Contact Us Broken 09/27/2016
43 posts in this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Hi all! In looking at the thread title I was wondering what you felt has strengthened or weakened your testimony of the BoM the most. I can start out by saying I have always found sheum to be a fascinating tidbit of evidence, in that it is an Akkadian word that was used in the text. I also could include neas in this as well. I could think of more but those stand out the most to me. Tell us yours!
By Five Solas
Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll.
What do you think?
By Cold Steel
Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation.
On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures?
Can anyone help me out?
As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.
We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.
But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?
It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.
Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.
The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.
Is it possible that some others may have made it though?
Sure, no one else built a massive ark, stocked with supplies, but conceivably there could've been people with boats, perhaps even fishermen- that if, they gathered enough gear. maybe could've fished their way through the year.