67 replies to this topic

[Mark Beesley]

zerinus, on 02 May 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Do you think that all the Jews always killed all of their prophets?

I'm not sure they killed any prophets prior to John the Baptist.

I guess you've elected to ignore the questions I posed.  Ok.

Edited to add:

After further research and some good posts from other in another thread, the Jews undoubtedly killed some prophets prior to John.

Edited by Mark Beesley, 02 May 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[ksfisher]

Mark Beesley, on 02 May 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

What does that mean, that the Jews "culturally" held prophets they killed in high esteem?  Do the Jews "culturally" hold Jesus Christ in high esteem?

Do you think the Nephites chose Mormon to be their military commander because he was a prophet, or because he was a great military commander?  If Mormon Mitt Romney is elected President will it be because Americans view him as a Mormon or as a potentially good President?

I think the answer to both questions is the same - the men are chosen in spite of their religious nature, not because their religiosity is held in high esteem.

The idea of Mormon being a great military commander is an interesting one.  Where does it come from?  He seems to have lost more than he won.  He was constantly fighting with inferior forces, never able to obtain a local superiority of forces.  He got himself boxed in at Cummorah and left no place for his army to retreat to.  This doesn't sound like the work of a great general.  

Contrast this with what we know of the career of Captain Moroni.  While the two situations may have been vastly different militarily, it is still an interesting comparison.

[Mark Beesley]

ksfisher, on 02 May 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The idea of Mormon being a great military commander is an interesting one.  Where does it come from?  He seems to have lost more than he won.  He was constantly fighting with inferior forces, never able to obtain a local superiority of forces.  He got himself boxed in at Cummorah and left no place for his army to retreat to.  This doesn't sound like the work of a great general.  

Contrast this with what we know of the career of Captain Moroni.  While the two situations may have been vastly different militarily, it is still an interesting comparison.

I guess greatness is relative.

[zerinus]

ksfisher, on 02 May 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

The point that I was trying to make I my first post in this thread is that we only have the history of how the Nephites and Mulekites came together from the point of view of the winners.  The Nephites ruling class seems to have won the battle for the leadership of the city of Zarahemla.  Would't it be fascinating to have another history, but from the point of view of the Mulekite rulers.  We would have a completely new perspective.

On a completely different subject, it occurs to me that one very good reason for Mormon being chosen to be the Nephites leader was that the previous leader was killed and Mormon was next in line.  Being large may refer more to his social standing than his physical size.

I don't know whether you are LDS or not; but from my point of view as LDS, I see the Book of Mormon as inspired history, not biased history. It is sacred history, and scripture. It is not like saying, "We have heard the story of the war from the Greek side, let us now see how it looks like from the Persian side". I trust the book to tell me the unbiased history truthfully as it occurred, not slanted unfairly from the point of view of the narrator. The Nephites were the smaller community of the two. Numerically they were inferior, and therefore not in a position to impose their will on the other side. There is nothing in the book to suggest that there had been a contest or conflict over the leadership. Both sides knew where they were coming from, and apparently the decision was reached amicably in the interest of all concerned, and by a mutual agreement.

[ksfisher]

zerinus, on 02 May 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

I don't know whether you are LDS or not; but from my point of view as LDS, I see the Book of Mormon as inspired history, not biased history. It is sacred history, and scripture. It is not like saying, "We have heard the story of the war from the Greek side, let us now see how it looks like from the Persian side". I trust the book to tell me the unbiased history truthfully as it occurred, not slanted unfairly from the point of view of the narrator. The Nephites were the smaller community of the two. Numerically they were inferior, and therefore not in a position to impose their will on the other side. There is nothing in the book to suggest that there had been a contest or conflict over the leadership. Both sides knew where they were coming from, and apparently the decision was reached amicably in the interest of all concerned, and by a mutual agreement.

Scripture can contain the gospel as well as the biases of the authors.  Prophets are human.  They are the products of their cultural environment.  Statements by Brigham Young concerning blacks should teach us that.  The beauty of the scriptures, prophets, and even ourselves is how God is able to use imperfect means to bring about great works.  The Book of Mormon  obtains the bias of it's Nephites authors.  This by no means diminishes the gospel contained within it.

[zerinus]

ksfisher, on 02 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Scripture can contain the gospel as well as the biases of the authors.  Prophets are human.  They are the products of their cultural environment.  Statements by Brigham Young concerning blacks should teach us that.  The beauty of the scriptures, prophets, and even ourselves is how God is able to use imperfect means to bring about great works.  The Book of Mormon  obtains the bias of it's Nephites authors.  This by no means diminishes the gospel contained within it.

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't believe that scripture gives us a biased, prejudiced, unfaithful account of history.

[ksfisher]

zerinus, on 02 May 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't believe that scripture gives us a biased, prejudiced, unfaithful account of history.

I respect that position.  But I believe that scripture can both reflect the men who wrote them as well as the God they believe in.  I don't believe that the Book of Mormon contains anything deliberately unfaithful to history.  It does contain history as it's Nephites authors understood it.  Was their understanding perfect and completely without bias?  Just as much as any history can be.

[Log]

Mark Beesley, on 02 May 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

I guess greatness is relative.

Literally.  Mormon's genealogy was probably known.