Historicity Of The Bom

[altersteve]

Actually this is not true at all. The point is that Mormons believe that some things GA's say are directly from God, and that sometimes they are just speaking on their own accord. For non-LDS, it becomes one of trying to understand how LDS discern truth from untruth. How do you know when the GA is speaking the truth and when he is not? Furthermore, does everyone in the church understand how to discern truth from untruth?

This question has already been answered: by the Spirit.

[why me]

Not only anti's, but most members do as well, thus giving more credit to the anti's position.

Not really. But it is a problem in most religions. Not just the lds. But what antis do is go back over a hundred years to root out a quotation of BY or JS to prove that they were not men of god or prophets. So, every word that they both said that may put them in a poor light is brought up to cast doubt. And yet, most of what we have of them both are only second hand accounts of what they said. Not at all reliable. And that is the point too. I know of no church that this happens to. The lutheran church is never disproved by critics by bringing up from the dead what Martin Luther said. And he said some whoppers. The lds church stands alone in all this.

[Jesterss]

This question has already been answered: by the Spirit.

But we also know that the weak can be deceived.

[Jesterss]

The lds church stands alone in all this.

You only feel this way because its all you know. The catholic church takes a pretty big hit as well and always has. Jehovahs Witnesses do. Seventh Day Adventists do. Even christians as a whole take heat from atheists..

[altersteve]

But we also know that the weak can be deceived.

If you have the Holy Ghost with you and seek constantly for His comfort and guidance, you are not weak.

[volgadon]

But we also know that the weak can be deceived.

This argument could certainly be used against you.

[Calm]

The lds church stands alone in all this.

People are always bringing up the Inquisition or Luther's antisemitism or the Jews crucifying Christ, etc from what I've seen.

[Calm]

The lds church stands alone in all this.

People are always bringing up the Inquisition or Luther's antisemitism or the Jews crucifying Christ, etc from what I've seen.

[Craig Paxton]

No, I am trying to get through to the "problem" of "the church" changing what it teaches. You continue to return to individuals. There was a difference and there is a difference (even if you repeat it 6 times or more).

Let's take an example. Suppose we poll physicists prior to the proof of Einsteins theory of relativity. I would guess that they all accepted a Newtonian universe. They were wrong. I am sure that it took a while for some to be persuaded, even after the "proof" was available (they could show an effect predicted by the theory and otherwise unaccounted for).

What do we say about that situation? Did physicists change their mind? Of course. Is that a problem. I hope not. Did that have any relevance for an church to which they might have belonged? No. The "church" had to deal with the nature of the world long before and wasn't altered in this case at all. Was the LDS church changed or did it change its opinions? No, it had no teachings on physics before or after. Were there LDS physicist and did they change their mind? Assuredly.

There is a difference between what individuals believe and what is proclaimed as doctrine for the church. I do agree that there are teaching trends that change. I have seen lots of them. That is still different.

That is the last time I will repeat that particular issue. It should be sufficient by now.

Bunk. I am allowing them the ability to learn new things and understand things differently on the basis of new evidence. That is quite different from declaring binding doctrine on the church. It always has been. You are conflating the LDS situation with concepts of inerrantism that we never espouse.

So did the physicists prior to Einstein.

Please review anything I have written and try to find me saying anything contrary to this. I don't disagree that what GA's say is influential. That is pretty normal for any organization that is hierarchical (government, schools, etc.). The fact of influence does not equal a concept of inerrantism or binding doctrine. It is a statistical correlation between what they say and what people believe. Joseph Fielding Smith was enormously influential in his ideas on the creation of the world, in spite of being of a very different opinion than Talmage and Widstoe. Nevertheless, his opinions reached more people and had more influence. In spite of the fact that there was a popular opinion of what "the church" taught concerning evolution, there was a very clear (and less well known) official position that there was no official position.

If you want to see the very important difference between official and individual pronouncements, you might do well to investigate that period of time and the way in which ideas were promulgated. As I have been saying, history is against you.

Wait, are you really changing your topic again? If General Authorities have disagreed and said so, then you understand that there was no monolithic opinion, ergo, no official position. If the only thing you have to say is that church members are affected by what GA's taught, you might have said so. That is a tautology. Are you really saying that it is requisite that GA's all know all knowledge before it is discovered so that they never say anything that will ever be contradicted? Really?

Brant the whole reason we took this little fork in the road was because you disapproved of my claim that the church has changed is position on Book of Mormon geography…we then got into a long back and forth discussion…parsing words and semantics over the meaning of the word church. IF I had merely changed the reference point in my original statement from “The Church has changed” to “church authorities have changed”…we would have never had this fun little journey down this sidetrack. You seem to see the Church as some official body separate and distinct from those who run it…I do not. To me, the church IS its general authorities, among other things as well…but they are certainly central to the church being the church. They are the policy makers, the decision makers, the doctrine makers. They are the man behind the curtin, pulling the levers, blowing the smoke and sounding the whistle. Were LDS GA’s to disappear…so would the church…they are one and the same. You can’t have one without the other.

The problem with your analogy is that there is no single organization of physicists representing "The one true physics". And there is no central governing body of physicist that speak for all physicists They are a varied body of independent scientist with varying positions and understanding of physics.

Mormonism on the other hand proclaims itself as the one true church. It is represented by men who claim to speak with God and for God on earth for that church. They are the embodiment of the church. Without them the church doesn’t exist.

I’ve used the word semantics often during this discussion to your frustration because I believe it goes to the central argument.

I’m going to throw you a bone and say that “The Church” holds NO position on Book of Mormon geography…meaning that to the best of my knowledge there has never been an official declaration made on First Presidency letter head stating exactly where the stories of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place. There happy?

BUT… General Authorities have certainly never been shy about teaching or preaching their particular theories on Book of Mormon Geography. Do they speak for the church? Does Spencer W. Kimball as president of the church speak for the church? I’m guessing that you don’t think so…while I believe he does. We’ll have to agree to disagree

Edited October 11, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jesterss]

This argument could certainly be used against you.

Most certainly, just as Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Humans are weak.

[altersteve]

Most certainly, just as Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Humans are weak.

So if you admit you're weak, then how can you know that you're not deceived?

[Pahoran]

Brant the whole reason we took this little fork in the road was because you disapproved of my claim that the church has changed is position on Book of Mormon geography

For the entirely sufficient reason that the Church has never had a "position on Book of Mormon geography" so as to change it.

…we then got into a long back and forth discussion…parsing words and semantics over the meaning of the word church. IF I had merely changed the reference point in my original statement from “The Church has changed” to “church authorities have changed”…we would have never had this fun little journey down this sidetrack. You seem to see the Church as some official body separate and distinct from those who run it…I do not. To me, the church IS its general authorities, among other things as well…but they are certainly central to the church being the church. They are the policy makers, the decision makers, the doctrine makers. They are the man behind the curtin, pulling the levers, blowing the smoke and sounding the whistle.

Try to be more cynical about them, Craig.

Oh wait; you can't.

Greater cynicism than that is not actually possible.

Were LDS GA’s to disappear…so would the church…they are one and the same. You can’t have one without the other.

Which is almost true as far as it goes, but ultimately irrelevant. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

If all the soldiers disappeared, there wouldn't be an army; but no one soldier can speak for the whole army.

And the Church and its leaders are not "one and the same." That conclusion is false.

And if I only wanted to defend Elder Holland, I would simply compare him to the opinionated nobodies who attack him. That simple comparison is all the defence he could possibly need.

Now I think I've read enough rants for one day.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Craig Paxton]

For the entirely sufficient reason that the Church has never had a "position on Book of Mormon geography" so as to change it.

Try to be more cynical about them, Craig.

Oh wait; you can't.

Greater cynicism than that is not actually possible.

Which is almost true as far as it goes, but ultimately irrelevant. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

If all the soldiers disappeared, there wouldn't be an army; but no one soldier can speak for the whole army.

And the Church and its leaders are not "one and the same." That conclusion is false.

And if I only wanted to defend Elder Holland, I would simply compare him to the opinionated nobodies who attack him. That simple comparison is all the defence he could possibly need.

Now I think I've read enough rants for one day.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh Brother....and I thought we were becoming such great friends...

[Robert F. Smith]

You want to defend Holland …be my guest….

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water. Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come.

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

Despite such counsel, however, the Jaredite civilization steadily degenerated into a violent society which forced a man to keep “the hilt of his sword in his right hand” (Ether 14:2)—until finally he “ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow.” (Ether 15:26.)

But even as the last light flickered on Jaredite civilization, a bold new sun rose to illuminate a thousand years of Nephite-Lamanite experience on the same soil. Despite periods of war and rebellion, these people nevertheless had great moments of power and purity, including the personal ministry of the resurrected Christ, who walked and talked and prayed with these New World inhabitants for three indescribable days. There in the meridian of time the land enjoyed three generations of peace and perfection, which it would not know again until the Master’s millennial reign.

There is so much that is just plain wrong with Holland’ pronouncements and his timeline of events.

Claim #1: A universal flood that "cleansed the entire earth? Didn't happen.

Claim #2: That flood waters receded off the face of "this" land (inferring America) leaving it uninhabited. Didn't happen

Claim #3: That America was somehow preserved...kept apart from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. Didn't happen (in fact it was the indiscriminate traveler that first populated the Americas)

Claim #4: That there was some cataclysmic event that caused the” the very surface of the earth [to be] rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. Didn’t happen. Mind you there is continental shift that has been ongoing for millions of years…but there was no, has never been a catastrophic event of the nature described by Holland that caused ocean waters to rush in between newly formed continants.

Claim #5:That the Americas were somehow “Set Apart” “without habitation” particularly after some imaginary universal flood cleansed the Americas from habitation. Didn’t happen

Claim #6: The Jaradite came first? Didn’t happen

The picture that Holland is painting is of an American continant that was swept free of life following a universal flood which was then FIRST populated by Jaradites then by Nephite/Lamanites. The only other people in the America's during the timeline that Holland is describing were the original aboriginal American inhabitants...who first came 10,000 -12,000 years before Hollands imaginary flood and 6,000 - 8,000 years before the imaginary Adam and Eve...but according to Holland they were all killed off by that universal flood to leave America uninhabited.

Craig Paxton said:

I completely agree with almost every point you've made here....however I do believe that it was the prevailing views taught. In this thread I have shown now three GA's Kimball, McConkie and now Holland (who was not a GA at the time of this article)...who taught this line of thinking. They were completely and utterly wrong. Fair enough, they are men...I cut them some slack...The passasge of time has demonstrated that they did not have any special or a more reliable source of information than any other human...in fact, I think they were actually hampered by their religious views which misled them with false information. They have not demonstrated that they have no more insight into reality than any other human and may have actually been impared with a false dicotomy due to the influence of their religious beliefs.

I particularly like your line that "even as the last light flickered on Jaredite civilization, a bold new sun rose to illuminate a thousand years of Nephite-Lamanite experience on the same soil." Almost poetic, Craig, and it captures the irony intended by the final editor of the Book of Mormon.

Can't share your flawed interpretation though. Quoting scripture is one thing. Interpreting it is quite another. You and others are certainly entitled to read continental meaning into the citations you have given, and many do. Some prefer a worldwide flood. Others a regional or local cataclysmic downpour. Some would seek to find a figurative meaning.

The same applies to reading "land" to mean "continent," while others understand it as local or regional. Indeed, it is not clear which particular "promised land" is being spoken of in the prophecies -- a Mesoamerican one, or a much wider concept -- and we all tend to speculate with gusto. You certainly do.

Keep in mind that flawed premises lead inexorably to flawed conclusions.

The truth may surprise all of us.

[why me]

People are always bringing up the Inquisition or Luther's antisemitism or the Jews crucifying Christ, etc from what I've seen.

I don't know who those people are. However, the internet forums about mormonism are full of quotations by General Authorities from the past to disprove the LDS church because it is believed that all that a GA says, mormons believe that it comes from god. No one claims the same for luther or for the inquisition. Most believe that luther was a great reformist who wasn't perfect and the inquisition was just an event in history. Compare that to MMM where critics try to disprove the lds church because of it by trying to prove that BY was behind it.

Edited October 12, 2011 by why me

[why me]

You only feel this way because its all you know. The catholic church takes a pretty big hit as well and always has. Jehovahs Witnesses do. Seventh Day Adventists do. Even christians as a whole take heat from atheists..

I don't think that the catholic church takes a big hit at all. No catholic that I am aware of leaves the catholilc church over history. Some may leave over the priest scandal or other issues. But not over history or what this pope said or that pope. But in lds apologetics, it is constantly being brought up: look what BY said! Look what this GA said! My gosh, we have quotations galore from the critics. The lds GAs can not be human, just perfected human beings who always say the right thing. And this is why if I were a GA I would put a lot of cotton in my mouth to stop me from talking and I would weigh every word in my sentences if I were writing. But if I must think 10 years ahead as to what the critics would pull out of my talk, well, I just may sit on my hands too.

And I certainly would not be commenting on the historicity of the book of mormon.

Edited October 12, 2011 by why me

[bu11fr0g]

The problem comes in when general authorities are viewed as infallible by saints or even by themselves. BRM was very dogmatic about many issues, but still did not view himself such that he couldn't be wrong (or that he "had a limited understanding"). It is interesting comparing the way he viewed his statements about blacks and the priesthood to the way that others viewed his statements.

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.["

Edited October 12, 2011 by bu11fr0g

[KevinG]

I think it is very rare that a Mormon leaves the Mormon church over its history. Usually there are other underlying issues taht test hte persons faith. Historical factoids aren't usually problematic until faith falters in other ways. (And no- I'm not talking about personal sins - so don't overreact!)

[SeattleGrunge]

I think it is very rare that a Mormon leaves the Mormon church over its history. Usually there are other underlying issues taht test hte persons faith. Historical factoids aren't usually problematic until faith falters in other ways. (And no- I'm not talking about personal sins - so don't overreact!)

DaddyG,

I'm confused about your statement. I've never heard anyone say that before. People usually say one or the other. Could you elaborate?

Thanks

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know who those people are. However, the internet forums about mormonism are full of quotations by General Authorities from the past to disprove the LDS church because it is believed that all that a GA says, mormons believe that it comes from god. No one claims the same for luther or for the inquisition. Most believe that luther was a great reformist who wasn't perfect and the inquisition was just an event in history. Compare that to MMM where critics try to disprove the lds church because of it by trying to prove that BY was behind it.

why me said:

I don't think that the catholic church takes a big hit at all. No catholic that I am aware of leaves the catholilc church over history. Some may leave over the priest scandal or other issues. But not over history or what this pope said or that pope. But in lds apologetics, it is constantly being brought up: look what BY said! Look what this GA said! My gosh, we have quotations galore from the critics. The lds GAs can not be human, just perfected human beings who always say the right thing. And this is why if I were a GA I would put a lot of cotton in my mouth to stop me from talking and I would weigh every word in my sentences if I were writing. But if I must think 10 years ahead as to what the critics would pull out of my talk, well, I just may sit on my hands too.

And I certainly would not be commenting on the historicity of the book of mormon.

If you are suggesting that many believers in particular religions are superficial in their understanding of a particular religion, then you might be onto something. If, on the other hand, you are singling out the Mormons for harsh special treatment, then that raises a strong question about your own commitment to simple fairness. To make demands of one side which are not made of the other is a huge mistake, and if done deliberately is clearcut hypocrisy. Perhaps you are merely being ironic and sarcastic.

It has not been at all uncommon for people to attack the religions of others, and we saw that just the other day with megachurch pastor Jeffress' comments on the religion of Mitt Romney along with additional views on others:

Jeffress on Sunday, Oct 9, 2011:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/watch-perry-endorser-jeffress-calls-judaism-catholicism-path-hell

"Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions and I stand by those statements."

-- from Jeffress' 2010 Politically Incorrect Lecture:

"God sends good people to Hell. Not only do religions like Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism—not only do they lead people away from from God, they lead people to an eternity of separation from God in Hell. You know Jesus was very clear: Hell is not only going to be populated by murderers, and drug dealers, and child dealers; Hell is going to be filled with good religious people who have rejected the truth of Christ."

And from his 2010 Pathway to Victory speech re Catholicism:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/robert-jeffress

Jeffress: This is the Babylonian mystery religion that spread like a cult throughout the entire world. The high priests of that fake religion, that false religion, the high priests of that religion would wear crowns that resemble the heads of fish, that was in order to worship the fish god Dagon, and on those crowns were written the words, 'Keeper of the Bridge,' the bridge between Satan and man. That phrase 'Keeper of the Bridge,' the Roman equivalent of it is Pontifex Maximus. It was a title that was first carried by the Caesars and then the Emperors and finally by the Bishop of the Rome, Pontifex Maximus, the Keeper of the Bridge.

You can see where we're going with this. It is that Babylonian mystery religion that infected the early church, one of the churches it infected was the church of Pergamos, which is one of the recipients of the Book of Revelation. And the early church was corrupted by this Babylonian mystery religion, and today the Roman Catholic Church is the result of that corruption.

Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn't come from God's Word, it comes from that cult-like, pagan religion. Now you say, 'pastor how can you say such a thing? That is such an indictment of the Catholic Church. After all the Catholic Church talks about God and the Bible and Jesus and the Blood of Christ and Salvation.'

Isn't that the genius of Satan? If you want to counterfeit a dollar bill, you don't do it with purple paper and red ink, you're not going to fool anybody with that. But if you want to counterfeit money, what you do is make it look closely related to the real thing as possible.

And that's what Satan does with counterfeit religion. He uses, he steals, he appropriates all of the symbols of true biblical Christianity, and he changes it just enough in order to cause people to miss eternal life.

-----------------------------------------------

So much for Jeffress. The same sort of intemperate comments by others have been made attacking Luther, Calvin, etc. In the case of the Southern Baptist Convention, one has to ask why they once interpreted the Bible to mean that slavery was A O.K., and that fighting a horrible Civil War to defend such a monstrous practice was a duty?! Only those who live under a rock are unaware of such matters.

[why me]

If you are suggesting that many believers in particular religions are superficial in their understanding of a particular religion, then you might be onto something. If, on the other hand, you are singling out the Mormons for harsh special treatment, then that raises a strong question about your own commitment to simple fairness. To make demands of one side which are not made of the other is a huge mistake, and if done deliberately is clearcut hypocrisy. Perhaps you are merely being ironic and sarcastic.

I have not seen catholics or protestants leave their faith over history. I don't think that history is all that important for them. However, mormon history is constantly being brought up by critics to disprove the lds church. And that was my point. Mormons do leave over history. Why? I have no idea. I would assume however that some mormons may wish to view mormon history as something that should be perfect. And when they discover when it isn't, they become disillusioned. The amount of energy that antimormons spend in attempting to get mormons to leave their faith is huge. And they do succeed...just need to look at antimormon boards. Full of people who left the lds church over trivial matters such as quotations and history. The goal of antimormon boards is to cast doubt in the faith of the lds. I see no so many attempts with the mainstream religions.

[Jesterss]

I have not seen catholics or protestants leave their faith over history. I don't think that history is all that important for them. However, mormon history is constantly being brought up by critics to disprove the lds church. And that was my point. Mormons do leave over history. Why? I have no idea. I would assume however that some mormons may wish to view mormon history as something that should be perfect. And when they discover when it isn't, they become disillusioned. The amount of energy that antimormons spend in attempting to get mormons to leave their faith is huge. And they do succeed...just need to look at antimormon boards. Full of people who left the lds church over trivial matters such as quotations and history. The goal of antimormon boards is to cast doubt in the faith of the lds. I see no so many attempts with the mainstream religions.

So do you agree with the biblical history that Peter was the first Saint of the catholic church as the catholics claim? I don't. Therefore, due to their history, I don't agree with their statements.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

I'm confused about your statement. I've never heard anyone say that before. People usually say one or the other. Could you elaborate?

Thanks

Being a full time Saint is hard work. It is a burden at times. Sometimes it is easier to let someone prove you wrong than to commit to ongoing endurance.

One good friend of mine was pulling all of the weight in her family when it came to church activity. She used to post on apologitics sites and came to me for research when she got stumped. There wasn't a topic we couldn't discuss. She finally got to the point where she was fed up defending something that wasn't giving her return support. At that point it was easy to convince her that the church wasn't what is claimed to be.

Her family circumstance incluenced her willingness to continue shelving her doubts. In my frequent discussions on line and in the meat world I find many Saints who falter because of family dysfunction. None of these are personal sins on the part of those who fall away. They all have reasons other than a historical question, but the question is the catalyst that finally gives them the excuse they need to leave the struggle.

In this sense we create our own apostates by not living up to our covenants to love and care for our brethren and sisters.

IMO There are very, very few people who upon experiencing the gospel as it should lived leave because of historical problems alone.

[altersteve]

So do you agree with the biblical history that Peter was the first Saint of the catholic church as the catholics claim? I don't. Therefore, due to their history, I don't agree with their statements.

Peter was the first President of the Church. Catholics believe that he was the first Pope.

[Jesterss]

Peter was the first President of the Church. Catholics believe that he was the first Pope.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your name in my quote. Please stop trying to pick and grab every statement of mine and trying to answer on behalf of others, because your answer, although it may be accurate, does not address the question with his stance. Thank you.