Aeslin Bard of Sacratus Apologetics Does No More Believe the Book of Mormon

So, I am asking him, if he was giving it a similar status as historic knowledge of George Washington. As I read his answer, it is no. But read the correspondence for yourselves.

I

Me to Aeslin Bard

9/26/2022 at 12:57 PM

Consistency of Criteria

As you are a former believer of the Book of Mormon, I'd like to ask you if you ever considered it secure knowledge the same way as (not as much as, but known the same way as) :

• George Washington being the first President of the United States
• or Joseph Smith being first in the "Restoration"?

If you don't mind, I would be very happy to post the correspondence to this blog of mine:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/

II

Aeslin Bard to Me

9/27/2022 at 7:55 PM

RE: Consistency of Criteria

I never considered belief in the Book of Mormon of the same type of secure knowledge as knowing that George Washington was the first president of the United States. At the time I did see it as a type of secure knowledge. Though, even at the time I didn't see it as the same type of secure knowledge. On the other hand, in Mormon theology one can achieve a level of knowledge above faith that is secure and sure knowledge in things of the spirit that is more secure than the kind of knowing that George Washington lived. However, I personally find that this doctrine undermines the importance of faith and hope in our lives, and misunderstandd it. The foundation of faith and hope is trust in and love of God. I know, a type of secure knowledge (and I use that word 'know' purposefully), that even in my difficult moments I can depend on God. This is still backed by my own experience and the experiences from Sacred Scripture and church history at how God has always upheld and supported those who trust in him. In short, the Mormon Church does frequently say that they don't have the Gold Plates because belief in the Book of Mormon should be based on faith. But, faith is what God gives to us. Faith is from God and not physical evidence. St. Thomas the apostle is evidence for that point. Archaeological proof isn't the cause of faith. The physical Gold Plates wouldn't cause belief anymore than the mountains of biblical archaeology is the cause of faith for those scholars who still are atheist and agnostic and are biblical scholars. Though, the lack of the plates and the numerous unanswered questions in regard to Mormon history does call into question the claims of Mormonism.

In Christ,

Aeslin Bard

III

Me to Aeslin Bard

9/27/2022 at 8:04 PM

Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

Thank you very much!

The position I have is, to Moses, Joseph in Egypt, to Joseph Abraham and to Abraham the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 leading back to Adam and to Genesis 3 were the very same type of secure knowledge that we have of George Washington - spirit or not.

And the position of a certain Mr. Henke is, this could have come about by means such as Joseph Smith's forgery of the Book of Mormon.

I disagree on the ground you state, namely that the Book of Mormon does not have the simple status of "history" but of "history first lost and then spectacularily recovered" ...

What would you say to this?

What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous) · Ah, Some New · Back to Philosophy · Beginning on Henke2022az? Nope. · Why Catalogue the Supernatural? Why Catalogue Fiction? · Henke(2022bi) Starts It Today! But I only get to Henke(2022bk) For Now. · New Batch of Henke Essays · Resuming at Henke(2022bL) after Interruption, up to 2022br. · Why Did I Bring Up Greek Myth? · Historicity of Certain Religious Stories, Notably Genesis

Which ones contain the Book of Mormon back and forth?

https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search?q=Mormon

Read at leasure or answer without much reading, as you wish.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Aeslin Bard to Me

9/28/2022 at 12:23 AM

Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

I think that comparing faith, especially religious faith, to the kind of knowledge that we know George Washington lived or that I'm typing on a computer, misses the central understanding of faith. True, faith does increase our intellect. However, the importance of faith is that it moves our will so we can say yes, essentially, to truths revealed supernaturally by God and thereby put those truths into practice (to paraphrase the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1814-1816). In other words, hope focuses our vision, faith lightens our path, and love for the things of God moves us.

V

Me to Aeslin Bard

9/28/2022 at 11:51 AM

Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

With that Atheist, I was not discussing faith. I was discussing the natural evidence for historic truths.

Genesis 3 to Moses was both naturally known history and a truth of faith.

It was naturally known history insofar as he was heir of the tradition.

It was a truth of faith, insofar as he believed the words of God, to the serpent, to Eve, to Adam.

These two are distinct. Just as one can accept historically that Our Lord rose from the grave before accepting He is God, in faith, so also for the historic truths of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (well, chapter 1 was arguably a vision given to Moses)./HGL

VI

Aeslin Bard to Me

9/28/2022 at 1:17 PM

Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

I assume calling me atheist was a typo. We must be having a miscommunication because I don't see any natural for the book of mormon or their claims. The Mormon church has even said that natural evidence doesn't promote faith. However, if you want my position on natural vs. revealed faith I'll be more than happy to ablige.

God Bless!

VII

Me to Aeslin Bard

9/28/2022 at 4:48 PM

Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

Sorry for the annoyance, I did not call YOU an Atheist.

I called Kevin R. Henke one, though technically incorrect as he insists on Agnostic rather than Atheist. So, in a sense it was even so a "typo" ... but culturally, he's very close to them.

If you had looked up the links, you would have seen I was having a debate with him.

"I don't see any natural for the book of mormon or their claims."

Exactly. And especially : the closest they come to believing Book of Mormon "as history" is very distinct from believing (naturally) George Washington as history.

That was the support I wanted FROM you and FOR the debate with Mr. Henke.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Aeslin Bard to Me

9/28/2022 at 5:02 PM

Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

No annoyance at all. I'm glad I was able to assist. Anything else, don't hesitate to ask my friend.

In Christ!

IX

Me to Aeslin Bard

9/28/2022 at 5:11 PM

Re: Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria

Thank you very much.

I'll put this up on my blog when I get a better computer than at this library (with full functions).

Hans Georg Lundahl

Beginning to update, Scope and Nature of Theology (Part II)

Continued from:

With Stephan, on Scope and Nature of Theology (Part I?)
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2020/07/with-stefan-on-scope-and-nature-of.html

XVII

Stephan to me

7/5/2020 at 5:45 PM

Re: "Epistemologically, Schleiermacher is basically right:"

I’m sorry I didn’t have time to respond to your recent three e-mails before you posted. But it does not matter much, I don’t really have anything to add.

Your points about Descartes are excellent. I really like your ”dark room” analogy, especially the ”doleo, ergo sum”! It removes the problem I pointed out with ”cogito” (presumably, you can deduce your own existence from pain without the mediation of language) while pinpointing the problem with systematic doubt: it removes sources of error but also - and more importantly - sources of truth.

Your point about ”the historic mess after the Reformation”, including the Thirty Years’ War, was also a very good one. The search for a non-religious platform from which to settle disputes between religions, of which juridical objectivity was a major component, is surely relevant to an understanding of the philosophies of Kant and Schleiermacher, which try in a similar way to find an epistemologically neutral [knowledge not dependent on revelation] platform. But as you say, this attempt does ”not add any impartial umpire”, only another party to the mess. Well put!

Eco having artificial rather than partisan sympathy for the Middle Ages - that was another good one!

Thank you also for correcting me about Lewis’s meaning when he talks of philosophical monism. You are of course right, he is thinking primarily of ontology, not the attempt to reduce reality to some axiom. Again a bon mot: ”Like reality plays checkers, never chess”! It made me think of the wonderful scene in The Tempest, where Prospero draws a curtain aside and reveals Ferdinand and Miranda playing chess - what a lovely metaphor for the love game! Yes, reality is far more like that than like checkers.

To limit one’s deference to experts to precisely those things that they are expert on is excellent advice. Point taken.

Finally, I think we also agree on the nature of revelation and inerrancy, at least to the extent we have discussed it. There are questions here that we have not discussed - about the difference between denotation and connotation, about the cognitive content of revelation and other kinds of content, and about the extent to which different interpretations of the Bible are possible and permissible. But for the moment I am perfectly content with the agreement we have reached and with the insights you have so kindly shared with me.

Stephan

XVIII

me to Stephan

7/7/2020 at 12:43 PM

Re: "Epistemologically, Schleiermacher is basically right:"

Do I suspect rightly, the next point might be given in the letter?

Just one thing, "[t]o limit one’s deference to experts to precisely those things that they are expert on" - not just that, but within their expertise to distinguish between raw facts as observed and conclusions, including routine ones.

Hans Georg