Don't be afraid of Gospel Questions. Build a shelf.

[_Gorman]

The "theory" is that the notes were accurate translations of the characters, and this theory falls flat on its face.

I think the problem is that you assume this is my theory.

Yes, this is one possible theory of how the Book of Abraham was translated. I agree that this theory has a difficult time with Facsimile 3.

As far as feeling completely comfortable in your world view: I have found that when I am completely comfortable with a particular view, it is because of my own ignorance. This has been uncannily true both in spirituality and science/math.

[Guest]

I think the problem is that you assume this is my theory.

Yes, this is one possible theory of how the Book of Abraham was translated. I agree that this theory has a difficult time with Facsimile 3.

As far as feeling completely comfortable in your world view: I have found that when I am completely comfortable with a particular view, it is because of my own ignorance. This has been uncannily true both in spirituality and science/math.

I think the problem is the reason why it's imperitive to have a theory.

Joseph Smith articulated where the Book of Abraham came from, the problem is nobody (not even Mormons) believes him.

[_fetchface]

I think the problem is that you assume this is my theory.

Yes, this is one possible theory of how the Book of Abraham was translated. I agree that this theory has a difficult time with Facsimile 3.

*What* is one possible theory of how the Book of Abraham was translated? The notes to Facsimily 3 don't talk about *how* they were translated, only that particular characters have a particular meaning. A claim that is demonstrably false. Case closed. Joseph overreached here and stuck is foot in it.

As far as feeling completely comfortable in your world view: I have found that when I am completely comfortable with a particular view, it is because of my own ignorance. This has been uncannily true both in spirituality and science/math.

Ah, so the fact that you are (presumably) 100% comfortable dismissing the idea of Zeus being in charge of the universe is due to your ignorance and has nothing to do with it being a ridiculous idea. Nice to know.

Trust me, I am 100% comfortable dismissing the God of Abraham (Mormon or otherwise) and it has nothing to do with my ignorance, but everything to do with the complete ridiculousness of this God's behavior. If I somehow find myself face-to-face with the Mormon God after I die, my first words to him will be, "You are %$@#ing ridiculous, you know that? What were you thinking when you did all of those @%$#$%-up things? How did you expect that thinking, moral people would want to follow you?"

I mean come on, commanding genocide, endorsing slavery, sending an angel to threaten to marry dozens of women, letting "prophets" teach black people that they don't get the priesthood because they were "fence sitters", etc. etc. It is preposterous that a being of *my* level of morality would do these things, let alone a *perfect* moral being.

But I guess you are right that I'm just ignorant. I just can't possibly imagine the deus ex machina ending that will occur in the afterlife that is going to make genocide, slavery, mafia-style "offers they can't refuse" to prophets, and large scale institutional shaming of an entire race for no damn reason into good things. But if those will magically become good things, why not every other @#$%ed up thing that every other cult has done throughout history? Who is to say that those won't have the same magic applied to them in the afterlife?

[_fetchface]

In the grand scheme, none of that stuff matters. You're making a lot of assumptions about the nature of agency, morality, human growth, revelation, etc. Armchair morality isn't very persuasive. You take your privilege for granted and are wrong to assume that if teleported back to the old testament you'd be any "better."

I'm making no such assumptions. I know that if I had been born in Nazi Germany I would most probably have blood on my hands. You read things that aren't there.

My point is that if the description of (Mormon) God in scripture and church history is even vaguely accurate, God is horrible. A moral God who expected us to read such things about him and be inspired to follow him would be just stupid and I would have no problem telling him so.

And since God doesn't appear to *me* face to face, armchair discussion of his morality is all I have.

[_mentalgymnast]

...how big is your shelf?

Shelf of questions or shelf of doubts?

If it's a shelf of questions you're referring to...it's rather large. I move forward in faith/patience and obedience with the hope that the questions don't result in permanent and/or dogmatically entrenched doubts.

So, I suppose the question of whether the 'shelf' has questions or doubts stacked on it is rather important.

Regards,
MG

[_DarkHelmet]

6. Be willing to put some things “on the shelf” in your idea journal. In a few years reread them and see if your understanding has increased.

I see a great opportunity for a creative LDS entrepreneur to build "Doubting Shelves" to sell through Deseret Books. You can put them in your kids bedrooms and anytime they have doubts about the truthfulness of the church, they can just put it on the shelf.

LDS Doubting Shelves - Put your doubts on a shelf.


There could be an object lesson where you smash the Doubting Shelves with your testimony bat. LDS merchandising is a growth industry, and this idea is a potential gold mine.

Testimony Bat - Destroy your doubts with a few swings of the testimony bat.

[_fetchface]

I'm not aware of a "Mormon" God to be honest. I understand what you're saying but my point is that yours is a particularly narrow perspective. God didn't write the Bible, men did. LDS church isn't the southern baptist convention. I do in fact appreciate your perspective, but don't assume that because I haven't left the church this means I think God is a genocidal maniac, because I don't, and I find such a characterization to wildly misrepresent the church and most members. To me your perspective is emotional and illogical, childishly simple. The philosophy of the mean god is unimpressive. Rather than wallowing in just how awful everything is, a spiritual algophobia, the gospel has a much deeper concept of agency and human progression that does a much better job of accounting for human suffering and finding meaning in it.

Water Dog, you are reading things that aren't there and not reading things that are. I don't have a narrow perspective. The LDS church does. I'm being critical of their perspective. I've said nothing about my perspective, and I'm talking about the perspective that the brethren push, not the range of possible perspective that LDS members have. If you are a cafeteria Mormon, then good for you for thinking for yourself rather than blindly accepting things that don't make sense.

But the brethren are currently Old Testament literalists. There is no way to say that the LDS church leadership support a figurative Old Testament, and the essays just endorsed God's mob boss tendencies to threaten to kill people who don't do things that seem morally questionable to them. That is the Mormon God as defined by those in authority. But if you are smart/moral enough to not believe that crap then good for you.

And by the way an example of a childishly simple belief would be believing that somehow genocide is good and that we just don't have enough information to know how because the people in authority say so. Adultishly simple is realizing that things that seem bad probably are.

[_I have a question]

...how big is your shelf?

Shelf of questions or shelf of doubts?

If it's a shelf of questions you're referring to...it's rather large. I move forward in faith/patience and obedience with the hope that the questions don't result in permanent and/or dogmatically entrenched doubts.

So, I suppose the question of whether the 'shelf' has questions or doubts stacked on it is rather important.

Regards,
MG

So...which is it?

As I understand it, unless you know something for sure there is always an element if doubt. If doubt didn't exist then Gods plan doesn't work. Doubt is the foundation of faith, because without doubt you don't need faith. A Church saying members need to suppress doubt is also a Church displaying a lack of confidence in its members faith. You could say the Church doubts them....

[_Quasimodo]

As I understand it, unless you know something for sure there is always an element if doubt. If doubt didn't exist then Gods plan doesn't work. Doubt is the foundation of faith, because without doubt you don't need faith. A Church saying members need to suppress doubt is also a Church displaying a lack of confidence in its members faith. You could say the Church doubts them....

I think it also indicates that the Church leaders have their own doubts about the validity of their beliefs. They have to suppress the doubts of the unwashed masses in the same way that they have to suppress their own doubts. If not, the whole comes tumbling down.

[_mentalgymnast]

As I understand it, unless you know something for sure there is always an element of doubt.

I'll hand you that. There may be an element of doubt. Notice that previously I said 'dogmatic/entrenched doubt'. That excludes faith. An element of doubt doesn't negate having faith. Even if it's a degree/particle of faith described in Alma 32.

If doubt didn't exist then Gods plan doesn't work.

If there aren't questions that exist then we are not able to make a choice between doubt and faith. Doubt and faith cannot coexist. For God's plan to work we have to move forward in faith. Doubt would be counterproductive. Questions are not...as long as one is moving forward in faith.

Doubt is the foundation of faith, because without doubt you don't need faith.

I think you are confusing questions with doubts. At least doubts that are dogmatic/entrenched. Again, if the doubts have taken hold to the point of not being able to exercise faith...how can you exercise faith in something that you don't even have a particle of belief/hope in(?)...then doubt becomes counterproductive to moving forward in faith.

A Church saying members need to suppress doubt is also a Church displaying a lack of confidence in its members faith. You could say the Church doubts them....

With the line of reasoning I'm laying out, I don't know that this is a true statement. The church knows that questions and doubts may lead in different directions. But I don't think the church is discouraging questioning at all. How could they? It's a natural inclination that humans have.

Questions took Joseph Smith down a path that led to faith. Would dogmatic/entrenched doubt have led him in the same direction?

Regards,
MG