Runtu wrote:I agree with you that the debate will never end, at least until Joseph Smith tells me, "I told you so!" But the evidence is solidly with the critics on the translation issue. Faith doesn't change that.
Evidence is viewed subjectively. In that, sure it does. Faith changes that. That's why people believe, and that is why people still believe that the Book of Abraham is in some way a translation of the papyrus, even if its from the portion of missing papyrus.
You need to stop conflating evidence with belief. They're not the same thing.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
stemelbow wrote:Evidence is viewed subjectively. In that, sure it does. Faith changes that. That's why people believe, and that is why people still believe that the Book of Abraham is in some way a translation of the papyrus, even if its from the portion of missing papyrus.
I really hate this retreat into solipsism, which I see far too often.
stemelbow wrote:Chap, maybe it'd be appropriate if you got after posters here that are the critics who start threads about Peterson, Schryver et all to let it go already. Its odd you'll go after me to let it go but your partners who clearly don't let it go and bring these things up often, are the ones who are causing the problems.
Hush, now. Breathe deeply and stop thinking about ... that guy. This thread is about Schryver, so you are off duty.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Runtu wrote: Faith can be evidence to trust in something,
Stem is one of the few who say faith is evidence, which even many members would not agree with. Could you provide how you think it can be evidnece? I certainty see how faith is evdience of ones beliefs or that faith can be based on evidence or what a person interprets as evidence for a particular belief.
stemelbow wrote:Evidence is viewed subjectively. In that, sure it does. Faith changes that. That's why people believe, and that is why people still believe that the Book of Abraham is in some way a translation of the papyrus, even if its from the portion of missing papyrus.
I really hate this retreat into solipsism, which I see far too often.
Otherwise known as the Belmont Bolero. ;)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:Stem is one of the few who say faith is evidence, which even many members would not agree with. Could you provide how you think it can be evidnece? I certainty see how faith is evdience of ones beliefs or that faith can be based on evidence or what a person interprets as evidence for a particular belief.
That's how I see it, as well. Faith informs our interpretations as to what counts as evidence and why. I'm not saying it's compelling or solid evidence, but believers take it as evidence for their beliefs. Seems pretty noncontroversial to say that.
I've been over this with you a few times. I'll continue for your sake though. The Bible calls faith evidence. I'm merely pointing out how that makes sense to me. Faith is, at least to believers, given of God. It is made up of spiritual experience. When someone prays and determines that God hears and answers prayers, that is experience or evidence for that person that God is there. It is not meant to be proof or knowledge. It is evidence. It is one piece that supports the notion that there is a God who hears prayers. Does that mean the person could be mistaken? Sure. But that does not mean there is no evidence for individuals.
Other than that, I think critics pound their chest a little too hastily on some of the topics associated with the Church, like the Book of Abraham. there is tons of information out there to help provide some evidence for the Book of Abraham. And sure there is tons of information out there that makes it appear the Book of Abraham is something made up. The weighing of evidence may be individual, or may be based on one's stated position. Who knows? But this issue is filled with smoke and mirrors.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I've been over this with you a few times. I'll continue for your sake though. The Bible calls faith evidence. I'm merely pointing out how that makes sense to me. Faith is, at least to believers, given of God. It is made up of spiritual experience. When someone prays and determines that God hears and answers prayers, that is experience or evidence for that person that God is there. It is not meant to be proof or knowledge. It is evidence. It is one piece that supports the notion that there is a God who hears prayers. Does that mean the person could be mistaken? Sure. But that does not mean there is no evidence for individuals.
Other than that, I think critics pound their chest a little too hastily on some of the topics associated with the Church, like the Book of Abraham. there is tons of information out there to help provide some evidence for the Book of Abraham. And sure there is tons of information out there that makes it appear the Book of Abraham is something made up. The weighing of evidence may be individual, or may be based on one's stated position. Who knows? But this issue is filled with smoke and mirrors.
What evidence, besides the tingly feeling in your tummy, is there for the Book of Abraham?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.