happy Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Happy:Not so. I create a water line every time I take a bath. If I wait long enough I get to erase all the evidence by using cleanser. Further your example necessitates the movement of water. Where did all that water go?*Sigh* Your missing the point. Where did the water go? God removed the extra because it was no longer needed.
Ahab Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Is it possible that Joseph Smith really did receive gold plates from a historical person who had compiled the legends of his people on plates, and that some of those legends weren't actually historical while the basic outline of the story was historical?Possible, yes. Probable, no, or at least I don't think so. At minimum someone who said his name was Moroni must have appeared to Joseph Smith to somehow get him to visualize where the plates were buried in the ground, and that person must have appeared the way Joseph said he appeared while delivering a message at least roughly similar to what Joseph said he said, and at least roughly when and where he told him. If that didn't happen, then God has lied to me, because God has told me that much is true.The visit of Christ to the Nephites and the later history of the Nephites seem to be reasonable. But frankly in my mind the details of the Jaredites and the Nephites travels across the ocean seem more the stuff of legend than history.What's so hard to believe about that? That some people built some ships and barges to cross the ocean? That the barges sometimes tossed so much in the water that they sometimes submerged, but overall made the trip, eventually? That God made some stones glow? I can see how you might have trouble believing a real jackass talked to somebody named Balaam, but ships crossing the ocean? That's not hard for me to believe.Is it even possible that some of the details might have been Joseph Smith getting the translation wrong?Possible, yes. Probable, no. At minimum the Book of Mormon translation must be at least roughly similar to what those people wrote in ancient America, and they must have believed it was a record of what they believed they saw and heard happen.How historical does the Book of Mormon have to be?At least as historical as any other history book. Have you seen what passes as history for some people? Edited September 12, 2012 by Ahab
sethpayne Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Not aware that such a thing happened. References please.Hmm... CFR... how about the book of Joshua. Read carefully.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Is it possible that Joseph Smith really did receive gold plates from a historical person who had compiled the legends of his people on plates, and that some of those legends weren't actually historical while the basic outline of the story was historical? The visit of Christ to the Nephites and the later history of the Nephites seem to be reasonable. But frankly in my mind the details of the Jaredites and the Nephites travels across the ocean seem more the stuff of legend than history. Is it even possible that some of the details might have been Joseph Smith getting the translation wrong? How historical does the Book of Mormon have to be?It actually lends credit...the Book of Either is so unlike the rest of the BoM, why would he have done it (or added it) unless it was part of Mormon's writtings.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Hmm... CFR... how about the book of Joshua. Read carefully.Yep. There is even more such things. Men we are flawed, but that is all God has to deal with.
RobertAC Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 It actually lends credit...the Book of Either is so unlike the rest of the BoM, why would he have done it (or added it) unless it was part of Mormon's writtings.My recollection of Either is similar. I read the Book of Mormon many years ago, so my recollections are quite fuzzy. What did strike me as a difference between it and the Old and New Testaments is that, in general, the writing style between the books in the Book of Mormon is the same. The Bible tends to have different styles that suggests different writers. I do not get that sense with the Book of Mormon; the books seem to be written by the same person. However, there are a couple of books -- Either being one of them if I recall -- where the style is noticeably different.
zerinus Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Hmm... CFR... how about the book of Joshua. Read carefully.Have already read, and have no problems with. Up to you to provide evidence.
sethpayne Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 It's also easier for some to believe there is not a God and its all a fable.True. But given what we know about how history is written (take a look at how Church History has come together ... we see myth-making as well as detailed "objective" histories) it is much more reasonable to assume that the same human dynamics that exist today existed for the redactors of the OT.
sethpayne Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Have already read, and have no problems with. Up to you to provide evidence.Who said there was a "problem."Are you arguing that Joshua and Judges don't contain serious contradictions about the nature of the Israelite conquests as they entered Canaan? If you can't see that there isn't much I'm going to say that will change your mind.
Lightbearer Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Is it possible that Joseph Smith really did receive gold plates from a historical person who had compiled the legends of his people on plates, and that some of those legends weren't actually historical while the basic outline of the story was historical? The visit of Christ to the Nephites and the later history of the Nephites seem to be reasonable. But frankly in my mind the details of the Jaredites and the Nephites travels across the ocean seem more the stuff of legend than history. Is it even possible that some of the details might have been Joseph Smith getting the translation wrong? How historical does the Book of Mormon have to be?You do err greatly in your assumption that the Book of Mormon was designed as a scholarly work of history. It was not, it was an abridgement (note that means some parts are left out) but the more sacred writings were included. Why do you assume that Joseph may have got some of the translation wrong? Just to engender doubt of the Prophet's ability to receive revelation? That is really what the scriptures are all about, revelation from God. The Book of Mormon's purpose is to bring all people unto Christ. To bear a second scared witness that Jesus is the Christ and that His Gospel was restored in it's fullness. It actually is also a test. A test of faith. One that our salvation depends on. We cannot take lightly the Book of Mormon and the revelations of this dispensation or we will fall. The writers of the book (Nephi. Jacob, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Nephi, and Ether) all of there words were abridged by Mormon (hence the name The Book of Mormon) and his son Moroni all testified of it's truth, not that they were compiling legends or fables but the truth in relation to God and Jesus Christ. The also admitted that there could be faults as stated here:"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ".(Book of Mormon | Preface Title Page:2) And since Joseph Smith translated it by the gift and power of God one could argue that the book was written by God or at least He oversaw it's writing, it's abridgement, and it's translation. In fact God Himself testifies of it's truth:"And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith. And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true."(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 17:5-6) This is rather plain, God did not want to "prove" His word with men's learning or wisdom, He wanted people to obtain faith, because without faith it is impossible to please God. What would a faithless person do if he saw the plates? Nothing! It would be meaningless because without faith all it would do is DAMN the person who saw with their physical eyes and not through the spirit of truth.Now for all those who have commented on this board that think God has "erased evidences or scientific proof" of the flood or whatever else they say "science" denies as impossible I ask them to ponder the following: "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 28:30 - 32) This why we are going to be judged by all His words and we will be accountable for accepting the truth and living it.
Mark Beesley Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 My recollection of Either is similar. I read the Book of Mormon many years ago, so my recollections are quite fuzzy. What did strike me as a difference between it and the Old and New Testaments is that, in general, the writing style between the books in the Book of Mormon is the same. The Bible tends to have different styles that suggests different writers. I do not get that sense with the Book of Mormon; the books seem to be written by the same person. However, there are a couple of books -- Either being one of them if I recall -- where the style is noticeably different.The humorous thing about this post is that the writer perpetuates PaPa's inadvertent misspelling of the Book of Ether, showing that he is unfamiliar with the book, and yet thinks himself qualified to comment on the the writing style. You may want to take a refresher course on the Book of Mormon.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Is it possible that Joseph Smith really did receive gold plates from a historical person who had compiled the legends of his people on plates, and that some of those legends weren't actually historical while the basic outline of the story was historical? The visit of Christ to the Nephites and the later history of the Nephites seem to be reasonable. But frankly in my mind the details of the Jaredites and the Nephites travels across the ocean seem more the stuff of legend than history. Is it even possible that some of the details might have been Joseph Smith getting the translation wrong? How historical does the Book of Mormon have to be?Some observations:If you believe that historical accuracy plays a part in your conception on the "correctness" of the Book of Mormon, then either: (A) the Book of Mormon is a literal and accurate history, so that there were really horses and elephants, steel and barley, huge battles with swords and armor with tens of thousands of casualties left rotting on the ground, the tower of Babel as literally the source of language diversity, people's skin changing colors based on wickedness resulting in Native American race, a gigantic geological upheaval in 33AD that changes the face of the land, etc., or (B) Joseph Smith was either mistaken or lying when he said that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book on the face of the earth."Those who argue that the Book of Mormon is at least partly historical face a decidedly uphill battle. The geography does not literally and correctly match any real location. There are dozens of seeming anachronisms that need explanation, and most of the best explanations are only unproven, hypothetical possibilities. The Book of Mormon presumes an extremely literal biblical interpretation (i.e., that the five books of the Torah existed by 600 BC, that the tower of Babel was real and that there was a real confounding of languages there, and that Deutero-Isaiah was written prior to 600BC) which most modern scholars have long ago rejected. At best, apologists have been able to use archaeology only to defend against charges of impossibility, which is a defensive game, and have thus far found no evidence that cannot just as easily be explained by standard archaeology.There is no theological reason affecting anyone's salvation that requires that any of the Book of Mormon needs to be historical. You may argue that a fictional Book of Mormon undermines the popular image of Joseph Smith as merely god's "mouthpiece" whose mind was not intricately involved in inventing and formulating the revelations he received, and that a fictional Book of Mormon might weaken the faith of those who see Smith in that way. You may also argue that people might pay more attention to, and might be more moved by, a book if they think it is a literal history. You can also say that if the book is fictional, then Joseph Smith was mistaken in his views about the nature of the golden plates (but we can surmise that anyway, because of his interpretation of Zelph and the Kinderhook Plates). However, you cannot say that the doctrinal teachings of the Book of Mormon, standing on their own as doctrine, are less "true" simply because the book is fictional. 1
zerinus Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Who said there was a "problem."Are you arguing that Joshua and Judges don't contain serious contradictions about the nature of the Israelite conquests as they entered Canaan? If you can't see that there isn't much I'm going to say that will change your mind.Stop messing about and wasting everybody's time. If you have evidence produce it, or withdraw your claim.
mrmandias Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Arguing that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical document is very much different from arguing that the Book of Mormon is wholly a factually accurate history. Its logically possible to be both, but given the way genuine historical documents work, it probably requires belief in a miracle.
RobertAC Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 The humorous thing about this post is that the writer perpetuates PaPa's inadvertent misspelling of the Book of Ether, showing that he is unfamiliar with the book, and yet thinks himself qualified to comment on the the writing style. You may want to take a refresher course on the Book of Mormon. LOL! I do need to check my spelling. That said, I am pretty confident on the writing style part. Most of the books are noticeably similar in style. I am sure this has come to the attention of people before me, and I am sure that believers of the divine nature of the writing of the book have reconciled that with their faith. What I think is a more interesting question is why -- for a handful of the books -- does the style change. I am sure that the style change has also been noticed, and that it has been addressed by theologians.
sethpayne Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Stop messing about and wasting everybody's time. If you have evidence produce it, or withdraw your claim.I have evidence: The Book of Joshua and Judges. When you read those books you will see that my "claim" is self-evident.SethP.S. I like how fired up you get! You take this online discussion board stuff seriously.
Calm Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 LOL! I do need to check my spelling. That said, I am pretty confident on the writing style part. Most of the books are noticeably similar in style. I am sure this has come to the attention of people before me, and I am sure that believers of the divine nature of the writing of the book have reconciled that with their faith.You should check out the wordprint studies done comparing the different books. They have been discussed before on the board, some very interesting threads in fact.
Calm Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Bart, getting in the spirit of imagining possibilities....It occurs to me that we know of historical accounts that have been written in first person even though we know that they were actually written by others (thirdperson). The Joseph Smith History of the Church is one such account, IIRC.I am wondering how much such a writing technique might be imagined in the first person texts of the BoM. Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah
RobertAC Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 You should check out the wordprint studies done comparing the different books. They have been discussed before on the board, some very interesting threads in fact.Thank you! I shall!
nealr Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 LOL! I do need to check my spelling. That said, I am pretty confident on the writing style part. Most of the books are noticeably similar in style. I am sure this has come to the attention of people before me, and I am sure that believers of the divine nature of the writing of the book have reconciled that with their faith. What I think is a more interesting question is why -- for a handful of the books -- does the style change. I am sure that the style change has also been noticed, and that it has been addressed by theologians.When I was on my mission, I was reading through the Book of Mormon. After reading 1 and 2 Nephi, I started Jacob and immediately noticed a different "voice" and style. I wasn't looking for it, and I wasn't expecting it, and so it was actually quite startling to discover. The books after Jacob are all short, so it might be heard to detect a different style, until we get to Mosiah. But then we are starting on Mormon's abridgment and so all these books probably do read like one author wrote them, but that is because their is one primary author, with some original source material from others also being incorporated. When we get to Ether, we have a different editor, namely, Moroni, and a different group and culture as the source document that he is working with. For wordprint studies (refernced by calmoriah) see these links:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=110&chapid=1281http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=189http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=821http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=21&num=1&id=636
Nemesis Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Stop messing about and wasting everybody's time. If you have evidence produce it, or withdraw your claim.Asked and answered let it rest or Ill sic skylla on you and shes scary!Nemesis
zerinus Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Asked and answered let it rest or Ill sic skylla on you and shes scary!NemesisNot answered actually. Still waiting for an answer.By the way, I sent you a PM, which has still not been read. Care to have a look at your inbox!
zerinus Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) I have evidence: The Book of Joshua and Judges.When you read those books you will see that my "claim" is self-evident.SethP.S. I like how fired up you get! You take this online discussion board stuff seriously.I have read the books of Joshua and Judges more often than you have, and I know of no such thing as you claim. If what you say is true, quote chapter and verse, otherwise your claim is bogus and you have no evidence to back it up. Edited September 12, 2012 by zerinus
Nemesis Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Not answered actually. Still waiting for an answer.By the way, I sent you a PM, which has still not been read. Care to have a look at your inbox!It was more than likely ignored as with most other messages in my inbox.Nemesis
sethpayne Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 I have read the books of Joshua and Judges more often than you have, and I know of no such thing as you claim. If what you say is true, quote chapter and verse, otherwise your claim is bogus and you have no evidence to back it up.CFR that you have read Joshua/Judges more than I have! JKOk.... you want specific references.... here goes:Compare Joshua 11 and 15 and tell me if you see the problem. If you don't, I don't know what more evidence I can offer.
Recommended Posts