Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Doesn't the NT rely heavily on the OT? I get the feeling Yeshua relied on it heavily in His teaching.

Not the same thing at all. It would be like the Old Testament relying on Wycliffe’s translation of the New Testament. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Please explain the Book of Mormon concept of hell that that has been abandoned.

I'm not sure there is Book of Mormon concept but rather several can be found on the pages including more Canaanite models. The main model though is Alma 40:11 where Alma claims it's a new teaching taught to him by an Angel. This hell is at odds with earlier versions in the text and have the following features.

1. Between death and resurrection (i.e. not final hell - so distinction)

2. Taken home to God

3. Two locations (paradise and darkness -- perhaps following Nephi and Lehi's vision)

That's pretty much remained the Mormon view from what I can tell. The earlier version seems Canaanite inspired by the Mot and Baal saga (see 2 Ne 9) combined with the traditional view of sheol. This view is roughly the mid-eastern view of the underworld as containing people. It's important to note that for Alma hell is no longer the underworld but is in the place of God. For Nephi instead there's volcanic imagery and the idea is Satan as foreign dominator leading people into captivity paralleling the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. Pretty much that never really caught on in Mormonism except for people embracing a protestant Fire and Brimstone model occasionally.

I don't know enough of mesoamerican belief to really have a grasp on how that culture may have changed Nephite belief. I know they had an underworld and a world tree. It's possible Lehi's vision became transfigured via semantic drift due to that context. For mesoamerica I believe the tree or trees simultaneously represented the four directions. Mesoamerica tied death and life together in a fashion quite unlike the ANE. Death enables life. There's a myth of twin hero who were born in the underworld and escape. That's tied to a concept somewhat like resurrection. There are some parallels to the ANE such as the idea of caves as the underworld and the concept of an earth monster somewhat similar to how Mot was both death and a monster. As I said though I'm not qualified in the least to say much about this relative to the Book of Mormon.

I do think the early and middle views of hell may be related though. Lehi and Nephi's visions use Canaanite mythology. Nephi is explicitly brought to a mountain -- either El's house or potentially Yahweh/Baal's similar abode. Near the mountain is this tree of life. You have the people trying to reach the tree of life, which has some similarities to Canaanite and Babylonian temples. Those outside of this paradise are in midsts of darkness and under the control of the devil. Many of these elements can be found in 1 Enoch as well, although those geographical features are usually seen as taken from Canaanite myth.

With Alma's treatment the souls are brought to God, but where God lives isn't defined. It's possible (although indeterminate) that Alma still see's God as El and his house in the mountain. In that case Alma is just accepting Lehi's vision with its location of paradise and hell but merely is adding the resurrection as a new step. That is he's reconciling two apparently contradictory accounts in the early Book of Mormon. Nephi/Lehi's mountain vision and Nephi's doctrine of the resurrection/judgment. It's possible that the two are a Canaanite model and a more Egyptian model that have obvious conflicts if taken literally.

While Mormons roughly hold to Alma's view, the location has been divorced from the Canaanite mythic context. We tend to see the two realms as all over this earth here. Further the divide is not typically seen as spatial rather in terms of authority/power with those of paradise doing missionary work most of the time in hell. That is a reasonable change.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not the same thing at all. It would be like the Old Testament relying on Wycliffe’s translation of the New Testament. 

No, it wouldn't. The Nephites were utilizing the OT from the brass plates, much as Yeshua and the Israelite apostles utilized the OT - a lot. Would you feel better if some other English version was utilized more in the translation process? The Greek NT seems to utilize the Greek Septuagint, whereas the Peshitta NT seems to utilize the Peshitta OT - big surprise? Not at all. The BoM seems to utilize the KJV OT - I don't know why that should be a big surprise. However, it does depart from it in significant places. Probably more of an issue is the BoM's utilization of some of the same words and phrases as the KJV NT. I suppose one can either believe that the Lord gives the same words to multiple prophets or not. I suppose some just believe Revelation is a copy of Daniel. I believe the Lord gave John a new Revelation with some of the same words and phrases as appear in Daniel. If so, why can't He do that for the BoM?

Link to comment
Just now, RevTestament said:

No, it wouldn't. The Nephites were utilizing the OT from the brass plates, much as Yeshua and the Israelite apostles utilized the OT - a lot. Would you feel better if some other English version was utilized more in the translation process? The Greek NT seems to utilize the Greek Septuagint, whereas the Peshitta NT seems to utilize the Peshitta OT - big surprise? Not at all. The BoM seems to utilize the KJV OT - I don't know why that should be a big surprise. However, it does depart from it in significant places. Probably more of an issue is the BoM's utilization of some of the same words and phrases as the KJV NT. I suppose one can either believe that the Lord gives the same words to multiple prophets or not. I suppose some just believe Revelation is a copy of Daniel. I believe the Lord gave John a new Revelation with some of the same words and phrases as appear in Daniel. If so, why can't He do that for the BoM?

I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about. It’s not about using the same words. FWIW, I used to think the same thing you are saying.  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about. It’s not about using the same words. FWIW, I used to think the same thing you are saying.  

i think your "argument" is not as good as you think it is. Catch phrases like "infinite atonement" are probably your best point (ie "Protestant theology"). While Protestants believe it mighty "convenient" that the BoM answers questions not answered by the NT such as baptism of infants, and the salvation of deceased infants, it is also difficult to claim the BoM adopted Protestant thought on these issues - most "Protestants" kept Catholic baptism of infants - Methodists, Presbyterians, etc

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, it wouldn't. The Nephites were utilizing the OT from the brass plates, much as Yeshua and the Israelite apostles utilized the OT - a lot. Would you feel better if some other English version was utilized more in the translation process? The Greek NT seems to utilize the Greek Septuagint, whereas the Peshitta NT seems to utilize the Peshitta OT - big surprise? Not at all. The BoM seems to utilize the KJV OT - I don't know why that should be a big surprise. However, it does depart from it in significant places. Probably more of an issue is the BoM's utilization of some of the same words and phrases as the KJV NT. I suppose one can either believe that the Lord gives the same words to multiple prophets or not. I suppose some just believe Revelation is a copy of Daniel. I believe the Lord gave John a new Revelation with some of the same words and phrases as appear in Daniel. If so, why can't He do that for the BoM?

It's a loose paraphrase that makes use of the NT to translate texts contemporary with the OT. I don't think we should try defending NT quotations in the pre-NT era as constituted on the brass plates or exact identical revelation. It's almost certainly just artifacts of how the translation of the gold plates proceeded. As JK notes it's not just about a few words. As I've pointed out though this style of interpretive expansive translation is part of Hebrew culture with peshers, midrashes, and targums. In fact there's a view that elements of proto-Isaiah were originally the Isaiah text combined with such expansions during the Josiah era. We see Nephi doing something similar with Isaiah. We shouldn't be shocked if the translator of the Book of Mormon does the same thing, translating Nephi's writings (that are already highly compressed possibly using ideograms) in light of 18th - 19th protestant sensibilities - particularly Arminian inspired concepts against Lutheran and Calvinist ideas. (Although penal terminology is also used in the translation, possibly reflecting Calvinist rhetoric or at least uncommon Arminian voices such as we see later with John Miley. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

i think your "argument" is not as good as you think it is. Catch phrases like "infinite atonement" are probably your best point (ie "Protestant theology"). While Protestants believe it mighty "convenient" that the BoM answers questions not answered by the NT such as baptism of infants, and the salvation of deceased infants, it is also difficult to claim the BoM adopted Protestant thought on these issues - most "Protestants" kept Catholic baptism of infants - Methodists, Presbyterians, etc

No, that’s really not it at all. Clark’s last post gets it, and it makes sense only if the “translator” is doing what Blake Ostler would call a modern expansion. Of course, that opens the door to all of it being modern. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

We shouldn't be shocked if the translator of the Book of Mormon does the same thing, translating Nephi's writings (that are already highly compressed possibly using ideograms) in light of 18th - 19th protestant sensibilities - particularly Arminian inspired concepts against Lutheran and Calvinist ideas. (Although penal terminology is also used in the translation, possibly reflecting Calvinist rhetoric or at least uncommon Arminian voices such as we see later with John Miley. 

New Divinity, Emmonite in particular.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JarMan said:

I agree with everything here except for the word “late.” I think all theology in the Book of Mormon was in place by the mid-17th Century. 

Could be, but there were plenty of 19th century New Englanders that adopted that mid-17th Century theology.

"Grotius's theory was adopted with only slight modifications by the Arminian theologians of England such as Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), Samuel Clarke (1675-1728), and Richard Watson (1781-1833). It gained a large following in America and in time became characteristic of the New England theology as represented by such men as Charles Chauncy (1705-1787; although he antedated the New England theology, being something of its source), Joseph Bellamy (1719-1790), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), and Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840). Other advocates include Ralph Wardlaw, F. Godet, R. W. Dale, Alfred Cave, John Miley, Robert Shank (Elect in the Son, Life in the Son), and H. Orton Wiley."
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/grotius-and-the-governmental-theory-of-the-atonement/

Nathanael Emmons. He endorsed Ethan Smiths's books. He inspired a whole wave of American missionaries to the aborigines of America and India. He was part Calvinist and part Arminian. 

He was Oliver Cowdery's great-Uncle.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

No, that’s really not it at all. Clark’s last post gets it, and it makes sense only if the “translator” is doing what Blake Ostler would call a modern expansion. Of course, that opens the door to all of it being modern. 

I think Blake meant something different in his old Dialog article. He was more arguing that things like the opening to Alma 11 explaining weights might be the translator explaining things. While as I recall he's open to the loose paraphrase idea of translation I don't think he's spoken on it that I know of. It's been years since I last  read that article so I honestly can't recall what (if any) examples he gave out of ancient Judaism nor whether he put limits anywhere.

The idea is necessary for his theology though since he rejects strong foreknowledge. Any appearance of foreknowledge comes just from very strong knowledge of probabilities or the power to bring something about for Blake. This is part of his Open Theism perspective (also held by David Paulsen and a few others) You can quickly see that this would require dismissal of knowledge of things like crucifixion back in 600 BC and would require those be later editing or expansions by the translator. Again so far as I can recall Blake's never address that in print although I vaguely think he discussed it at my old blog a decade or so ago.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure there is Book of Mormon concept but rather several can be found on the pages including more Canaanite models. The main model though is Alma 40:11 where Alma claims it's a new teaching taught to him by an Angel. This hell is at odds with earlier versions in the text and have the following features.

1. Between death and resurrection (i.e. not final hell - so distinction)

2. Taken home to God

3. Two locations (paradise and darkness -- perhaps following Nephi and Lehi's vision)

That's pretty much remained the Mormon view from what I can tell. The earlier version seems Canaanite inspired by the Mot and Baal saga (see 2 Ne 9) combined with the traditional view of sheol. This view is roughly the mid-eastern view of the underworld as containing people. It's important to note that for Alma hell is no longer the underworld but is in the place of God. For Nephi instead there's volcanic imagery and the idea is Satan as foreign dominator leading people into captivity paralleling the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. Pretty much that never really caught on in Mormonism except for people embracing a protestant Fire and Brimstone model occasionally.

I don't know enough of mesoamerican belief to really have a grasp on how that culture may have changed Nephite belief. I know they had an underworld and a world tree. It's possible Lehi's vision became transfigured via semantic drift due to that context. For mesoamerica I believe the tree or trees simultaneously represented the four directions. Mesoamerica tied death and life together in a fashion quite unlike the ANE. Death enables life. There's a myth of twin hero who were born in the underworld and escape. That's tied to a concept somewhat like resurrection. There are some parallels to the ANE such as the idea of caves as the underworld and the concept of an earth monster somewhat similar to how Mot was both death and a monster. As I said though I'm not qualified in the least to say much about this relative to the Book of Mormon.

I do think the early and middle views of hell may be related though. Lehi and Nephi's visions use Canaanite mythology. Nephi is explicitly brought to a mountain -- either El's house or potentially Yahweh/Baal's similar abode. Near the mountain is this tree of life. You have the people trying to reach the tree of life, which has some similarities to Canaanite and Babylonian temples. Those outside of this paradise are in midsts of darkness and under the control of the devil. Many of these elements can be found in 1 Enoch as well, although those geographical features are usually seen as taken from Canaanite myth.

With Alma's treatment the souls are brought to God, but where God lives isn't defined. It's possible (although indeterminate) that Alma still see's God as El and his house in the mountain. In that case Alma is just accepting Lehi's vision with its location of paradise and hell but merely is adding the resurrection as a new step. That is he's reconciling two apparently contradictory accounts in the early Book of Mormon. Nephi/Lehi's mountain vision and Nephi's doctrine of the resurrection/judgment. It's possible that the two are a Canaanite model and a more Egyptian model that have obvious conflicts if taken literally.

While Mormons roughly hold to Alma's view, the location has been divorced from the Canaanite mythic context. We tend to see the two realms as all over this earth here. Further the divide is not typically seen as spatial rather in terms of authority/power with those of paradise doing missionary work most of the time in hell. That is a reasonable change.

The Book of Mormon hell has nothing to do with Canaanite mythology and everything to do with NT exegesis. See Matthew 25:41, Revelation 22:11 vs 2 Nephi 9:16; 1 Nephi 15:27-29 vs Luke 16:23-26; & Helaman 14:18-19 vs Rev 20:14-15, 21:7-8 for a few examples. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Please explain the Book of Mormon concept of hell that that has been abandoned.

The main difference is that the Book of Mormon describes a binary afterlife of heaven and hell with hell being a place of endless torment. This is, of course, different from the idea that all people (except for a very few) will receive one of three kingdoms of glory. 

2 Nephi 2:27-29 - The idea in these verses is that in the afterlife Satan rules over all those who don’t choose Christ. In modern Mormon teaching, Satan rules only over the Sons of Perdition not those in the Telestial Kingdom. 

2 Nephi 9:26 - Here, ALL those who have not received the law are delivered from hell. Current teaching is that those who lived without the law will choose in the afterlife whether or not to accept the atonement.

Since the Book of Mormon has no premortal existence or saving ordinances for the dead, it’s concept of the plan of salvation is necessarily different than what we have in the D&C. If God was truly revealing the same truths to different peoples, the Book of Mormon hell would look like the D&C hell instead of the NT hell (as modified by later Christian commentators).

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Could be, but there were plenty of 19th century New Englanders that adopted that mid-17th Century theology.

"Grotius's theory was adopted with only slight modifications by the Arminian theologians of England such as Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), Samuel Clarke (1675-1728), and Richard Watson (1781-1833). It gained a large following in America and in time became characteristic of the New England theology as represented by such men as Charles Chauncy (1705-1787; although he antedated the New England theology, being something of its source), Joseph Bellamy (1719-1790), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), and Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840). Other advocates include Ralph Wardlaw, F. Godet, R. W. Dale, Alfred Cave, John Miley, Robert Shank (Elect in the Son, Life in the Son), and H. Orton Wiley."
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/grotius-and-the-governmental-theory-of-the-atonement/

Nathanael Emmons. He endorsed Ethan Smiths's books. He inspired a whole wave of American missionaries to the aborigines of America and India. He was part Calvinist and part Arminian. 

He was Oliver Cowdery's great-Uncle.

 

I’m simply pointing out that the tendency for most who reject the traditional model is to assume a 19th Century model. Given the Skousen/Carmack research I think people ought to at least be open to an Early Modern model if the traditional model doesn’t work for them. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure there is Book of Mormon concept but rather several can be found on the pages including more Canaanite models. The main model though is Alma 40:11 where Alma claims it's a new teaching taught to him by an Angel. This hell is at odds with earlier versions in the text and have the following features.

1. Between death and resurrection (i.e. not final hell - so distinction)

2. Taken home to God

3. Two locations (paradise and darkness -- perhaps following Nephi and Lehi's vision)

Clark, Alma did not use the word "new" in his narrative, and does not indicate when he received his informationthe only thing new (in the Book of Mormon narrative)  I see is that the spirit immediately returns to God then is sent to a type of hell if he or she be wicked or a paradise if the person be righteous. (It does echo a similar concept found in Ecclesiastes, 12:7.) The other things are implicit in the discourse given by Jacob, the brother of Nephi, in 2 Nephi Chapter 9.

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

The main difference is that the Book of Mormon describes a binary afterlife of heaven and hell with hell being a place of endless torment. This is, of course, different from the idea that all people (except for a very few) will receive one of three kingdoms of glory. 

2 Nephi 2:27-29 - The idea in these verses is that in the afterlife Satan rules over all those who don’t choose Christ. In modern Mormon teaching, Satan rules only over the Sons of Perdition not those in the Telestial Kingdom. 

2 Nephi 9:26 - Here, ALL those who have not received the law are delivered from hell. Current teaching is that those who lived without the law will choose in the afterlife whether or not to accept the atonement.

Since the Book of Mormon has no premortal existence or saving ordinances for the dead, it’s concept of the plan of salvation is necessarily different than what we have in the D&C. If God was truly revealing the same truths to different peoples, the Book of Mormon hell would look like the D&C hell instead of the NT hell (as modified by later Christian commentators).

 

Obviously the Book of Mormon hell does not have all of the LDS doctrines that have been restored. That was not its purpose. I do not really see anything that has been abandoned. Clarifications and expansions. if you read all of the Book of Mormon narratives on the subject. Jacob's discourse in 2 Nephi chapter nine as well as Alma 40 move the Book of Mormon context closer to the D&C narrative. We do not know what all of the NT narrative would have been had we more of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The same goes for the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Clark, Alma did not use the word "new" in his narrative, and does not indicate when he received his informationthe only thing new (in the Book of Mormon narrative)  I see is that the spirit immediately returns to God then is sent to a type of hell if he or she be wicked or a paradise if the person be righteous. (It does echo a similar concept found in Ecclesiastes, 12:7.) The other things are implicit in the discourse given by Jacob, the brother of Nephi, in 2 Nephi Chapter 9.

As I mentioned elements definitely go back to Nephi and in particular his vision. However Alma is pretty clear he has new info.

"Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection."

Now to anticipate skeptical charges, a skeptic might say Joseph Smith was merely weighing in on the debate in Protestantism over whether the soul slept and death or was destroyed and recreated. (These didn't arise in Catholicism given that Catholicism held to the idea of saints intervening on behalf of the dead) I tried to find how the various Arminian figures viewed "intermediatism" (the idea that there's an intermediate state and in some cases intermediate judgment) but couldn't find much. Maybe Jarman will chime in as that's his big deal. It does seem the Book of Mormon takes a rather different view though.

There's not consistency in Nephi/Jacob. You have Nephi talking about death as "the sleep of hell" (2 Ne 1:13) although it's not clear if he means that literally or more as a reference to Isaiah 5 (see 2 Ne 15). Jacob likewise uses the imagery in Jacob 3:11 "awake from the slumber of death and lose yourselves from the pains of hell" That one is interesting since he's saying it to people who aren't physically dead but spiritually dead. That is hell is already present.

Jacob 9 is great, although it just says that after we die we'll see God in our bodies. He uses a bit of Mot imagery in 2 Ne 9:10. As I've argued before I think the main source for Nephi's and Jacob's theology is reading the Isaiah passages on captivity and release from exile along multiple contexts. It applies to Babylon but also to the individual in terms of spirituality, to death with resurrection as the freedom (Jacob 9:11-13), and of course to the future. While I'll bring in Egypt and Canaan that's more or less just to explain imagery, rhetoric and structure. The main argument is pretty clearly made in the texts itself by appeal to Isaiah.

Anyway, back to your point, while Jacob has people passing from death to life (15) to be judged and then put in heaven or hell, he doesn't address the period between death and the resurrection. That's what Alma gets that is new. Although you're completely right that even Jacob bifurcates the dead into the masses who are captive in hell and paradise with the spirits of the righteous. (Possibly tied to the broad Canaanite view of royalty or great warriors as dead being treated differently from the masses)

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon hell has nothing to do with Canaanite mythology and everything to do with NT exegesis. See Matthew 25:41, Revelation 22:11 vs 2 Nephi 9:16; 1 Nephi 15:27-29 vs Luke 16:23-26; & Helaman 14:18-19 vs Rev 20:14-15, 21:7-8 for a few examples. 

Are you saying that Lehi's & Nephi's visions have nothing to do with their conceptions of paradise and hell? (The mists of darkness as hell; paradise and the tree of life as heaven) Also you're creating a false dichotomy as if it has to be purely one or the other. I think a critic can argue that the imagery in those visions was lifted by Joseph Smith from Enochian literature with the Enochian literature famously largely appropriating Canaanite mythology. (Bautch A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19 is worth reading for some this) 1 Enoch 77 has the earth divided into three regions. The first is the place where people dwell normally (i.e. this world). The second is a place of waters, deserts, darkness and mist. The third place is a garden of righteousness. There's also seven rivers. Milik reads 77:3 as the great river Okeanos and the Great Deseret. His reading of them as singular rather than plural has been challenged though and Bautch doesn't accept it. The idea is that 1 Enoch 77 & 17-19 follow roughly the same geography. That geography is pretty darn similar to Nephi's and characterizes a preliminary type of hell & heaven. 

The other argument is that the pit of Isaiah 14 & 24 is the prison of the watchers in 1 Enoch. While that's not a general hell, it suggests an exegesis of Isaiah that Nephi easily could have adopted earlier. (While 1 Enoch is late, the typical assumption is that the mythology is much earlier - sometimes dated pre-exilic) Isaiah 24's date we've already discussed - while frequently put as early post-exilic (within the first century after the conquest) others put it pre-exilic even if its final form is likely early in the Persian period. Isaiah 14 usually is dated as 8th century although some date it to the later Isaiah 13.

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

The main difference is that the Book of Mormon describes a binary afterlife of heaven and hell with hell being a place of endless torment. This is, of course, different from the idea that all people (except for a very few) will receive one of three kingdoms of glory. 

2 Nephi 2:27-29 - The idea in these verses is that in the afterlife Satan rules over all those who don’t choose Christ. In modern Mormon teaching, Satan rules only over the Sons of Perdition not those in the Telestial Kingdom. 

2 Nephi 9:26 - Here, ALL those who have not received the law are delivered from hell. Current teaching is that those who lived without the law will choose in the afterlife whether or not to accept the atonement.

As Glenn noted though, we have elements of Alma's later distinction in 2 Nephi 9. That is we have to distinguish between the first death and the period after judgment. Both are called hell but there are important differences. As I said, the conception evolves in the Book of Mormon with Alma 40-41 being an important development. 

I think others have noted the similarity in 2 Ne 9:46 to the Egyptian conception of judgment with memory. Again Egypt is not my thing. 

You're completely right that the degrees of glory aren't clearly taught in the Book of Mormon though. 

 

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Clark, Alma did not use the word "new" in his narrative, and does not indicate when he received his informationthe only thing new (in the Book of Mormon narrative)  I see is that the spirit immediately returns to God then is sent to a type of hell if he or she be wicked or a paradise if the person be righteous. (It does echo a similar concept found in Ecclesiastes, 12:7.) The other things are implicit in the discourse given by Jacob, the brother of Nephi, in 2 Nephi Chapter 9.

Obviously the Book of Mormon hell does not have all of the LDS doctrines that have been restored. That was not its purpose. I do not really see anything that has been abandoned. Clarifications and expansions. if you read all of the Book of Mormon narratives on the subject. Jacob's discourse in 2 Nephi chapter nine as well as Alma 40 move the Book of Mormon context closer to the D&C narrative. We do not know what all of the NT narrative would have been had we more of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The same goes for the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

In the Book of Mormon if you don’t accept Christ you end up in endless torment being ruled by Satan. In the D&C if you don’t accept Christ you end up in a kingdom being watched over by angels (D&C 76:86-89). This is not a “clarification.” This is almost a complete reversal of concepts. In other words the Book of Mormon concept has been abandoned and replaced. There’s just no honest way to reconcile these two views. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I mentioned elements definitely go back to Nephi and in particular his vision. However Alma is pretty clear he has new info.

"Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection."

Now to anticipate skeptical charges, a skeptic might say Joseph Smith was merely weighing in on the debate in Protestantism over whether the soul slept and death or was destroyed and recreated. (These didn't arise in Catholicism given that Catholicism held to the idea of saints intervening on behalf of the dead) I tried to find how the various Arminian figures viewed "intermediatism" (the idea that there's an intermediate state and in some cases intermediate judgment) but couldn't find much. Maybe Jarman will chime in as that's his big deal. It does seem the Book of Mormon takes a rather different view though.

There's not consistency in Nephi/Jacob. You have Nephi talking about death as "the sleep of hell" (2 Ne 1:13) although it's not clear if he means that literally or more as a reference to Isaiah 5 (see 2 Ne 15). Jacob likewise uses the imagery in Jacob 3:11 "awake from the slumber of death and lose yourselves from the pains of hell" That one is interesting since he's saying it to people who aren't physically dead but spiritually dead. That is hell is already present.

Jacob 9 is great, although it just says that after we die we'll see God in our bodies. He uses a bit of Mot imagery in 2 Ne 9:10. As I've argued before I think the main source for Nephi's and Jacob's theology is reading the Isaiah passages on captivity and release from exile along multiple contexts. It applies to Babylon but also to the individual in terms of spirituality, to death with resurrection as the freedom (Jacob 9:11-13), and of course to the future. While I'll bring in Egypt and Canaan that's more or less just to explain imagery, rhetoric and structure. The main argument is pretty clearly made in the texts itself by appeal to Isaiah.

Anyway, back to your point, while Jacob has people passing from death to life (15) to be judged and then put in heaven or hell, he doesn't address the period between death and the resurrection. That's what Alma gets that is new. Although you're completely right that even Jacob bifurcates the dead into the masses who are captive in hell and paradise with the spirits of the righteous. (Possibly tied to the broad Canaanite view of royalty or great warriors as dead being treated differently from the masses)

Are you saying that Lehi's & Nephi's visions have nothing to do with their conceptions of paradise and hell? (The mists of darkness as hell; paradise and the tree of life as heaven) Also you're creating a false dichotomy as if it has to be purely one or the other. I think a critic can argue that the imagery in those visions was lifted by Joseph Smith from Enochian literature with the Enochian literature famously largely appropriating Canaanite mythology. (Bautch A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19 is worth reading for some this) 1 Enoch 77 has the earth divided into three regions. The first is the place where people dwell normally (i.e. this world). The second is a place of waters, deserts, darkness and mist. The third place is a garden of righteousness. There's also seven rivers. Milik reads 77:3 as the great river Okeanos and the Great Deseret. His reading of them as singular rather than plural has been challenged though and Bautch doesn't accept it. The idea is that 1 Enoch 77 & 17-19 follow roughly the same geography. That geography is pretty darn similar to Nephi's and characterizes a preliminary type of hell & heaven. 

The other argument is that the pit of Isaiah 14 & 24 is the prison of the watchers in 1 Enoch. While that's not a general hell, it suggests an exegesis of Isaiah that Nephi easily could have adopted earlier. (While 1 Enoch is late, the typical assumption is that the mythology is much earlier - sometimes dated pre-exilic) Isaiah 24's date we've already discussed - while frequently put as early post-exilic (within the first century after the conquest) others put it pre-exilic even if its final form is likely early in the Persian period. Isaiah 14 usually is dated as 8th century although some date it to the later Isaiah 13.

As Glenn noted though, we have elements of Alma's later distinction in 2 Nephi 9. That is we have to distinguish between the first death and the period after judgment. Both are called hell but there are important differences. As I said, the conception evolves in the Book of Mormon with Alma 40-41 being an important development. 

I think others have noted the similarity in 2 Ne 9:46 to the Egyptian conception of judgment with memory. Again Egypt is not my thing. 

You're completely right that the degrees of glory aren't clearly taught in the Book of Mormon though. 

I think your assessment of 2 Nephi 9 is incorrect. Verses 12 and 13 are clearly talking about a temporary “hell” and a temporary paradise where spirits go to await resurrection and then judgment (verse 15). This is no different than Alma 40-41. 

Link to comment
On 7/14/2018 at 1:08 PM, cinepro said:

The problem is that believers and critics alike aren't required to support any theory.  It's not a competition where all the theories are lined up and whichever is best must be believed (and certainly, I agree that if we allow for God's intervention and can attribute anything we want to that intervention, then the theories involving God are far stronger).

No, the other option is that we just don't know where it came from.  In which case, the rational thing to do is withhold firm belief in any single theory (including the Divine Theory of Translation) until a theory is formulated that can't be falsified (meaning, it satisfactorily explains all the data without resorting to ad-hoc reasoning and special pleading).

 

Cinepro,

Thank you for the response!

You say“The problem is that believers and critics alike aren't required to support any theory.  It's not a competition where all the theories are lined up and whichever is best must be believed (and certainly, I agree that if we allow for God's intervention and can attribute anything we want to that intervention, then the theories involving God are far stronger).

I think this is all believers myself included should be looking for.

You seem to say there are no theories that answer all the questions without some “ad-hoc” justifications.  The “God was involved theory” is better than any other theories.  From this place it would seem that following the path encouraged by the church is a good choice for those so inclined.  AND for those who have followed the path and received an answer to prayer concerning the divinity of the Church embracing this answer would be a very rational choice. 

I see things a little differently than you.  I can see how “God did it” can become a mindless statement to justify anything.  But the church claims a number of things including “God did it.”  AND including the BOM is an ancient book that describes the visit of a Jewish man to the “new world” thousands of miles from where this ancient Jew was killed and resurrected.  “Ancient things” present in the text not only align with “God did it” but also align with the claims made by the book and those who purportedly received it from God.  If the BOM is fertile ground for the finding of connections to the ancient world this aligns with what the church claims.  Sometimes the connections are so strong critics feel compelled to postulate rare maps and access to other material. 

Your “ad-hoc” criticism is precisely why I consider the Book of Abraham production combined with the extant papyri to be a significant problem for LDS truth claims.  Maybe there was other papyri, maybe the “translation” was symbolic.  Maybe the papyri were just catalysts.  It is all “ad-hoc.”

But, I don’t see the BOM evidences as purely “ad-hoc.”  Instead I consider the rare responses to these evidences to be purely “ad-hoc.”  Such and such was in Josephus.  That map is at Dartmouth.  Yes, it is cement, yes it is in presence of deforestation and lots of water, but the author of the BOM didn’t know that the production of the cement caused the deforestation so therefore it is not evidence. 

Anyway, I do not think the CoJCoLDS has ever said folks should become and stay LDS because the BOM is historical and thus comes from God.  The CoJCoLDS says pray to know if it is from God.  It is the critics of the CoJCoLDS that say the BOM is obviously not from God because of these problems so disbelieve in what you thought were answers to prayers and come follow me.

Charity, TOm 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Anyway, I do not think the CoJCoLDS has ever said folks should become and stay LDS because the BOM is historical and thus comes from God.  The CoJCoLDS says pray to know if it is from God.  It is the critics of the CoJCoLDS that say the BOM is obviously not from God because of these problems so disbelieve in what you thought were answers to prayers and come follow me.

 

Charity, TOm 

 

The church has always taught an historical book of mormon. It has always taught that Christ actually came to the americas and taught the people here. It never taught that Christ's coming to the americas was merely figurative. This should be owned and not discounted just because there are good questions as the truth of the historicity claim.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, JarMan said:

In the Book of Mormon if you don’t accept Christ you end up in endless torment being ruled by Satan. In the D&C if you don’t accept Christ you end up in a kingdom being watched over by angels (D&C 76:86-89). This is not a “clarification.” This is almost a complete reversal of concepts. In other words the Book of Mormon concept has been abandoned and replaced. There’s just no honest way to reconcile these two views. 

Oh, I do see a way to honestly, not to reconcile the two views, but to clarify the two views. I believe that Alma 41:4-5 is more than binary. It shows people coming being resurrected to differing states.

 

Quote

Alma 41:

4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

The Doctrine and Covenants clarifies that the the Kingdom of God is composed of three Kingdoms of glory one of which which all but those who have desired to do evil all the day long will inherit, according to his or her desires for happiness and his or her desires to do good. And the final hell will be inherited by those who have desired to do evil all the day long will become sons of perdition "for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Chris" as noted in 3 Nephi, 29:7.

Glenn

Link to comment
14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Anyway, back to your point, while Jacob has people passing from death to life (15) to be judged and then put in heaven or hell, he doesn't address the period between death and the resurrection. That's what Alma gets that is new. Although you're completely right that even Jacob bifurcates the dead into the masses who are captive in hell and paradise with the spirits of the righteous. (Possibly tied to the broad Canaanite view of royalty or great warriors as dead being treated differently from the masses)

I missed your point. A waiting period between death and resurrection is implicit in Nephi 9, but the state of the the spirits is not addressed explicitly or implicitly.

Glenn

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Oh, I do see a way to honestly, not to reconcile the two views, but to clarify the two views. I believe that Alma 41:4-5 is more than binary. It shows people coming being resurrected to differing states.

 

The Doctrine and Covenants clarifies that the the Kingdom of God is composed of three Kingdoms of glory one of which which all but those who have desired to do evil all the day long will inherit, according to his or her desires for happiness and his or her desires to do good. And the final hell will be inherited by those who have desired to do evil all the day long will become sons of perdition "for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Chris" as noted in 3 Nephi, 29:7.

Glenn

It seems pretty obvious that the book of mormon condemned the universalist rhetoric of Nehor and Alma's son Corianton. In the book of mormon, not everyone was going to be saved or merely beaten with a few stripes and then saved as Nephi condemned. Along with the rest of christianity at the time, mormons believed in the heaven and hell scheme. With the "vision" as it was called, now the church embraced universalist thinking, e.g., practically everyone was saved somehow from endless torment. It was the opposite. They would now suffer a little and then would be saved into a kingdom of glory instead of having to suffer in hell for eternity. A lot of people left the church because of the move in the opposite direction. 

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It seems pretty obvious that the book of mormon condemned the universalist rhetoric of Nehor and Alma's son Corianton. In the book of mormon, not everyone was going to be saved or merely beaten with a few stripes and then saved as Nephi condemned. Along with the rest of christianity at the time, mormons believed in the heaven and hell scheme. With the "vision" as it was called, now the church embraced universalist thinking, e.g., practically everyone was saved somehow from endless torment. It was the opposite. They would now suffer a little and then would be saved into a kingdom of glory instead of having to suffer in hell for eternity. A lot of people left the church because of the move in the opposite direction. 

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng

On what is obvious about the Book of Mormon and Universalist rhetoric.

Quote

For example, consider Dan Vogel’s effort to treat the Book of Mormon in light of “Anti-Universalist Rhetoric” (pp. 21-52). Of all the things Dan Vogel could have selected to mention about my response to a previous book, he selects only one point of mine to criticize (this time, at least)—a point I confess I made rather weakly, regarding his identification of Corianton as a Universalist. At the time I had made no background reading in Universalism, but was skeptical of Vogel’s certitude and grounds for such an identification as a comprehensive explanation. Vogel builds his entire article for New Approaches on an identity between contemporary debates about Universalism and the Book of Mormon. Having recently done some reading about Universalism, I now better understand the grounds for his identification, but remain skeptical with respect to the comprehensive explanation.

In my previous review, I noted that Vogel is highly selective, partial to closed-system comparisons, and that he tends to resolve textual and historical ambiguity towards whatever appears to discredit the Book of Mormon.153 Dan Peterson154 and Grant Underwood155 have observed the same tendencies in their responses to his other works.

It seems a good strategy to deal with Vogel by moving to open up the historical comparisons (in this case to biblical precedents) and to note certain oddities in the Book of Mormon text that other research has brought to light and that present problems for his argument.

The key points in Vogel’s comparison of anti-Universalist rhetoric with the Book of Mormon involve the contemporary parallels to various of Alma’s teachings to Corianton, and parallels to the stories about Nehor and his followers. Indeed, nearly contemporary with the translation of the Book of Mormon, the big buzz within Universalist circles came to be called “The Restorationist Controversy.” Consider the following points in judging the significance of Vogel’s parallels.

Universalism was not a phenomenon confined to Joseph Smith’s time. Vogel does notify the reader that the notion of universal salvation has had a long history, and that some of the key figures in the modern movement based their teachings in part on writings they found in Origen and 1 Clement (both of whom spent a lot of their days in the library).156 The Universalists and their critics were biblically oriented people who debated Bible issues in a vernacular heavily influenced by Bible language. Bible language is, in turn, heavily formulaic, with authors widely separated in time freely quoting and paraphrasing each other. The Bible is, among other things, a history of people saying the kinds of things people say, and doing the kinds of things people do. Because of this, even after thousands of years, even across many cultural gaps, we find many of the stories comprehensible and relevant.

For example, in introducing the reader to rhetorical criticism, Vogel quotes Leland Griffen on the “crystallization of fundamental issues . . . [and] a time, very likely, when invention runs dry, when both aggressor and defendant rhetoricians tend to repeat their stock of argument and appeal” (pp. 22-23). Nibley’s essays on the Sophic and Mantic should serve as powerful notice of just how far back certain stock arguments can go and how constant they can remain.157

Vogel cites “Nephi’s characterization of a latter-day group with the motto, “eat, drink, and be merry’ (p. 29) as typical anti-Universalist rhetoric,” and in this case Vogel includes references to 1 Kings 4:20; Ecclesiastes 8:15; Isaiah 22:13; Luke 12:19; and 1 Corinthians 15:32. The attitude is an ancient one (I believe it appears in Gilgamesh),158 but Vogel nevertheless wants us to see it as a distinctive feature of Universalists as perceived by their opponents during Joseph Smith’s time.

Vogel reminds us that even the earliest Latter-day Saint commentaries on the Book of Mormon called Nehor a Universalist, “likening” what they saw to themselves. Yet nothing that Nehor does in the Book of Mormon would seem unusual to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, all of whom vent considerable anger against rival teachers, particularly those who preached for profit.

I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of the evildoers that none doth return from his wickedness. . . .

They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. (Jeremiah 23:14, 17; cf. Isaiah 1; Jeremiah 7:8-9; 11:8; 18:8-12, 20; 21:8, 14; Ezekiel 7:3; 11:21; 13:22; 18:21-32).

Likewise, little or nothing in Corianton’s arguments and behavior seems out of place in his immediate Hebrew heritage. The story of Eli’s sons reported in 1 Samuel 2:22-25 provides a good example.

Vogel cites the Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-30 in comparison to Corianton’s Isabel (p. 37 n. 14). This is because Dan Peterson, in his “Notes on Gadianton Masonry,” had speculated on connections between the name Isabel and the Jezebel in 1 Kings.159 The urge to compare Alma’s Isabel to the Jezebel in Revelation, rather than the one in 1 Kings, does show Vogel’s preference for even the appearance of an anachronistic borrowing, even when a viable alternative exists. Notice that Vogel bypasses comment on my citation of Nibley’s observation that “Isabel was the name of the Patroness of Harlots in the religion of the Phoenicians.”160 Nibley’s suggestion has implications for the issue of whether “Universalist” provides a comprehensive and coherent label for Corianton, or whether he fits an ancient context better. Corianton’s public apostasy and his participation in the sexual rites of a pagan cult would involve a system of beliefs and practices that diverges dramatically from Universalism. Also recall Sorenson’s observation that Mesoamerica “contained a religious system comparable in important ways to that of the Canaanites. The religious ideals and behavior transmitted by the continuing Mesoamerican population would resonate with the naturalistic, Baalist elements in the minds and lives of the less faithful in Lehi’s and Mulek’s groups.”161

In denouncing Corianton’s involvement, Alma uses the term “abominable” in a manner entirely consistent with Jeremiah 2:7-8, 4:1, 8:12, and Ezekiel 16, where the Old World prophets fought against the Baalist practices.

Vogel says that the Book of Mormon argument (2 Nephi 2) that “fear of punishment is a motive for obedience to both civil and divine law . . . makes the same point that one Methodist made in 1820” (p. 33). This point, of course, is also very ancient and very biblical. Deuteronomy says, “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing if you obey the commandments . . . and a curse if ye will not obey” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28). Vogel’s point about whether the Lord would save people in their sins or from their sins (pp. 34-35) likewise involves prevalent biblical themes (Jeremiah 7:5-15, 21:14; Ezekiel 18, 33).

In response to my doubt that Universalism was behind Corianton’s concern about foreknowledge of Christ’s coming162 and his worry about the resurrection, Vogel remarks ambiguously that “Universalists were heterodox in their theology” and “Many Universalists in Joseph Smith’s day were also Unitarians” (p. 37 n. 15). Actually, Cassera’s Universalism in America quotes Abner Kneeland in 1833 as saying that “Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead.”163

Vogel’s most imposing parallels involve the nineteenth-century arguments about restoration, given that Alma lectures Corianton at length on the same topic. Nevertheless, Alma’s teachings about “restoration” recall biblical themes and fit comfortably with the Old World background (Exodus 21:23-24; Deuteronomy 11:26-28; Jeremiah 2:19; 17:10; Ezekiel 18:21-30).164 Vogel’s Universalists focused on a restitution passage in Acts 3:21 (p. 40), but the Acts passage parallels Isaiah 1:26, which does use the word “restore.”

Alma’s emphasis on restoration is not only biblical, but also consistent with the reports of the Life Review (or Encounter with Deeds) reported in near-death experiences throughout history.165 One of the early Universalist teachers in England (Dr. George de Benneville 1703-1793, born to French Huguenot parents) based some of his ideas on what a modern researcher would immediately call a near-death account.166 However, neither the Universalists nor their critics (other than Mormons) cared to resolve the issues by referring to a contemporary revelation (as Alma does). Impressed and challenged by the Deist thinkers, the dominant Universalist teachers based their arguments on Reason.167

Vogel’s main argument requires that we see Alma as using anti-Universalist rhetoric against Corianton in relation to the main anti-Universalist issue regarding the endless duration of future punishment for mortal sin. Yet, Alma’s own teachings plainly affirm the notion of temporally limited punishment. Alma’s own “eternal torment” (Mosiah 27:29) in an “everlasting burning” (Mosiah 27:28), when encircled about by the “everlasting chains of death,” lasted for three days (Alma 36:16, 18).168 Likewise, Zeezrom experiences “the pains of hell” (Alma 14:6) for a limited time.

Vogel claims that the Book of Mormon argues for a doctrine of endless duration since punishment is “as eternal as the life of the soul” (Alma 42:16; p. 44). Yet this passage can be understood as referring to the existence of just punishment and blessing through eternity, rather than the infinite and endless application of such.

Vogel cites Book of Mormon references (pp. 36, 45) that indicate the wicked “shall go away into everlasting fire . . . and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end” (2 Nephi 9:16).169 Vogel quotes Hosea Ballou’s Universalist argument against traditional interpretations to the effect that “the never ending fire was “a state of great trouble of mind, in consequence of conscientious guilt’ ” (p. 45). Vogel fails to observe that Alma agrees and makes it very clear that the imagery symbolizes the torment that comes from a personal sense of guilt (Alma 12:14-15; 36:17; also Jacob 6:9; Mosiah 3:25).

Ironically, Vogel pits Alma against Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797), the leader of the “Restorationist” faction of Universalism, who opposed Murray’s radical Universalism (p. 42). But rather than being anti-Universalist, Alma’s teachings seem more consistent with Winchester’s restorationist position. Some parallels should be natural because both Alma and Winchester draw on biblical precedents. Additionally, Winchester had been influenced by Benneville’s near-death vision, which again would tend to supply certain parallels to Alma.

The lens provided by Vogel’s anti-Universalist context creates the misreadings here. At the beginning of his essay, Vogel had claimed that he would “discuss the Book of Mormon in its nineteenth century context without necessarily making conclusions about its historicity” (p. 21). Further, he reasoned that the “question of the Book of Mormon’s historicity becomes secondary when the rhetorical critic seeks to understand the book’s message to its first readers” (ibid.). However, by neglecting the ancient context and the biblical backgrounds, Vogel draws unjustified conclusions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Because he has not examined the ancient context, he has no grounds for demonstrating that his data are significant, and he can provide no comparison to show that his paradigm is better. By forcing the text into the context of the nineteenth-century anti-Universalist debate, he frequently misreads the message, and undercuts the significance of the text for modern readers.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Exiled said:

The church has always taught an historical book of mormon. It has always taught that Christ actually came to the americas and taught the people here. It never taught that Christ's coming to the americas was merely figurative. This should be owned and not discounted just because there are good questions as the truth of the historicity claim.

I hope you read my entire post, but I don’t think you understood my point.

I am not saying the BOM is not historical, I believe it is.  There are problems with the simplistic views of the BOM as a historical document in the way that the Federalists Papers are historical documents.  But, Cinepro said, The problem is that believers and critics alike aren't required to support any theory.  It's not a competition where all the theories are lined up and whichever is best must be believed (and certainly, I agree that if we allow for God's intervention and can attribute anything we want to that intervention, then the theories involving God are far stronger).

It is my position that the Church does not invite people to believe in the BOM because of the evidence many educated LDS (and a small number of educated non-LDS) find witnesses to its historical nature.  The Church instead invites people to pray to know if the BOM is from God (Not even if the BOM is historical).  This prayer is a very Biblical way of approaching truth and in many cases the results of these prayers can re-orient the worldview of those who doubt there is a God sufficiently to forever leave that atheist/agnostic idea behind.

Instead, critics of the church claim that one should recognize that the BOM is obviously not a historical book.  That there is NOTHING to the “God did it” hypothesis.  AND then those without testimonies must not pray to know and those with testimonies must dismiss these experiences as unreliable.  The critics claim the only rational response is to not believe the BOM came from God.

As a LDS, I do not need the BOM to be an obviously historical book.  I really do not expect God to produced evidence of Christ’s resurrection and 2000+ mile instantaneous journey to the New World that must be accepted by all scholars and rational people.  I merely suggest that there is enough evidence that the BOM is an ancient book and “God did it” that it is reasonable, intelligent, rational, … for LDS to continue to believe.  AND that it is reasonable, intelligent, rational, … for non-LDS who consider praying to know if the BOM is from God to in fact pray to know if it is from God.

This thread has pointed to a number of reasons I think the BOM is more likely to be a historical book AND more likely to be a historical book that came from God than not.  But, all the church needs from the efforts of folks like Brant Gardner or Daniel Peterson is a BOM that reasonably could have come from God.  I am an engineer.  I approached nuclear reactor issues and I approach microelectronics issues with study and reason.  I personally find great value in approaching the BOM in ways based on subjective evidence that all rational folks can weigh and measure.  I joined in my mid-20’s and became serious about KNOWING in my late 20’s.  I find the BOM emerges as a complex book that didn’t source solely from any 19th century human and very very probably didn’t source from any solely non-supernatural means.  From here I think praying to know is a reasoned response.

Charity, TOm

 

Edited by TOmNossor
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...