A reason for faith by Laura Hales

[Emower]

So I am going to read this and post my reactions. Someone else bought it for me so I will give it a try. This is probably going to be the same old boring stuff so you can follow along or not, its up to you.

The first post will be the prologue.

She gives an analogy of an anchor holding a boat in place, the anchor being Christ and the boat being a testimony. However a boat without its plug in can sink regardless of the anchor. She makes a point that inoculating kids with the truth early is the key to retaining their testimonies. She is totally right. It would have worked on me had it been done. But it wasn't and here I am.
I object a little to her use of "nurturing atmosphere." That means "sort of dishonest" to me.

The other thing I didnt like was the classic blame the victim game. She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us. Why? Because they dont have our attention for long enough? There aren't enough meetings? One lifetime isn't long enough to tell me the real story? They dont have the money to print educational resources? They aren't good at holding secret meetings? Bullcrap Laura. Not to mention where she expects people to have gone for information before those terribly informative essays came along. Because "googling" it us what got us all into this mess and that was pretty much your only option neforw the essays. For you older folks the only way you could get educated was through more nefarious means.

[Rob4Hope]

Emower...I am especially interested in if she admits there were intentional lies told.

I am also interested in her position on the "prophet will never lead the church astray" topic. If I recollect, didn't a whole bunch of GAs "testify" to the truthfulness of the Adam God Theory?....

I will be interested in your future posts.

[Palerider]

She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.

This...this is either a self-deception or one intended for the reader to swallow without any critical thinking.

How many YEARS in the church have we trudged over and over the same subject matter ad nauseam??? When I think of the years spent in classrooms covering the same material again and again......They've had tons of time. But that wouldn't have worked with their agenda.

The reason the church never wanted to approach the difficult issues was because they were AFRAID of the stuff. They knew it wasn't how they had told the story. They knew it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. Much of it is illogical, repugnant, suspicious and most importantly, it's TELLING! It's toxic. And now they can't say it isn't true anymore like they used to.

Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

[Culper Jr.]

by Palerider » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:58 am

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:01 am
She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.
This...this is either a self-deception or one intended for the reader to swallow without any critical thinking.

How many YEARS in the church have we trudged over and over the same subject matter ad nauseam??? When I think of the years spent in classrooms covering the same material again and again......They've had tons of time. But that wouldn't have worked with their agenda.

The reason the church never wanted to approach the difficult issues was because they were AFRAID of the stuff. They knew it wasn't how they had told the story. They knew it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. Much of it is illogical, repugnant, suspicious and most importantly, it's TELLING! It's toxic. And now they can't say it isn't true anymore like they used to.

Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

Yes, this is so infuriating to me! Before Google, how was I supposed to get this information? I didn't even know what question to ask; how could I educate myself on Joseph's polyandry if I didn't know it or anything like it existed? It'd be like one day saying, "Hey, I wonder if Abraham Lincoln married other men's wives and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation by looking at a rock in his hat.... maybe I'll research that and check it out, you never know." I live way outside of the Moridor, so a lot of this stuff growing up was not in the culture. I learned about polygamy in U.S. History class in junior high. It was never so much as mentioned in church. Imagine my surprise.

[Not Buying It]

She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.

This...this is either a self-deception or one intended for the reader to swallow without any critical thinking.

How many YEARS in the church have we trudged over and over the same subject matter ad nauseam??? When I think of the years spent in classrooms covering the same material again and again......They've had tons of time. But that wouldn't have worked with their agenda.

The reason the church never wanted to approach the difficult issues was because they were AFRAID of the stuff. They knew it wasn't how they had told the story. They knew it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. Much of it is illogical, repugnant, suspicious and most importantly, it's TELLING! It's toxic. And now they can't say it isn't true anymore like they used to.

Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

I second this 100%. I have spent three hours a week for decades of my life in Church meetings, not to mention seminary when I was young and religion classes. How dare she suggest that the Church hasn't had time to teachl me these things?

She is victim blaming, pure and simple. The Church lies and spins, and it's the members fault. And for some weird reason it sure as heck isn't Joseph Smith's fault for being a sexual predator and conman.

And as for inoculation - is it a good thing when we convince our children that black is white before they get old enough to know it isn't?

[Emower]

And as for inoculation - is it a good thing when we convince our children that black is white before they get old enough to know it isn't?

Teaching kids the truth is a noble cause. The problem is inoculation when done the church's way will equate to spinning the facts and leaving out key pieces of the puzzle.

[Emower]

So the first essay was by Bushman dealing with the treasure seeking. He admits that through the early years the church dismissed out of hand the allegations against Joseph, which later turned out to be true.

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

Bushman says he came to the conclusion that a much of the secular history was correct, but that it was harmless.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

This is Bushman's main point through the essay; it wasn't a big deal. Harmless.
He mentions that magic and Christianity were not at odds with each other back in that day. Then comes his main point and the most important sentence.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

I happen to agree. It does not invalidate them. But no one is really arguing that his belief in magic invalidates anything, only that it provides an alternative and more explanatory context to other troubling things about the genesis of the church down the road. In addition to things that Joseph Smith said and used (e.g. seer stones & translation, BOM themes, church structure, timelines, etc...) An understanding of his worldview allows more freedom to ascribe happenings and stories to less than divine origins.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

I think some people would disagree with Bushman here. And it really depends on what period we are talking about as well.

He then gives a confusing section on arguments losing virulence as time goes by. He says that at the time he started writing the folk magic was one of the biggest topics of the time. Now it seems to have lost it's luster and he rarely meets anyone who wants to die on the hill of folk magic having a place in the genesis of our church.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

I think his point is "Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal." I disagree with this assement. Just because something has evolved out of importance does not mean that it did not have bearing on a church that stakes it's truthfulness on claims that are challenged by the thing that no one cares about anymore. Frankly, that a horrible dystopian way of looking at things. Plus I do not even think that people are placing less importance on it.

[Emower]

So the first essay was by Bushman dealing with the treasure seeking. He admits that through the early years the church dismissed out of hand the allegations against Joseph, which later turned out to be true.

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

Bushman says he came to the conclusion that a much of the secular history was correct, but that it was harmless.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

This is Bushman's main point through the essay; it wasn't a big deal. Harmless.
He mentions that magic and Christianity were not at odds with each other back in that day. Then comes his main point and the most important sentence.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

I happen to agree. It does not invalidate them. But no one is really arguing that his belief in magic invalidates anything, only that it provides an alternative and more explanatory context to other troubling things about the genesis of the church down the road. In addition to things that Joseph Smith said and used (e.g. seer stones & translation, BOM themes, church structure, timelines, etc...) An understanding of his worldview allows more freedom to ascribe happenings and stories to less than divine origins.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

I think some people would disagree with Bushman here. And it really depends on what period we are talking about as well.

He then gives a confusing section on arguments losing virulence as time goes by. He says that at the time he started writing the folk magic was one of the biggest topics of the time. Now it seems to have lost it's luster and he rarely meets anyone who wants to die on the hill of folk magic having a place in the genesis of our church.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

I think his point is "Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal." I disagree with this assement. Just because something has evolved out of importance does not mean that it did not have bearing on a church that stakes it's truthfulness on claims that are challenged by the thing that no one cares about anymore. Frankly, that is a horrible dystopian way of looking at things. Plus I do not even think that people are placing less importance on it.

[Not Buying It]

And as for inoculation - is it a good thing when we convince our children that black is white before they get old enough to know it isn't?

Teaching kids the truth is a noble cause. The problem is inoculation when done the church's way will equate to spinning the facts and leaving out key pieces of the puzzle.

You are right that the spin is a problem, but it isn't the only problem. One purpose of inoculation is to teach the youth of the Church that it was morally justifiable for a married man in his thirties to have romantic and sexual relationships with teenage girls and married women behind his wife's back using his religious power and authority over often vulnerable females. It corrupts the youth's sense of morality to preserve the truth claims of the Church. It teaches them to lie to themselves that they think Joseph Smith's behavior was OK. In the words of Thomas Paine:

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

[Culper Jr.]

I don't think inoculation is going to work out like they hope it will. There is just too much and it's too crazy. If there were a couple of questionable things about church history I could see where it would be effective, but EVERY single part of church history has batsh*t crazy elements to it. Besides, once you admit to the fallibility of church leaders, you lose your ability to demand absolute obedience. Even if you slow down the rate that people are leaving, you are left with a significantly less committed membership.

[Rob4Hope]

I don't think inoculation is going to work out like they hope it will. There is just too much and it's too crazy. If there were a couple of questionable things about church history I could see where it would be effective, but EVERY single part of church history has batsh*t crazy elements to it. Besides, once you admit to the fallibility of church leaders, you lose your ability to demand absolute obedience. Even if you slow down the rate that people are leaving, you are left with a significantly less committed membership.

I also think that inoculation isn't going to work like they think because there are a whole BUNCH OF PEOPLE LIKE ME who are pissed, and are not going to let the lies and lies and lies and lies go unchallenged. I speak only for myself, but I have a LOT of LDS people around me that I interact with every day. They constantly are trying to get me to "come back". What an interesting set of choices I have. It usually ends in something like this: "Well, I would love to come back, but I have some doctrinal challenges I just need to work through. It troubles me. Wish I could find some answers for some of these things..."

And then the VERY common response is: "Well, tell me what your doctrinal challenges are, and maybe I can help..."

"ahhh...well,...if you insist...I suppose I could share them. But they are tricky, so you will probably have to do some research. First of all, there is this thing about the Book of Abraham......"

And low and behold, the possibility of REAL dialogue may just open up. If it does, ain't no inoculation gunna really help, because there are too many unanswered questions. That is my opinion anyway.

I think the church is loosing members like crazy.

[Red Ryder]

Jesus "Boat Anchor" Christ, emower! How can you keep punishing yourself with reading this stuff?

[redjay]

Problem is that the reasoning offered by Hales and similar contemporary apologists conflates faith with belief in Mormonism.

Once a person believes that mormonism is not essential for salvation, that person is left with a choice is my life better with mormonism than the with alternatives. If your pay check relies on mormonism, or you culture is heavily mormon then perhaps, mormonism is worth it - but for most of the world, this is not the case.

The question is not, can god be found in Mormonism?

The question is, Is mormonism worth it?

[deacon blues]

So the first essay was by Bushman dealing with the treasure seeking. He admits that through the early years the church dismissed out of hand the allegations against Joseph, which later turned out to be true.

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

Bushman says he came to the conclusion that a much of the secular history was correct, but that it was harmless.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

This is Bushman's main point through the essay; it wasn't a big deal. Harmless.
He mentions that magic and Christianity were not at odds with each other back in that day. Then comes his main point and the most important sentence.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

I happen to agree. It does not invalidate them. But no one is really arguing that his belief in magic invalidates anything, only that it provides an alternative and more explanatory context to other troubling things about the genesis of the church down the road. In addition to things that Joseph Smith said and used (e.g. seer stones & translation, BOM themes, church structure, timelines, etc...) An understanding of his worldview allows more freedom to ascribe happenings and stories to less than divine origins.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

I think some people would disagree with Bushman here. And it really depends on what period we are talking about as well.

He then gives a confusing section on arguments losing virulence as time goes by. He says that at the time he started writing the folk magic was one of the biggest topics of the time. Now it seems to have lost it's luster and he rarely meets anyone who wants to die on the hill of folk magic having a place in the genesis of our church.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

I think his point is "Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal." I disagree with this assement. Just because something has evolved out of importance does not mean that it did not have bearing on a church that stakes it's truthfulness on claims that are challenged by the thing that no one cares about anymore. Frankly, that a horrible dystopian way of looking at things. Plus I do not even think that people are placing less importance on it.

Are these quotes from a Church essay? Which one?

[Craig Paxton]

So I am going to read this and post my reactions. Someone else bought it for me so I will give it a try. This is probably going to be the same old boring stuff so you can follow along or not, its up to you.

The first post will be the prologue.

She gives an analogy of an anchor holding a boat in place, the anchor being Christ and the boat being a testimony. However a boat without its plug in can sink regardless of the anchor. She makes a point that inoculating kids with the truth early is the key to retaining their testimonies. She is totally right. It would have worked on me had it been done. But it wasn't and here I am.
I object a little to her use of "nurturing atmosphere." That means "sort of dishonest" to me.

The other thing I didnt like was the classic blame the victim game. She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us. Why? Because they dont have our attention for long enough? There aren't enough meetings? One lifetime isn't long enough to tell me the real story? They dont have the money to print educational resources? They aren't good at holding secret meetings? Bullcrap Laura. Not to mention where she expects people to have gone for information before those terribly informative essays came along. Because "googling" it us what got us all into this mess and that was pretty much your only option neforw the essays. For you older folks the only way you could get educated was through more nefarious means.

I would rather be in a boat free to sail the open seas exploring all that the world has to offer than on some boat anchored in some small bathtub of a harbor being exposed to the same old stale stagnate water that the Mormon Church floats in.

[Emower]

The next essay dealt with the different versions of the first vision. This was written by Steven C. Harper, a church historian. This was a really different weird one. The arguments made were not compelling in the least, not that I expected them to be. I suppose that if one is flailing about in a sinking boat then maybe this would be a lifeline that would put a patch on your problems. But certainly if you read this without having a problem it would not be faith-promoting.

So, in a nutshell:
Here's a quote from the end of the book.

The accounts reveal that he consciously interpreted the experience and discovered meanings in it later that were not available to him when it occurred. The accounts are not, by Joseph's acknowledgement, a flawless recreation of the event, nor are they likely, "a complete fabrication of life events." Rather they are products of Joseph Smith's subjective, constructive process of remembering.

The whole point of the essay was to try and normalize details being added in later and back up that up in a scientific way.


The first part of the essay talks about the different versions. It lumps the all into 4 groups, 1832 vision, 1835 account (it mentions that this was retold in response to a visit from a stranger, but never discusses the actual context of that stranger...), 1838-39 accounts, and the 1842 account. It provides a very high level summary of the differences between them, and attempts to explain them in these summaries (e.g., "this must have been an afterthought... etc.).

Harper then goes into the science of memory, which would be interesting if it was coming from a neurologist or someone familiar with the topic instead of a church historian, but whatever. I suppose I am nitpicking.

It is not perfectly safe to take for granted that Joseph's memory was perfectly accurate at the time of his experience and that it grew increasingly inaccurate in proportion to the passage of time.

I feel like that is exactly what the science I am aware of says about memory, but I am not a memory scientist so I cannot hold this against him.
He talks about memory consolidation and compares it to transferring water in a leaky bucket. The water that makes it into a less leaky bucket is the memory that persists through time. I feel like this metaphor falls flat because what we have with Joseph Smith is water from a leaky bucket being transferred into a less leaky bucket and by the end of a few transfers from several leaky buckets we have more water than we did originally. This seems highly improbable to most of us. This is probably just a bad metaphor to use. The whole discussion of the science behind memory was weird and unfamiliar. Harpers point I think was that it is not unheard of for people to recall details later depending on their circumstances, perspectives that change with time, and environment. I am aware of theories and circumstances where people recall memories in trauma situations. Outside trauma though, I think the prevailing view is that memory does get less accurate with time.

After this discussion we dive into the rationale behind rejecting the 1832 account. It starts of thusly:

Since Joseph Smith's ability to form memories depended largely on what he already knew, his culture conditioned the way he remembered his original experience, and subsequent experiences expanded his ability to rehearse meaningful reflections of what he had experienced.

So there you go. A person cannot be expected to recall a memory until he has had the life experience and the culture has changed enough to allow the recall. I get that memory is a tricky thing, but them were some pretty big details that he couldn't recall. Harper brings up the experience with the Methodist minister that shocked Joseph into recasting his memories into something that could be accepted by people at the time.

Joseph's original, unrecorded telling led to a rejection by the minister and the world he represented. When Joseph worked up the will to tell it again, in his 1832 autobiography, he recast the story as an evangelical script, conforming to his culture and seeking validation

So, at best, our Prophet is one of the first millennials, unable to take reality and having to alter his worldview based on the lack of a "safe space" to share his feelings. Maybe if he had been able to access an internet forum he wouldn't have had to do that...
At worst (in the spirit of this book), he was just manipulating his memory (if you can call it that) to suit his fancy at the time. Either of those views could be supported by the logic Harper uses.

Harper then goes into the 1835 account. This seems to be the one he favors,

The 1835 record of spontaneous memory shows that, given the right cues and context, Joseph could produce a memory of the event that did not depend on or respond to the Methodist minister, either attempting to please him, as in the 1832 account, or lashing back at him, as in the 1838-39"

Hmmm, Joseph could produce those memories given the right cues huh?

It seems to me that the whole point of this essay is that Joseph's memory was so malleable that that he remembered it differently depending on his circumstances at the time. the only way this is of any help is if you have an a priori assumption that Joseph's final product was the right and accurate one. If you don't have this assumption or if you have let go of it, none of this works at all. So the only use this essay can be is to someone who already holds the belief and just needs some smart sounding stuff to bolster that faith. And I am not even sure that it would do that.
And I am not even going to go into some of the shady citations he seems to throw in. I don't have the desire or the time to read the entirety of some of the citations he has, but being in the academic publishing world myself I understand how the game is played. I am pretty sure he has not read some of the works he is citing and is throwing them in to sound good.

[Rob4Hope]

Emower,...I read your last post here and found it interesting. These guys throw Occam's Razor out the window and grab at straws to add credibility to some pretty serious problems.

It makes no sense that someone's memory requires cultural "safety" to be framed in a way that changes historical religious tradition (Trinity).

What about the possibility that JS changed the story, making it bigger and more flamboyant as a way to bolster his power position with people who were questioning his prophetic mantel in the first place?

These "faithful" apologists are guilty of historical heresy--they start with the conclusion in mind and work their heart out to constrain the data to conform to their preconceptions. This seems like a deadly flaw to any true historian's position, and yet they do it over and over.

[Emower]

Emower,...I read your last post here and found it interesting. These guys throw Occam's Razor out the window and grab at straws to add credibility to some pretty serious problems.

It makes no sense that someone's memory requires cultural "safety" to be framed in a way that changes historical religious tradition (Trinity).

What about the possibility that JS changed the story, making it bigger and more flamboyant as a way to bolster his power position with people who were questioning his prophetic mantel in the first place?

These "faithful" apologists are guilty of historical heresy--they start with the conclusion in mind and work their heart out to constrain the data to conform to their preconceptions. This seems like a deadly flaw to any true historian's position, and yet they do it over and over.

Yes. This whole essay was very overreaching. The argument of framing memory in current environments does not gel as correct to me. What happened to i had a vision, I knew and god knew it and I could not deny it?

In their defense though not having a specific conclusion in mind just is not a big deal for a tbm. Logic is for logical stuff, not religion. It just doesn't work to try to explain things that way to someone who is trying to live life in a reasonable manner.

[Rob4Hope]

In their defense though not having a specific conclusion in mind just is not a big deal for a tbm. Logic is for logical stuff, not religion. It just doesn't work to try to explain things that way to someone who is trying to live life in a reasonable manner.

I'm in the middle of a conversation with my SIL over "religious" things. MAN...I think she has brain damage! I'm not kidding! So, what you just said above about living in a "reasonable manner" (and I take by that you mean those trying o find congruency between logic and religion) hits the nail on the head.

To me, I see no way of going back to the "faithful perspective" if that requires me (and it does) to throw out all reason in lieu of faith. Faith is good, but believing, for example, that that earth is flat doesn't change the science and make it so.

[Emower]

The next essay was on the BoM translation issues. This one was written by Brant Gardner, so most of you probably know what is coming in this chapter.

He deals with the seer stone right off the bat.

What God used to effect the transformation was yet another weak thing. God used folk beliefs of the rural population that had been a part of the way the world was understood for millennia. Even in Joseph's day the learned had come to despise them, but in the community where Joseph lived,
those folk beliefs were alive and well.

He goes on to talk about Joseph's "talent" of being a seer and how this was not an unusual thing. Gardner tries to put across the idea that seer objects were common and biblical. He cites the example of a cup that Joseph of Egypt put in Benjamin's bag that he used as a divining medium. It was a normal object that became an important religious object at times. I wonder what Gardner would think if Joseph used rabbit entrails instead of a stone?

Heres the money quote:

The actual effectiveness of seeing in the stone really isn't the important issue for the translation of the Book of Mormon. What is important is that Joseph believed he could see hidden things that others could not, and there were others who believed that Joseph had that particular talent.
It was Joseph's belief that he could see the unseeable that the Lord used as the fulcrum to leverage the village seer into a translator and then into a prophet of God.

The seer stone was simply the crutch the Lord used to prop up Joseph's nascent faith in his calling.

Fine, I get it. Its a good argument. Except I would rather have a Prophet that could actually do what he said he was going to do. If he used that stone the way multiple people said he used it there should be no errors in the book, anachronisms or otherwise.

The next section had to do with the plates. He says,

It is probable that for much of the translation process that plates were not visable.

Gardner asks then what the purpose of the plates was?

From the beginning, the physical presence of the plates declared the reality of the angelic vision.

Ummm, no they didnt because nobody actually saw them. There is a chapter later devoted to the witnesses, but Dan Vogel and others have done some good work on this and if there is nobody who actually saw them. Plus, if God had wanted them to be a declaration of the reality of an angelic vision he certainly had a funny way of going about that.

The next section is about the Urim and Thummim. Basically this section tries to tackle the issue that many people said he translated using the Urim and Thummim when he actually did not. Gardner is of the opinion that people were conflating the stone with the UandT from very early on and things never got clarified. He says that the term Urim and Thummim got inserted later into sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. Not exactly helping the case there. They were clearly inserting as men there (*cough*).

He tries to address why the artists dont get it right.

Latter-Saint artists who depict Joseph's finger on the plates are simply following a story about the translation that the Saints themselves were telling as early as 1836.

This also is not really helping the case. Why in the world was there confusion around the translation process to the degree that people were telling the wrong story before Joseph even died? In Kirtland no less! That is alarming to me. Perhaps Joseph was intentional in his failure to correct such stories? In much the same way the modern church was intentional in its failure to correct such stories? In much the same way that everyone is apparently uncomfortable with this method? There is maybe something to that uncomfortableness.


The next section deals with changes in the text.
He starts with the statement that the BoM is the most correct book. He says that what Joseph really meant was in regards to the precepts, not the actual words on the page. It would be really nice if we didnt always have to clarify what Joseph *really* meant all the dam time. He brings in Royal Skousen and mentions that there are 105,000 places of variation from the original text. He doesnt spend much time talking about punctuation vs. content changes to his credit. He goes straight to the heart of the issue which is why there were any changes at all. Heres the money shot:

The answer to all those questions depends entirely upon the precise method by which Joseph was able to using the Gift and Power of God. Unfortunately, Joseph never gave any more details then that. The process he used is open to speculation, but it is only speculation. One might speculate that because God inspired the translation it should be without error. But that is an assumption of what God might have done. The evidence for what God did do suggests that he worked through his human instrument---and Joseph, his human instrument, might have decided there was a better way to express the meaning of the plates in English.

Hmmm. Mental gymnastics. This is primarily why I have a hard time interacting with the church or its member on any level. Things dont make sense to me in a rational way. Isnt it also more of an assumption that God would let Joseph add horribly racist verses that would be taken out later? Thats more of a leap than assuming that God woud want Joseph to get it right. Especially since Prophets arent supposed to lead the church astray.

One interesting point he brings up is the translation of the BoM into different languages. Having had to learn the book in Norwegian I can say that it often has a different feel in places and the translation is often a teensy bit different.

We believe that it can be translated because we believe the meaning is much more important than the originally dictated words, which may or may not have an exact translation in another language.

I dont know that that is the real reason we feel comfortable translating the BoM into other languages. I have heard numerous stories and talks given about the translation process and how involved the Q12 are in that process. The intimation is that they supervise the work with their super special witness powers and can tell when things are not right. Thus the translation will always be good because it is still directed ultimately by Jesus.

So, in a nutshell. There are some arguments that might have resonated with me if all I knew was very superficial issues. This involves gymnastics though, and I am not willing to do those. If that makes me a faithless heathen then fine, but I will be a heathen that is comfortable in my own skin and not what someone else tells me I should believe. The explanations around the stone is fine, around the plates is fine. The Urim and Thummim not being used doesnt bother me. The things that bother me are the substantial changes, which Brant does not address. The artists getting it wrong which is really just a symptom of a larger issue, the dishonesty of the church in facing its own history. And the continued gaslighting today. And apparently the unwillingness of church leadership in 1836 to correct the understanding of how the translation actually happened.

Again, Mormonism asks one to have faith in spite of evidence. That is hard for me to do.