Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[boulder257]

Has the Mormon church come out and made a definitive statement that the historical place was mesoamerica, or is there still debate among mormons whether it was in NY or mesoamerica. Sorry for the question, just trying to understand what the official (if there is one) stance on the subject is.

 

Thanks.

[cursor]

Nearly all public libraries follow that LC system religiously.

 

I chuckled at that, actually. =)

Thanks for the humorous tickle.

 

I just saw Kenngo1969 post #96.

Just catchin' up ...

Edited August 29, 2013 by cursor

[cursor]

1. Joseph undecided? Not hardly, he said the record was about "our western tribes of indians" and the final battle was in Palmyra, NY.

 

2. The stones were "set in cement." Where did Moroni get ready made cement in western NY? There was plenty because that's where BoM lands are.

 

3. All cement building tumbled at the coming of Jesus therefore those cement/plaster cities in Mesoamerica could not possibly be BoM cities.

 

4. I am not defending central U.S., just western NY, and yes, their ancient dirt palisades are precisely as described in the BoM and Mesoamerican has nothing but motes which don't remotely resemble what is desribed, sorry to disappoint.

 

In all seriousness, all I can say is LOL.

[cursor]

Defending myths must be tiring and lying to ones self about it even moreso. 

 

 

 

What motivates you to fight against truth (myths?) with such malice? Surely, that must be tiring.

 

[ BTW "moreso" ain't a word. Joseph Joan "Moreso" earned a law degree, then a PhD in Barcelona. Might you be referring to him? ]

[thesometimesaint]

Has the Mormon church come out and made a definitive statement that the historical place was mesoamerica, or is there still debate among mormons whether it was in NY or mesoamerica. Sorry for the question, just trying to understand what the official (if there is one) stance on the subject is.

 

Thanks.

 

No. Just that it happened some place in the America's. Circumstantial evidence points to Mesoamerica, but nothing official or doctrinal.

 

PS; We're not the Mormon church. We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

PPs; http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

Edited August 29, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[boulder257]

No. Just that it happened some place in the America's. Circumstantial evidence points to Mesoamerica, but nothing official or doctrinal.

 

PS; We're not the Mormon church. We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

PPs; http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

 

I'm embarressed. Please forgive my misunderstanding. I meant no disrespect.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm embarressed. Please forgive my misunderstanding. I meant no disrespect.

 

No problem.

[Calm]

I'm embarressed. Please forgive my misunderstanding. I meant no disrespect.

There are plenty of members who refer to the LDS faith as the Mormon church so don't be embarrassed.  Awhile back the Church came out and asked members to be more careful in how they refer to it to avoid confusion by outsiders.  Mormon was one of the ancient prophets, but he is not the founder of our church nor the central figure in it, both those roles are filled by Jesus Christ in our belief.

 

You have been very respectful in all of your posts.  The desire not to be called "the Mormon Church" is not well known...at least not yet.  Even reporters who have a standard guide they refer to for these kinds of things get it wrong....or don't care.

 

This article may be helpful in explaining why it is important to us:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-importance-of-a-name?lang=eng

 

PS:  I really shouldn't even use the shortcut "LDS" because that leaves off the most important part "The Church of Jesus Christ" but it is a habit that is very deeply ingrained in me....

Edited August 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

There are plenty of members who refer to the LDS faith as the Mormon church so don't be embarrassed. Awhile back the Church came out and asked members to be more careful in how they refer to it to avoid confusion by outsiders. Mormon was one of the ancient prophets, but he is not the founder of our church nor the central figure in it, both those roles are filled by Jesus Christ in our belief.

You have been very respectful in all of your posts. The desire not to be called "the Mormon Church" is not well known...at least not yet. Even reporters who have a standard guide they refer to for these kinds of things get it wrong....or don't care.

This article may be helpful in explaining why it is important to us:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-importance-of-a-name?lang=eng

PS: I really shouldn't even use the shortcut "LDS" because that leaves off the most important part "The Church of Jesus Christ" but it is a habit that is very deeply ingrained in me....

It really is a bit of a mouthful. Like Brigham Young's foresight in leaving enough room for elevators in the design for the salt lake temple (urban myth?), perhaps the early church naming committee could have gone with something a little more tweetable.

Sorry, derail.

[boulder257]

There are plenty of members who refer to the LDS faith as the Mormon church so don't be embarrassed.  Awhile back the Church came out and asked members to be more careful in how they refer to it to avoid confusion by outsiders.  Mormon was one of the ancient prophets, but he is not the founder of our church nor the central figure in it, both those roles are filled by Jesus Christ in our belief.

 

You have been very respectful in all of your posts.  The desire not to be called "the Mormon Church" is not well known...at least not yet.  Even reporters who have a standard guide they refer to for these kinds of things get it wrong....or don't care.

 

This article may be helpful in explaining why it is important to us:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-importance-of-a-name?lang=eng

 

PS:  I really shouldn't even use the shortcut "LDS" because that leaves off the most important part "The Church of Jesus Christ" but it is a habit that is very deeply ingrained in me....

 

I appreciate the explanation. I thought I had seen others refer to it that way, and even thought it was preferred after the "I am a Mormon" commercials that were run in the recent past. I understand where they are coming from after reading that article. Thanks for the "heads up." I won't make the mistake again.

Edited August 30, 2013 by boulder257

[mnn727]

Must every event described in the BoM (or Bible for that matter) be 100% true? No

 

However there at least has to be a basis for the events portrayed or Joseph was not a true Prophet IMHO.

[Robert F. Smith]

Must every event described in the BoM (or Bible for that matter) be 100% true? No

 

However there at least has to be a basis for the events portrayed or Joseph was not a true Prophet IMHO.

Sound O.K. by me, but what should that "basis" be, in your humble opinion?

[Questing Beast]

Sound O.K. by me, but what should that "basis" be, in your humble opinion?

If "God" gave JS the story of the BoM, taken from JS's own mind, which is a complex of mortal and immortal input, then how would JS be guilty of "making it all up"? Inspiration is God's province, we don't inspire ourselves. We receive, we don't create inspiration. The details might appear to be wholly lacking in the empirical world, or taken from anachronistic sources, etc. But "God" is not an anachronism! All things are before "God" continually. There is literally One Source to inspiration and it Is all knowledgeable. Therefore, I consider that "God's" sense of humor is in the mix, and we will end up mocking ourselves. The laughter in that day will probably reach a cosmic scale....

[ERayR]

If "God" gave JS the story of the BoM, taken from JS's own mind, which is a complex of mortal and immortal input, then how would JS be guilty of "making it all up"? Inspiration is God's province, we don't inspire ourselves. We receive, we don't create inspiration. The details might appear to be wholly lacking in the empirical world, or taken from anachronistic sources, etc. But "God" is not an anachronism! All things are before "God" continually. There is literally One Source to inspiration and it Is all knowledgeable. Therefore, I consider that "God's" sense of humor is in the mix, and we will end up mocking ourselves. The laughter in that day will probably reach a cosmic scale....

 

Huh.

[why me]

Must every event described in the BoM (or Bible for that matter) be 100% true? No

 

However there at least has to be a basis for the events portrayed or Joseph was not a true Prophet IMHO.

The chance that the gospels have absolutely the truth would be farfetched since the gospel writers were going by memory and only included faith promoting narratives for their christian followers. The writers wanted to cement faith.

Edited August 30, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

Huh.

In other words and for example: Either Alma or Joseph was the first human to express the ideas found in Alma 5, 32 etc, but as long as God was behind the inspiration to say these things, does it really matter if there never was an Alma?

As long as it's God's truth it doesn't matter if they were first expressed by a BCE Mesoamerican and translated/dictated by a 19thC one or first expressed by the latter and only attributed to the mythical/allegorical ancient one.

If following the human expressed principle leads me further along the path to godliness then the mechanics of delivery are immaterial.

[mnn727]

Sound O.K. by me, but what should that "basis" be, in your humble opinion?

 To me there had to be a Lehi whose family was led to the American continent. The family had to eventually split into two tribes who fought over religious principles. Christ had to have visited the resulting civilization sometime after His Crucifixion and there had to be some kind of war that wiped out most member of both tribes. There also had to be Prophets in between Nephi and Moroni writing the books and a person named Mormon who compiled the record.

Everything else is just a bonus.

Edited August 31, 2013 by mnn727

[mnn727]

The chance that the gospels have absolutely the truth would be farfetched since the gospel writers were going by memory and only included faith promoting narratives for their christian followers. The writers wanted to cement faith.

Precisely, I think the Bible, speaking of the O.T especially, was an oral history that got passed down for hundreds and even thousands of years before it was finally written down and is partially a primitive peoples (meaning not unintelligent but rather being unscientific) way of trying to explain the (to them) unexplainable and also of faith promoting stories. Is there a basis of truth to it? yes, is it 100% true and historical? not by a long shot IMHO.

 

Scriptures are about promoting faith, not about studying history.

Edited August 31, 2013 by mnn727

[cdowis]

In other words and for example: Either Alma or Joseph was the first human to express the ideas found in Alma 5, 32 etc, but as long as God was behind the inspiration to say these things, does it really matter if there never was an Alma?

As long as it's God's truth it doesn't matter if they were first expressed by a BCE Mesoamerican and translated/dictated by a 19thC one or first expressed by the latter and only attributed to the mythical/allegorical ancient one.

If following the human expressed principle leads me further along the path to godliness then the mechanics of delivery are immaterial.

 

The problem with your logic is that the "mechanics of delivery" are part of the canonized scriptures.  Are you one of those who think the gospel is a buffet, that you can pick and choose.

 

Joseph Smith lied about the angel Moroni, he lied about translating the plates, the eleven witnesses lied about their testimony, the BOM lied about Christ appearing in America, it lies about the testimony and visions of the prophets who never existed.

 

Now, I have pointed this out to other deniers, and have to receive a response.  Just curious whether you can give me a cogent reply, where others have failed.

 

And you do not have a problem with that?  You are still able to declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Christ?

 

I have pointed this out to other deniers, and have not yet received any response.  Please help me understand.  Give us a cogent reply.

Edited August 31, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

Are you one of those who think the gospel is a buffet, that you can pick and choose.

 

Who isn't when you get right down to it....or do you still go in for stoning...and not the mary jane variety?

 

Not everyone has to follow your path to enlightenment.  We are taught to walk in the footsteps of Christ, not cdowis....which made lead to some major divergences when it comes to what is important to one person's faith and what is important to your own, cdowis.

Edited August 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Who isn't when you get right down to it....or do you still go in for stoning...and not the mary jane variety?

Not everyone has to follow your path to enlightenment. We are taught to walk in the footsteps of Christ, not cdowis....which made lead to some major divergences when it comes to what is important to one person's faith and what is important to your own, cdowis.

You're funny Cal!

I believe our church is available to help us on the path to Christ and if its hindering that, we might have to pick and choose what works. I've heard leaders and members on here that have alluded to this.

[canard78]

To me there had to be a Lehi whose family was led to the American continent. The family had to eventually split into two tribes who fought over religious principles. Christ had to have visited the resulting civilization sometime after His Crucifixion and there had to be some kind of war that wiped out most member of both tribes. There also had to be Prophets in between Nephi and Moroni writing the books and a person named Mormon who compiled the record.

Everything else is just a bonus.

"wiped out most member of both tribes"

Both? I'm not aware that most members of the Lamanite tribe are mostly wiped out according to BoM text. Where did you get that idea from?

[ERayR]

"wiped out most member of both tribes"

Both? I'm not aware that most members of the Lamanite tribe are mostly wiped out according to BoM text. Where did you get that idea from?

 

It is implicit in the account.  To inflict that much damage to one side the other most probably suffered heavy losses.  That said I am one who believes the losses suffered in the account were military losses and that there were a lot of non-military personel left on both sides.

[canard78]

The problem with your logic is that the "mechanics of delivery" are part of the canonized scriptures. Are you one of those who think the gospel is a buffet, that you can pick and choose.

As I've said on this board before: I am absolutely, thoroughly and proudly a buffet Mormon. I make no apology for that. And as cal kindly pointed out, we are all, more or less, buffet Mormons.

If God is accompanying me around the buffet or possibly even the server suggesting dishes, does that make it better? I think it does. I believe God is serving 7billion buffets.

Joseph Smith lied about the angel Moroni, he lied about translating the plates, the eleven witnesses lied about their testimony, the BOM lied about Christ appearing in America, it lies about the testimony and visions of the prophets who never existed.

Now, I have pointed this out to other deniers, and have to receive a response. Just curious whether you can give me a cogent reply, where others have failed.

And you do not have a problem with that? You are still able to declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Christ?

I have pointed this out to other deniers, and have not yet received any response. Please help me understand. Give us a cogent reply.

I don't consider Joseph to be a liar and a fraud. Did he have some deeply significant and life changing spiritual experiences and interactions with the divine? I firmly believe that he did. Were some of these experiences heavenly visions and interactions? I'm willing to believe they were. These may have been experiences that were personal and "in his head" but that doesn't mean they can't also be sent by a heavenly source. I'm fairly certain there was no tangible, physical blanket full of animals that floated down to Peter's roof. It was a vision that taught a lesson, but if a neighbour was also on his roof looking in the same direction I don't think he would have seen what Peter saw.

Likewise, if one of Joseph's brothers had woken up on the famous night of 1843 it's quite possible that they would not have seen Moroni. They might even have seen Joseph sleeping at the very moment that Joseph was being taught by a heavenly interaction.

I'm not saying that's my view, but if that is how it happened, I'm fine with that.

I strongly believe that Joseph was sincere and believed he was dictating a translation of an ancient record. I don't believe he was knowingly stringing a yarn.

Moroni and the other events in the Book of Mormon don't have to be historical to remain what they claim to be: a testimony of Christ and a set of precepts that we can draw closer to God by abiding by. The precepts and the impact of living them exist independently of whether the stories that generated them are historical or allegorical.

The reality of Christ's atonement exists independently of the story of Christ visiting the Americas. A billion+ Christians will tell you that.

I'm not saying I don't believe the Nephites have a place in history. They might do, but even of one day it's somehow proven conclusively that they never existed I would still be happy to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture because I consider the teachings within it to be from a divine source independent of who the first human author of the concepts were.

And yes, I also believe sometimes God uses teaching techniques that some might consider morally questionable. But we see through a glass darkly so he has to work within the confines of our limited minds and language. D&C 19:6-7 teaches this.

If there never was a Nephi I don't believe that makes Joseph or God a liar. Just a skilful pair of teachers.

But I retain hope the BoM characters are historical because I'd like to meet and thank them one day.

Edited August 31, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

It is implicit in the account. To inflict that much damage to one side the other most probably suffered heavy losses. That said I am one who believes the losses suffered in the account were military losses and that there were a lot of non-military personel left on both sides.

Is there anything that suggests that the Lamanites had a similar number of armed men in the fight. At any other time in BoM battles the Lamanites tended to massively outnumber the Nephites.