joke.  We are currently indoctrinating the children to a historical view, of which the future will likely switch on them, causing our children a potential future faith crisis and more pain all around

Edited August 18, 2016 by salgare

[smac97]

1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

There's no temple recommend question on BOM historicity.

I agree.  But I would have a hard time honestly answering the quesiton about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  Imagine this response to that question:

Quote

"Well, Bishop, I think Joseph Smith was a massive fraud and liar because he presented The Book of Mormon a translation of an ancient historical record, when in my opinion no such ancient record ever existed.  He either wrote it himself or conspired with others to write it and then pass it off as a miraculous translation of an ancient record. 

Joseph Smith also lied about being visited by a resurrected Nephite named Moroni because no such person ever existed.  

He also fabricated a physical artifact, either by himself on in a conspiracy with other unknown persons.  

He then showed this fabricated artifact to the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, and either tricked them or persuaded them to join him in his conspiracy to deceive and defraud others.  So that means the Three Witnesses were either dishonest or insane in their testimony, and the Eight Witnesses were either tricked or collectively insane in their testimony.  

So even though this book has long been described as 'the keystone of our religion,' I reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed about it, and what the Witnesses claimed about it.

But despite rejecting one of the most important tenets of the Restored Gospel, I, with a clear conscience and with a straight face, can somehow affirm that I have 'a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days.'"

It's not my place to adjudicate this issue for those not within my stewardship.  But for myself, I don't think I could reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and yet still affirm to my priesthood leader that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

KC (where is the rest of the Sunshine Band?) quoted Margaret Barker who wrote: 

"There is no such thing as objective biblical scholarship, that is, biblical scholarship produced by those with no faith commitment. I have often said that a professor of French who had never been to France, did not speak the language, and doubted that France even existed would not be taken seriously. The same should apply with biblical studies, but it does not." 

Critics of the Church who criticize the BoM, are not doing so objectively, but are throwing everything they can come up with at it - no matter how small - in a dogpile approach, hoping the reader will see enough to make something stick. They are doing so because they have a vested interest in showing it to be false. Because if it is not false, then their sects are wrong or incomplete. This new trend in computer-generated word search analysis I believe has already defeated itself, because they find too many books with phrase similarities to the Book of Mormon. All they are really finding is that the Book of Mormon was translated into old English using words and phrases JS probably read or heard, was familiar with, and probably was impressed with. If the Lord is going to speak to him, would one expect the Lord to use words and phrases Joseph Smith was familiar with as being appropriate for scripture? It should be no surprise that one finds phrases such as the "narrow neck of land" and "curious workmanship" in the BoM as well as other contemporaneous books because those were words and phrases used in the old English of his day. Not so much in every day speech but in literature.

The process of translation from Book of Mormon characters to English was nothing like translating Spanish or even Greek to English. There was nothing even close to a word for word translation. So the Lord would naturally use phrases JS was familiar with in literature. Hence we get archaic old English phrases laced with Hebraisms, etc. Although chiasmi are certainly one sign of authentic Hebrew writing and thought, they certainly are not by themselves diagnostic for authentic ancient Hebrew writing being that they are found in later Greek and even English writing. There is a lot more going for the BoM than Nahom. Suffice it to say one must look in the right places. It took awhile to discover the geographical appropriateness of Nahom. Like more than 100 years. I don't see given that, how one can simply dismiss it as if JS, the farm boy, would have known about such an obscure place. There will be more tho. Critics will have to dismiss more and more to be able to deny the Book of Mormon. In  the end it will triumph.

Edited August 18, 2016 by RevTestament

[Avatar4321]

studying it I hope

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But I would have a hard time honestly answering the quesiton about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  Imagine this response to that question:

It's not my place to adjudicate this issue for those not within my stewardship.  But for myself, I don't think I could reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and yet still affirm to my priesthood leader that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."

Thanks,

-Smac

I prefer the answer "yes".

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I prefer the answer "yes".

I prefer it, too.  But for me, if I were to give that answer while rejecting The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and rejecting the testimonies of Joseph Smith and the Witnesses, that answer would be a lie.  So I would hope that I would have sufficient integrity to be honest with my priesthood leader, rather than to lie to and mislead him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

I suppose it depends what your spiritual framework is based on. If the pinnacle of your spiritual quest is to get a great reward in the afterlife by going through the correct ecclesiastical channels for your ordinances and doctrine, then everything may indeed depend upon historicity.

If your spiritual framework is more along the lines of principles that stand on their own merits (a good spiritual tree bearing good fruit, and the simple but meaningful commandments to "love God and love your neighbor") then historicity could hardly be less important.

Quote

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. 

 

Well, if you're going to hang your spiritual framework on historicity, everything is suddenly dependent upon secular research and historical methodology. The only thing you can confirm there is that Jesus probably existed and that there are some teachings attributed to him that are more likely to be authentic than others (one of the less likely to be authentic sayings would be the one you just quoted). 

Is the point of following Jesus to get a great reward? Or is the point of following Jesus to become a better human being? Only you can say. 

Quote

In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

This is the approach taken by thousands and thousands of ex-mormons every year. All or nothing, total fraud or the one true church. Could this be a false dichotomy?

Good scholarship, by the way, is definitely inclusive of the view that ancient scripture often lacks historicity. Whether scripture includes important truths or not is outside of the purview of scholarship. That's a spiritual determination we each make for ourselves. 

 

Quote

For those who claim to have looked at "the evidence" and concluded that The Book of Mormon is fictional, I'd like to see you folks address the witnesses to The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think the BOM is historical, but fictional is the wrong word. It's scripture, and scripture is in a different genre altogether. 

I don't think the witnesses require any explanation. There are thousands of similar witnesses for UFO encounters or sightings of the Virgin Mary. Individual human testimony is quite subjective. We can accept these testimonies as sincere without conceding that they are based on an encounter with something outside of the mind. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For relevant discussions on the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=11

Welch on how much was known in 1830:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1456&index=6

If Hunt learned about chiasmus from some contemporary source, more power to him, but there is still no evidence that his book was every adopted for use by schools, let alone seen by Joseph Smith.

Thanks, Kevin.  I'm glad you freshened my mind on these.  I think the point may be, though, Joseph might not have had to have seen the Late War book, in order to have come up with chiasmus.  otherwise the Late War would not have had them either.  I think it possible that the Book of Mormon have chiasumus inherent in it, if Joseph wrote the book himself.  It's possible because there are other books that too were written by people but had chiastic structures.  On that basis it feels like chiasmus loses it's sting as a piece of evidence in favor of Joseph. 

in this first piece What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove, we read:

Quote

Assuming that a text manifests a high degree of chiasticity by solidly satisfying objective criteria that are generally agreed upon as the factors that are present in a clearly chiastic passage, what does the presence of this literary pattern in that text prove? Of what is it evidence?

he concludes:

Quote

Although it is difficult to determine exactly what is proved by chiasmus, its presence is evidence of numerous qualities and features. In my opinion, the multiple phenomena of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon amount to a very strong complex of interlocking evidences that the book is an ancient record that originated just as its authors and its translator said it did....

Chiasmus provides probative information that helps to answer numerous questions about the Book of Mormon. It may not prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is or is not anything in particular, but then it is rarely the case that evidence of any kind ever produces results that conclusive.

It feels like as we learn of other instances of Chaismus in writings contemporary or previous to Joseph we lesson the likelihood that it represents evidence as described by Welch.  I'm just saying it feels like we're further from the conclusion Welch had seemed to want to reach "It may not prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is or is not anything in particular".

 

Quote

 

Quote

For " Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?"

No.  There is lot more to it than Nahom, and Nahom is not just a stand alone point, but is interconnected with a great many other details.  It has to be in the right place and time, relative to a great many other things that tend to overlooked by superficial readers and not mentioned or accounted for by superficial critics.   It also happens that anything believers can provide can be dismissed with minimal effort, a simple "So what?" suffices.  But for those who really want to learn, there is a great deal to consider.  Try Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or In the Footsteps of Lehi, or the Journey of Faith.

Small details, such as this:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

And large, such as this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-great-and-terrible-judgments-of-the-lord-destruction-and-disaster-in-3-nephi-and-the-geology-of-mesoamerica/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for these. 

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, waveslider said:

It doesn't matter if there is never evidence found or not, if God tells us it is true, then it is true. The Book of Mormon itself tells us:

"4  And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Moroni 10:4-5

If we just try to wait until everything is proven then why be religious at all?

So if say, someone says, "I'm a prophet" shall we question it, try to find out if there is truth to such a statement, or should we assume he's a prophet by virtue of him saying he's a prophet?  While the circle you endorse works for you, it doesn't work for me. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But I would have a hard time honestly answering the quesiton about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  Imagine this response to that question:

It's not my place to adjudicate this issue for those not within my stewardship.  But for myself, I don't think I could reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and yet still affirm to my priesthood leader that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."

Thanks,

-Smac

One need not think Joseph a fraud to reject the BoM historicity. 

[Buckeye]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But I would have a hard time honestly answering the quesiton about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  Imagine this response to that question:

It's not my place to adjudicate this issue for those not within my stewardship.  But for myself, I don't think I could reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and yet still affirm to my priesthood leader that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."

Thanks,

-Smac

If the BOM is not historical, it does not necessarily follow that Joseph was a fraud. The church essays already approve of the catalyst theory with respect to the BOA. Under that theory, Joseph was factually wrong in thinking that he was translating from the papyri, but he was not a fraud. Couldn't it be possible that Joseph (and Oliver and the others) were factually mistaken as to the plates and visions, but that God nonetheless worked through their mistakes to restore many great and important things pertaining to the children of men?

[waveslider]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So if say, someone says, "I'm a prophet" shall we question it, try to find out if there is truth to such a statement, or should we assume he's a prophet by virtue of him saying he's a prophet?  While the circle you endorse works for you, it doesn't work for me. 

You must have missed verse 5

 

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

5  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

You must have missed verse 5

 

 

I haven't missed it.  But then we're getting into whether personal revelation is foolproof.  It's not.  And let's face it, when it comes to humans compared to getting things just right and knowing all things--we're all a bunch of fools. 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose it depends what your spiritual framework is based on.

My "spiritual framework" is based on faith in God and a desire to return obey Him and become more like him.

Quote

If the pinnacle of your spiritual quest is to get a great reward in the afterlife by going through the correct ecclesiastical channels for your ordinances and doctrine, then everything may indeed depend upon historicity.

In the LDS paradigm, the "pinnacle" of our "spiritual quest" is, or should be, encapsulated in Matthew 22:

Quote

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To love God is to keep His commandments (John 14:15).

Those commandments include "going through the correct ecclesiastical channels for your ordinances and doctrine."

Those "ecclesiastical channels" are the servants of God who bear the Priesthood of God, and who are authorized to administer the saving ordinances which God commands us to receive.

Quote

If your spiritual framework is more along the lines of principles that stand on their own merits (a good spiritual tree bearing good fruit, and the simple but meaningful commandments to "love God and love your neighbor") then historicity could hardly be less important.

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  By your reckoning, belief in Jesus Christ is irrelevant.  A person who rejects Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world, but who nevertheless adheres to a generally good "framework" that involves only selective excerpts of the Restored Gospel, will surely be rewarded for the caliber of that life.  I am grateful for that.  But if a person seeks to have an eternal family, if a person seeks exaltation, then the historicity of Jesus Christ matters.

Quote

Well, if you're going to hang your spiritual framework on historicity, everything is suddenly dependent upon secular research and historical methodology.

Not principally, no.  I have faith in Jesus Christ as an actual being, as the actual Son of God and actual Savior of the world.  A belief in a fictional/imaginary Jesus makes about as much sense as telling a drowning man to rely on a fictional/imaginary life preserver.

My belief in Jesus Christ is based on the scriptures and on the Spirit.  "Secular research and historical methodology" are, at best, supplemental and ancillary resources.

Quote

The only thing you can confirm there is that Jesus probably existed and that there are some teachings attributed to him that are more likely to be authentic than others (one of the less likely to be authentic sayings would be the one you just quoted). 

I'm not sure what you mean by "confirm."  We're not speaking of mathematical proofs.  We're speaking of historical events about which we are asked to accept on faith.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

Quote

Is the point of following Jesus to get a great reward? Or is the point of following Jesus to become a better human being? Only you can say. 

Speaking of false dichotomies...

Quote

This is the approach taken by thousands and thousands of ex-mormons every year. All or nothing, total fraud or the one true church. Could this be a false dichotomy?

The Church claims to be "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth."  If it is not, then I suppose it might be something good, but hardly unique.

Quote

I don't think the BOM is historical, but fictional is the wrong word. It's scripture, and scripture is in a different genre altogether. 

I do not understand this.  Calling it "a different genre" does not explain anything.  Where did the text come from?

Quote

I don't think the witnesses require any explanation.

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  In the LDS paradigm, the witnesses constitute evidence that can and should be evaluated.  People are certainly at liberty to reach a conclusion about the truth claims of the LDS Church without competently and fairly examining the testimonial evidence of those 11 men.  But that admittedly ignorant position, that refusal to evaluate evidence, significantly cheapens the value of merits of any subsequent conclusions about The Book of Mormon.

Quote

There are thousands of similar witnesses for UFO encounters or sightings of the Virgin Mary. Individual human testimony is quite subjective.

And yet we are not speaking of "individual human testimony."  The Three Witnesses all testified about the same event.  So did the Eight Witnesses.

And you are comparing eleven men, eleven known quantities, with vague references to "thousands" of disparate persons.

And you are refusing to evaluate the testimonial evidence of these men at all.  Not because their testimony is not relevant, but because their testimony contravenes your a priori assumptions about The Book of Mormon.  Well, that's certainly your prerogative, but it's not very persuasive.  A position based on intentional, calculated ignorance never will be.

Quote

We can accept these testimonies as sincere without conceding that they are based on an encounter with something outside of the mind. 

I don't get it.  Earlier you said that your "{doesn't} require any explanation," but here you are providing an "explanation."  An explanation that, by your apparent admission, is based A) on a priori assumptions about The Book of Mormon, and B) on ignorance of the merits of the testimony of percipient witnesses.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

One need not think Joseph a fraud to reject the BoM historicity. 

Well, yes.  Other options include A) he was deluded/insane, and B) God inspired him to lie about The Book of Mormon.

Neither of these is very palatable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

If the BOM is not historical, it does not necessarily follow that Joseph was a fraud.

Well, yes.  He could also have been A) deluded/insane, or B) inspired by God to lie to and defraud thousands of people.

But the fraud theory is the most likely because . . . there were actual, physical plates.  We have to account for those.

Quote

The church essays already approve of the catalyst theory with respect to the BOA. Under that theory, Joseph was factually wrong in thinking that he was translating from the papyri, but he was not a fraud.

Which is a factually distinguishable scenario.  We still need to account for the plates and the testimony of the Witnesses.

Quote

Couldn't it be possible that Joseph (and Oliver and the others) were factually mistaken as to the plates and visions,

"Factually mistaken?"  What does that mean?  Were there physical plates, or not?  Did the Witnesses see and examine the plates, or not?  What is your theory here?  In what sense could they have been "factually mistaken?"

Quote

but that God nonetheless worked through their mistakes to restore many great and important things pertaining to the children of men?

What "mistakes?"  Please lay these out.  I really don't understand this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  He could also have been A) deluded/insane, or B) inspired by God to lie to and defraud thousands of people.

But the fraud theory is the most likely because . . . there were actual, physical plates.  We have to account for those.

Which is a factually distinguishable scenario.  We still need to account for the plates and the testimony of the Witnesses.

"Factually mistaken?"  What does that mean?  Were there physical plates, or not?  Did the Witnesses see and examine the plates, or not?  What is your theory here?  In what sense could they have been "factually mistaken?"

What "mistakes?"  Please lay these out.  I really don't understand this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please go ahead and distinguish the BOA. In some ways, the BOA is harder to justify because we still have many portions of the papyri. Yet Joseph's "translation" does not match the papyri. That could be because he was fraud. Or it could be that he misunderstood his work. Likewise, Joseph could be mistaken that the plates he held had any relation to the BOM, he could be mistaken that he had visitations from angels, his companions could have the same mistakes, and it good could still come of their work.

If the church can allow for members to believe that God allowed Joseph to misunderstand the papyri, why wouldn't the church allow a similar conclusion with respect to the plates and Moroni?

 

[waveslider]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't missed it.  But then we're getting into whether personal revelation is foolproof.  It's not.  And let's face it, when it comes to humans compared to getting things just right and knowing all things--we're all a bunch of fools. 

Speak for yourself. The personal revelation that I have received is fool proof. Since it was God who told me directly, then anything contrary ends up being foolish. God can tell me just as easily if a self proclaimed prophet is a false prophet, or if he truly is a real prophet, then I can know instead of just being left to blindly follow that prophet, false or not, at his word.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  Other options include A) he was deluded/insane, and B) God inspired him to lie about The Book of Mormon.

Neither of these is very palatable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

He could have thought it history even if weren't.  Maybe that deluded, but I can't be sure.  As has been pointed out the catalyst theory for the BoA is an interesting consideration here. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Speak for yourself. The personal revelation that I have received is fool proof. Since it was God who told me directly, then anything contrary ends up being foolish. God can tell me just as easily if a self proclaimed prophet is a false prophet, or if he truly is a real prophet, then I can know instead of just being left to blindly follow that prophet, false or not, at his word.

I think that's the exact attitude that would cause us some of the worst problems.  So I disagree with you.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But I would have a hard time honestly answering the quesiton about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  Imagine this response to that question:

It's not my place to adjudicate this issue for those not within my stewardship.  But for myself, I don't think I could reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and yet still affirm to my priesthood leader that I have "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."

Thanks,

-Smac

Your hypothetical is a strawman.  Even Vogel's pious fraud explanation for Joseph is more respectful than the person you portray.  There are ways of looking at the BoM as a 19th century influenced document without literal historicity, and do so in a respectful manner where someone finds spiritual value in the book.  I would try to mirror a David Bokovoy approach or I kind of like the Ann Taves approach to the golden plates.

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf

 

[waveslider]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's the exact attitude that would cause us some of the worst problems.  So I disagree with you.

Okay, I can agree to disagree, but I guess you haven't experienced revelation like I have, otherwise you would understand what I am talking about. There was nothing vague about the answers I received through my own personal revelations. Of course revelation didn't answer all questions, in fact it created a whole bunch of new questions for me, but I am very confident in the truths I was shown, and the direction I was shown in order to receive more answers. That type of revelation won't cause problems because it won't conflict with other revelation, so what are the worst problems you are talking about? The problems of convincing others of these truths? If so, I agree it doesn't give others those truths so if that's what you're driving at I think I understand what you are saying. On the other hand though, if those others choose to gain personal revelation on their own, I don't see how it would cause problems since it is the same God, telling the same truths to others, hence no conflict.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I prefer it, too.  But for me, if I were to give that answer while rejecting The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and rejecting the testimonies of Joseph Smith and the Witnesses, that answer would be a lie.  So I would hope that I would have sufficient integrity to be honest with my priesthood leader, rather than to lie to and mislead him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you accept the Book of Abraham for what it claims to be- the words of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus? Or do you let that slide.

If Joseph could be wrong about the BoA, is it not possible he was also wrong about the particulars of the BoM?

When asked the "restoration of the gospel" TR question can one reasonably answer they have a testimony of the restoration even if they don't believe Abraham wrote on the papyrus that was then directly translated by Joseph Smith?

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Speak for yourself. The personal revelation that I have received is fool proof. Since it was God who told me directly, then anything contrary ends up being foolish. God can tell me just as easily if a self proclaimed prophet is a false prophet, or if he truly is a real prophet, then I can know instead of just being left to blindly follow that prophet, false or not, at his word.

Did God speak to you directly, or did you have a feeling that you interpreted to be a message from God? Is your interpretation of feelings fool proof? I only ask because I know mine isn't.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Okay, I can agree to disagree, but I guess you haven't experienced revelation like I have, otherwise you would understand what I am talking about. There was nothing vague about the answers I received through my own personal revelations. Of course revelation didn't answer all questions, in fact it created a whole bunch of new questions for me, but I am very confident in the truths I was shown, and the direction I was shown in order to receive more answers. That type of revelation won't cause problems because it won't conflict with other revelation, so what are the worst problems you are talking about? The problems of convincing others of these truths? If so, I agree it doesn't give others those truths so if that's what you're driving at I think I understand what you are saying. On the other hand though, if those others choose to gain personal revelation on their own, I don't see how it would cause problems since it is the same God, telling the same truths to others, hence no conflict.

I guess it's possible it all fits very nicely and neatly together for you.  But for me it doesn't and I have yet to see evidence it does for anyone.  We might get scattered and random peaks into eternity through inspiration, but when we try and piece it together we seem to be left on our own.  That's primarily why the guy down the street maintains his spiritual witness that Mormonism is not true is as valid as the guy next door who says it is true.  I don't know you interpret what they mean by true or untrue.  I'm just saying, this ain't so easy.  I guess to some it may be, but not to me.