The Keystone of Our Religion

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, snowflake said:

In Mormonism, Jesus is to be viewed as an example......a spiritual brother.......he is not worshiped, adored, prayed to...God in Flesh as the other Christian sects see him. 

It is true that we don’t pray to the Savior.  We instead follow His example in Matthew 6:9 and pray to the Father.  In the Book of Mormon the Savior commanded the Nephites, “Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name,” (3 Nephi 18:19).  That is why in every meeting in the church members open and close the meeting with a prayer to the Father in the name of the Son.  

You characterization of members of the church, their beliefs, and their faith in the Savior are untrue and seem unfair.  This may be what you see, but may I please gently remind you about what the Savior said about motes and beams.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Missing from the BOM, church presidency, quorum of the seventy, bishopric, no bishops, no stakes, no branches, no wards, no area presidency, polygamy is forbidden, no baptism for the dead.......should I go on? Are these the "fullness of the everlasting gospel"? 

You seem to be confusing church organization with the gospel.  The gospel is the “good news” that Christ rose from the dead and of His atoning sacrifice for us.  Church organization is a support for the gospel and may change according to the circumstances of the people.

As for polygamy and baptism, all principles relating to the gospel have no been in operation in all dispensations.  All principles which support the gospel are not contained in the Book of Mormon, but the message of the Saviors atonement (the gospel) is.  

Your criticism of the Book of Mormon does not seem to be informed by what the book itself says its purpose is, “Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations”

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by ksfisher

[snowflake]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You seem to be confusing church organization with the gospel.  The gospel is the “good news” that Christ rose from the dead and of His atoning sacrifice for us.  Church organization is a support for the gospel and may change according to the circumstances of the people.

As for polygamy and baptism, all principles relating to the gospel have no been in operation in all dispensations.  All principles which support the gospel are not contained in the Book of Mormon, but the message of the Saviors atonement (the gospel) is.  

Your criticism of the Book of Mormon does not seem to be informed by what the book itself says its purpose is, “Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations”

 

I'm not sure why you would need the BOM then....all of the good news is contained in the Bible.....there is very little of the words of Jesus in the BOM.... and most of that was taken from the gospels. 

As I posted before non much of your church's organization is contained in the BOM...or am i missing it somewhere? 

[snowflake]

51 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It is true that we don’t pray to the Savior.  We instead follow His example in Matthew 6:9 and pray to the Father.  In the Book of Mormon the Savior commanded the Nephites, “Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name,” (3 Nephi 18:19).  That is why in every meeting in the church members open and close the meeting with a prayer to the Father in the name of the Son.  

You characterization of members of the church, their beliefs, and their faith in the Savior are untrue and seem unfair.  This may be what you see, but may I please gently remind you about what the Savior said about motes and beams.

Not sure why you wouldn't pray to Jesus.....his apostles in the BOM prayed directly unto him as Lord and God.....almost all Christian sects except the COJCOLDS recognize Jesus as Lord and God. 

3 Nephi 19:13 And it came to pass when they were all baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
3 Nephi 19:14 And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.
3 Nephi 19:15 And it came to pass that while the angels were ministering unto the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in the midst and ministered unto them.
3 Nephi 19:16 And it came to pass that he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth.
3 Nephi 19:17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.
3 Nephi 19:18 And behold, they began to pray; and *they did pray unto Jesus*, calling him their Lord and their God.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

Not sure why you wouldn't pray to Jesus.....his apostles in the BOM prayed directly unto him as Lord and God.....almost all Christian sects except the COJCOLDS recognize Jesus as Lord and God. 

3 Nephi 19:13 And it came to pass when they were all baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
3 Nephi 19:14 And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.
3 Nephi 19:15 And it came to pass that while the angels were ministering unto the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in the midst and ministered unto them.
3 Nephi 19:16 And it came to pass that he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth.
3 Nephi 19:17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.
3 Nephi 19:18 And behold, they began to pray; and *they did pray unto Jesus*, calling him their Lord and their God.

Good find, but I'll bet there's an answer, there always is.

[snowflake]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Those are not the fulness of the everlasting gospel, and there are more such things yet to be revealed and restored. They are "appendages"* that can be traced to that which is uniquely set forth in the Book of Mormon as the "fullness of the everlasting gospel."

*“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (Joseph Smith)

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants..." (Joseph Smith) Some might construe that last phrase as a limitation as to what the Savior taught the Nephites, but we can't have much more of a fulness than His personal declaration of His Good News, doctrine and acts that were given them. Concerning the latter, all manner of organization, practices, sealing power, etc. can be seen in those pages and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

All revelation is useless without the "fullness of the everlasting gospel," which to me culminates in charity.

Maybe you could help point me to exactly what is the "fullness of the everlasting gospel".....is there a definition of what specifically this is.....I'm afraid i might be missing what you are trying to tell me (sorry). 

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good find, but I'll bet there's an answer, there always is.

So true!

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, snowflake said:

 

As I posted before non much of your church's organization is contained in the BOM...or am i missing it somewhere? 

Is anyone expecting it to be?

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Among the plethora of claims about truth and the ultimate nature of reality, we always come back to the same elemental question:  How can we know what we know?  Revelation is merely one among many answers to the question about correct epistemology.  We also have science, math, logic, intuition, etc., as competitors in that scramble for the prize -- and revelation is not highly regarded among the most sophisticated thinkers.  So why would revelation be the keystone for anything but a kind of anomalous pentecostal cult?  Why would that not simply be a delusion?  The entire discussion need go no further.

The reason why the Book of Mormon is the keystone, without which all else (including revelation) crumbles, is that it cannot possibly be true.  The entire miraculous account of the coming forth of the BofM (just like the miracles in the Bible) is preposterous and absurd.  Indeed, so absurd that it boggles the mind.  One can dismiss it without even bothering to read it.

The problem is that the Book of Mormon text itself is its own best witness.  Unlike the Bible, however, which we know came down from antiquity, with all manner of miraculous and mythological claims (which can likewise be disregarded), the BofM came to us so recently and so miraculously that it cannot possibly tell any sort of true story about ancient times.  Thus, when we find in the BofM stories of ancient civilizations which can be verified archeologically, we are left with the need to accept the impossible (Arthur Conan Doyle), and the ultimate basis for the impossible (revelation).  Once one has demonstrated that the Bayesian notion of preponderance of evidence leading to truth (statistically likely truth), we are then left with a Bible which is supported by the Book of Mormon, a reversal which should also not be possible.  That is why it is the keystone.  Se my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , 

The LDS religion is orthopractical and hard-edged as a fully naturalistic account of everything, including God -- whose intimate and imminent relationship to us all makes ours an entirely humanistic religion.  Even revelation itself tends then to be a naturalistic mode of communication, which any of us may learn and employ on a regular basis for everything from monitoring the safety of our children to understanding the deep things of God.

On the point of revelation, I have to agree with Carborendom.  I was wrong to try and place revelation in the keystone position, because its rightful place belongs in our foundation.  "Upon this rock I will build my church..."

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be diluting revelation to the level of a delusion worthy only of some anomalous pentecostal cult, and elevating archaeological evidence for the BoM as a greater source of spiritual epistemology.  If I am misunderstanding you, please clarify - because the BoM itself came about only because of revelation and its truthfullness, as the book attests, can only be through divine revelation.  It's own pages implore us to ask God if it is not true, and only through the spirit of revelation can these things be truly known.  That is our missionary message - not archeological evidence.   Revelation does not crumble without the Book of Mormon - on the contrary, revelation is the foundation of the Book of Mormon and the source of our spiritual epistemological leanings towards the book. I would say that The Book of Mormon crumbles without revelation - not the other way around.

Edited June 12, 2019 by pogi

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Missing from the BOM, church presidency, quorum of the seventy, bishopric, no bishops, no stakes, no branches, no wards, no area presidency, polygamy is forbidden, no baptism for the dead.......should I go on? Are these the "fullness of the everlasting gospel"? 

The BOM records the teachings of prophets over a period of hundreds of years.  Yet temple marriage and forever families are not even mentioned once.  There is no mention of the three degrees of glory. 

Were the Nephites taught about these things?  What was it like to be a member of the church at this time?  Were they able to be sealed to their families?  If so, I would think this would have at least been mentioned in the writings of the prophets of the day.

[Burnside]

50 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

The BOM records the teachings of prophets over a period of hundreds of years.  Yet temple marriage and forever families are not even mentioned once.  There is no mention of the three degrees of glory. 

Were the Nephites taught about these things?  What was it like to be a member of the church at this time?  Were they able to be sealed to their families?  If so, I would think this would have at least been mentioned in the writings of the prophets of the day.

Duh!

 

5 Now, whether there shall be one time, or a ^asecond time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not; for God ^bknoweth all these things; and it sufficeth me to know that this is the case—that there is a time appointed that all shall rise from the dead.

[Burnside]

54 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

The BOM records the teachings of prophets over a period of hundreds of years.  Yet temple marriage and forever families are not even mentioned once.  There is no mention of the three degrees of glory. 

Were the Nephites taught about these things?  What was it like to be a member of the church at this time?  Were they able to be sealed to their families?  If so, I would think this would have at least been mentioned in the writings of the prophets of the day.

Family / Temple / Sealing

12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great ^ajoy; wherefore, I began to be ^bdesirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was ^cdesirable above all other fruit.

 

7 Behold, I give unto you ^apower, that whatsoever ye shall ^bsealon earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

8 And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done.

 

 

[Oliblish]

16 minutes ago, Burnside said:

Duh!

 

5 Now, whether there shall be one time, or a ^asecond time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not; for God ^bknoweth all these things; and it sufficeth me to know that this is the case—that there is a time appointed that all shall rise from the dead.

The Book of Mormon does state that all will be resurrected.  And it doesn't matter if they are all resurrected at the same time or different times.

9 minutes ago, Burnside said:

Family / Temple / Sealing

12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great ^ajoy; wherefore, I began to be ^bdesirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was ^cdesirable above all other fruit.

7 Behold, I give unto you ^apower, that whatsoever ye shall ^bsealon earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

8 And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done.

Yes, the Book of Mormon mentions families, temples and the word "seal".  But it does not talk about eternal families or temple marriage.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Maybe you could help point me to exactly what is the "fullness of the everlasting gospel".....is there a definition of what specifically this is.....I'm afraid i might be missing what you are trying to tell me (sorry). 

As defined by Moroni, it is the teachings of Jesus to the Nephites, both in His personal post-resurrection visits and in the revelations He gave the prophets before and after these visits, as recorded in the Book of Mormon and which is to go forth into the world by way of the Gentiles.

3 Nephi 16 tells about the Book of Mormon (verses 4 and 7), which is described as the fulness of the gospel, and what will happen if the Gentiles reject it (verses 10-13).

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

The Book of Mormon does state that all will be resurrected.  And it doesn't matter if they are all resurrected at the same time or different times.

Yes, the Book of Mormon mentions families, temples and the word "seal".  But it does not talk about eternal families or temple marriage.

Doesn't have to. These do not constitute the fulness, but are appendages to the fulness. The fulness of the gospel is what gives rise to these blessings, and gives them any validity or merit.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

On the point of revelation, I have to agree with Carborendom.  I was wrong to try and place revelation in the keystone position, because its rightful place belongs in our foundation.  "Upon this rock I will build my church..."

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be diluting revelation to the level of a delusion worthy only of some anomalous pentecostal cult, and elevating archaeological evidence for the BoM as a greater source of spiritual epistemology.  If I am misunderstanding you, please clarify - because the BoM itself came about only because of revelation and its truthfullness, as the book attests, can only be through divine revelation.  It's own pages implore us to ask God if it is not true, and only through the spirit of revelation can these things be truly known.  That is our missionary message - not archeological evidence.   Revelation does not crumble without the Book of Mormon - on the contrary, revelation is the foundation of the Book of Mormon and the source of our spiritual epistemological leanings towards the book. I would say that The Book of Mormon crumbles without revelation - not the other way around.

Revelation crumbles without the fulness of the gospel, which the Book of Mormon contains.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Revelation crumbles without the fulness of the gospel, which the Book of Mormon contains.

I respectfully disagree that revelation crumbles without the BoM.  Revelation has existed in every dispensation from the beginning of time, with or without the fullness.  It existed even when there was no priesthood on the earth (Joseph Smith).  The fullness of the gospel can only be revealed to man.  Without revelation, there is no Book of Mormon - its very words are the revelations of God.  Its modern day discovery and translation are the result of revelation.  There literally is no BoM without revelation, yet we see revelation where the Book of Mormon has not existed ,and where the fullness was not yet revealed.    Everything is dependent upon revelation, not the other way around.  

Edited June 12, 2019 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

On the point of revelation, I have to agree with Carborendom.  I was wrong to try and place revelation in the keystone position, because its rightful place belongs in our foundation.  "Upon this rock I will build my church..."

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be diluting revelation to the level of a delusion worthy only of some anomalous pentecostal cult, and elevating archaeological evidence for the BoM as a greater source of spiritual epistemology.  If I am misunderstanding you, please clarify - because the BoM itself came about only because of revelation and its truthfullness, as the book attests, can only be through divine revelation.  It's own pages implore us to ask God if it is not true, and only through the spirit of revelation can these things be truly known.  That is our missionary message - not archeological evidence.   Revelation does not crumble without the Book of Mormon - on the contrary, revelation is the foundation of the Book of Mormon and the source of our spiritual epistemological leanings towards the book. I would say that The Book of Mormon crumbles without revelation - not the other way around.

There is a very good reason why Pentecostalism (with the big P) is so mistrusted in both mainstream and evangelical Christianity, Pogi.  Regular Christianity does not trust revelation, and they do not accept any of its tenets.  Hey, put your faith in revelation, and the next thing you know they've got rattlesnake handling on the Sunday program.  Dependence on the Holy Spirit is simply too dangerous.  LDS missionaries regularly encounter this "buyer's resistance."  All assertions must comport with the Holy Word of God in the Bible (sola scriptura).

We also live in a very secular society, Pogi, and you must certainly be aware of the continuing profound effects of the Enlightenment.  There also, revelation is given short-shrift.  Why? Simply because revelation is not scientifically reproducible and verifiable in the laboratory.  Another key problem for your keystone is that it is not falsifiable, and that is death to any assertion about reality.  Philosophers of science are not going to let that go by.  They might allow the experimental method in Alma 32, but that is really only a personal method which cannot be extrapolated to other realms of inquiry.  Same for Moroni 10 or James 1:5.  Testimonies are not transferrable.

I am not dismissing the LDS faith as an anomalous pentecostal cult, nor am I relegating revelation to the category of delusion.  That is what both scientists and christians are doing, and it will become more and more evident in Western society as the years roll on.  Getting Western converts is already becoming progressively more difficult.  That is secularization hard at work, good buddy.  

The LDS ace-in-the-hole is the Book of Mormon.  First.  Only secondarily do we ask them to pray about it and let the Holy Spirit guide.

However, for those who are overwhelmed by polemic denialism, a good archeological defense has value that it does not have for the Bible -- whose unprovable miracles are an obvious obstacle.  For, as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

Quote

I believe much of the vindication that will come to the Prophet and to this work of the Restoration will come by scholars who are committed to the Kingdom, who are unequivocally devoted to it.  Maxwell, Interpreter, 7 (2013):xiii.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Oliblish said:

The BOM records the teachings of prophets over a period of hundreds of years.  Yet temple marriage and forever families are not even mentioned once.  There is no mention of the three degrees of glory. 

Were the Nephites taught about these things?  What was it like to be a member of the church at this time?  Were they able to be sealed to their families?  If so, I would think this would have at least been mentioned in the writings of the prophets of the day.

Try looking not for modern slogans but the ideas behind them.

Quote

And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them. (4 Neph 1:11)

Which promises?  The notable thing about 3 Nephi 8-29 is the Temple setting, and that both implies and demonstrates temple promises.  3 Nephi contains rather more than just repetition of the Sermon on the Mount, but extends into a post-resurrection discourse. 

See Welch here on the Temple:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/illuminating-the-sermon-at-the-temple-sermon-on-the-mount/

And see Nibley on comparisons to the Old World 40 Accounts not contained in the Bible:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=21

And not everything said was written down, nor do we have everything that was written down.  Just an abridgement.  And it it important, when considering the notion of the Book of Mormon restoring certain "plain and precious things" not contained in the Bible, that there is more examine than just the Book of Mormon.  Barker on the Secret Tradition:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

She begins by observing that " There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to only a few of his followers."

All of this is worth a look and a ponder, I think.  It's important that the LDS do lot let our self-concept be "colonized", that is, taken from those surface characteristics chosen that mark us as "other," as not like our critics, whether secular or various Christians.  Rather, we ought to think in terms of our personal covenants, and the setting in which they are made and with whom we make them. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 12, 2019 by Kevin Christensen
style

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a very good reason why Pentecostalism (with the big P) is so mistrusted in both mainstream and evangelical Christianity, Pogi.  Regular Christianity does not trust revelation, and they do not accept any of its tenets.  Hey, put your faith in revelation, and the next thing you know they've got rattlesnake handling on the Sunday program.  Dependence on the Holy Spirit is simply too dangerous.  LDS missionaries regularly encounter this "buyer's resistance."  All assertions must comport with the Holy Word of God in the Bible (sola scriptura).

We also live in a very secular society, Pogi, and you must certainly be aware of the continuing profound effects of the Enlightenment.  There also, revelation is given short-shrift.  Why? Simply because revelation is not scientifically reproducible and verifiable in the laboratory.  Another key problem for your keystone is that it is not falsifiable, and that is death to any assertion about reality.  Philosophers of science are not going to let that go by.  They might allow the experimental method in Alma 32, but that is really only a personal method which cannot be extrapolated to other realms of inquiry.  Same for Moroni 10 or James 1:5.  Testimonies are not transferrable.

I am not dismissing the LDS faith as an anomalous pentecostal cult, nor am I relegating revelation to the category of delusion.  That is what both scientists and christians are doing, and it will become more and more evident in Western society as the years roll on.  Getting Western converts is already becoming progressively more difficult.  That is secularization hard at work, good buddy.  

The LDS ace-in-the-hole is the Book of Mormon.  First.  Only secondarily do we ask them to pray about it and let the Holy Spirit guide.

However, for those who are overwhelmed by polemic denialism, a good archeological defense has value that it does not have for the Bible -- whose unprovable miracles are an obvious obstacle.  For, as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

 

Thanks for clarifying.  You are taking this from an outside-of-the-faith perspective - that makes more sense.  I recognize that the outside esteems revelation less than we do on the inside, but lets be honest, they don't really esteem the Book of Mormon either, despite the evidence.  So, I don't know if our keystone should be based on outside perspectives.  

Quote

The LDS ace-in-the-hole is the Book of Mormon.  First.  Only secondarily do we ask them to pray about it and let the Holy Spirit guide.

I guess I see it differently.  That is not how I approached my mission anyway, nor how I approach conversion today.  I never talked about evidence for the historicity of the BoM on my mission.  Not once.  I ALWAYS asked how they felt when they read it and prayed about it.  I have never met someone who has converted based primarily on archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.   Prayer was always my ace in the hole, and the only means of true conversion to the gospel.  An intellectual conversion can never match the power of a spiritual conversion.  For me, the Book of Mormon has always been supporting evidence - another testament, but my primary evidence has always been personal revelation. 

The Book of Mormon is nothing more than a book of revelation.  Without revelation it is worthless paper and ink.

Quote

In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

- Elder Christofferson

Even given the Book of Mormon, we depend upon revelation for its correct interpretation.  We are not the only sect who believes in it after all.  Revelation is key.  It is the foundation of everything. 

[Carborendum]

On 6/10/2019 at 1:59 PM, hope_for_things said:

However, the fields of science are clearly not in support of this view.  The scientific community in any subject, archaeology, history, anthropology, linguistics, DNA, you name it, none of them would agree with any assertions that science supports any claims for historicity for the BoM.  

This is a misleading statement.  There are many things that support.  But most will discount them because of assumptions about the BoM.

Other areas seem to point at discounting the historicity, when in reality it is merely inconclusive.  You cite DNA for example.  The DNA tests merely point out what is dominant and what has survived.  But a small nation among many in the Americas would have dilluted any Jewish DNA over thousands of years.  There are many reasons to believe that even from the start, the Lehite DNA was dilluted within just a few generations.  And there is further reason to believe that the Mulekite DNA was dilluted even more so. 

Mitochondrial DNA statistics have shown that very few (in comparison to the likely total) ancient mothers' DNA has survived.  This doesn't mean non of the other mothers never existed.  It just isn't found in the DNA anymore.  Similar things could be said of Y-chromosomal DNA.

So, that "evidence" that seems to prove the BoM historicity false is really an inconclusive test.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is a misleading statement.  There are many things that support.  But most will discount them because of assumptions about the BoM.

Other areas seem to point at discounting the historicity, when in reality it is merely inconclusive.  You cite DNA for example.  The DNA tests merely point out what is dominant and what has survived.  But a small nation among many in the Americas would have dilluted any Jewish DNA over thousands of years.  There are many reasons to believe that even from the start, the Lehite DNA was dilluted within just a few generations.  And there is further reason to believe that the Mulekite DNA was dilluted even more so. 

Mitochondrial DNA statistics have shown that very few (in comparison to the likely total) ancient mothers' DNA has survived.  This doesn't mean non of the other mothers never existed.  It just isn't found in the DNA anymore.  Similar things could be said of Y-chromosomal DNA.

So, that "evidence" that seems to prove the BoM historicity false is really an inconclusive test.

Find me one idea that apologists put forward as evidence for historicity that is accepted and supported by the broader scientific community on any subject.  Just one.  I would love to see it.  

[Kevin Christensen]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Find me one idea that apologists put forward as evidence for historicity that is accepted and supported by the broader scientific community on any subject.  Just one.  I would love to see it.  

How about this?

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/4-ways-the-new-maya-discoveries-may-relate-to-the-book-of-mormon

It's also important to be a bit reflective on what goes on to define scientific communities, and what we ought to reasonably expect from different communities. 

Quote

Paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but with some of the directions essential for map-making. In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria for determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions.

We're not playing the same game by the same rules.  There are overlaps and intersections, but the overall paradigm involves different sets of rules and concerns and questions and problem fields.  In the secular world, angels and books are against the rules and out of the question.

One of the main lessons I have learned from reading Coe's occasional comments over the years is that we cannot expect them be as authoritative on the Book of Mormon as they are within their specialties, that if there is anything plausible or remarkable, they would be the ones to tell us for sure.  For instance, with Dehlin, he claimed that a lack of brass helmets and iron arrowheads disproved the Book of Mormon, despite neither of them appearing in the text.  Coe claimed that since the Great Mother is important in Mesoamerica, and that the Hebrews were strict monotheists, that the contrast obviously discredited the Book of Mormon.  To me it demonstrated that Coe has not read Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, or Dever's Did God Have a Wife? or Daniel Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah."   And there is much more.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I respectfully disagree that revelation crumbles without the BoM.  Revelation has existed in every dispensation from the beginning of time, with or without the fullness.  It existed even when there was no priesthood on the earth (Joseph Smith).  The fullness of the gospel can only be revealed to man.  Without revelation, there is no Book of Mormon - its very words are the revelations of God.  Its modern day discovery and translation are the result of revelation.  There literally is no BoM without revelation, yet we see revelation where the Book of Mormon has not existed ,and where the fullness was not yet revealed.    Everything is dependent upon revelation, not the other way around.  

I said that revelation crumbles without the fulness of the gospel, or the most correct path. Revelation in every dispensation required the principles taught by Christ that are found in the Book of Mormon. This fulness is how Christ is able to approach dispensation heads, and how dispensation heads exercise the requisite faith in Him to obtain revelation and lead dispensations (religions) with the keys. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion in this dispensation because it contains the very same fulness of the gospel. So everything (including revelation) is dependent upon the fulness of the gospel, not the other way around.

Plus, if you consider the Book of Mormon to be a revelation of the fulness of the gospel, then it certainly crumbles without it!

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

I'm not sure why you would need the BOM then....all of the good news is contained in the Bible.....there is very little of the words of Jesus in the BOM.... and most of that was taken from the gospels. 

As I posted before non much of your church's organization is contained in the BOM...or am i missing it somewhere? 

Bwahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh wait, you are serious?

The Book of Mormon is almost embarrassingly thick with the words and teachings of Christ and his name is plastered all over it in excess of anything Paul ever did and most of it was not taken from the gospels. Other then the modified Sermon on the Mount and Jesus giving them portions of Malachi it is not a copy. Have you read the book? If not, I highly recommend.