Runtu wrote:I have no problem with faith being a type of evidence. One can have faith that the Book of Abraham is an inspired revelation/text from God and nevertheless recognize that it is not a translation of a record of Abraham that was associated with Michael Chandler's mummies.
A good example of this is David Bokovoy, who accepts the Book of Abraham as scripture but recognizes it isn't a translation of the papyrus. That is a wholly reasonable approach, and yet he's been vilified as a traitor and closet-apostate by those who insist on defending a literal translation.
I don't know who David Bokovoy is, but I googled the name and found his website. I didn't realize until recently that there are people who claim to be faithful LDS but who don't believe in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures in the same way we've been taught all our lives. Do Bokovoy and others like him believe about the Book of Mormon the same way you write about the Book of Abraham? That it is scripture but it isn't really a translation of gold plates that the angel Moroni gave to Joseph Smith?
Mattie wrote:I don't know who David Bokovoy is, but I googled the name and found his website. I didn't realize until recently that there are people who claim to be faithful LDS but who don't believe in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures in the same way we've been taught all our lives. Do Bokovoy and others like him believe about the Book of Mormon the same way you write about the Book of Abraham? That it is scripture but it isn't really a translation of gold plates that the angel Moroni gave to Joseph Smith?
You'd have to ask David about that, though I'm pretty sure he believes the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record.
That said, I've known more than a few believing LDS who don't believe there were actual Nephites and gold plates and all that. Seems to me that faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior and belief in his teachings (if you're Mormon, that includes modern revelation) are far more important than worrying about where the Nephites lived or whether there was a record of Abraham on the papyrus.
Buffalo wrote:What evidence, besides the tingly feeling in your tummy, is there for the Book of Abraham?
There has been tons written on this topic, Buffalo. If you wanted to start into it, which I assume you really don',t you might want to start with some of Nibley's writings. Last year, or thereabouts, I made it through One Eternal Round. I'd have to review it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:What evidence, besides the tingly feeling in your tummy, is there for the Book of Abraham?
There has been tons written on this topic, Buffalo. If you wanted to start into it, which I assume you really don',t you might want to start with some of Nibley's writings. Last year, or thereabouts, I made it through One Eternal Round. I'd have to review it.
Let's skip to the end: turns out, while there's a lot of disingenuous wheel spinning and circular arguments and parallelomania on the apologist side, they still don't have a shred of evidence.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Mattie wrote:I don't know who David Bokovoy is, but I googled the name and found his website. I didn't realize until recently that there are people who claim to be faithful LDS but who don't believe in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures in the same way we've been taught all our lives. Do Bokovoy and others like him believe about the Book of Mormon the same way you write about the Book of Abraham? That it is scripture but it isn't really a translation of gold plates that the angel Moroni gave to Joseph Smith?
Bokovoy seems to regard the Book of Mormon with reverence. I don't know if he'd view the Book of Mormon's production the same as the Book of Abraham. I shouldn't speak for him at all, but he does seem pretty fed up with the Book of Abraham arguments put forth by Will Schryver and others.
Sometimes he'll pop in here too. Maybe by mentioning his name three times we'll hear from him, but I doubt it.
Runtu wrote:That said, I've known more than a few believing LDS who don't believe there were actual Nephites and gold plates and all that. Seems to me that faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior and belief in his teachings (if you're Mormon, that includes modern revelation) are far more important than worrying about where the Nephites lived or whether there was a record of Abraham on the papyrus.
I can't wrap my brain around the idea that people can still be Mormon but not believe there were Nephites and gold plates and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from those gold plates that he was guided to by the angel Moroni and that he also translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus that they got with those mummies.
To me, thinking like that is what the Community of Christ church now does. They're not even Mormon at all anymore, if you ask me. They're just like any other Protestant church.
I don't think there are many current LDS who have these kinds of ideas. At least I don't know any. I never even heard of it until just a little while ago. Do they have their own website, kind of like this place is for ex-Mormons?
stemelbow wrote:Bokovoy seems to regard the Book of Mormon with reverence. I don't know if he'd view the Book of Mormon's production the same as the Book of Abraham. I shouldn't speak for him at all, but he does seem pretty fed up with the Book of Abraham arguments put forth by Will Schryver and others.
I don't understand. Didn't Joseph Smith say he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Hasn't the church always taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Why are these people "fed up" with those who defend what Joseph Smith said and what the church has always taught?
Mattie wrote:I can't wrap my brain around the idea that people can still be Mormon but not believe there were Nephites and gold plates and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from those gold plates that he was guided to by the angel Moroni and that he also translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus that they got with those mummies.
To me, thinking like that is what the Community of Christ church now does. They're not even Mormon at all anymore, if you ask me. They're just like any other Protestant church.
I don't think there are many current LDS who have these kinds of ideas. At least I don't know any. I never even heard of it until just a little while ago. Do they have their own website, kind of like this place is for ex-Mormons?
I think there are a lot more people than you think who believe this way. But for obvious reasons, they can't exactly be open about it. The ones I know all say the same thing: they realized they couldn't defend the orthodox position anymore, so they went with what they thought was right and true.
I can't fault people for that. Doesn't work for me, but it does for them.
Mattie wrote:I can't wrap my brain around the idea that people can still be Mormon but not believe there were Nephites and gold plates and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from those gold plates that he was guided to by the angel Moroni and that he also translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus that they got with those mummies.
To me, thinking like that is what the Community of Christ church now does. They're not even Mormon at all anymore, if you ask me. They're just like any other Protestant church.
I don't think there are many current LDS who have these kinds of ideas. At least I don't know any. I never even heard of it until just a little while ago. Do they have their own website, kind of like this place is for ex-Mormons?
I see it as LDS folks who are just too attached either by faith, or emotionally or another way, to give up on it. They want to beleive but can't find a reason to believe some of the claims. Its not big deal when i see it that way. I say more power to them and perhaps they will at some point find their reasons to believe.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Runtu wrote:I think there are a lot more people than you think who believe this way. But for obvious reasons, they can't exactly be open about it.
I'm just thinking of people in my ward, and I'm almost certain there is no one in my ward who thinks that way. I think it would be hard to not give hints from time to time.
The ones I know all say the same thing: they realized they couldn't defend the orthodox position anymore, so they went with what they thought was right and true.
"Right and true"? You mean to you. You people act like it's some foregone conclusion that your viewpoint is the correct one. You don't just have doubts. It's like you have a "testimony" that your viewpoint is the "only true viewpoint on the earth".
I don't agree with that. I don't think it's that hard to defend the orthodox position. I agree that we don't know everything and that we have to have faith about many things. But I still don't think it's that hard to defend the orthodox position.