Historicity Of The Bom

[Calm]

Although it may not be direct history, D&C 87 was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith about a war breaking out starting with South Carolina, and including ALL nations.. That never happened. Therefore, a false prophecy..

http://en.fairmormon...ecies/Civil_War

While I posted it as a response to your comment, it appears you are aware of it. I will leave it so that people can reference what is said themselves.

I don't see the FAIR response or the scripture/revelation as claiming that the Civil War was the cause of the wars that followed it; instead it is a reference to timing: "2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place"..."war", not "the Civil War" or even "the war".

You referencing the Balkan wars actually supports this position in that they are evidence of the continual nature of national and international wars taking place from that time.

BG is Brant Gardner who has a new book out on the translation method Joseph used.

PS: if you wish to respond, please take it to another thread as I should have and am too lazy now to do.

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jesterss]

Also: Just read a little more on their position that war seemed to increase, but that's also not true, if you count all the wars and battles with the Indians, War was actually more prevalent before the Civil War, but that's my opinion and it depends on what you consider a full on war.

[Nathair/|\]

I'm not familiar with who BG is, sorry, I'm a newbie here, but I found this subject and found it quite interesting, especially when someone made the assumption that nobody has a congruent disposition to the mormon faith, when there are a ton out there..

FairMormon try's their hand at making statements or counter arguments to anti-mormon statements but it doesn't take into affect someones actual position or argument back against their statements. Since I don't know BG I'll focus my answer on the prophecy part. Because I'm familiar with the fair mormon defense on this.

Joseph Smith prophecied that a war would break out starting in the southern state of south carolina and raising up the south against the north. Then it goes on to say how it would involve all nations. So the FairMormon belief is that the prophecy wasn't just regarding the civil war but the wars to follow? (in order to make the prophecy about all nations be correct)

That's ridiculous to even state. First off, it had to be about the civil war if you're even going to make the war even justified as a correct prophecy. Starting with South Carolina? Ok that was the civil war, but we know that ALL nations were not involved in the civil war.. fairmormon says thats what started the world wars but we know that's also not true. the civil war had nothing to do with the onset of the world wars, in fact, the united states had nothing to do with it, and didnt even join in until well after he had been going on. World War 1 was started due to conflicts in europe and hunger and territory and the balkan wars.... what's the history lesson to counter this? facts are facts.

BG is Brant Gardner, who is mentioned in the thread subtitle. As far as the other issue, it would be best to start another thread rather than try to derail this one, so we'll just say that a careful reading of what the Lord actually said should clear up the problem. I'd be happy to discuss the subject further if you wish to start a thread.

[Jesterss]

BG is Brant Gardner, who is mentioned in the thread subtitle. As far as the other issue, it would be best to start another thread rather than try to derail this one, so we'll just say that a careful reading of what the Lord actually said should clear up the problem. I'd be happy to discuss the subject further if you wish to start a thread.

ahh thank you, yeah I didn't realize these had subtitles, my apologies, I see it now.. and that sounds like a good idea, I wasn't sure if it was still relevant or not..

[Jaybear]

Not to mention that there is, in my honest opinion, no reasonable alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon. See Dr. Peterson here: "In the Hope That Something Will Stick": Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon

The fact is, the falsehood of the Book of Mormon has no more been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all serious observers than has its truth. ...

If I ever have a moment of doubt, I come back to that.

The problem is that Peterson's statement is not actually factual, but its an expression of his personal opinion, and one calculated to deflect valid criticism of the BoM, while appearing to a objective observation.

So if you gain comfort from Dr. Peterson's "factual" assertion, then he has done his job.

[mfbukowski]

...but that's my opinion and it depends on what you consider a full on war.

Thanks.

The defense rests.

[Jesterss]

Thanks.

The defense rests.

Not entirely, point in case being "my opinion" was that it depends on what mormons want to believe as a war. FairMormon seems to believe that war has increased since the civil war began, but I already pointed out that the civil war took 49 years to begin from the time of the end of the civil war, which only involved America. The south wanted to involved Britain but was unable to. Again, it's all on the fact that the prophecy was regarding the civil war to begin with..

[Hughes]

Hughes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caractors_large.jpg

Nice try, unless you're claiming that is an ancient copy?

So, given the fact that today's copies of the Book of Mormon are about the same age as the copies of the Old Testament were at the time of Christ, and if you lived back then, when Peter came knocking at your door, would you have told him that since he had no evidence for the ancientness of his scriptures, it was a deal breaker?

Best,

T-Shirt

Today's copies of the BoM aren't in the original languages.

Yeah, a silver bullet would be something for which a fairly intellectual person (that can put aside personal biases) can look at and say there is no logical argument that makes sense of this contradiction. If the BOM claimed that all American Indians were direct descendents from Lehi and that he was a thoroughbred Jew, then I would say we have a silver bullet with today's DNA spectrum of the Native Americans. Culture may have stated that, but the BOM didn't and it was never proclaimed by one of the presidents as direct revelation (ie-1978 priesthood revelation).

If you are looking for an unbiased person, then I'm curious if you could point to some that aren't LDS but do agree that the BoM is an ancient book? And exactly what is the basis for their reasoning? Thanks.

[altersteve]

Not entirely, point in case being "my opinion" was that it depends on what mormons want to believe as a war. FairMormon seems to believe that war has increased since the civil war began, but I already pointed out that the civil war took 49 years to begin from the time of the end of the civil war, which only involved America. The south wanted to involved Britain but was unable to. Again, it's all on the fact that the prophecy was regarding the civil war to begin with..

All Joseph said was that after the Civil War, war would be poured out upon all nations. He never said how long after, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that it's happening. This prophecy is being fulfilled as we speak. War is indeed being poured out upon all nations.

[Nathair/|\]

Nice try, unless you're claiming that is an ancient copy?

Today's copies of the BoM aren't in the original languages.

If you are looking for an unbiased person, then I'm curious if you could point to some that aren't LDS but do agree that the BoM is an ancient book? And exactly what is the basis for their reasoning? Thanks.

Margret Barker is a non-LDS Bible scholar who has presented on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, specifically on how it fits into the Jerusalem milieu it claims as it's origin.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=36

[altersteve]

Today's copies of the BoM aren't in the original languages.

This doesn't answer the question T-Shirt asked. He said, if you lived during the time of Christ, and a missionary came to your door telling you about his Old Testament scriptures, and he had no evidence for those scriptures being ancient, would you turn him away? Answer the question, yes or no.

[Hughes]

This doesn't answer the question T-Shirt asked. He said, if you lived during the time of Christ, and a missionary came to your door telling you about his Old Testament scriptures, and he had no evidence for those scriptures being ancient, would you turn him away? Answer the question, yes or no.

The question doesn't apply to reality since there is evidence for the OT being ancient.

[Jesterss]

All Joseph said was that after the Civil War, war would be poured out upon all nations. He never said how long after, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that it's happening. This prophecy is being fulfilled as we speak. War is indeed being poured out upon all nations.

Taken from D&C 87

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the ^awars that will ^bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of ^cSouth Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the ^atime will come that ^bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then ^awar shall be poured out upon all nations.

let's break this down, first off, JS says war will break out starting with south carolina. Then goes on to say how this outbreak will pour out war upon all nations. now if we stop there, then sure, perhaps he was saying that war from this outbreak would eventually throw the world into turmoil (which it isnt, and all nations aren't in wars still, and never have been all at once)..

but he didn't stop there, it continued. and it continued with the same lines as line 1, saying how the "southern states" shall be divided against the "north", which we all understand as the civil war, so again, he's directly referring to the civil war still. and when referring to them, he says that the southern states will call on other nations, even the nation of great britain, which the south does want them to send them ships, but they are rebuffed by the north and told to stay out of the conflict. and great britain did not call upon any nations to defend it. nor did war pour out upon all nations because of this quarrel.

I mean c'mon. how is that confusing?

[SeattleGrunge]

If you are looking for an unbiased person, then I'm curious if you could point to some that aren't LDS but do agree that the BoM is an ancient book? And exactly what is the basis for their reasoning? Thanks.

That was my question in the OP

[Jesterss]

This doesn't answer the question T-Shirt asked. He said, if you lived during the time of Christ, and a missionary came to your door telling you about his Old Testament scriptures, and he had no evidence for those scriptures being ancient, would you turn him away? Answer the question, yes or no.

That question is assuming that the way your missionaries conduct their actions are the same as how Peter and Paul conducted their missionary work.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That question is assuming that the way your missionaries conduct their actions are the same as how Peter and Paul conducted their missionary work.

This is a totally irrelevant point they are trying to make.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Jesterss]

This is a totally irrelevant point they are trying to make.

not really. they want to know if someone would accept the gospel taught by peter. but they phrased it in such a way that it detracts from how it really should be stated.

if you ask if I would have listened to peter when he was giving a sermon about jesus, then I would say that yes I would. as I think any of us who claim to be christian have.. plain and simple really..

but to ask if I would listen to someone who came to my door telling me that they had some religious information to share with me is a different concept to try and understand and really answer...

[altersteve]

Taken from D&C 87

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the ^awars that will ^bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of ^cSouth Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the ^atime will come that ^bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then ^awar shall be poured out upon all nations.

let's break this down, first off, JS says war will break out starting with south carolina. Then goes on to say how this outbreak will pour out war upon all nations. now if we stop there, then sure, perhaps he was saying that war from this outbreak would eventually throw the world into turmoil (which it isnt, and all nations aren't in wars still, and never have been all at once)..

but he didn't stop there, it continued. and it continued with the same lines as line 1, saying how the "southern states" shall be divided against the "north", which we all understand as the civil war, so again, he's directly referring to the civil war still. and when referring to them, he says that the southern states will call on other nations, even the nation of great britain, which the south does want them to send them ships, but they are rebuffed by the north and told to stay out of the conflict. and great britain did not call upon any nations to defend it. nor did war pour out upon all nations because of this quarrel.

I mean c'mon. how is that confusing?

Verse three: "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations."

Joseph never said that war would pour out upon all nations "because of this quarrel" (and the Civil War was much, much more than a mere "quarrel"; the fact that you say that makes me question your knowledge in U.S. history). He said that the South would be divided against the North, after which the South would call upon other nations including Great Britain (which they did). And then, as Joseph said, war will be poured out upon all nations. He also never said that the Civil War would be poured out upon all nations; he is talking about war in general, being poured out upon all nations beginning with America. This has taken place, is taking place, and will take place in the future. You have to read it intelligently.

Critics of this alleged false prophecy also have to address how they think Joseph knew that the South would rise up against the North in the first place, and how he knew that the South would call upon Great Britain. Lucky guess?

Start a new thread if you want to talk about this further.

The question doesn't apply to reality since there is evidence for the OT being ancient.

You're avoiding the question. Let me ask again. If you lived during the time of Christ and you were visited by a missionary, and this missionary told you about these ancient writings and yet could not provide evidence that they were ancient, would you turn him away? It's not an irrelevant question at all. Answer it, yes or no.

That question is assuming that the way your missionaries conduct their actions are the same as how Peter and Paul conducted their missionary work.

No it doesn't.

not really. they want to know if someone would accept the gospel taught by peter. but they phrased it in such a way that it detracts from how it really should be stated.

if you ask if I would have listened to peter when he was giving a sermon about jesus, then I would say that yes I would. as I think any of us who claim to be christian have.. plain and simple really..

but to ask if I would listen to someone who came to my door telling me that they had some religious information to share with me is a different concept to try and understand and really answer...

So if you lived during the time of Christ and a missionary came to your door telling you about Jesus, you would listen? You say that all who claim to be Christian would do this. That assumes that you would already know about the gospel. But how would you have known about the gospel in the first place? Probably from one of Christ's disciples, a missionary.

But then you claim that this missionary sharing some "religious information" with you, such as the writings that are now known as the Old Testament, is "a different concept to try and understand and really answer"? What's the difference between telling you about Christ and sharing some "religious information" such as the Old Testament with you? Since the Old Testament teaches about Christ, there is no difference at all. There is no difference between preaching the gospel and sharing "religious information." They're the same thing.

"I mean c'mon. how is that confusing?"

Edited September 13, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

Verse three: "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations."

Joseph never said that war would pour out upon all nations "because of this quarrel" (and the Civil War was much, much more than a mere "quarrel"; the fact that you say that makes me question your knowledge in U.S. history). He said that the South would be divided against the North, after which the South would call upon other nations including Great Britain (which they did). And then, as Joseph said, war will be poured out upon all nations. He also never said that the Civil War would be poured out upon all nations; he is talking about war in general, being poured out upon all nations beginning with America. This has taken place, is taking place, and will take place in the future. You have to read it intelligently.

Critics of this alleged false prophecy also have to address how they think Joseph knew that the South would rise up against the North in the first place, and how he knew that the South would call upon Great Britain. Lucky guess?

Start a new thread if you want to talk about this further.

You're avoiding the question. Let me ask again. If you lived during the time of Christ and you were visited by a missionary, and this missionary told you about these ancient writings and yet could not provide evidence that they were ancient, would you turn him away? It's not an irrelevant question at all. Answer it, yes or no.

No it doesn't.

So if you lived during the time of Christ and a missionary came to your door telling you about Jesus, you would listen? You say that all who claim to be Christian would do this. That assumes that you would already know about the gospel. But how would you have known about the gospel in the first place? Probably from one of Christ's disciples, a missionary.

But then you claim that this missionary sharing some "religious information" with you, such as the writings that are now known as the Old Testament, is "a different concept to try and understand and really answer"? What's the difference between telling you about Christ and sharing some "religious information" such as the Old Testament with you? Since the Old Testament teaches about Christ, there is no difference at all. There is no difference between preaching the gospel and sharing "religious information." They're the same thing.

"I mean c'mon. how is that confusing?"

I'm not sure how to start a new thread in here as the option to start a new thread is greyed out for me.

--regarding the prophecy

So in answering, joseph may not have said because of the civil war but he also never said it would be a civil war or a world war. but to say that the civil war has created all these other wars makes me question your knowledge of US History and World History. Starting with the American Revolution, there was the Franco-American Naval War, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Creek War (plus MANY indian wars consistently up until 1918), War of Texas Independence, Mexican-American War, and then the Civil War... so regarding wars.. they haven't ever ceased to exist.. so saying that the civil war spawned all these wars is ridiculous..

And critics who said that are correct, because 3 days prior to JS christmas prophecy of the "war(s)" to come, and starting in south carolina, a newspaper in a town very near to his in Ohio sent out a press release stating tensions between South Carolina and the free states... so yes, he wasn't the only one who "saw this coming" as many LDS believe he was..

So, actually read what he said and think about it.. and read verse 3 more in-depth and ponder on it.. he continually says that it is the war of the southern vs northern states that the south will call upon many nations and this will invoke a "pouring out of war" upon all nations.. which didn't happen!.. north vs south (civil war) did not correlate to any wars that would start after that.. and it did not involve any other nations.. was the civil war for a reason.

how is that hard to comprehend? you wan't to call me out on english lessons and turn them into history, but you refuse to actually understand the history that DID occur..

--regarding the missionary questions..

there would be no missionary coming to the door with an OT. OT is the Torah used by Jews. Jews do not proselytize. They didn't try to convert people. So as Hughes already answered, that's not a valid question or applicable to reality.

so to humor you, someone teaching the OT and teaching of Christ, would be teaching two different things.. either they are teaching the OT/Torah, or they are teaching the New Testament.. which is it that you question me on? So I question your knowledge on the subject matter of understanding historical texts.

whats the difference? The OT/Torah does not preach of a christ, it preaches of a messiah (teacher), who will come to save us, and it outlines how he will arrive (which I believe happened as it was written).. if you understood this, you would understand why some Jews still hold that Jesus was not the Messiah, because they don't believe he was just coming to forgive us of our sins and give us all a chance at redemption, the Jews believed that when this Messiah came, he would turn the world into a state of peace and rule then, not on a second return as we christians believe.

Now to answer if a missionary such as Peter were to come to me and preach the gospel would I listen? You assume that someone would already have to know the gospel as it is written to be a christian in that day, but that's not the case either. As we understand from a historical viewpoint, the books of the new testament were not written until well after. So then you ask me well how would I already know and be a christian? I as a person wouldn't, but the spirit does work in us. and the spirit transforms us into believers. even the samaritan woman at the well immediately understood who jesus was and listened.. as would anyone willing to listen to the truth... Jesus is the truth and if the truth speaks, I would then say yes, I would listen..

your question is leading with ill intent.

[Hughes]

You're avoiding the question. Let me ask again. If you lived during the time of Christ and you were visited by a missionary, and this missionary told you about these ancient writings and yet could not provide evidence that they were ancient, would you turn him away? It's not an irrelevant question at all. Answer it, yes or no.

Would I turn him away, NO.

Would I believe him simply because he stated it was an ancient document, yet had no evidence? No.

Would I investigate his claims? Yes.

We could flip the question around a bit, and ask, would you believe a document to be historical that doesn't correspond to reality (as in no map)?

[Pahoran]

A Muslim will assert that the Koran brings one closer to God than any other book. A Jew will assert the same for the Torah. Ditto the canonical texts of the Bahá'í Faith.

Preaching Beast,

Is it anywhere within the realms of possibility that you might be able to comment on a thread without reciting your usual dogma?

Where the founder is also the dispenser of the religious texts, I cannot see that "egocentric assertion" is an inaccurate statement of what Joseph Smith was doing with that quote....

Said the pot of the kettle.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I'm not sure how to start a new thread in here as the option to start a new thread is greyed out for me.

Once you hit 25 posts you will be able to start a new thread....the restriction is to limit spammers and trolls.

[Jesterss]

Once you hit 25 posts you will be able to start a new thread....the restriction is to limit spammers and trolls.

Makes sense, I thought that might be the case, thank you for that information.

[volgadon]

They didn't try to convert people

Oh, really? Who converted the queen of Adiabene, chopped liver?

[altersteve]

but to say that the civil war has created all these other wars makes me question your knowledge of US History and World History.

I never said that, and Joseph Smith didn't either.

Starting with the American Revolution, there was the Franco-American Naval War, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Creek War (plus MANY indian wars consistently up until 1918), War of Texas Independence, Mexican-American War, and then the Civil War... so regarding wars.. they haven't ever ceased to exist.. so saying that the civil war spawned all these wars is ridiculous..

I never said that, and Joseph Smith didn't either.

And critics who said that are correct, because 3 days prior to JS christmas prophecy of the "war(s)" to come, and starting in south carolina, a newspaper in a town very near to his in Ohio sent out a press release stating tensions between South Carolina and the free states... so yes, he wasn't the only one who "saw this coming" as many LDS believe he was..

I am aware of the press release. However, it doesn't explain how Joseph knew that these "tensions" would result in a Civil War that would result in the death and misery of many souls (which it did, being the bloodiest war in American history and all), nor does it explain how he knew the South would call upon Great Britain. It also does not explain how he knew that war would afterward pour out upon all nations.

So, actually read what he said and think about it.. and read verse 3 more in-depth and ponder on it.. he continually says that it is the war of the southern vs northern states that the south will call upon many nations and this will invoke a "pouring out of war" upon all nations.. which didn't happen!..

He never said the Civil War would "invoke" anything. He simply said that the South would rise up against the North, and then war would pour out upon all nations. He never said the Civil War would be the cause.

north vs south (civil war) did not correlate to any wars that would start after that.. and it did not involve any other nations.. was the civil war for a reason.

Joseph never claimed otherwise. He simply said war (not the Civil War, just war in general) would pour out upon all nations, and this is happening as we speak. This prophecy is being fulfilled.

how is that hard to comprehend? you wan't to call me out on english lessons and turn them into history, but you refuse to actually understand the history that DID occur..

Nope, I don't. I understand the history quite well, thanks.

there would be no missionary coming to the door with an OT. OT is the Torah used by Jews. Jews do not proselytize. They didn't try to convert people. So as Hughes already answered, that's not a valid question or applicable to reality.

The Old Testament is not the "Torah used by Jews." The Torah is the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And yes, I am aware that Jews do not proselytize. But Jesus' disciples believed the Old Testament, and Jesus commanded them to preach His word to the world. So that would include preaching the Old Testament, which they did.

so to humor you, someone teaching the OT and teaching of Christ, would be teaching two different things.. either they are teaching the OT/Torah, or they are teaching the New Testament.. which is it that you question me on? So I question your knowledge on the subject matter of understanding historical texts.

Nope. When I teach someone about the Old Testament and its message, I am, in fact, teaching of Christ. My "knowledge on the subject matter of understanding historical texts" is fine.

whats the difference? The OT/Torah does not preach of a christ, it preaches of a messiah (teacher), who will come to save us, and it outlines how he will arrive (which I believe happened as it was written)..

Exactly, what is the difference? Jesus Christ is the Messiah who would come to save us. Therefore, since the Old Testament teaches of the future advent of a Messiah, it teaches of Christ. There is no difference. Furthermore, almost every time it mentions "God," "the God of Israel," "the LORD," "Jehovah," etc., it's talking about premortal Jesus Christ. So your claim that the Old Testament does not preach of Christ is ridiculous. Of course it does.

if you understood this, you would understand why some Jews still hold that Jesus was not the Messiah, because they don't believe he was just coming to forgive us of our sins and give us all a chance at redemption, the Jews believed that when this Messiah came, he would turn the world into a state of peace and rule then, not on a second return as we christians believe.

Yes, I am already aware of this.

Now to answer if a missionary such as Peter were to come to me and preach the gospel would I listen? You assume that someone would already have to know the gospel as it is written to be a christian in that day, but that's not the case either. As we understand from a historical viewpoint, the books of the new testament were not written until well after.

I am quite aware of this.

So then you ask me well how would I already know and be a christian? I as a person wouldn't, but the spirit does work in us. and the spirit transforms us into believers.

I agree 100%. So do you believe that you can ask God if the Book of Mormon is true and get an answer by the power of His Spirit?

even the samaritan woman at the well immediately understood who jesus was and listened.. as would anyone willing to listen to the truth... Jesus is the truth and if the truth speaks, I would then say yes, I would listen..

Jesus' words are also written in the Book of Mormon. So why don't you give it the same courtesy?

Edited September 14, 2011 by altersteve