Reorganized LDS

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You know, of course Mike is right, with respect to post-1967 pronouncements. What did people expect the LDS Church to do after the papyri were proven to have as much to do with Abraham as does your latest issue of the Deseret News? Say, "okay, now we know, he was a fake and a fraud." Some people did that, indcluding the gentlemen who used to go around giving firesides that you could prove the truth of Mormonism as in a court of law, and who financied much of the original scholarship on the papyri. But most active LDS weren't going to just give up on the Church in light of this evidence. Most active LDS wouldn't change their belief if they found an authentic affidavit from the BofM witnesses confessing that this was all along the greatest literary fraud of at least the last 200 years.

For one thing, too much blood, too many lives, too much money, and too many careers, egos, etc., had been invested in the enterprise, without even getting into the subjective stuff such as spiritual affirmations, the Church's role in aiding happiness, etc. The LDS Church had become a culture that to many was intrinsically worth preserving, in other words. Most active LDS therefore either 1) ignored this evidence, simply blocked it out; or 2) came up with an explanation. The explanation didn't have to be plausible from a common sense perspective (e.g., which court of law gives credence to heavenly "revelations" as congizable evidence?) when you consider what active LDS were already willing to accept at face value, and their overpowering motivation to believe the explanation.

There was a third category--those who continued to maintain that Joseph did literally translate the papyri, i.e., a portion of it that hasn't been recovered. Such people are either not too bright or extremely intellectually dishonest. The latter group seems for the most part to have found employment at FARMS.

I'll concede that LDS scholars have been guilty of intellectual dishonesty. For the record, though, I disagree with most of the rest of your claims.

Though you probably already knew that.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"This is what the Prophet recorded in his personal history: 'With W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.'

I took the above from the Ensign article quoted by Mike in this thread. It looks to me like the Prophet himself is saying that "the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc." He seems to be clear and unequivacle in describing the physical characteristics of the scrolls. Ockham's razor? Did Joseph mean to say something other than what he seems to be saying in plain English?

[nuclearunderpants]

The BofA also has in the heading "by his own hand upon papyrus".

I think the BofA apologists do a lot of mental gymnastics to cat a cloud of mystery on the process. I especially enjoy the theory that Joseph really did think he was translating and God let him think he was translating but really it was just revelation.

The current direction is in the area of corroborating details in the text to new discoveries about Abraham from other sources.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

my point is that this revelatory translation process that may have been used for the BoA is very similar to what we know of the translation fo the BoM.

So what's the difference? I don't understand why someone could buy the BoM (knowing how it was translated) and then leave the church over the BoA. But who said people had to be consistent? Not me.

In an ironic way I agree with you. Joseph's stories with respect to the B of A and the B of M are comparably implausible and belied by objective evidence.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Whatever happened to the good ol' fashioned power of faith?

Faith sucks.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Faith sucks.

I think those that stay in the church after realizing that the facsimiles are Osiris and not Abraham demonstrate large amounts of faith.

Faith is an interesting vehicle as it leads some people to do insane actions to prove their resolve.

Faith moves mountains many times out of sheers stupidity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Slightly off-topic, but all of this talk about "mental gymnastists" always intrigues me. Picking apart matters of faith and religion has always been a pretty simple exercise. Do LDS participate in "mental gymnastics"? Absolutely. As do virtually all other believers of religion. It all starts with a belief in a supreme being that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Isn't that the biggest "mental gymnastic" of all? Aren't we just quibling over details after that? The LDS faith is unique in that we believe in modern revelation and modern prophets, thus providing a richer and more fully-detailed set of artifacts and documents for the faithless to sift through and pick apart. And I am always struck by the irony of baptists and evangelicals who pick apart the historicity of the BOM and then tell you (with a straight face) that the earth is literally 6000 years old. As SU says, the long-term investment, egos, familial and cultural pressures certainly play a part in keeping the faithful faithful. But I would like to believe that what SU briefly mentioned as the "subjective" spiritual witness is what keeps many of us in the fold. Yes, it is subjective. But at the end of the day, each of us has to balance all of these stimuli, both spiritual and rational, and decide for ourselves what path to take.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Slightly off-topic, but all of this talk about "mental gymnastists" always intrigues me. Picking apart matters of faith and religion has always been a pretty simple exercise. Do LDS participate in "mental gymnastics"? Absolutely. As do virtually all other believers of religion. It all starts with a belief in a supreme being that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Isn't that the biggest "mental gymnastic" of all? Aren't we just quibling over details after that? The LDS faith is unique in that we believe in modern revelation and modern prophets, thus providing a richer and more fully-detailed set of artifacts and documents for the faithless to sift through and pick apart. And I am always struck by the irony of baptists and evangelicals who pick apart the historicity of the BOM and then tell you (with a straight face) that the earth is literally 6000 years old. As SU says, the long-term investment, egos, familial and cultural pressures certainly play a part in keeping the faithful faithful. But I would like to believe that what SU briefly mentioned as the "subjective" spiritual witness is what keeps many of us in the fold. Yes, it is subjective. But at the end of the day, each of us has to balance all of these stimuli, both spiritual and rational, and decide for ourselves what path to take.

Yes, those evangilicals taking taking easy pot shots at the Book of Abraham as they express heartfelt faith in Noah's Ark, Jonah, Adam & Eve, etc. are a ridiculous spectacle.

[MikeWaters]

Whether God spoke to JS is one thing.

Whether JS married more than one woman is another.

One is much easier to prove.

Hence, "mental gymnastics".

[SeattleUte]

I think mental gymnastics come into play becuase the LDS Church falls into the post-Reformation side of Christianity that takes an essentially literalist view of the the Bible. This strain of Christianity is virtually gone from Europe, and is now most prevalent in Utah and the Souteastern United States. Catholicism has long since moved away from any literal belief in any of the Biblical stories except for Jesus' miracles and the atonement, Catholic Hagiography regarding miracles, which it's possible to reject and still be a devout Catholic, notwithstanding.

Yes, I know, Mormons don't accept all of the Bible as being perfectly true. But the fact is that the lore surrounding the Book of Mormon, the bestowing of the priesthood keys, etc., and belief in "modern revelation," stamp Mormonism as extremely of the Biblical literalist point of view. As modern science marches inexorably forward methods for objectively testing the old stories become more sophisticated and potent. Hence, mental gymnasitics. Catholics live much more easily with doubt than Mormons or evangelicals, basically because modern cutlure originally took root within its precincts.