Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
No, not significant. Here's why: If you believe that Joseph saw the things he said he saw on any level, then evidence of inconsistency (implying mendacity) won't matter to you because your hopes and beliefs aren't empirically based.
This is what some people are missing. If I believe that a 14 year old boy saw God in the woods and later translated gold plates, I believe it on a spiritual level or I have suspended disbelief and chosen to believe it. Either way, apparent inconsistencies in accounts even if it is assumed they mutually excluded one another aren't going to change the spiritual belief/choice.
In the absence of those things, the whole thing is fantastical and absurd as is true with any religious tradition. But no one can convince me that chocolate and peanut butter ice cream from Baskin&Robbins isn't the very best kind of ice cream in the world by showing me evidence that 9 out of 10 prefer vanilla. That is why discussion about the likelihood of what "really" happened misses the point.
|
I understand why people can choose to disbelieve based on the apparent inconsistencies, but for those who have chosen to disbelieve to argue that the inconsistencies are so egregious as to compel disbelief, it seems they are just the other side of the coin of faith for those who see absolutely no concern at all.
Record keeping would not have been as detailed in my opinion during the nineteenth century, and I can see how one would speak of Christ talking to him with little mention of Father if the focus was upon the discussion with Christ. OTOH, it is odd to omit such a significant personage.