why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't think anything Joseph said, would really have to change. The visions, finding the plates, the translation process, etc, could all still be true, and the book, inspired fiction. It wouldn't even have to be original to Joseph. It could have been inspired and written by Moroni or someone else.Except no where is it claimed to be inspired fiction. These writers or prophets of the book of mormon were not writing a novel. They were writing a history of a people.
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 And the fact that people believe or disbelieve something often has little to do with who can or can't be demonstrated.That is exactly my point!I don't know if these people are for real or not, but here you go! Jediism is the religion of The Force We are not fictional Jedi from the wonderful Star Wars movies, neither are we role playing. Jediism is not the same as that which is portrayed within the Star Wars Saga by George Lucas and Lucasfilm LTD. George Lucas' Jedi are fictional characters that exist within a literary and cinematic universe.The Jedi discussed within this website refer to real people within this world that live or lived their lives according to the principles of Jediism, of which we recognize and work together as a community to both cultivate and celebrate. Jedi Apprentices, Knights, Scholars, Masters, and High Councilors embrace Jediism as a real living, breathing religion and sincerely strive to seek out and emulate real life examples of Jediism in the long rich history of mankind. Jediism bases less of its focus on myth and fiction and more upon those real life examples of Jediism.We believe in Peace, Justice, Love, Learning and using our abilities for Good so it's unlikely that our way conflicts with your beliefs and traditions.A real Jedi may belong to any Church or no other Church as long as s/he takes a true oath to follow our Creed and Code which is published here for all to see. Nonetheless all are welcome to register and participate as a guest.Religion is all deeds and all reflection,Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for The Force and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/Is there some truth here? Of course! Might some people actually learn some truth from sites like this? Of course! It is completely possible.I think God takes us from where we are and gives us further light and knowledge from whatever source will reach us- fiction or non-fiction. And yes, I think that under certain circumstances even comic books could teach true principles to those who need to find them there because they have no other source.
William Schryver Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Except no where is it claimed to be inspired fiction. These writers or prophets of the book of mormon were not writing a novel. They were writing a history of a people.I don't really believe Mormon sought to write a history of a people so much as he sought to provide a witness of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. 1
why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Hi Libs,I have to disagree with you here. Frankly, I don't know if the BoM is fiction or not -- inspired allegory -- whatever. For me, I see a lot of 19th century protestantism which makes me lean to a 19th century origin. Having said that, the BoM is a mystery as there are several things about it which -- whether historical or not -- truly are remarkable.Anyway, the Book of Mormon inspires me to be more Christ-like. I don't really care if its historical or not.Sethit is rather surprising that the members at that time with joseph did not see it themselves. I see it mentioned nowhere by exmembers that it resembles the nineteenth century. Also, I would think that if it were seen that would be one question for Joseph and I am sure that a member would have asked such a question. But I don't see this happening either. Also, we need to remember that the book of mormon if written in the nineteenth century, it would be at the very beginning of the century. So when we look at nineteenth century protestantism you are referring to the first 20 years of the century.
why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I don't really believe Mormon sought to write a history of a people so much as he sought to provide a witness of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.The only problem with this are the wars and political implications and the religious struggles of opposing parties. Also, the book of mormon is an abrigement of a larger book that was cut. The book certainly has historical implications.
why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I find it remarkable that marginal Mormons refuse to answer the very straightforward and simple questions I ask. Instead, when I discuss this issue with them, they alway obfuscate and equivocate. I have never had a straightforward answer to these questions from any marginal-Mormon. So I'll try one more time for clarity.Can a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus if the Christ, the Son of the Living God?Note I am not asking if a fictional BOM can help you be nice (the marginal Mormon equivocation for Christ-like).Seth, will you answer this question?To answer your question: no, it cant. Fiction can only inspire when it touches someone's reality and causes that person to question that reality. The book of mormon cannot do that as fiction since its foundational story is based on truth and nonfiction.
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Well, if a bunch of American Indians had a strange communal vision it certainly wouldn't have been of Jesus.But remember the whole Quetzalcoatl legend (yes I know that has been debunked)- one can easily imagine a variation of that which was influenced by one native American meeting one Christian in that two thousand year period and making up a new variation and perhaps even a new cult based on that- the worship of Quezalcoatl in a cult which had been "contaminated" by Christian stories which then made it into a historical BOM.But all this is so far fetched that the most reasonable story, giving Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt, is that he earnestly hallucinated the whole thing. I think that is what the most generous critics think, probably that is the kind of point of view a source like the New York Times would be seen as "generous" to have taken in a story about the church.You see that sort of thing all the time from secular sources. You see statements like "Joseph received the plates from an angel, who eventually took them away again into heaven" and you can just see the rolling eyes.That is after all the entire point of view of the Broadway Play "The Book of Mormon". I think that most critics today see the "fictional but earnestly believed" characterization of what Joseph was doing as indeed the most generous and politically correct way to handle Mormonism.But that is all because they have not had a testimony experience. That is the only thing which can change that, as crazily improbable as the whole story is.If their belief that it is "fictional" gets them closer to the truth so that they can have a testimony experience I certainly do not want to stand in their way by calling someone "marginal". None of it makes sense anyway if you really want to get logical about it- and I welcome anyone who can even take a mustard seed size particle of faith to plant and allow to grow.When I joined the church, I had just moved back to California from New York and the notion that a bunch of Utah farmers had the true gospel of Jesus Christ was nearly overwhelmingly absurd, but God had told me it was in whatever sense "true".If someone had told me I was a "marginal Mormon" because of that I don't know how I might have reacted. I certainly would not have felt welcomed.Now thirty years later I have bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. I see how it all fits- but that is after a period of study and development that I would not want to have to repeat. Edited August 17, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Except no where is it claimed to be inspired fiction. These writers or prophets of the book of mormon were not writing a novel. They were writing a history of a people.Yes but you must see it from her point of view. Don't be threatened by that- see that it is a reasonable point of view and let her have what she has without forcing the point. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I don't really believe Mormon sought to write a history of a people so much as he sought to provide a witness of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.Exactly- and that is the main point regardless of anything. The BOM is Another Testament - (Testimony) of Jesus Christ. Perhaps we should ask if testimonies are "fiction"?Are statements of belief fiction or non-fiction? I think the question in that context becomes irrelevant. They are what they are- a statement of belief.
sethpayne Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 You answered every question but the main one:Does a fictional BOM demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?Hi Bill,As I said above, I don't know.Seth
sethpayne Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 it is rather surprising that the members at that time with joseph did not see it themselves. I see it mentioned nowhere by exmembers that it resembles the nineteenth century. Also, I would think that if it were seen that would be one question for Joseph and I am sure that a member would have asked such a question. But I don't see this happening either. Also, we need to remember that the book of mormon if written in the nineteenth century, it would be at the very beginning of the century. So when we look at nineteenth century protestantism you are referring to the first 20 years of the century.You should read the contemporary criticism of the BoM. It was mocked by many precisely because it was, at least to reviewers like Alexander Campbell, a 19th century work. I'm not saying Campbell was right, but plenty of folks criticized the BoM from the beginning on this basis.A very good review of early New England theology is "A Genetic History of the New England Theology." Great overview of the teachings/theology of Dr. Edwards and others.
theplains Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 The land would be a land of freedom with no kings on the land.http://www.bookofmor...omlands_004.htmI looked at the link you provided but it seems to talk about the United States ("America") in general. But can yoube very specific and provide prophecies for your "New York" setting?"Kings" (if you look at its usage in the New Testament) can also refer to Presidents, Prime Ministers, Caesars, etc.It is not specifically limited to someone like a King Henry.Regards,Jim
Bill Hamblin Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 Hi Bill,As I said above, I don't know.Seth"I don't know" means no. If it did demonstrate it, you would know. Since you don't know, it obviously does not.
why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Exactly- and that is the main point regardless of anything. The BOM is Another Testament - (Testimony) of Jesus Christ.Except this is rather a recent addition to the cover of the book of mormon. What the book is is a history of a group of people who lived centuries ago. Their wars, their faith and their trials and a visitation from christ.
sethpayne Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 "I don't know" means no. If it did demonstrate it, you would know. Since you don't know, it obviously does not.OK, Bill. I'm glad you know what I think/feel/mean. But generally when I say I don't know it really means "I don't know." In order to answer that question affirmatively or negatively would have to be certain of at least one of its premises. As I don't have certainty on either, the best answer I can offer up is : "I don't know."
cursor Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I don't really believe Mormon sought to write a history of a people so much as he sought to provide a witness of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.There is certainly a lot of detailed history (war strategies, political references, lineage records, etc.) contained in the record that takes it well beyond just being being a witness of Jesus Christ.
morgan.deane Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 There is certainly a lot of detailed history (war strategies, political references, lineage records, etc.) contained in the record that takes it well beyond just being being a witness of Jesus Christ.The history within the book was supposed to support its message. Thats one reason why I read everything in it with a grain of salt. The history within a work of Julius Caesar was writtent o support his goal. Chinese historians molded history to fit a narrative that justified a change in dynasties. So Mormon's "history" supported his belief that God blessed those with faith in Him and followed His commands and those that didn't suffered. So while it isn't history in the sense that we understand the term, the goal of the book is intertwined with the history it contains.
William Schryver Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Except this is rather a recent addition to the cover of the book of mormon. What the book is is a history of a group of people who lived centuries ago. Their wars, their faith and their trials and a visitation from christ.whyme,First of all, we are not in disagreement here. We're merely trying to making different points; different observations about the extraordinary work entitled "The Book of Mormon."The Book of Mormon manifests many of the elements generally understood to constitute a "history," and yet I maintain that Mormon (and Moroni) did not mean for his book to be understood by its eventual readers as a mere history, per se. It is true that Mormon had at his disposal a vast library:Helaman 313 And now there are many records kept of the proceedings of this people, by many of this people, which are particular and very large, concerning them.14 But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.15 But behold, there are many books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites.16 And they have been handed down from one generation to another by the Nephites, even until they have fallen into transgression and have been murdered, plundered, and hunted, and driven forth, and slain, and scattered upon the face of the earth, and mixed with the Lamanites until they are no more called the Nephites, becoming wicked, and wild, and ferocious, yea, even becoming Lamanites.Nevertheless, I believe that The Book of Mormon was very deliberately crafted by its author as something far more profound and complex than any mere history. His intent, as described in its title page, is quite explicit:… to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nationsOr, in other words, God was intimately involved in the affairs of men then; He is also intimately involved in the affairs of men now. He made covenants with men in ancient times and, in particular, the covenant made with Abraham is sure: Judah will inherit his portion; Ephraim and Manasseh theirs; the remainder of the tribes of Israel theirs. In other words, there are, in fact, "promised lands."It is no mistake that the words "JESUS CHRIST ETERNAL GOD" are deliberately rendered in all capital letters, giving emphasis to the facts of the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He is the Messiah of the Jews; and the Eternal God of all mankind, who shall judge all men according the knowledge they have received.This is the God of whom Mormon and Moroni bear witness: the ETERNAL GOD; the Almighty God; the Ruler of Heaven and Earth. He is not a parochial deity, known but to few, but the God of all, and The Book of Mormon describes the nature of his dealings with mankind, that all may be saved through faith on his name, which is Jesus Christ.The simple fact is that Christ is the God from whom all nations have received whatsoever truth they possess, even if they do not know it. Hence the book is written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST."From my perspective, this is the meaning and purpose of The Book of Mormon. Edited August 18, 2012 by William Schryver
cursor Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Right—1) societal & cultural behavior & consequence, 2) genealogy (of the elite class), 3) military defensive strategies, 4) prophetic pronouncements & judgments (not directly related to Christ being the Son of God). And that then takes it well beyond just being a witness for Jesus Christ, doesn't it.
William Schryver Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 There is certainly a lot of detailed history (war strategies, political references, lineage records, etc.) contained in the record that takes it well beyond just being being a witness of Jesus Christ.I believe the portion of the Book of Mormon that details the great war of the Nephites and Lamanites during the period of Helaman and Captain Moroni is included in order to convey something very specific that goes far beyond the mere historical details of the war itself. I believe I concur with Dan Peterson on that particular point: I Really Do Love the Book of Mormon.
rodheadlee Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) For me it boils down to did Christ come to the Americas or not. If he didn't then that's a lot more cognitive dissonance than my pea brain can handle. I mean hey we have Israel on the map in the east and we have El Salvador on the map in the west. Doesn't Israel mean governed by God? That's what I was taught many moons ago. El Salvador is of course The Savior. When I first saw a copy of the BoM I simply checked my map and it made complete sense to me. It's typical of New Yorkers to think He went there and not to El Salvador. But I figure He had time to visit all of His 12 tribes no matter their location. So my answer is NO. If the BoM is fictional it doesn't work for me. Edited August 18, 2012 by rodheadlee
cursor Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 William Schryver']It is true that Mormon has at his disposal a vast library.Can you imagine the limitless library that he has at his fingertips NOW?!
cursor Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I suspect that Mormon's current library just might be hologramatic ... or something equally 3D-istic (or nthD-istic).
Bart Burk Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I looked at the link you provided but it seems to talk about the United States ("America") in general. But can yoube very specific and provide prophecies for your "New York" setting?"Kings" (if you look at its usage in the New Testament) can also refer to Presidents, Prime Ministers, Caesars, etc.It is not specifically limited to someone like a King Henry.Regards,Jim2 Nephi 10: 10-14 says the Gentiles will not have kings upon the land. It does not say there will be no government.
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 And yet there were all those English, Dutch, Russian, Swedes, French and Spanish kings and queens over their American territories/colonies....
Recommended Posts