Kevin Graham wrote:He merely "revealed" the Book of Mormon?
You're really straining.
It's always been the position of the Church, and it has always been and remains my position, that the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished through inspiration or revelation.
Kevin Graham wrote:I'm pretty sure that is modern-day apologetic speak, as opposed to the traditional LDS claim that Joseph Smith translated it, and that as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" had the ability to translate ancient documents.
You're wrong.
I believe that that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that, as "Prophet Seer and Revelator," he had the ability, under divine revelation or inspiration, to translate ancient documents.
It's always been the position of the Church, and it has always been and remains my position, that the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished through inspiration or revelation.
So? This distinction between translation via revelation or translation via conventional means, is really a just an apologetic side show that has nothing to do with what anyone has said. As best I can tell, it is just a straw man. Joseph Smith claimed the ability to literally translate from one language to another, which makes his claim falsifiable. This disturbs modern apologists who try to keep everything in the realm of unfalsifiability. That is what spawned the modern-day catalyst theory, after all.
I believe that that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that, as "Prophet Seer and Revelator," he had the ability, under divine revelation or inspiration, to translate ancient documents.
And that is the official position of the Church, so why not just say "translation" to begin with? Literal translations can be falsified whereas personal revelation/inspirations cannot.
Joseph Smith's ability to translate has been thoroughly falsified.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I believe that that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that, as "Prophet Seer and Revelator," he had the ability, under divine revelation or inspiration, to translate ancient documents.
Is translation by divine inspiration done only by holding the correct priesthood keys and having the right priesthood authority?
Daniel Peterson wrote:I believe that that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that, as "Prophet Seer and Revelator," he had the ability, under divine revelation or inspiration, to translate ancient documents.
Is translation by divine inspiration done only by holding the correct priesthood keys and having the right priesthood authority?
I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:
1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.
2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)
3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.
4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.
I have also dedicated a significant amount of study and given a considerable amount of thought to this topic. Your perspectives on the issue mirror my own to an extraordinary degree. We should remember to converse on this topic the next time we meet.
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.
I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:
1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.
2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)
3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.
4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.
I have also dedicated a significant amount of study and given a considerable amount of thought to this topic. Your perspectives on the issue mirror my own to an extraordinary degree. We should remember to converse on this topic the next time we meet.
I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:
1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.
2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)
3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.
4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.
I have also dedicated a significant amount of study and given a considerable amount of thought to this topic. Your perspectives on the issue mirror my own to an extraordinary degree. We should remember to converse on this topic the next time we meet.
Daniel Peterson wrote: 4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.
What does this mean? You have an unmistakable testimony of something but you don't know what?
You know that some propostition is true but just don't know what proposition?
I am going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think this makes sense.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo