Jump to content

JarMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

373 Excellent

About JarMan

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,619 profile views
  1. It looks like they have updated the section on surgical sterilization since I last read it and moved their position closer to the general position on birth control. But still, they "discourage" it. Why? How is it even any of their business? And why would a member think they need the opinion of a church leader on this subject in the first place?
  2. The problem is that every time the church takes a position on something controversial it ends up being divisive. Why not stay out of the fray and instead counsel people to act like grownups and make their own decisions?
  3. I just can’t make the connection between people’s private medical decisions and their church leaders. Why doesn’t the church adopt the stance they have on birth control?-which is essentially that adults ought to make their own decisions on such matters.
  4. The inspired fiction model exists for the same reason people believe the Genesis flood is allegory. The observable evidence just does not match the story, yet people feel compelled for various reasons to retain their faith anyway. The flood is sometimes discussed as literal, sometimes local, and sometimes allegorically in my experience in the church. I strongly suspect the historicity of the Book of Mormon Is following a similar digression and will eventually be abandoned as being historical by all but a few on the fundamentalist fringe. Despite the good efforts of apologists there’s just way
  5. I’ve never understood why the handbook needs to address things like surgical sterilization or (now) vaccinations. What do these have to do with the operation of the church?
  6. The 17th Century author who incorporated many elements of Roman warfare into the Book of Mormon had access to the Zosimus manuscript (one apparently existed in Paris at the time) and also incorporated elements of it into his writing.
  7. The whole idea of the restoration is that doctrines from the early church were lost or purged and then restored in modern times. The OP listed several: "work for the dead, three degrees of glory, LDS temple rites, pre-existence, theosis, differing priesthoods, embodied Father, church hierarchical structure". I take the view that the doctrine in the Book of Mormon is consistent with a coherent early modern doctrinal outlook--mainstream Protestantism, for the most part, but with some exceptions. The non-trinitarian and anti-paedo baptism outlooks are two of the most obvious. The Arminian soterio
  8. What I'm getting at is that we don't need to accept something in the Book of Mormon as new solely because it's unorthodox or heretical to mainstream Christianity--as long as there are clear pre-cursors that could have been drawn upon. I'm not familiar with the argument regarding the Corpus Hermeticum and the Book of Mormon. Could you point me to some information?
  9. If you mean nothing's been published on this yet, stay tuned. Much of the work has been done. Some of it has been discussed on this forum. Historical criticism can't tell us a lot about whether the Book of Mormon has roots in pre-Columbian America because there is so little written record. For instance, we can't know if the Maya or their contemporaries burned people at the stake for heresy. This seems to be a peculiarly Christian practice with roots in medieval Eurasia, so it unlikely. But we can't be sure. We certainly can't know what specific heresies people may have been burned for, as
  10. Canonization is more or less a formal indication something has been accepted as divinely inspired. There are people who accept the book of Enoch and the Dee/Kelley work as divinely inspired. I don't know if these people think of these works as "canon" or not, but I'm not sure it matters for the purposes of this discussion. We are partially in agreement, then.
  11. I'm not making a legal argument. I'm using the historical-critical method to determine when the Book of Mormon was written and by whom. We start with a doctrine that is rare in Christianity--I'll call it modalism, though this is an oversimplification. In historical criticism we need to find where and when in history this doctrine was taught. Servetus is one instance and Swedenborg is another. There are others. But, for now, let's just consider Swedenbourg vs Servetus as the influence for modalism in the Book of Mormon. Servetus is clearly the better option as I'll explain. Servetus' ideas are
  12. There is extensive evidence the Book of Mormon has an early modern origin. Much of it has been discussed on this board. The Servetus/Abinadi connection is just one of many lines.
  13. Yes, it's heretical to traditional Christian doctrine but that's beside the point. The description of the godhead in the Book of Mormon has a clear fore-runner with Servetus. Consider this description of Servetus' teachings compared to what we find in Ether 3: 1 Nephi 11:11 fits with Servetus' view as well: My view is that the early modern author of the Book of Mormon (who was familiar with Servetus' works, by the way) adopted Servetus' views on this matter and incorporated them into the Book of Mormon along with Servetus' basic biographical sketch in the character of Abinadi.
  14. I don't think 1 Nephi 11:11 teaches a Holy Spirit with a human-like body. I think it shows that the Holy Spirit can take the form of a human in order to converse with a human, but that this is not it's "normal" form. I also agree there are places where the Book of Mormon doesn't support the traditional view of the trinity. This is most evident in Abinadi's words and in Ether, as you have pointed out. However, the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent with the views of the martyr Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for heresy in 1553. (I've discussed on here before the many simi
  15. You keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding to this: "The whole idea that God can give us more scripture than he did in the 66 books of the Bible is new." Well, no, it's not new. These men claimed to receive words from an angel relating to the creation and the end times and temples and gods. This certainly qualifies as "more scripture." The Book of Enoch is another example of "more scripture" which you claim was new with the Book of Mormon. The idea of "more scripture" is an old idea, not a new one. You're losing sight of what this discussion is supposed to be about. The issu
×
×
  • Create New...