- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:
Orson, I can’t tell you how much this helps. I love the BOM, until now I had no idea how I was going to continue reading and teaching the children about it. I have many of the BOM cartoons on VHS and CD, last week I almost threw them all away, so glad I did’nt. I also agree that there is “religious truth” in the BOM, even if it turns out to be pure fiction. Nice work! f4h1Obviously it was a revelation to me that circles existed within Mormonism that felt [physical] “certainty is a burden.” [Edward Kimball quote] Books you may enjoy include Mormon Scientist, Reflections of a Mormon Historian, Making Peace (Eugene England), Religion and the Pursuit of Truth by Lowell Bennion [out of print but look on Amazon in the used books or maybe on eBay], David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. I’m sure there are others that slip my mind at the moment. A lot of good books show a diversity of thought within Mormonism.
Here’s a quote from Bennion that I think applies to this discussion on the BoA:
A Sunday School teacher once said, “If everything in the scriptures is not true, none of it is.” What a thoughtless statement to make! Suppose a friend living in the State of Washington should send us a box of apples, and after eating a dozen or so good ones we should bite into one that was bad. Would we throw away the whole box? I think not. At that point we would begin to sort the apples. We would save the good ones, throw away the bad, and if some were found to have only a bad spot, we would trim that off and eat the rest. The scriptures are not perfect, nor do they purport to be. If one is constructive and not cynical he can find many “good apples” therein.A certain woman reminded her husband that before they were married he often told her that she was perfect; and that since their marriage he has let her know too often that she is not. Despite this disillusionment in regard to her supposed perfection, this man now finds that his love for his wife is deeper than it was [at the time] when they were married. He has discovered many fine qualities in her which he never knew in his limited acquaintance before their marriage. She is not perfect, but he loves her more in her imperfection than he once did when he thought her perfect.
My feeling for scripture is somewhat similar. There was a day in my youth when I thought every word in the bible – except for a few errors in translation – was true and of equal worth to every other word. Now that I have had the scriptures as constant companions for nearly thirty years, I see them more nearly for what they are. In them is the human touch as well as the divine seal. But in recent years I have come to know the truth and the worth of many precious things in the scriptures that I didn’t know in my youth… The scriptures are not perfect, but their virtues and values far outweigh their defects and limitations. They should be read in proper perspective just for what they are – neither with blind devotion, nor with the cynic’s eye.
We need not draw final conclusions about the scriptures when we are only twenty, forty, fifty, or seventy years old. Again and again, with more of life’s experience behind us and with increased humility, we need to return to these sacred writings and seek new and larger meaning. Often we shall find it.
Brian Johnston wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:The Book of Abraham is probably the closest thing there is to a “smoking gun” to really discredit Joseph Smith as a reliable prophet
Woah woah woah … wait a minute…I’ll agree that it’s a “smoking gun” perhaps that he wasn’t a reliable (magical) translator of ancient documents. But
I don’t think it comes anywhere near the heat level of “smoking” as far as discrediting JS as a reliable prophet. Other issues might do that, but not the BoA in my opinion.Joseph Smith seems about as run-of-the-mill as any other prophet figure out there in history. Moses came down from a mountain with stone slabs carved by the “finger of God.” Ezekiel wrote about his ‘shroom trips. John the Revelator seemed to have found Ezekiel’s stash in a cave somewhere on Patmos. I could go on and on.
Are you saying Ezekiel’s alien abduction story is more credible than JS “translating” mummy scrolls?The problem is that we actually have the papyrus fragments that Joseph supposedly claimed was the source for the Book of Abraham which have been translated by independent Egyptologists as being common funeral texts. As if that wasn’t enough we have side-by-side text from the Book of Abraham and the “Book of Breathings” in the hand-writing of several Church members trying to learn to translate Egyptian based on Joseph’s translation. So where did they get the idea that this was the original source for the Book of Abraham and that the translation was correct? My guess is that Joseph Smith told them it was and it looks to me like he has now been caught red-handed making things up whether he honestly believed his own story or not. If it was only one thing you could maybe excuse it as an honest mistake but we see one story after another like Zelph, Moon Quakers, the Kinderhook plates, etc. to the point that it looks like he just had the tendency to act like he knew what he was talking about when he really didn’t.
If we had more evidence like this to suggest that Moses actually existed as a historical figure and wrote everything he is given credit for and also claimed that this was all literally the word of God received directly via revelation then yes I would say he was about equally as credible as Joseph Smith because it looks like the global flood and six-day creation did not happen that way. However, the Bible is so old that we just don’t have much independent evidence about most of the men that originally wrote these books. On the other hand, because Joseph Smith lived more recently we do have a significant amount of evidence to try to piece together a story of what really happened compared to what he said.
Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say. Even if people have legitimate mystical experiences they can’t explain it doesn’t mean they don’t still have their own ideas and opinions that don’t always come from God. Also, I don’t believe most of the Old Testament or even Paul’s letters, the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, etc. are 100% inspired either. Basically, I see the Bible as containing many myths, legends, errors, and purely human ideas or opinions regardless of any legitimate inspiration, revelation, prophecy, and true history. I don’t really expect the Church to openly admit some of the problems with their story any time soon but some of the absolute glorification of prophets and especially Joseph Smith is hard to listen to sometimes after you start to see some of the contradictions.
Old-Timer wrote:I personally think there are only two reasonable conclusions:
1) Joseph made up the whole BofA thing and lied about it.
2) Joesph actually believed he was translating / transmitting / channeling God’s word / an ancient record through a revelatory process – that he was sincere in thinking that what he wrote was “scripture” in the classic sense of “the revealed word of God through a prophet”.
I’ve studied the general issues extensively (including as much as possible about how “prophets” claim to transmit God’s word), and I think the argument for either side is about even in pretty much all ways – so
I **choose** to accept the second option as the one I want to “believe”.I think this is the only possibilities as well, which pretty well means that if one accepts the BofA as “the word of god” and that JS truly received said word of god because he was a prophet,
they do so on faith, and faith alone.I am absolutely okay with this, if one want’s to choose to believe it under those premises.
What I am not okay with is apologetic answers and irrational and illogical arguments about how the scientist/linguist don’t know what they are talking about, and that JS did indeed translate ancient scrolls as he said he did, and that I should just accept their explanations even though they make absolutely no sense. Those arguments don’t work for me – and, IMO, they make the person look rather foolish who uses them.
As of today, I still see no rational or logical reason to believe that JS translated the BofA from scrolls, or that he had any idea how to read/decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics whatsoever.
cwald wrote:Yes, but they didn’t “lie” about it.
At least Joseph Smith was a real historical person and not a fictional character in a Jewish campfire story.
Which type of prophet is more disturbing? A real person that lies, or a fictional character that’s wrong? Muahahahaha
:crazy: Brian Johnston wrote:cwald wrote:Yes, but they didn’t “lie” about it.
At least Joseph Smith was a real historical person and not a fictional character in a Jewish campfire story.
Which type of prophet is more disturbing? A real person that lies, or a fictional character that’s wrong? Muahahahaha
:crazy: Touche’
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say.
This is the crux of the matter IMO.
Our expectations of a prophet are false, the one handed us by our culture. Prophets are wacky guys (and gals). They’re all little crazy, especially the ones that really existed. But even the made up ones are weird. The false doctrine we need to wrench out of our soul, or at least the message I get out of it, is that we should NOT rely on prophets to tell us what God wants to say. We can for a while, until we are ready and want to go straight to the source. Then we become prophets, seers and revelators; right along side our “prophet” peers.
In fact, our own Church leaders used to also pound this from the pulpit at the turn of the last century.
“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star 54: 191)
Quote:Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God
to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say. I agree, DA – and when it is worded that way, the majority of members I know would agree. (Iow, if I were to say that in a forum where there wasn’t automatic defensiveness, without appearing to be dismissing the concept of prophets, most adult members I have known in my adulthood would agree with me.) I’m not sure what the percent would be in Utah and the Mormon Corridor, but I’m pretty sure my experience is fairly representative of many areas that are in the US but not within the central HQ area – especially if it was in a personal conversation.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God
to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say. I agree, DA – and when it is worded that way, the majority of members I know would agree…
Really? The majority of the members I know would most certainly DISAGREE.
cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God
to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say. I agree, DA – and when it is worded that way, the majority of members I know would agree…
Really? The majority of the members I know would most certainly DISAGREE.
I’m confused about who’s agreeing with the disagree statement and who’s agreeing with the statement itself at this point. But I agree with Ray that most members I know would state that it’s OK to doubt or question what prophets say because we are entitled to our own personal revelation and because prophets are fallible men who lead the church and they aren’t just a puppet on God’s lap. But I have encountered the rare oddball who feels that view is tantamount to heresy. I just have to assume those folks aren’t that smart or reflective.hawkgrrrl wrote:
I’m confused about who’s agreeing with the disagree statement and who’s agreeing with the statement itself at this point. But I agree with Ray that most members I know would state that it’s OK to doubt or question what prophets say because we are entitled to our own personal revelation and because prophets are fallible men who lead the church and they aren’t just a puppet on God’s lap. But I have encountered the rare oddball who feels that view is tantamount to heresy. I just have to assume those folks aren’t that smart or reflective.My experience is the exact
oppositehawkgirl. “when the prophet speaks the conversation is over.” “It is my providence to define the doctrine. It is your providence to repeat what I say or keep you mouth shut.” “The prophet will never lead you astray.” “A prophet does not have to say, Thus sayeth the Lord…” “Follow the prophet and be saved. don’t follow the prophet and suffer.” Whether from my voice or the voice of my prophet, it is the same.”
On my planet, there is no room to question or doubt the prophet or the council. They get their words from god, and we are expected to obey or suffer.
cwald – that is unfortunate, because IME, there’s no talking to those people! You just have to smile and ignore. hawkgrrrl wrote:cwald – that is unfortunate, because IME, there’s no talking to those people! You just have to smile and ignore.
Yeah, but on my planet that pretty well leaves me little choice but to leave the church or just be content as a second tier citezen. In my experience, there are few left in the church that admit its okay to doubt and disagree with the leadership, especially the prophet and apostle. They are the rule, not the exception.
cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Personally, I just don’t agree with the idea of prophets now or in the past the way the Church teaches as if they are supposed speak directly for God
to the point that we shouldn’t ever doubt or question what they say. I agree, DA – and when it is worded that way, the majority of members I know would agree…
Really? The majority of the members I know would most certainly DISAGREE.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m confused about who’s agreeing with the disagree statement and who’s agreeing with the statement itself at this point. But I agree with Ray that
most members I know would state that it’s OK to doubt or question what prophets say because we are entitled to our own personal revelation and because prophets are fallible men who lead the church and they aren’t just a puppet on God’s lap.But I have encountered the rare oddball who feels that view is tantamount to heresy. I just have to assume those folks aren’t that smart or reflective. Sure many members can look at things like Church leaders’ past advice concerning a few things like earrings, birth control, etc. and say that was just their own personal opinion but I think most active members have a much harder time putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to things like temple requirements and canonized scriptures possibly being nothing more than opinions, fictional stories, etc. in many cases. For example, if Church leaders have clearly been wrong in so many cases already then it makes sense to me that they could just as easily be wrong when they insist that I should hand over 10% of my income as tithing if I want to be blessed and have an eternal family. That’s what I mean when I talk about doubting and questioning prophets, but for many members there is still the notion that the prophet will never lead the Church astray as if God will step in and remove or correct them if they get too far out of line so they often assume that the major ideas the Church tells them are vitally important and the gospel truth.
Just out of curiosity Hawk and Ray, what church do you two belong to? 
Brian Johnston wrote:
Our expectations of a prophet are false, the one handed us by our culture. Prophets are wacky guys (and gals). They’re all little crazy, especially the ones that really existed. But even the made up ones are weird.I love this quote Brian. Well done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.