Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 . . . admission to the "real" club is controlled by scientists and historians, who have not, and never will, sign on to the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. It wasn't an ancient text, except in the mythology we have constructed. But why are so many Mormon so interested in either contorting that mythology to fit with science and history, or contorting science and history to fit with the mythology?Aside from the continuing fact that this "'real' club . . . controlled by scientists and historians" does not exist as a group with any knowledge of the Book of Mormon, no one should be "interested in either contorting . . . mythology to fit with science and history, or contorting science and history to fit with the mythology." On those methodological matters at least, we can agree that the Book of Mormon should get no special favors. At the same time, the Book of Mormon should be accorded a fair appraisal by the very historical and scientific measures which you are unwilling to apply. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Cobalt.Leave the mythology alone! The Book of Mormon doesn't need apologists limiting its geography. The Book of Mormon doesn't need apologists coming up with contorted theories to explain why nobody has Nephite DNA anymore. The apologetic explanations come across as defensive, and merely turn people off. Let's read the Book of Mormon the way it was by its own admission intended: as a solution to 19th century religious problems. And lets not be telling people that unless it's "real history," it is fraud. That's like telling people that if you don't go on a mission, you must become a prostitute.It is the Book of Mormon itself which limits its geography, not some nameless "apologists." I know of no evidence that there is a lack of Nephite-Lamanite DNA, and know of no one who has been contorting evidence on the matter -- except for some anti-Mormons who have written blatantly misleading articles about DNA generally among the Amerinds, as though it had something to do with Nephites and Lamanites. No serious research has even been done on the matter. All I have heard from the anti-Mormon crowd thus far is cat-calling and smear-tactics. It might be nice if we had some serious anthropological research on the matter.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Cobalt-70 believes the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be an authentically ancient record because he believes science and scholarship have already falsified it. The final results are already in, and the childish literalists have lost. They just don't know it yet.In the end, that's what it's all about.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Well, ontological reality is a Greek thing, not a Mormon thing, and admission to the "real" club is controlled by scientists and historians, who have not, and never will, sign on to the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.The granite, uniform and monolithic club you have described is more imaginary than you believe the Book of Mormon to be.It wasn't an ancient text, except in the mythology we have constructed. But why are so many Mormon so interested in either contorting that mythology to fit with science and history, or contorting science and history to fit with the mythology?And yet, Joseph Smith disagrees with you. And he was there through the whole thing and you were not. I would say, all in all, he is in a better position to know than you are.The Book of Mormon is true, just what it purports to be, and for this testimony I expect to give an account in the day of judgment. If I obtain the glory which I have in view, I expect to wade through much tribulation. (Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, comps., They Knew the Prophet, p. 101)
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I was just looking at the OP question, again, and it is asking if the Book of Mormon can be inspired (I take that as meaning inspired by God), if it is not historical? Putting the question, of whether or not it is true history, aside, could it be inspired by God, even if it were not true history?I say "yes".
cinepro Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 It would be from the book of Lehi. It would basically be a matter of code-breaking. The same process that was used to decipher real Mesoamerican scripts. Codes can be broken, even with relatively small samples. We would be particularly aided by the knowledge that the script is a representation of a spoken Hebrew dialect which is less than a millennium removed from real Hebrew. Aren't apologists always telling us that Mormon's abridgment is chock full of Hebraisms? That seems like that would be more than enough information to break at least some of the code, if the code actually contained information.For those interested in the subject, here is a blog by a non-LDS guy who researches "ciphers" and his look at the Anthon Transcript:http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/06/01/the-anthon-transcript
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I was just looking at the OP question, again, and it is asking if the Book of Mormon can be inspired (I take that as meaning inspired by God), if it is not historical? Putting the question, of whether or not it is true history, aside, could it be inspired by God, even if it were not true history?I say "yes".Theoretically and abstractly yes. But if it is the result of lunacy or lies, that is not inspiration from God.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) For those interested in the subject, here is a blog by a non-LDS guy who researches "ciphers" and his look at the Anthon Transcript:http://www.ciphermys...thon-transcriptA different, more faithful fellow spent years pouring over the anton manuscript and claimed to be able to translate it into a passage from the Book of Mormon. He wrote a whole big (coffee table sized I think) book on the matter.So, you recommend that site that labels Joseph Smith a fraud as a good place for information. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Theoretically and abstractly yes. But if it is the result of lunacy or lies, that is not inspiration from God.Yes, I agree. I was just trying to bring it back to the actual OP question. Because of my experiences with the book, I believe parts of the Book of Mormon were inspired by God. I'm not sure how it happened or whether or not it is true history.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Yes, I agree. I was just trying to bring it back to the actual OP question.Because of my experiences with the book, I believe parts of the Book of Mormon were inspired by God. I'm not sure how it happened or whether or not it is true history.That's actually entirely reasonable to me. I never bear testimony to things that have not been confirmed to me.
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 That's actually entirely reasonable to me. I never bear testimony to things that have not been confirmed to me.Thank you. Some people do not find it reasonable at all. They think, if you have a testimony of all, or even a part, of the Book of Mormon, it should infer all kinds of things...a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet and all that goes with it. A package deal, so to speak.
DBMormon Posted June 10, 2012 Author Posted June 10, 2012 They think, if you have a testimony of all, or even a part, of the Book of Mormon, it should infer all kinds of things...a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet and all that goes with it. A package deal, so to speak. I was taught to think this way. That once one had a testimony of the BOM from the Holy Ghost then Joseph, the church, President "current Prophet" all could be assumed true.I do think the BOM and Joseph are interchangeably linked unless one takes the route that the BOM is true but Joseph lied about where he found it and how he translated it.
zerinus Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Thank you. Some people do not find it reasonable at all. They think, if you have a testimony of all, or even a part, of the Book of Mormon, it should infer all kinds of things...a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet and all that goes with it. A package deal, so to speak.Me included. I don't think it is possible to have a "partial" testimony of the Book of Mormon. The Holy Ghost does not give a partial testimony of the Book of Mormon. You used to be LDS, and then left. I think that you "desire to know the truth in part, but not all" (D&C 49:2). You want to cherry pick what you like out of the Restored gospel, and leave behind what you don't like. Unfortunately you can't do that. It is all or nothing. You either accept all of it or can't have any of it--except possibly in a lesser kingdom of glory.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Thank you. Some people do not find it reasonable at all. They think, if you have a testimony of all, or even a part, of the Book of Mormon, it should infer all kinds of things...a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet and all that goes with it. A package deal, so to speak.Well there are a some consequent effects. The Book of Mormon has many purposes one of which is to be a thing by which we can test Joseph Smith. It is the keystone: If it is of God then Joseph Smith was a prophet. That function is one of the reasons it was given to us.
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I was taught to think this way. That once one had a testimony of the BOM from the Holy Ghost then Joseph, the church, President "current Prophet" all could be assumed true.I do think the BOM and Joseph are interchangeably linked unless one takes the route that the BOM is true but Joseph lied about where he found it and how he translated it.No, I don't think it automatically means that Joseph is a prophet (although, it could mean that). And, I don't think it has to mean that he "lied" about anything, either. He could have been a true believer in everything he did and said. I tend to believe that was the case. I think he would have had to have been very sincere in his beliefs, in order to receive any kind of inspiration from God. When I say, I believe "parts" of the Book of Mormon were inspired, I am thinking about the possibility that Joseph dictated this book from his imagination (especially since it didn't seem to be taken from the actual plates), and in many parts of it, through this process, received some real inspiration from God. That's kind of how I have thought about, recently....but, that's pure conjecture, on my part....taken from what I know about the book and the translation process.
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Me included. I don't think it is possible to have a "partial" testimony of the Book of Mormon. The Holy Ghost does not give a partial testimony of the Book of Mormon. You used to be LDS, and then left. I think that you "desire to know the truth in part, but not all" (D&C 49:2). You want to cherry pick what you like out of the Restored gospel, and leave behind what you don't like. Unfortunately you can't do that. It is all or nothing. You either accept all of it or can't have any of it--except possibly in a lesser kingdom of glory.No, I don't "desire to have partial testimony or to cherry pick"...that is actually what I have.
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Well there are a some consequent effects. The Book of Mormon has many purposes one of which is to be a thing by which we can test Joseph Smith. It is the keystone: If it is of God then Joseph Smith was a prophet. That function is one of the reasons it was given to us.I think that is the function that the LDS Church has given it, but it may not be the function for everyone who comes in contact with the book. I know several other people who believe the book has some inspiration, who do not believe in the overall trajectory or purpose of the church.There is some great symbolism in the Book of Mormon that fits in with many other belief systems. The Tree of Life is one of the primary symbols that fits in with many esoteric belief systems. Also, the book, as a whole, is primarily about the battle between good and evil....the journey back to God. This same story is presented in the Bhagavad Gita and many other holy books.
zerinus Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) I think that is the function that the LDS Church has given it, but it may not be the function for everyone who comes in contact with the book. I know several other people who believe the book has some inspiration, who do not believe in the overall trajectory or purpose of the church.There is some great symbolism in the Book of Mormon that fits in with many other belief systems. The Tree of Life is one of the primary symbols that fits in with many esoteric belief systems. Also, the book, as a whole, is primarily about the battle between good and evil....the journey back to God. This same story is presented in the Bhagavad Gita and many other holy books.That is kind of like those who say Jesus was a great moral teacher; but pretty much reject the rest of His gospel--His divinity, His Atonement, His resurrection etc. I agree that He was a great moral teacher; but so was Gandhi; so was Socrates; so was Confucius; so was the Buddha. Why should we choose Him rather than any of them? Edited June 10, 2012 by zerinus
Libs Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 That is kind of like those who say Jesus was a great moral teacher; but pretty much reject the rest of His gospel--His divinity, His Atonement, His resurrection etc. I agree that He was a great moral teacher; but so was Gandhi; so was Socrates; so was Confucius; so was the Buddha. Why should we choose Him rather than any of them?Why should we? The reasons are often cultural. People can find God and/or inspiration through any (or all) of these great teachers, IMHO.
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 I think that is the function that the LDS Church has given it, but it may not be the function for everyone who comes in contact with the book. I know several other people who believe the book has some inspiration, who do not believe in the overall trajectory or purpose of the church.So, the function of something is not dependent upon its design and purpose but rather the perceptions of some -- who may not even understand it?
zerinus Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Why should we? The reasons are often cultural. People can find God and/or inspiration through any (or all) of these great teachers, IMHO.Thank you. You just confirmed everything that I had said.
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 So, the function of something is not dependent upon its design and purpose but rather the perceptions of some -- who may not even understand it?Not at all. I, suppose, the bottom line is, the "function" of anything, is dependent on the "user". A hairpin has a specific purpose, but it is often used in many ways other than it's original purpose, and those uses can be just as "functional" (positive and useful) as the original purpose.
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 So, the function of something is not dependent upon its design and purpose but rather the perceptions of some -- who may not even understand it?False dichotomy.Let people get out of it what they can or will. If the best they can do is find it to be an inspired story, that is better than if they think it is nonsense, isn't it?I am not sure what you are complaining about
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Thank you. You just confirmed everything that I had said.So I suppose then we should not allow people the light they DO receive?
zerinus Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 So I suppose then we should not allow people the light they DO receive?No; it confirms that the "light" that gives one a partial testimony of the Book of Mormon is the same kind of "light" which sees in Jesus a moral teacher and nothing more.
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 No; it confirms that the "light" that gives one a partial testimony of the Book of Mormon is the same kind of "light" which sees in Jesus a moral teacher and nothing more.Zerinus, I see Jesus Christ as much more than a moral teacher. I just didn't want to go into that here. But, it's true, that some do see Jesus only as a moral teacher. But, seeing Christ as a moral teacher, is not a sign of "less light", necessarily....not in my opinion. I have seen some very judgmental people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but don't seem to understand the great moral teachings of the person they put their faith in. Do they really have "more light"?
Recommended Posts