zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 I'm interested in what claims the book makes for itself, and what Mormons mean when they say they've received a testimony that it's true.It means two things: 1. That it is historically true (I.e. the events described in it actually happened), and 2. That it is doctrinally true (I.e. that there are no incorrect doctrines taught in it).
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 Is your question essentially would God allow an inaccurate doctrinal statement to be included in the Book of Mormon and then still allow people to gain a testimony of the truthfulness of that same book?Yes!That's it exactly.What's the answer?
zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Yes!That's it exactly.What's the answer?That hypothetical question is redudndant because it has not been demonstrated that it has happened. Edited March 1, 2012 by zerinus
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) That hypothetical question is redudndant because it has not been demonstrated that it has happened.So you believe that all things (things that act, and things that are acted upon) were created by God?... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)Is that true doctrine?I believe Mormon prophets also referred to God as "The Most High God," and "The Highest."Do you believe that Zerinus? Edited March 1, 2012 by inquiringmind
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 My testimony is that the Book of Mormon is true, but you can't take every passage as a logically airtight, self-contained doctrinal exposition.Is your question essentially would God allow an inaccurate doctrinal statement to be included in the Book of Mormon and then still allow people to gain a testimony of the truthfulness of that same book?You've understood my question, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the answer.Thank you.
zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 So you believe that all things (things that act, and things that are acted upon) were created by God?... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)Is that true doctrine?I believe Mormon prophets also referred to God as "The Most High God," and "The Highest."Do you believe that Zerinus?Yes, I believe all of those doctrines are correct without reservation.
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 Yes, I believe all of those doctrines are correct without reservation.Is element acted upon?When God (or the Gods) created the universe, did they organize (act upon) the elements?Do you believe everything that's acted upon was created by God?
JDave Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Is your question essentially would God allow an inaccurate doctrinal statement to be included in the Book of Mormon and then still allow people to gain a testimony of the truthfulness of that same book?Yes!That's it exactly.What's the answer?I don't know if there is an official answer to that question, but my personal opinion is that the Book of Mormon primarily teaches about the basic principles of the gospel and those are quite clearly and accurately proclaimed. Faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience, charity, etc. Prophets teach according to what they have been revealed, and if any prophet in the Book of Mormon portrays something that is seemingly not in line with more recent revelation then it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the more recent revelation. I don't view a doctrinally inaccurate statement of that type in the Book of Mormon to have any impact on the claim that the book is "true", that it teaches the true gospel of Christ and that a man, by abiding by its precepts, may draw closer to God than by any other book. I even stated in my previous post that "either way" is ok. Whether Mormon wasn't as careful with his rhetoric as he should have been, or if he stated an incorrect view based on incomplete knowledge, I believe that he was a prophet of God who preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ. 1
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 I don't know if there is an official answer to that question, but my personal opinion is that the Book of Mormon primarily teaches about the basic principles of the gospel and those are quite clearly and accurately proclaimed. Faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience, charity, etc.Prophets teach according to what they have been revealed, and if any prophet in the Book of Mormon portrays something that is seemingly not in line with more recent revelation then it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the more recent revelation. I don't view a doctrinally inaccurate statement of that type in the Book of Mormon to have any impact on the claim that the book is "true", that it teaches the true gospel of Christ and that a man, by abiding by its precepts, may draw closer to God than by any other book. I even stated in my previous post that "either way" is ok. Whether Mormon wasn't as careful with his rhetoric as he should have been, or if he stated an incorrect view based on incomplete knowledge, I believe that he was a prophet of God who preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ.Thank you.That might be helpful.
zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Is element acted upon?When God (or the Gods) created the universe, did they organize (act upon) the elements?Do you believe everything that's acted upon was created by God?You have misunderstood what it means to "act" and be "acted upon". In either case, it is referring to intelligent beings with agency to "act," or (by squandering their agency) to be "acted upon".
inquiringmind Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 You have misunderstood what it means to "act" and be "acted upon". In either case, it is referring to intelligent beings with agency to "act," or (by squandering their agency) to be "acted upon". I'm pretty sure John Widtsoe defined intelligence as that which acts, and element as that which is acted upon. 1
zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 I'm pretty sure John Widtsoe defined intelligence as that which acts, and element as that which is acted upon.That is possible, in which case my interpretation would be different from his.
zerinus Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Is element acted upon?When God (or the Gods) created the universe, did they organize (act upon) the elements?Do you believe everything that's acted upon was created by God?You have misunderstood what it means to "act" and be "acted upon". In either case, it is referring to intelligent beings with agency to "act," or (by squandering their agency) to be "acted upon".I'm pretty sure John Widtsoe defined intelligence as that which acts, and element as that which is acted upon.There is another possible way of answering that question. There are many passages of scripture that teach that God is the creator of all things. LDS critics often quote these verses against the LDS doctrine of the pre-existence of matter. The LDS answer to that is that "all things" means all that were created. It does not include things that were not created. The same reasoning can be applied here. When it says that God "created all things ... both things to act, and things to be acted upon" (2 Nephi 2:14). it does not include things that were not created at all. We don't know how much of "matter" is actually created, and how much of it is not. Just as "intelligence" is not created, but intelligent beings (like us) are created; it could be that "element" was not created, but matter (as we know it) was created; and they are also among things that are "acted upon".
Recommended Posts