Historicity Of The Bom

[Calm]

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

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

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.

He never said the Civil War would "invoke" anything. He simply said that after the South vs. the North, war would pour out upon all nations. He never said the Civil War would be the cause.

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.

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

altersteve, I have removed the Civil War sections from the posts and posted them here all together, how about taking this part of the comment over there to discuss:

[Palerider]

I would suggest that what people outgrow is their current perception of the Church and it may require a separation for them to be able to ever see it in a different way, perhaps even a new way of perceiving that will not be available to them for various reasons until after death.

Thankfully, God has provide for that eventuality along with others.

Well, I definitely see it in a different way........

[mfbukowski]

I would suggest that what people outgrow is their current perception of the Church and it may require a separation for them to be able to ever see it in a different way, perhaps even a new way of perceiving that will not be available to them for various reasons until after death.

An excellent point. I am sure death causes a bit of a paradigm shift!

[Palerider]

An excellent point. I am sure death causes a bit of a paradigm shift!

For all concerned.........

[Calm]

Well, I definitely see it in a different way........

Colour me surprised.

[mfbukowski]

It takes some of "us" many years to get to that point. I have read the BofM well over two dozen times, cover to cover, and countless times in part. And I never entertained more than an intellectual belief in its literal historical claims. All that remains at this point is a respect for its complexity and internal consistency, which I think is equal to or greater than any other book's. The BofM is a stunningly impressive work of religious literature.

But I have to say that if it, along with any other religious literature, is reduced to mere analogy and inspiration, and is not to be considered literal history, then scripture loses a great deal of its authoritative power. It becomes a comparison of C. S. Lewis and "Mormon"; which is hardly impressive enough to make readers pay attention. Harry Potter is much more accessible and instructive to the general public than the BofM or even C. S. Lewis. And without literal historicity in its truth claims, the BofM is no more real than Harry Potter: yet the stories in it might impress some readers to better their lives....

I think this misses the point. The point is not that it is NOT literally historical, the point is that at least in my opinion, not being able to PROVE its historicity scientifically does not change its spiritual value for those who have a testimony of its historicity.

One cannot prove the historicity of the Bible either, nor can one prove obviously that Jesus was the Son of God with historic evidence any better than one can prove the historicity of the BOM.

Was there a Samson, a Job, a Jonah, a talking donkey or even a Sodom? Their historicity is irrelevant to the Bible's spiritual value. THAT is the point.

[Palerider]

I think this misses the point. The point is not that it is NOT literally historical, the point is that at least in my opinion, not being able to PROVE its historicity scientifically does not change its spiritual value for those who have a testimony of its historicity.

One cannot prove the historicity of the Bible either, nor can one prove obviously that Jesus was the Son of God with historic evidence any better than one can prove the historicity of the BOM.

Was there a Samson, a Job, a Jonah, a talking donkey or even a Sodom? Their historicity is irrelevant to the Bible's spiritual value. THAT is the point.

I'll show you my Jerusalem if you can show me your Zarahemla..........I'll even buy your airline tickets to either place if you can......

[mfbukowski]

I'll show you my Jerusalem if you can show me your Zarahemla..........I'll even buy your airline tickets to either place if you can......

I pick Sodom instead. But I guess it got nuked or something.

A story about Jerusalem that is 3 or 4 thousand years old written by who knows who does not advance your case much.

On the other hand, very few Mayan sites have been excavated.

[Storm Rider]

I'll show you my Jerusalem if you can show me your Zarahemla..........I'll even buy your airline tickets to either place if you can......

So, by your standard if I show you how many things have no archeological evidence in the Bible, then the Bible must obviously be false? This is often the weakness of religionists; they use one standard for their beliefs and another for those of others. By the very standard you propose, nothing is true in its entirety and we must put our faith in the arm of flesh for all things. Should we ever take anything on faith? Does man know all ther is to know about all ancient civiliztions?

[Jaybear]

So, by your standard if I show you how many things have no archeological evidence in the Bible, then the Bible must obviously be false? This is often the weakness of religionists; they use one standard for their beliefs and another for those of others. By the very standard you propose, nothing is true in its entirety and we must put our faith in the arm of flesh for all things. Should we ever take anything on faith? Does man know all ther is to know about all ancient civiliztions?

"By your standards" ... ?

I find it puzzling that to score points in a debate that Mormons would question the authenticity of the Bible, which I thought they believed was the word of God. Afterall, its not as if the Pope had allegedly translated the bible from Golden Plates delivered by an angel, then taken back to heaven. When you have actual ancient manuscripts at hand, I really don't see the need to apply the same standard in evaluating its authenticity of the current English translation of the bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Palerider:

I'll show you Zarahemla when you show me Yerushaláyim.

[Gervin]

I pick Sodom instead. But I guess it got nuked or something.

A story about Jerusalem that is 3 or 4 thousand years old written by who knows who does not advance your case much.

On the other hand, very few Mayan sites have been excavated.

What do Mayan sites (excavated or unexcavated) have to do with the Book of Mormon?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Apples and oranges.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Apples and oranges.

I agree. But you, and other here, in your zeal to criticize the evangelicals as being hypocrites seem to miss the point.

Apples:

Is the BOM an authentic English translation of an ancient manuscript(s).

Is the Bible an authentic English translation of an ancient manuscript(s).

Oranges:

Is the BOM the word of God.

Is the Bible the word of God.

[Jesterss]

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 do you believe that jesus was/is god?

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.

Teaching "of" christ? or the "coming" of christ? Also two different things.

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.

So you are then saying that you agree that Jesus is God? If you say that all these titles explain the discussions of christ, then you must think that God and Jesus are one and the same? I find this interesting, as most LDS don't believe in that concept.

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?

No I don't believe that. I believe that if I pray to God, he will guide me in the right direction. Were we told to pray that the OT and NT are true? No, we are told to believe by faith and knowledge. We just need to be willing to accept and understand who God is. Not ask him to tell us what is and isn't true or false. Did the samaritan woman at the well ask if he truly was the messiah? No, she understood that's who he was. She didn't question her understanding. The truth needs no questioning.

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

Are they?.. That's why I brought up the prophecy's. Which I'll continue that discussion in the newly created thread.

[altersteve]

so do you believe that jesus was/is god?

Of course. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and believes this emphatically.

Teaching "of" christ? or the "coming" of christ? Also two different things.

If one teaches of the coming of Christ, then he/she is teaching of Christ. They are exactly the same thing.

So you are then saying that you agree that Jesus is God? If you say that all these titles explain the discussions of christ, then you must think that God and Jesus are one and the same? I find this interesting, as most LDS don't believe in that concept.

Yes, I am saying that Jesus is God. No, I do not believe "that God [the Father] and Jesus are one and the same." However, Latter-day Saints believe that "God" is a title that they both share, and it can refer to one or the other or both of them collectively. Your understanding of LDS doctrine is inaccurate.

No I don't believe that. I believe that if I pray to God, he will guide me in the right direction. Were we told to pray that the OT and NT are true? No, we are told to believe by faith and knowledge. We just need to be willing to accept and understand who God is. Not ask him to tell us what is and isn't true or false. Did the samaritan woman at the well ask if he truly was the messiah? No, she understood that's who he was. She didn't question her understanding. The truth needs no questioning.

You are entirely correct that we are told to believe by faith and knowledge. Faith, obviously, is to be placed in God, and all knowledge comes from God, correct? So in order to obtain knowledge, where do we seek? Where do we turn? To God. It is not enough to "ask him to tell us what is and isn't true or false." It is much more than that. It comes with a desire to know, and a willingness to allow Him to lead you in the right direction, exactly as you said. Praying earnestly, with real intent and faith in Christ, about the truthfulness of something is exactly what God wants us to do. There is absolutely nothing unbiblical about this concept.

Are they?.. That's why I brought up the prophecy's. Which I'll continue that discussion in the newly created thread.

The only way to know the answer to this question is to put your faith in God and let the Spirit lead you to the truth. See above.

Edited September 14, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

What do Mayan sites (excavated or unexcavated) have to do with the Book of Mormon?

Are you serious?

Some argue that Mayan sites ARE BOM sites- that Nephites were possibly a sub-culture of Mayans just as LDS are a sub-culture of the larger world cultures in which they live.

[T-Shirt]

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

At the time of Christ, any copies of the Old Testament would have been less than two hundred years old, no more ancient than today's copies of the Book of Mormon. If you lived then, you would have had no evidence for the Old Testament to have been ancient, therefore, using your previously stated logic, you would have to have considered this a "deal breaker" and rejected the Old Testament, outright.

Best,

T-Shirt

[altersteve]

What do Mayan sites (excavated or unexcavated) have to do with the Book of Mormon?

It helps to study Book of Mormon scholarship a little before you criticize the book. This is something that all critics need to learn.

[LeSellers]

I agree. But you, and other here, in your zeal to criticize the evangelicals as being hypocrites seem to miss the point.

Apples:

Is the BOM an authentic English translation of an ancient manuscript(s).

Is the Bible an authentic English translation of an ancient manuscript(s).

Oranges:

Is the BOM the word of God.

Is the Bible the word of God.

Here you have ignored the distinction that the Bible, due to its provenance (how we got it), is unremarkable. It is an ancient book. We can trace it back to at least (for the appropriate portions), the ii or even earlier.

On the other hand, if the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, as we know it to be, then it must be the word of God, because its provenance is through an angel. Joseph could not have created an ancient document.

The age of the Bible mkaes no difference at all in its claim to being the word of God. The age of the Book of Mormon is quite a different matter.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

The only way to know the answer to this question is to put your faith in God and let the Spirit lead you to the truth. See above.

I probably took this original discussion too far off from the topic, i would be interested in hearing more on your stance though of god/jesus as it compares to the LDS view..

[mfbukowski]

I probably took this original discussion too far off from the topic, i would be interested in hearing more on your stance though of god/jesus as it compares to the LDS view..

altersteve is perfectly able to answer this himself obviously, but his answer could probably be seen as self-serving. I have seen nothing he has ever posted to be anything BUT "the LDS view".

I certainly have seen nothing on this thread to indicate otherwise to me.

[T-Shirt]

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

Good grief, you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried.

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.

That is not what I asked. Hughes stated earlier that the fact that we have no ancient record to confirm that the Book of Mormon is actually ancient, it is a "deal breaker" and he must, therefore, reject the Book of Mormon. The question I asked put him in the same situation regarding the Bible, two thousand years ago. Both of you have dodged the question.

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 that is not what I asked. Try answering the question that I did ask.

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...

That is not the question either.

Would I turn him away, NO.

Okay

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

So far, you are consistent.

Would I investigate his claims? Yes.

An how would you do that? There would have been no more evidence of the ancientness of the Old Testament at that time than there is today of the Book of Mormon. So what would you have done? If your previous statement regarding the Book of Mormon is how you really feel, then you would have to have rejected the Old Testament, as you have the Book of Mormon.

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)?

That isn't flipping the question around, it is asking a completely different and irrelevant question. I have never claimed to reject the historicity of a document on the basis of it not having a map, but you have rejected a document as being ancient simply because we have no ancient copies of it.

Best,

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

there would be no missionary coming to the door with an OT. OT is the Torah used by Jews.

I am assuming you are aware that at the time of Christ there was no New Testament. Christ and His disciples all taught from the scriptures, what scriptures do you think they used?

Jews do not proselytize. They didn't try to convert people.

Are you saying that Jesus, Peter, James, John, Matthew, etc, etc, were not Jews? Are you saying that Jesus's disciples did not proselyte or try to convert?

So as Hughes already answered, that's not a valid question or applicable to reality.

See above.

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.

What scriptures do you think Peter preached from? Do you really believe he had access to the New Testament?

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.

Again, what scriptures did the early Christians, of Christ's day, use to preach Christ and His gospel?

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..

So, proof of the ancientness of scripture is irrelevant to it's validity and veracity and what is most important is the witness of the Holy Ghost, is that correct? If so, then, it appears that we are in agreement, you sound a lot like a Mormon. It appears that, even though it took awhile, my question achieved its purpose.

your question is leading with ill intent.

How so? It appears that we agree. Can you apply the same to the Book of Mormon?

Best,

T-Shirt

[Gervin]

Are you serious?

yes

Some argue that Mayan sites ARE BOM sites-

I've never seen an argument for Mayan site X being Book of Mormon city Y. Does the argument include this level of specificity?

that Nephites were possibly a sub-culture of Mayans just as LDS are a sub-culture of the larger world cultures in which they live.

Does the Book of Mormon describe a larger (Mayan) culture under which the Nephites lived? I've never heard of this in the LDS Church teachings.