Aristotle Smith wrote:Allow me to get your opinion on my situation.
I still have fond feelings for the Book of Mormon, and believe that it also contains the Word of God in some sense. However, I have concluded that being the Word of God does not imply translation, nor ancient provenance. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the text fits better in a 19th century context in my opinion.
Consequently, I think that the actual theology of the Book of Mormon actually better represents Methodism, than it does modern Mormonism. This makes sense because the most immediate theological context for the Book of Mormon was the Methodism of Joseph Smith's day. By accident/fate/whatever I am now a Methodist (UMC). In my opinion a logical conclusion to the evidence is that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, that it's contents make people feel good for the same reason 19th century Methodism made people feel good, and that a valid response to thinking the Book of Mormon is inspired is to join a church other than the LDS church (perhaps UMC, though I acknowledge that the UMC has evolved a lot since the days of frontier Methodist preachers). This solution appeals to me because it reduces the distance and dissonance created by a strict separation between faith and reason/scholarship.
Again, not looking to convince you, just looking for your thoughts on the matter.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable reaction. Were I ever to lose my faith in the LDS tradition for whatever reason I don't think it would be the result of or result in moving closer to another religious tradition. That's just me, though.
maklelan wrote: I personally view the Book of Mormon as a very anaphoric and dynamic translation that incorporates much more of Smith's worldview and cultural influences than usually thought. I think it's just as much a composition as it is a translation.
Wow.
Bokovoy goes against the apologetic curve that argues Joseph Smith didn't have a Bible with him during translation. But you seem to be going with the direction followed by many apologists, that says translation meant something more than simply translating one language into another. I hope you'll understand when I say the only reason to take that approach is apologetic. The value in this is that it can be used to explain why Joseph Smith's translation 1) mimics so much of the Bible, and 2) why so much of it is wrong; essentially making his "translation" unfalsifiable.
maklelan wrote:I think that's a perfectly reasonable reaction. Were I ever to lose my faith in the LDS tradition for whatever reason I don't think it would be the result of or result in moving closer to another religious tradition. That's just me, though.
Bokovoy goes against the apologetic curve that argues Joseph Smith didn't have a Bible with him during translation. But you seem to be going with the direction followed by many apologists, that says translation meant something more than simply translating one language into another.
While I think it's undeniable that Smith used the word to mean more than just formal translation, I am not making that case here. I'm just pointing out that if we take it to be a translation it is very anaphoric and dynamic.
Kevin Graham wrote:I hope you'll understand when I say the only reason to take that approach is apologetic.
Which is why I explained that I wouldn't take that route from an academic point of view (although that's not really the route I was talking about).
Kevin Graham wrote:The value in this is that it can be used to explain why Joseph Smith's translation 1) mimics so much of the Bible, and 2) why so much of it is wrong; essentially making his "translation" unfalsifiable.
And I explained that that position was based on a faith proposition and not on a strictly academic approach.