Student Review on BOA

I agree that they asked good, solid questions – and I like his answers, since he tried to stay as factual and non-dogmatic as possible.

I agree with church0333. This is the straw on the camel’s back issue for me. Independent Non-LDS Egyptologists agree 100% on how the papyri translate. That’s not all that’s problematic for me though. My problem is based in large degree on JS’s own words and the words of people who were there. What they said and what is being said now just don’t jive. IMHO, church leaders are doing verbal gymnastics to try to keep people in the church over this.

I urge you to question the bad assumptions found in my ideas and everyone else’s.

I really like this line of thought, and I thought I was clearly following him until I hit:

As you do so, remember that revelation gives you access to a source of knowledge that is neither faulty nor given to bad assumptions.

With this statement I am unclear if he is acknowledging that there is a faulty bridge called mortality that enables the transfer of information from the pure source of revelation to our active present human understanding.

My problem is based in large degree on JS’s own words and the words of people who were there. What they said and what is being said now just don’t jive.

You are right, they don’t. This to me is because of the faulty assumptions that humans so often make, even while in the process of revelation.

I thought it was interesting in the interview, it says:

It is not completely clear whether he was actually translating from the papyri, something akin to how he translated the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, or if he was translating by receiving pure revelation, as he did with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, or if there was a combination of these two methods, or even something else entirely. We just don’t have enough information.

…wait…is that to mean that the revelation process for the Book of Mormon from Golden Plates is clear, like word for word translation of ancient texts, like what we see in pictures hanging in churches across the world? Hmmmm…except for the stone in the hat or when the Gold Plates were not in the room, right? So…how does that exactly differ from the process for the JST Bible process?

Shouldn’t we just agree the revelation process (BOM, BOA, JST Bible, D&C) is all unclear how it works?

I would say that they should be careful about what they believe, they should be careful of the assumptions that they make, but especially they should be careful not to value theories and assumptions of man more than they value information they can learn from revelation. I am fully certain that most of the things people are so concerned about now will one day be shown to be based on mistakes.

I would just say that this statement can go both ways, about assumptions, about what we can learn, and about what future evidence will tell us regarding mistakes.

What he say’s in essence is that revelation trumps evidence.

Kind of, but kind of saying that we can’t be certain we have all the evidence yet…so we can hold out on hopes of more evidence to clarify things in the future with continuous revelation. More like saying “Revelation trumps incomplete evidence”.

There is no way to win an argument with someone who hopes for things which are not seen, but they believe are true.

As you do so, remember that revelation gives you access to a source of knowledge that is neither faulty nor given to bad assumptions.

Therein lies the rub. Revelation very well may be an infallible source of knowledge but a bad assumption can still be made about what is and what is not a bona fide revelation.

I comment on this because the BoA represents the straw that broke the camels back for me. I didn’t stumble into the problems with the book online, it actually started with a visit to a museum where they had an Egyptian exhibit. Some things looked all too familiar so I did some investigating.

Let me start off with an exert from the Doctrine and Covenants:

2: Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

3: Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation;…

In the past I’ve interpreted that thusly… that a healthy testimony must have a spiritual side (heart) and an intellectual side (mind). Also I’ve viewed the heart and the mind working together to provide the two (or three) witnesses necessary to establish the word on a personal level. Over the course of my membership in the church the intellectual side has outstripped my spiritual side and vice versa, nevertheless I feel that both are eventually necessary to establish a personal testimony.

The BoA presented a unique challenge, a singular doubt where the spiritual witness had far, far outstripped the intellectual. In order to progress I’m going to need the intellectual side to catch up… until then the spiritual side will not thrive and will eventually deteriorate. I feel like I’m not being honest with myself by simply proceeding on faith and tossing my hands up in the air when it comes to what we do actually know about the BoA.

All that said I understand that “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” One has to be open to the notion that there simply are things that cannot be understood in this life. Personally, I believe that the pursuit of that knowledge, a true intellectual understanding of the inner workings of God’s mind and his thought processes, would only serve to bring us that much closer to him. It seems like he would want that for us.

Unfortunately what I think I know about the BoA makes it fail the smell test. I’ve studied the BoA and its history and I’ve heard the bleeding edge arguments that the apologists have to offer these days …what can I say…

I may visit one of the many BoA threads on the site and include some information that was new to me. Maybe it will be helpful to some. One thing I will say with respect to the BoA (not the papyri, the book itself), I didn’t consider a study of the book complete by simply discovering what it is not… I had to spend some time studying what it actually is.

I don’t put my trust in Joseph Smith’s translating arm of flesh anymore, and it’s okay. The extent of prophets’ fallibility is much greater than I used to think, and that’s okay. Joseph was still a prophet.

Me, too.

It isn’t scripture IMO, either, but it has been “canonized” by the church hence to most Mormons it’s scripture. I haven’t read it in a long time. Racism?