Flip Side of the Coin

[_KevinSim]

You believe in a religion that has identified a set of information, its canon, as divine and true, but you have no idea whether or not a part of that canon is (the facsimiles are) true?

That's what I said.

[_KevinSim]

Does Mormon god stand behind the facsimiles or not give a rat's ass either?

Sock Puppet, what does that mean, "stand behind"?

[_Drifting]

So do you believe that the translation of the Facsimilies canonised in the Pearl of Great Price are true?

Quite honestly I have no idea whether or not the translation of the facsimilies are true.

But if they're not true, then do you stand by your comment (its all true or its all false) that this would make the whole religion false?

[_KevinSim]

But if they're not true, then do you stand by your comment (its all true or its all false) that this would make the whole religion false?

Okay, I've painted myself into a corner! Someone posted that past leaders of the LDS Church have stated that either the LDS Church is all true or it's all false, and I immediately agreed, saying I believed it was all true. But now you're asking me if an error in the translation of the facsimiles would make the LDS Church not all true, and therefore make it false.

I guess I'd like to hear the exact quote from the past leaders of the LDS Church, so that I can hear precisely what they said. Granted that, since the facsimiles are part of scripture, it could be said that if they are in error then the LDS Church is not all true. But even though I did say that I believed the LDS Church is all true, I have in fact never had a strong belief in scriptural inerrancy. I believe God wants me to treat the LDS leaders as His spokesmen to the world, so I respect what they say, but I'd like to hear what precisely they did say before I come out and state my decision on whether or not I believe the LDS Church is in fact "all true."

[_Cylon]

Cylon, how far into the future does your conscience require you to attempt to benefit the human race? Are you just responsible (to some degree) for the welfare of your children, for as long as they will live? Or does your conscience prompt you to do good things for your grandchildren too? Is that enough? Can you just take care (to the degree you can) of your grandchildren, and then forget about future generations? Where do you make the cutoff, and why do you make the cutoff there?

I thought I already answered this, but maybe not. I think as far forward as is reasonably possible. I don't have a real strict definition of how far in the future is reasonable, and I don't have a problem if the possible period of time ends up being shorter than eternity. But you still didn't answer my question. Why do you assume that what your conscience tells you on this is what everybody else's conscience tells them?

Cylon, have you even thought about what you just wrote? "We have at least some of the papyri that Joseph said he used to translate the Book of Abraham ... therefore, Joseph's translation of the papyri is false." If you had all "of the papyri that Joseph said he used to translate," then you might indeed conclude that the translation is false; how do you arrive at that conclusion when all you have is some?

Because part of the "some" that we have include the facsimiles, which Joseph also gave a translation for, and which also have nothing to do with what Joseph said they did.

Are you saying that without historical confirmation of a book of scripture we have nothing? How do you come to that conclusion?

Sure, with regards to physical evidence, if we don't have historical confirmation we have nothing concrete. Of course you can rely on faith and spiritual confirmations, but faith and spiritual confirmations have lead people to thousands of different religions over the ages, so until you have some way of distinguishing your spiritual confirmation as being somehow more reliable than those of all the other billions of people who have received confirmation contradicting yours, I'm just going to say you're welcome to your belief, but that's not very convincing to me.

[_Cylon]

But if they're not true, then do you stand by your comment (its all true or its all false) that this would make the whole religion false?

Okay, I've painted myself into a corner! Someone posted that past leaders of the LDS Church have stated that either the LDS Church is all true or it's all false, and I immediately agreed, saying I believed it was all true. But now you're asking me if an error in the translation of the facsimiles would make the LDS Church not all true, and therefore make it false.

I guess I'd like to hear the exact quote from the past leaders of the LDS Church, so that I can hear precisely what they said. Granted that, since the facsimiles are part of scripture, it could be said that if they are in error then the LDS Church is not all true. But even though I did say that I believed the LDS Church is all true, I have in fact never had a strong belief in scriptural inerrancy. I believe God wants me to treat the LDS leaders as His spokesmen to the world, so I respect what they say, but I'd like to hear what precisely they did say before I come out and state my decision on whether or not I believe the LDS Church is in fact "all true."

I don't know if this was the quote Drifting was thinking of, but here is a pretty strong one:
"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith." - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

[_Themis]

I am not aware that it was the central object, but you were the one who was asking about it after I made the comment. I wouldn't say more likely to exist, but that the LDS God has more evidence against it.

There you go again, Themis. If the LDS God having "more evidence against it" doesn't mean the LDS God being less "likely to exist," then what does "more evidence against it" mean? Here you appear to be saying the two concepts are not identical, which was my original understanding as well. That being the case, what does "more evidence against it" mean?

More evidence means MORE evidence. The Bible of Christianity makes claims that are harder to prove wrong, for various reasons. Joseph Smith made many more claims that are easier to prove wrong.

We're talking about the Biblical Christian idea that God both has the power to cause souls to cease to exist, and also chooses not to use that power to cause the souls of the unsaved to cease to exist, which is pretty standard for most Christian groups (with the notable exceptions of Seventh-day Adventists and Christian Universalists). This God could put these souls out of their misery at any point in the future, but this God instead chooses, by His inaction, to let them continue suffering endlessly. Themis, if one cannot know that a good God with this power would put these souls out of their misery after some finite amount of suffering, what can one know that a good God would do?

You may want to take it up with them, but I think many have different ideas then the ones you have been taught about Christians and their beliefs regarding the Bible.

[_Drifting]

But if they're not true, then do you stand by your comment (its all true or its all false) that this would make the whole religion false?

Okay, I've painted myself into a corner! Someone posted that past leaders of the LDS Church have stated that either the LDS Church is all true or it's all false, and I immediately agreed, saying I believed it was all true. But now you're asking me if an error in the translation of the facsimiles would make the LDS Church not all true, and therefore make it false.

I guess I'd like to hear the exact quote from the past leaders of the LDS Church, so that I can hear precisely what they said. Granted that, since the facsimiles are part of scripture, it could be said that if they are in error then the LDS Church is not all true. But even though I did say that I believed the LDS Church is all true, I have in fact never had a strong belief in scriptural inerrancy. I believe God wants me to treat the LDS leaders as His spokesmen to the world, so I respect what they say, but I'd like to hear what precisely they did say before I come out and state my decision on whether or not I believe the LDS Church is in fact "all true."

Kevin, here is what you said:

I also agree with those "past church presidents"; the LDS Church is either "all true or all false"; the Book of Mormon is either a record of ancient Americans or it is not. I have never said otherwise.

Are you now saying otherwise?

[_KevinSim]

I thought I already answered this, but maybe not. I think as far forward as is reasonably possible. I don't have a real strict definition of how far in the future is reasonable, and I don't have a problem if the possible period of time ends up being shorter than eternity. But you still didn't answer my question. Why do you assume that what your conscience tells you on this is what everybody else's conscience tells them?

Because any cutoff, even the somewhat reasonable one you've suggested, is so arbitrary. Think about it; what is reasonably possible could change from one day to another, depending on what advances are made in our ability to preserve things. Do the people we should help really change day by day, depending on our ability to help them, or won't the people we will need to help tomorrow need our help just as much today?

Because part of the "some" that we have include the facsimiles, which Joseph also gave a translation for, and which also have nothing to do with what Joseph said they did.

I believe in the correctness of the text of the Book of Abraham. I don't know how I feel about the facsimiles. Nor do I know what the LDS Church currently says about the correctness of the facsimiles, in light of what the critics have said about them.

Sure, with regards to physical evidence, if we don't have historical confirmation we have nothing concrete. Of course you can rely on faith and spiritual confirmations, but faith and spiritual confirmations have lead people to thousands of different religions over the ages, so until you have some way of distinguishing your spiritual confirmation as being somehow more reliable than those of all the other billions of people who have received confirmation contradicting yours, I'm just going to say you're welcome to your belief, but that's not very convincing to me.

The LDS Church points out that if someone asks God a question, ready to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer God provides, and God does not give that someone an answer, then that someone really has no way of ever finding out the truth about the question asked. The LDS Church then notes that God wants that someone to know God's will, and then concludes that God will answer that someone's question.

How many of the people you referred to who were led "to thousands of different religions over the ages" asked God questions, ready to base the whole rest of their lives on whatever answer God gave them?

[_KevinSim]

I don't know if this was the quote Drifting was thinking of, but here is a pretty strong one:
"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith." - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

Cylon, excellent; this is exactly what I was looking for. Note that Hinckley does not say that every little scripture in the canon is completely true, and in particular he does not say that the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are guaranteed to be exactly as Joseph Smith said they were. As I've said before, I don't believe in scriptural inerrancy. God got the scriptures to the point where He wanted them, but that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to not have any factual errors.