Steel In The Book Of Mormon

[thesometimesaint]

Ancient steel bows

http://www.articleclick.com/Article/Ancient-Steel-Archery-Bows/929905

[mfbukowski]

I am not trying to make life difficult. And I am not feeling in opposition to anyone. I am sharing some of my thoughts and experience trying to make sense out of dogmatic, organized religion: how important is it really? and why should anyone assume that there even is one way? or that salvation/redemption is even required, especially dogmatically so?

Then we agree? But you emphasized, and I addressed this assertion of yours, that we KNOW by our feelings. i.e. revelation from "God", what is true and what is untrue.

My point exactly. I have repeated myself: "There is no tie-breaker when discussing/advancing/promoting/arguing an exclusive religious dogma."

Yet the LDS faith is dependent on empirical truths as asserted. We can reference any number of general conference addresses where GAs have emphatically declared the first vision, the BofM and all the claims to revelations to be literally true.

And well they could be.

I am not saying they are NOT "true" (whatever that is supposed to mean) I am saying that they are UNKNOWABLE objectively speaking, and that believing them requires faith. UNKNOWABLE means they cannot be objectively verified- and there is no GA who says those things CAN be objectively verified, or else they are not accepting them on faith and testimony.

In Mormon history, it is all taken literally. Mormons have a rare problem with literalness. This I recognized early on.

Some do, some don't, just like every other group too.

Even within the Church, this is true. I am a witness of it. My "path" is not along orthodox lines. And I doubt that anyone else is destined to follow a path that millions follow without variation.

I happen to accept that our understanding of "salvation/redemption" is colored by thousands of years of religious evolution. In fact, I do believe that "God" relates individually to each of us; that no dogmatic, organized religion is for every person, and that religions in the afterlife remain here, on Earth where they were born and have no relevancy to immortals. All that religions contain are impressions of an infinite existence: which is the reason why religions overlap so much in their concepts for "God" and the afterlife.

Learning never ends for immortals. I believe in universal success in discovering Joy, no matter how long it takes some of us to figure it out. This concept is the only one I know of that approaches the charity that "God" must possess: the fact that I hold such a concept must mean that it is accessible to mortals (or the immortals that we truly are, even while confined here for a while): and the concept of universal charity must mean that "God" is infinitely more charitable than I can ever be. Where, then, is the need for "salvation/redemption" as taught in religions? that would damn all souls for eternity if they do not follow suit? I cannot see it. So the doctrine of a "second chance" in the spirit world is a feeble shadow of the truth that I hold in its place; the spirit world has an end; immortality does not; and learning Joy through experiencing its opposite conditions must be a never-ending process. Because "God" is pure, infinite Joy, and we will always remain finite beings, hungering to know ever-more about the Existence that "God" Is. Anything less than including everyone makes "God" into a lesser "God": a capricious, finite being who sorrows over the "lost ones": a concept that I cannot worship at all.

OK

I am more charitable than that!

And quite proud of that fact too, apparently, that you are more charitable than we mortals

And "God", as I said, is infinitely more charitable than I will ever be....

.

I should hope so.

The need for redemption is in all religions because most of us have done wrong things in our lives, you excepted of course. If you have no need for forgiveness, I don't care- I just know that I do.

[Questing Beast]

@mfbukowski: What an odd response. You detect pride and an assertion that I am immortal and perfect! Weird. For all that it matters, you are mistaken.

If I say "there is no need for redemption" because everyone is created to learn Joy, that does not mean that we do not actually make mistakes and cause misery to ourselves and others: or that "God" somehow gives out "Joy" as a freebie because everyone deserves it.

In the concept of space-time all things happen linearly and moment by moment. This makes our perspective of eternity seem endless; which is what feeds into "endless punishment", etc. This unendurable condition is true hell. So our religions play upon the fear of becoming irredeemable: this is fear-mongering, "for our own good."

Just because I see dogma manipulated this way does not mean that I don't believe in comeupance. Justice is real. Punishment is equally real. And punishment goes on so long as the individual remains unrepentant. "God" will not cause repentance. This condition must arise within the individual: no matter how LONG it takes (within space-time: to "God" all things are perceived as NOW).

Where I cannot accept orthodox doctrine, is the assertion that anyone will be damned forever. Because "God", seeing all things as present, would never create a part of "himself/herself" to be cast off forever. What would be the point?...

[mfbukowski]

@mfbukowski: What an odd response. You detect pride and an assertion that I am immortal and perfect! Weird. For all that it matters, you are mistaken.

OK well then I apologize, I misunderstood your post.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. Mormon doctrine:

25 ^aAdam ^bfell that men might be; and men ^care, that they might have ^djoy.

(2 Nephi 2:27)

[Kevin Christensen]

For me, there is no "top anachronism" in the Book of Mormon. I don't see one more problematic than the other. I struggle with the mental gymnastics required to explain all of them as a whole.

I notice that the expression "mental gymnastics" is emotionally loaded, as though reading in cultural context to better understand, somehow violates reason and sense. I read a bit further and find this complaint illustrated by examples like these:

Wine = not literally "wine" as though Mesoamerican fermented drinks could not be described as any form of wine, as though wine is not a signifier, but is itself an extension and part of the object, and the object has but one legitimate definition.

Swine = not literally "swine" as though a peccary has no legitimate resemblance

barley = not literally barley as though New World barley had not actually been found.

The word "literally" supports the argument. Are words constants like the speed of light, the same to all observers regardless of time and place? Does real experience support the implied hypothesis that there is a constant one-to-one relationship between words as signs and the things signified, as though the things signified emanate their sign back to all observers as an unchanging, unique constant?

That is not my real experience. In the New Testament Jesus talks to Nicodemus about being born again, Nicodemus complains, "Can a man enter his mother's womb again?" When Jesus says, "destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up again," we are given different interpretations of the same words.

After telling the parable of the sower, about how the same seeds [words, he explains] can give radically different harvests depending on the context in which they are planted, and the nurture given, Jesus says, in Mark, "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?

Take this sentence: I watched a professional football game. Then this variation, which does not change the expression "professional football game." When I lived in Liverpool, I watched a professional football game." A bit of context makes a huge difference, if you know the difference between what "professional football game" signifies in Pittsburgh and in Liverpool in 1975. To say that the game I attended was "not literally" a professional football game because it did not involve the Steelers would not account for what I experienced there.

Context always contributes to meaning. The context we bring is a constraint on what we can understand. That is why Jesus tells the parable of the sower, and says that it applies to "all parables", which means, all attempts at using symbols to point to real referents. The sign is not the thing signified, but a pointer. If you find that doing the mental gymnastics that reading in context requires, that considering the soil and nurture in which words belong is too disturbing to your sense of what is real, you probably need a bit more exercise for that part of your thinking. Gymnastics is not a sport for couch potatoes. You have to work out and work up.

Following such examples, the complaint is punctuated like this:

Because so many things are being reinterpreted as being less literal, what other choice do I have but to be completely agnostic to the literalness of Book of Mormon in terms of its likelihood of being a literal history of an ancient american civilization?

Reading in context often changes meaning, particularly when we initially brought an inappropriate context to the words. Proper context should be seen as correction of meaning, not as devastation of a static truth, something innately obvious and unchangeable. What I see Gardner and Sorenson and Mark Wright and John Clark doing is reading The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerican context. That is not "de-literalizing" but properly contextualizing. We have to start with the unquestioned preconceptions of our own culture, because, what else have we got? We have to start someplace. But why suppose that further light and knowledge should contain no surprises? Is brittle mental inertia superior to mental gymnastics because it involves no exercise and no effort?

I find reading in context to be continually enlightening and mind expanding, just as Alma 32 predicts. For me, it makes the Book of Mormon people and events more real, not less.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 29, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[blackstrap]

Suppose that next week,an eminant scholar (non-Mormon of course) were to dig up a "real steel" sword which was stuck through to bones of "real" horse whose remains showed a last meal of "real" barley. I wonder how many of our critics would jump ship and paddle over to Zion. Would such a find prove that Jesus is the Christ? Would there still not be many who refuse to accept the teachings of the BoM because there remain some items on the "list" ?

[shalamabobbi]

Where I cannot accept orthodox doctrine, is the assertion that anyone will be damned forever. Because "God", seeing all things as present, would never create a part of "himself/herself" to be cast off forever. What would be the point?...

Are you attending the "course of miracles"? This sounds like their teachings.

Just a mention about the fact that God gave or at least allowed us to continue to exercise our own agency rather than force us against our will. So the possibility exists of failing since failure is a possible choice. And God did not create our intelligence whatever that part of us is.

Will the third who were denied bodies ever get that opportunity down the road? Dunno..

For the present they are in a state of rebellion and remain so. All kingdoms are governed by law and those who abide not the laws are not justified. So it is not God that damns, it is each individual on a case by case basis, as each exercises their agency to conform to reasonable laws or decides they are an exception to the rules..

If it is only by the influence of the spirit that one can gain a love and appreciation for the laws to begin with maybe after continually choosing to ignore that influence at some point in time results in the permanent withdrawal of that influence. At that point there is no desire left within an individual to change and his condition becomes permanent. Just speculation of course, not really in the mood for a debate..

[Stargazer]

Guess again. I meant that nicely of course

http://ldsdoctrine.b...rmon-steel.html

http://i34.photobuck...g/steel-bow.jpg

Hey, that's slick! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. But while I guess I am now perfectly comfortable with Nephi having an actual bow made out of steel, I still maintain that it isn't necessary for it to have been made out of steel -- bows made out other materials can still break, as opposed to merely losing their springs.

Standing corrected under the Garry Oak.

(apologies to Nathair)

[mfbukowski]

Hey, that's slick! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. But while I guess I am now perfectly comfortable with Nephi having an actual bow made out of steel, I still maintain that it isn't necessary for it to have been made out of steel -- bows made out other materials can still break, as opposed to merely losing their springs.

Standing corrected under the Garry Oak.

(apologies to Nathair)

Yep.

It's just another possibility. Just because it's possibly right doesn't mean that you are necessarily possibly wrong. That's the problem with unknowable stuff.

[Questing Beast]

Are you attending the "course of miracles"? This sounds like their teachings.

Never heard of them.

Just a mention about the fact that God gave or at least allowed us to continue to exercise our own agency rather than force us against our will. So the possibility exists of failing since failure is a possible choice.

Yes, failure is always a choice, or at least a result of choice. But not ULTIMATE failure in the "forever" sense.

And God did not create our intelligence whatever that part of us is.

I agree, that "God the Father" did not create our intelligences, whatever that is.

Will the third who were denied bodies ever get that opportunity down the road? Dunno.

Did any of that actually happen? Or is it just part of an inherited tradition via religious evolution?

For the present they are in a state of rebellion and remain so.

Assuming literal truth to the story of the "war in heaven".

All kingdoms are governed by law and those who abide not the laws are not justified. So it is not God that damns, it is each individual on a case by case basis, as each exercises their agency to conform to reasonable laws or decides they are an exception to the rules..

"Rules": that is the problematic part: Whose rules are we going to apply to our personal lives?

To assert that ultimate damnation would be outside of "God's" province, is to say that things exist that "God" does not have any power over. Once free will is given, does the individual then have a power greater than "God" who gave it? The question is absurd.

It IS possible for "God the Father" to not have power over an intelligence that he did not create. This is proof that "God the Father" is not the Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place.

If it is only by the influence of the spirit that one can gain a love and appreciation for the laws to begin with maybe after continually choosing to ignore that influence at some point in time results in the permanent withdrawal of that influence.

Maybe. But not really. Because "the Spirit" IS God. And the very thought of a person with free will causes that person to Exist. To further cause the thought of a person to be cut off forever, hating "God" and their own Existence, would be to imagine that "God" is perverse: "God" causes people to Exist who are damned. Again I ask, what would be the point of irredeemable existence?

The logic behind the biggest concept possible for me to conceive of for "God", says: "It is impossible for any finite mind to imagine the impossible." This produces all kinds of conundrums, the prime one being: "If it is impossible to imagine anything impossible; then my imagining that it is possible to imagine the impossible is possible!" But this only reveals the limitation on language to define anything exclusively. The point of this concept of finite minds not being capable of imagining impossible things, is to cause a belief in "God" being the only Infinite that Exists: from which everything manifesting is derived. This being truly the biggest concept possible to imagine for "God", it follows that every contingency we imagine as possible outcomes for any conceivable or actual thing is in fact real. That means, of course, that I can and I am damned forever: but only if I am also NOT damned forever. You see? "God" is all things infinitely beyond our combined apprehension: and I mean by "our" to include every sapient being that "God" thinks of (and thus causes to Be); being infinite in number and confined to space-time, all beings are nevertheless as present before "God" as "God" is present to Is-self. (That is a new combined word; "Itself" sounds too limited, and impersonal, too non sapient; and besides, Stephen King ruined "It" as any possible reference to "God", imho.) So yes, of course, imagined damnation is REAL Existence too; but it is not the only eventual outcome, as we can imagine even the greatest devil being redeemed eventually: so that too is REAL. And this is the only way to conceive of "God" as omnipotent: having all power over all possibilities, and in love and perfect mercy, always seeing every soul as a being of Joy. The gratitude of such a being, even after a long sojourn in outer darkness (or especially after such an experience?), is all the more enormous, when Joy is finally realized: and the only reality of Joy's opposites is the constant presence of free will, which always makes misery and damnation possible.

We truly are the devil that we fear and hate. That devil hates obedience, conformance, nonentity status, being less than Number One: hating even "God" because none of us can ever be as great as our Creator, etc. Coupled with all the inherent pitfalls of opposition in all things (our carnal, sensual and devilish appetites), the devil that Is each of us can nevertheless apprehend Joy: and in fact is incapable of losing the apprehension of Joy. This is why misery is REAL to the soul that is in rebellion against the laws (rules) that reward with Joy: without the opposite of darkness and misery, there would be no comprehension of either. And there would be no punishment; in fact, no awareness of existence at all.

At that point there is no desire left within an individual to change and his condition becomes permanent. Just speculation of course, not really in the mood for a debate..

As I said, there is always a desire to change. Is it possible to imagine no desire to change? We can say, "I imagine a being that has lost all desire to change." And coupled with that follows the opposite: "I cannot imagine a being that has lost all desire to change." Both are inseparable in our minds. As all opposites and conundrums are....

[shalamabobbi]

Assuming literal truth to the story of the "war in heaven".

If we can trust the account from the history of the church about encounters with the opposing team over in England maybe.

To assert that ultimate damnation would be outside of "God's" province, is to say that things exist that "God" does not have any power over. Once free will is given, does the individual then have a power greater than "God" who gave it? The question is absurd.

Perhaps a miscommunication occurred here. I stated that we, by virtue of our agency, are responsible for own own damnation if that occurs. But that does not remove from God ultimate power over the matter. The rules that exist may be His doing or they may simply exist aside from Him. IOW He may abide by them Himself and is (a) God as a result.

Free will may not necessarily be given. It may simply be a reality and can only be threatened through coercion. Maybe God to remain God simply has to defend free will.

It is hard for me to imagine that even God does not exist within some sort of framework that He is not responsible for.

It IS possible for "God the Father" to not have power over an intelligence that he did not create. This is proof that "God the Father" is not the Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place.

Certainly. But He would be for the progressive states of existence through which we pass. First a spirit body then a mortal body.

Because "the Spirit" IS God. And the very thought of a person with free will causes that person to Exist. To further cause the thought of a person to be cut off forever, hating "God" and their own Existence, would be to imagine that "God" is perverse: "God" causes people to Exist who are damned. Again I ask, what would be the point of irredeemable existence?

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. I believe our consciousness self existed from eternity the same as God's. Everything else was added at some point. We are responsible for our own choices which have consequences.

By obedience to correct principles the consequences are that we become as God now is and presumably God became God by following the same path. If we choose incorrectly we arrive at something less.

Whether that is forever the final state is what I thought you were doubtful of.

The logic behind the biggest concept possible for me to conceive of for "God", says: "It is impossible for any finite mind to imagine the impossible." This produces all kinds of conundrums, the prime one being: "If it is impossible to imagine anything impossible; then my imagining that it is possible to imagine the impossible is possible!" But this only reveals the limitation on language to define anything exclusively. The point of this concept of finite minds not being capable of imagining impossible things, is to cause a belief in "God" being the only Infinite that Exists: from which everything manifesting is derived. This being truly the biggest concept possible to imagine for "God", it follows that every contingency we imagine as possible outcomes for any conceivable or actual thing is in fact real. That means, of course, that I can and I am damned forever: but only if I am also NOT damned forever. You see? "God" is all things infinitely beyond our combined apprehension: and I mean by "our" to include every sapient being that "God" thinks of (and thus causes to Be); being infinite in number and confined to space-time, all beings are nevertheless as present before "God" as "God" is present to Is-self. (That is a new combined word; "Itself" sounds too limited, and impersonal, too non sapient; and besides, Stephen King ruined "It" as any possible reference to "God", imho.) So yes, of course, imagined damnation is REAL Existence too; but it is not the only eventual outcome, as we can imagine even the greatest devil being redeemed eventually: so that too is REAL. And this is the only way to conceive of "God" as omnipotent: having all power over all possibilities, and in love and perfect mercy, always seeing every soul as a being of Joy. The gratitude of such a being, even after a long sojourn in outer darkness (or especially after such an experience?), is all the more enormous, when Joy is finally realized: and the only reality of Joy's opposites is the constant presence of free will, which always makes misery and damnation possible.

Not sure I'm on board with your thinking that everything we can imagine is real. I can imagine that all the females in the history of the world pertain to me alone. That does not make it real either here or later.

that God thinks of and thus causes to be

Not sure I am onboard with this either. As our intelligences are not the product of creative enterprise so there must exist some framework within which even God exists that is not do to His doing/creation that simply is.

We truly are the devil that we fear and hate. That devil hates obedience, conformance, nonentity status, being less than Number One: hating even "God" because none of us can ever be as great as our Creator, etc. Coupled with all the inherent pitfalls of opposition in all things (our carnal, sensual and devilish appetites), the devil that Is each of us can nevertheless apprehend Joy: and in fact is incapable of losing the apprehension of Joy. This is why misery is REAL to the soul that is in rebellion against the laws (rules) that reward with Joy: without the opposite of darkness and misery, there would be no comprehension of either. And there would be no punishment; in fact, no awareness of existence at all.

I love this comment though I don't know how accurate it is. I am not a philosophy type and I suspect much of your thinking resides in that area.

As I said, there is always a desire to change. Is it possible to imagine no desire to change?

Again, dunno. All we know is this mortal probation for the moment. What may be beyond this experience we will discover later. But any communication we reportedly have received from God through prophets and scripture seem to indicate the importance of our choices in this state. If all are saved eventually what difference does anything make with regard to our choices as we eventually will come around anyhow?

Edited September 30, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Verum]

Proper context should be seen as correction of meaning, not as devastation of a static truth, something innately obvious and unchangeable. What I see Gardner and Sorenson and Mark Wright and John Clark doing is reading The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerican context. That is not "de-literalizing" but properly contextualizing.

Kevin, I can relate to a lot of what you are saying here. A couple things in response...

Shouldn't we rely on Joseph as translator and seer to "properly contextualize" the original text? Suppose steel swords did not exist.... Mormon would obviously not have written the word steel but instead would have used a word foreign to our understanding. Thus, as Joseph translates, he would have to come up with the best word in its place to properly contextualize the meaning. In this example, wouldn't something like "metal sword" be more appropriate as opposed to using the term "steel sword". If Joseph uses the word "steel" for something that was clearly not steel, then his role as translator to properly contextualize the record is diminished. This is problematic not necessarily for the historical accuracy of the original text, but instead in our ability to know or trust whether Joseph truly translated or fabricated the work.

I definitely agree that providing proper context to correct meaning does not diminish the literalness of its ability to be an authentic historical text. But to what extent does Joseph's role as translator play into this? If Joseph was somewhat flawed in this role to properly contextualize as he translates, then how can one know that his work is divine? Recognizing his flaw in that role would also cause us to question or reinterpret anything else that comes out of the mouth of one Lord's anointed. It legitimately puts the literalness of prophet's words up for scrutiny and reinterpretation....making it very difficult for all of us to discern between divine and deceit.

[cinepro]

Kevin, I can relate to a lot of what you are saying here. A couple things in response...

Shouldn't we rely on Joseph as translator and seer to "properly contextualize" the original text? Suppose steel swords did not exist.... Mormon would obviously not have written the word steel but instead would have used a word foreign to our understanding. Thus, as Joseph translates, he would have to come up with the best word in its place to properly contextualize the meaning. In this example, wouldn't something like "metal sword" be more appropriate as opposed to using the term "steel sword". If Joseph uses the word "steel" for something that was clearly not steel, then his role as translator to properly contextualize the record is diminished. This is problematic not necessarily for the historical accuracy of the original text, but instead in our ability to know or trust whether Joseph truly translated or fabricated the work.

I definitely agree that providing proper context to correct meaning does not diminish the literalness of its ability to be an authentic historical text. But to what extent does Joseph's role as translator play into this? If Joseph was somewhat flawed in this role to properly contextualize as he translates, then how can one know that his work is divine? Recognizing his flaw in that role would also cause us to question or reinterpret anything else that comes out of the mouth of one Lord's anointed. It legitimately puts the literalness of prophet's words up for scrutiny and reinterpretation....making it very difficult for all of us to discern between divine and deceit.

In other words, what if the Book of Mormon were actually about Acat, the Mayan god of tattoos, and Joseph just interpreted that as being about Jesus because that was reflective of the christian culture and vocabulary of Joseph's time?

[IloveaMormon]

My sincerest apologies to shalamabobbi for my long winded rant.

Edited October 2, 2011 by IloveaMormon

[shalamabobbi]

We are Gods children and that is unchanging. So, if we understand we have God as our Father then there is nothing to fear, nothing to 'prove', no need for change unless we choose it for ourselves out of joy which just so happens to be the way for sustainable loving change. Change happens naturally as a running river and cannot be forced. When we choose to look at the gift of changing as an obligation, we remove the joy from it and therefor make it harder to impliment in our lives. This perspective makes it hard to even appreciate the glory of our very ability to change.

Must you paint these loving concepts like sensuality and the idea of change in such an incipid manner? I feel bad this is how you choose to see the world. Nothing to be grateful for. Only order, obedience, and authority to get to the 'afterparty'. God has no opposite in my mind. He is all so what could be opposite of everything? You want disharmony and 'opposition' and so you find it because that's what you value.

If someone chooses not to change then what is the best motivation becomes a moot point. If God does not require anyone to change in any way to become His children why did Jesus teach:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+8%3A20%2CLuke+8%3A21&version=KJV

[IloveaMormon]

shalamabobbi.

Your posts are eye opening and thoughtful and sometimes cleverly humorous.

Mine come from my feelings and I have no scripture to back up what I say.

You are obviously a very learned man in the doctrine of The LDS church as well as The Bible as well as pointing out undisputable scientific truths which conclude evolution is true.

I was very wrong to attack you personally in my postings and I apologize.

I'm looking forward to Conference tommorow.

Edited October 2, 2011 by IloveaMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I can relate to a lot of what you are saying here. A couple things in response...

Shouldn't we rely on Joseph as translator and seer to "properly contextualize" the original text?

In 2 Nephi 25:1-5, Nephi explains that no one can understand the Jewish prophets like Isaiah without taught to understand the Jewish culture and manner of prophesying. In 3 Nephi 15:17-24 Jesus explains that his Old World disciples failed to understand some of his words, and did not ask for explaination. In 3 Nephi 17:2-3, Jesus tells the multitude that they cannot understand all his words, and that they need to go and ponder, and pray, and prepare their minds.

The LORD tells us through Joseph Smith that we are to study, to ponder, to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118), with the expectation that by doing so we can always be instructed “more perfectly” not just in the “law of the gospel”but with respect to a “knowledge of countries and kingdoms" that he will be "prepared." (D&C 88:78-80)

Alma 32 describes how the process of nurturing the seed via experiment leads to changes in both the experimenter (swelled your souls, enlightened understanding, expanded mind, discernible change), but that the seed itself undergoes change during the process. It sprouts, takes root, sends forth shoots, a grows, and bears fruit. The process is supposed to change both the reader and the book. If it doesn’t there is something wrong.

Thomas Kuhn observes that “Looking at a contour map, the student sees lines on a paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain. Looking at a bubble chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear events. Only after a number of such transformations does the student become an inhabitant of the scientist’s world, seeing what the scientist sees, and responding as the scientist does.” (Kuhn 111, in a chapter on “Revolutions changes of world view.)

Margaret Barker has described her efforts to learn the language and symbolism and culture of Ancient Israel as a process of learning to stand where they stood so that she can see what they saw.

The Perry Scheme describes a student should progress to “starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own.”

Really, I don’t see any other way. For me the process is exciting. I’ve learned to see things in familiar texts that I had never imagined. My efforts have been rewarded. Would I be happier if after all the study I have done, my understanding remained exactly at the same level I attained in Primary while looking at Frieberg paintings?

Suppose steel swords did not exist....

Or, suppose we read in context, touching Jerusalem, 600 BCE, Ancient Arabia, and a thousand year span of several locations and times in Mesoamerica for which descriptions from one time and place should not be uncritically applied to every other time and place. A nd that we recognize that we are reading a translation, and that Joseph Smith is on record as saying of another of his efforts, “I might have rendered a plainer translation , but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.” (D&C 128:18)

Mormon would obviously not have written the word steel but instead would have used a word foreign to our understanding. Thus, as Joseph translates, he would have to come up with the best word in its place to properly contextualize the meaning. In this example, wouldn't something like "metal sword" be more appropriate as opposed to using the term "steel sword". If Joseph uses the word "steel" for something that was clearly not steel, then his role as translator to properly contextualize the record is diminished. This is problematic not necessarily for the historical accuracy of the original text, but instead in our ability to know or trust whether Joseph truly translated or fabricated the work.

Compare the problem in Matthew 5:15. “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick.” Does the translator anachronism prevent me from seeing the point? Does it call into question the entire New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus, because after all, if there were no candles in Jerusalem, how could Jesus have talked about them?

Reading in cultural context is about getting perspective, so it is best not to lose perspective while doing so.

I definitely agree that providing proper context to correct meaning does not diminish the literalness of its ability to be an authentic historical text. But to what extent does Joseph's role as translator play into this?

This question emerges during the process. But don’t be too quick to decided when anyone is ready to answer with finality. For instance, in 1987, Blake Ostler published his Dialogue essay, explaining the his expansion theory. In 1987, un-noticed for several years, Margaret Barker published The Older Testament, which has profound implications for Ostler’s general thesis that Joseph Smith as inspired translator inserted Christianized expansions into the text. I like Blake and was helped by his essay, but it also turns out that when I started reading Barker in 1999, that I recognized that what Blake saw as anachronisms best explained as translator targumizing could be explained as First Temple Theology intact.

If Joseph was somewhat flawed in this role to properly contextualize as he translates, then how can one know that his work is divine?

Those who insist on perfection, and who simultaneously assume that they are capable of perfectly discerning its presence or absence, always make imperfection decisive, and thereby loose sight of broader perspectives.

Recognizing his flaw in that role would also cause us to question or reinterpret anything else that comes out of the mouth of one Lord's anointed.

Recognizing his flaw? What about the motes in our own eye? Are we actually seeing clearly enough to judge by presuming that one apparent flaw is grounds for generalizing about everything else, including the next fifty years of study?

It legitimately puts the literalness of prophet's words up for scrutiny and reinterpretation....making it very difficult for all of us to discern between divine and deceit.

The crisis aspect here all depends on an the logic of a demand for perfection that always makes even the appearance of imperfection seem decisive. That comes from a demand for "perfect knowledge" rather than simply settling for open-ended "cause to believe." (Alma 32:18) Asking whether there is “cause to believe” that Joseph Smith’s inspiration is "real" (Alma 32:35) is a profoundly different perspective to take because it presumes that imperfections in both Joseph Smith, and in the observer's understanding should be taken for granted. Therefore, broader perspectives, and wider ranges of questions and information, and ongoing trends, and personal revelation weigh in the balance.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited October 2, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

In 2 Nephi 25:1-5, Nephi explains that no one can understand the Jewish prophets like Isaiah without taught to understand the Jewish culture and manner of prophesying. In 3 Nephi 15:17-24 Jesus explains that his Old World disciples failed to understand some of his words, and did not ask for explaination. In 3 Nephi 17:2-3, Jesus tells the multitude that they cannot understand all his words, and that they need to go and ponder, and pray, and prepare their minds.

The LORD tells us through Joseph Smith that we are to study, to ponder, to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118), with the expectation that by doing so we can always be instructed “more perfectly” not just in the “law of the gospel”but with respect to a “knowledge of countries and kingdoms" that he will be "prepared." (D&C 88:78-80)

Alma 32 describes how the process of nurturing the seed via experiment leads to changes in both the experimenter (swelled your souls, enlightened understanding, expanded mind, discernible change), but that the seed itself undergoes change during the process. It sprouts, takes root, sends forth shoots, a grows, and bears fruit. The process is supposed to change both the reader and the book. If it doesn’t there is something wrong.

Thomas Kuhn observes that “Looking at a contour map, the student sees lines on a paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain. Looking at a bubble chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear events. Only after a number of such transformations does the student become an inhabitant of the scientist’s world, seeing what the scientist sees, and responding as the scientist does.” (Kuhn 111, in a chapter on “Revolutions changes of world view.)

Margaret Barker has described her efforts to learn the language and symbolism and culture of Ancient Israel as a process of learning to stand where they stood so that she can see what they saw.

The Perry Scheme describes a student should progress to “starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own.”

Really, I don’t see any other way. For me the process is exciting. I’ve learned to see things in familiar texts that I had never imagined. My efforts have been rewarded. Would I be happier if after all the study I have done, my understanding remained exactly at the same level I attained in Primary while looking at Frieberg paintings?

Or, suppose we read in context, touching Jerusalem, 600 BCE, Ancient Arabia, and a thousand year span of several locations and times in Mesoamerica for which descriptions from one time and place should not be uncritically applied to every other time and place. A nd that we recognize that we are reading a translation, and that Joseph Smith is on record as saying of another of his efforts, “I might have rendered a plainer translation , but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.” (D&C 128:18)

Compare the problem in Matthew 5:15. “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick.” Does the translator anachronism prevent me from seeing the point? Does it call into question the entire New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus, because after all, if there were no candles in Jerusalem, how could Jesus have talked about them?

Reading in cultural context is about getting perspective, so it is best not to lose perspective while doing so.

This question emerges during the process. But don’t be too quick to decided when anyone is ready to answer with finality. For instance, in 1987, Blake Ostler published his Dialogue essay, explaining the his expansion theory. In 1987, un-noticed for several years, Margaret Barker published The Older Testament, which has profound implications for Ostler’s general thesis that Joseph Smith as inspired translator inserted Christianized expansions into the text. I like Blake and was helped by his essay, but it also turns out that when I started reading Barker in 1999, that I recognized that what Blake saw as anachronisms best explained as translator targumizing could be explained as First Temple Theology intact.

Those who insist on perfection, and who simultaneously assume that they are capable of perfectly discerning its presence or absence, always make imperfection decisive, and thereby loose sight of broader perspectives.

Recognizing his flaw? What about the motes in our own eye? Are we actually seeing clearly enough to judge by presuming that one apparent flaw is grounds for generalizing about everything else, including the next fifty years of study?

The crisis aspect here all depends on an the logic of a demand for perfection that always makes even the appearance of imperfection seem decisive. That comes from a demand for "perfect knowledge" rather than simply settling for open-ended "cause to believe." (Alma 32:18) Asking whether there is “cause to believe” that Joseph Smith’s inspiration is "real" (Alma 32:35) is a profoundly different perspective to take because it presumes that imperfections in both Joseph Smith, and in the observer's understanding should be taken for granted. Therefore, broader perspectives, and wider ranges of questions and information, and ongoing trends, and personal revelation weigh in the balance.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Philosophically I have known what you are describing for over 40 years, but I want you to know that you have helped me immeasurably see the Book of Mormon as "real". I had no intellectual need for it to be "real", because I had a testimony and understood the philosophy behind your approach, but now I can see intellectually how it may very well have been an ancient text. That has enriched my understanding immeasurably, and I want to thank you for that, publicly.

[TheSkepticChristian]

John from Mormon Expression considers steel to be the most problematic anachronism in the Book of Mormon. Anybody agree with this?

Well Book of Mormon steel is not modern steel

[Robert F. Smith]

Well Book of Mormon steel is not modern steel

Modern steel is carburized iron, and ancient steel from the time of Lehi & Nephi was carburized iron. The best steel swords in the world are Japanese samurai swords, made the old fashioned way even today by blacksmiths. By the time of Lehi & Nephi steel had been produced all over the ancient Near East for a thousand years already. We know this from numerous archeological examples, including steel swords with gold hilts such as that in Tutankhamun's Tomb, which was completely unknown in Joseph's time, finally being discovered a century after Joseph. How did Joseph know to describe just such a sword for Laban (1 Nephi 4:9)? That should astonish you.

Are we sure what the word "steel" in the Book of Mormon means? No. But whether we take it to mean bronze or steel makes no essential difference since both technologies were readily available to clan Lehi.

[Kevin Christensen]

Philosophically I have known what you are describing for over 40 years, but I want you to know that you have helped me immeasurably see the Book of Mormon as "real". I had no intellectual need for it to be "real", because I had a testimony and understood the philosophy behind your approach, but now I can see intellectually how it may very well have been an ancient text. That has enriched my understanding immeasurably, and I want to thank you for that, publicly.

You are more welcome. Thank you.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Questing Beast]

...The rules that exist may be His doing or they may simply exist aside from Him. IOW He may abide by them Himself and is (a) God as a result.

Free will may not necessarily be given. It may simply be a reality and can only be threatened through coercion. Maybe God to remain God simply has to defend free will.

"I gave unto man his agency."

It is hard for me to imagine that even God does not exist within some sort of framework that He is not responsible for.

If "God" is bound by rules that he did not establish, then he is not the ultimate being of power that inspires absolute faith. The concept of a god that is just one of us cannot be the Deity we worship.

... I believe our consciousness self existed from eternity the same as God's. Everything else was added at some point. We are responsible for our own choices which have consequences.

By obedience to correct principles the consequences are that we become as God now is and presumably God became God by following the same path. If we choose incorrectly we arrive at something less.

This is purely Mormon theology, but it isn't even all official doctrine. Gordon Hinckley said that he didn't know much about the concept of God once being as we are, and he didn't know anyone who did know anything about it. So that first half of "the couplet" is not official doctrine, even though the second part is: "As God is, man may become."

...

Not sure I'm on board with your thinking that everything we can imagine is real. I can imagine that all the females in the history of the world pertain to me alone. That does not make it real either here or later.

I agree, "here or later" are not involved in this part of space-time that we find ourselves part of. But logically, it IS impossible for us to have imagined thoughts that are impossible. (that conundrum I referred to before) We are finite. God is infinite. It is not logical to believe that our thoughts, or imaginations, can transcend God.

In some venue, every potential possibility is given reality. So in some way, your facile example, which is so possible to conceive of that you had no difficulty whatsoever putting it into written words, has a reality. That you reject it as silly or "impossible", merely points to how wise you already are: you would never assume that such a state (with you as lord over the Earth, with every female your virtual property) is either wise or desirable; but rather, it would bring purposeless stagnation and the eventual resulting evils.

... our intelligences are not the product of creative enterprise so there must exist some framework within which even God exists that is not [due] to His doing/creation that simply is.

This would make god no Necessary Cause of existence in the first place; and no being worthy of worship; though worthy of respect and honor are surely still possible.

...

All we know is this mortal probation for the moment. What may be beyond this experience we will discover later. But any communication we reportedly have received from God through prophets and scripture seem to indicate the importance of our choices in this state. If all are saved eventually what difference does anything make with regard to our choices as we eventually will come around anyhow?

Last night, Jeffrey Holland said, "The devil is eternally opposed to God's plan." (words to that effect) And instantly I thought, "Eternal punishment is God's punishment." An "eternity", on this forum, has been discussed as NOT being infinite in duration; but more like an epoch or eon. And we do have B. Young's assertion that even the sons of perdition will eventually return to their essence and start over.

Yesterday afternoon, I heard a rehearsal of the Nehor and Korihor philosophy of rampant humanism. The ONLY teaching I share in common with them is the part that says "every man will be saved." I do believe in universal salvation. But I also believe in universal damnation. And I do accept the Mormon definition of the term "damnation": cessation of progression. It is self-induced. And it lasts only so long as the person refuses to obey the rules that reward with Joy. Obviously the vast majority of sapient beings (souls) are a mixture of Joy and its opposites.

The difference that obedience makes is obvious: without obedience there is no wisdom, no self discipline, no Joy. Because "wickedness never was happiness." Wickedness is simply devotion to self, or selfishness. The irony is that in order for us to be truly joyful, we must be devoted wholly to the self; we must never do or desire anything that harms us as joyful beings. And a selfish person is antithetical to Joy. So there is a wrong way and a right way, always, to go about choosing Joy over its opposites.

Do you really believe that a single mortal experience is enough to teach an immortal being all that there is to know about how to recognize and choose Joy over misery?...

[Calm]

If "God" is bound by rules that he did not establish, then he is not the ultimate being of power that inspires absolute faith?...

So you believe that God can create a rock so big he cannot move?

[cdowis]

"I gave unto man his agency."

In the same way that a government can allow or take away personal freedom. It is an inherent natural aspect of humanity, but can be restricted by either God or man, if they chose to do so.

If "God" is bound by rules that he did not establish, then he is not the ultimate being of power that inspires absolute faith. The concept of a god that is just one of us cannot be the Deity we worship.

God created us in HIS image. After the Fall of Adam, the gods said that Adam now became "one of us", knowing good from evil.

The God I worship is literally the Father of my spirit, and the purpose of this life is to become like Him. The same God that appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith, the Old Testament prophets such as Moses, and seen in a vision by Stephen.

I understand that you worship another god.

This is purely Mormon theology, but it isn't even all official doctrine. Gordon Hinckley said that he didn't know much about the concept of God once being as we are, and he didn't know anyone who did know anything about it.

CFR, please, and give us the FULL quote of what he actually said and not the edited version.

Edited October 2, 2011 by cdowis

[shalamabobbi]

ref

This may require opening another thread as we are off topic. But I am curious that you do not accept the LDS version of the war in heaven - does this mean that you view man as having a beginning before which he had no existence? I assume you accept the pre-mortal existence of Jesus.

ref John 9:2

http://www.biblicalproportions.com/modules/ol_bible/King_James_Bible/John/9/

Or do you believe that all God's spirit children come to this earth (or other worlds) and that the third was not left behind?