saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The use of tradition is a fact, but not all traditions are facts. Big difference. Clues are not facts. And clues to the resurrection do not prove its religious significance. One could find the actual shroud- the one from Turin might be, who knows- but suppose somehow it was proven to BE "THE" shroud. It would prove nothing about Jesus being divine. We could find THE nails and pieces of wood somehow genetically proven- (or by whatever technique) to be THE nails of Jesus and it would not prove that he died for MY sins. Raw facts can NEVER prove religious beliefs. The use of tradition is a fact, but not all traditions are facts. Big difference. Clues are not facts. And clues to the resurrection do not prove its religious significance. One could find the actual shroud- the one from Turin might be, who knows- but suppose somehow it was proven to BE "THE" shroud. It would prove nothing about Jesus being divine. We could find THE nails and pieces of wood somehow genetically proven- (or by whatever technique) to be THE nails of Jesus and it would not prove that he died for MY sins. Raw facts can NEVER prove religious beliefs.Bukowski, I am not a nihilist. I accept experience as evidence. I have a reasonable expectation that the experience of others can be aligned to historical fact. The historical evidence for the experience of Christians, at the time of Christ is verifiable by contemporary sources. The culture in which the experience takes.place can be verified as existing. These are not even matters of faith, at all. The Book of Mormon is lackingion evidence for its own context. Not even a matter of faith, just some book, that is not rooted in the human experience as can be verified by reality. That isn't even getting to the faith claims of the book itself. Where does the book of Mormon fit in human history? No where.
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 It's funny - to say that we have no historical record of the Book of Mormon civilizations, but that's exactly what the Book of Mormon is. A very detailed record of the Book of Mormon civilizations. Just because the original plates aren't available for scientists to carbon date and historians to pour over doesn't make it any less a historical record. Just means the proof isn't there again, but why on earth are we trying to "prove" religion?If I relate to you my experience of visiting Italy last summer, and I tell you all about the cities and towns that were made of ice blocks, formed in domes. If I tell you the weather was snow, with temperature sub zero, and the sun never rose. The people wore fur and spoke Inuit. Would you believe I had visited Italy last summer? Would you count that as a historical fact of last summer?
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Why doesn't a group of Mormons excavate the Hill Cumorah in NY? I am under the impression that people have, I read an article about it years ago written by Dr. John Clark about the archaeology of the area, then again that is another topic is the Hill Cumorah in New York State the Hill Cumorah of the final battle of the Nephites
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I am under the impression that people have, I read an article about it years ago written by Dr. John Clark about the archaeology of the area, then again that is another topic is the Hill Cumorah in New York State the Hill Cumorah of the final battle of the NephitesThat is the problem with the Book of Mormon. Nothing holds still long enough to examine. Everything disappears.
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 That is the problem with the Book of Mormon. Nothing holds still long enough to examine. Everything disappears. if they found an arrowhead at the Hill Cumorah in New York or surrounding area would you re-join the Church?, if you did what would you do if that arrowhead was later found to come from a later time? For me I don't place too much stock in thi stuff, it's too slippery, I need to be as Paul counseled, "grounded, rooted, established" and I have no duobt you as well
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Maybe that's the way they roll in fantasy land but when you find a stele dated to the 9th century bc that mentions the House of David, that's pretty concrete that we're talking about something more than "plausability". Sorry..........no go............ It is a BIG assumption(I'm not saying that it is right or wrong. I'm not knowledge enough to say), that that stele is in reference to King David.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) if they found an arrowhead at the Hill Cumorah in New York or surrounding area would you re-join the Church?, if you did what would you do if that arrowhead was later found to come from a later time? For me I don't place too much stock in thi stuff, it's too slippery, I need to be as Paul counseled, "grounded, rooted, established" and I have no duobt you as wellEvidence, to me would be steel weaponry. I'm sure arrowheads have already been found. Those things are everywhere. They are evidence of Native American activity, not Nephites or Lamanites.If such evidence existed I would not convert.The Mormon claim of a Great Apostasy, also has problems with evidence. But I maybe would understand why a Mormon would stay a Mormon. As it is, it is one of the great mysteries of civilization. Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Evidence, to me would be steel weaponry. I'm sure arrowheads have already been found. Those things are everywhere. They are evidence of Native American activity, not Nephites or Lamanites.If such evidence existed I would not convert.The Mormon claim of a Great Apostasy, also has problems with evidence. But I maybe would understand why a Mormon would stay a Mormon. As it is, it is one of the great mysteries of civilization. they are right next to the unicorns mentioned in the Bible!
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 they are right next to the unicorns mentioned in the Bible!Lost me.
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Lost me.the steel swords that possibly may exist or have existed, who knows what kind of swords were used in the BOM, but the Bible mentions unicorns and those have yet to be found Edited February 13, 2014 by Duncan
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Evidence, to me would be steel weaponry. I'm sure arrowheads have already been found. Those things are everywhere. They are evidence of Native American activity, not Nephites or Lamanites.If such evidence existed I would not convert.The Mormon claim of a Great Apostasy, also has problems with evidence. But I maybe would understand why a Mormon would stay a Mormon. As it is, it is one of the great mysteries of civilization. Steel doesn't last very long in wet climates. However the Spanish did describe obsidian embedded pieces of wood as highly effective swords. Why would Nephites or Lamanite activity look any different than native American activity, and how would we know it if discovered? I'm not asking you to convert. Good old brother Paul talks about Apostasy in the Bible. What evidence do you have that Paul was just making stuff up?
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) the steel swords that possibly may exist or have existed, who knows what kind of swords were used in the BOM, but the Bible mentions unicorns and those have yet to be foundYou should understand, I understand there are elements of pagan mythology to be found in the OT. I'm not a Bible literalist, in the Mormon/Evangelical traditionalist.I'm happy to take the same approach to the Book of Mormon, however, I would like to know the definitive authority that declares what is a literal event and what is being represented as cultural mythology. Ie, does the LDS Church teach that the Nephite/Lamanite cultures are mythological representations? Literary devices, rather than literal?I'm not interested in personal interpretation. Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
David T Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 the steel swords that possibly may exist or have existed, who knows what kind of swords were used in the BOM, but the Bible mentions unicorns and those have yet to be found Not all "unicorns" are rainbow colored fantasy horse creatures. See, Rhinoceros unicornis 1
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Steel doesn't last very long in wet climates. However the Spanish did describe obsidian embedded pieces of wood as highly effective swords. Why would Nephites or Lamanite activity look any different than native American activity, and how would we know it if discovered?I'm not asking you to convert. Good old brother Paul talks about Apostasy in the Bible. What evidence do you have that Paul was just making stuff up?Hi, steel swords of the same age have been recovered in the wet climates of Europe. You can see them in museums. The Book of Mormon claims steel weaponry was in use by a LOT of men. What evidence is there for this? (none.) But steels swords are not the only problem with the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence for the culture of the Book of Mormon. No contemporary writings in "reformed Egyptian", no evidence of Hebrew worship let alone Christian worship. And the list goes on.Paul addresses apostasy of individuals and of groups, being or becoming apostates FROM the Church not of the Church being apostate from itself. Paul talks about the Church being the pillar of truth and of Jesus teaching that he leads the Church unto truth. Do you think both Jesus and Paul were lying? Jesus established His church with an objective, to teach of Christ crucified and risen, our Salvation. Mormons and other Restorationists groups ignore the very evidence before their eyes. The thing you call apostate is the thing that has been fulfilling Jesus' prophecy. Myself, I find that hard to ignore, and offensive to the Holy Spirit. Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You should understand, I understand there are elements of pagan mythology to be found in the OT. I'm not a Bible literalist, in the Mormon/Evangelical traditionalist.I'm happy to take the same approach to the Book of Mormon, however, I would like to know the definitive authority that declares what is a literal event and what is being represented as cultural mythology. Ie, does the LDS Church that the Nephite/Lamanite cultures are mythological representations? Literary devices, rather than literal?I'm not interested in personal interpretation. The LDS aren't sciptural literalists either. Ancient peoples made no such distinctions. That is a fairly recent invention from no earlier than The Enlightenment.The accepted literal events in the Book of Mormon are that Nephites and Lamanites actually existed. That the Book of Mormon accurately describes their spiritual experiences.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 If I relate to you my experience of visiting Italy last summer, and I tell you all about the cities and towns that were made of ice blocks, formed in domes. If I tell you the weather was snow, with temperature sub zero, and the sun never rose. The people wore fur and spoke Inuit. Would you believe I had visited Italy last summer? Would you count that as a historical fact of last summer? So you're saying Mormon and Moroni made up their civilizations? Or more probably you are saying that Joseph Smith made it up.I say again, the Book of Mormon IS the historical proof of these civilizations existed. Just as the OT is proof of the existence of the ancient Hebrew culture, just as hieroglyphs etc are proof of the Egyptian culture, just as the philosophers writings are proof of the Greek culture, just as Hammurabi's Code is proof of the Babylonian culture. And again, expecting proof of a religion is as a ridiculous notion as trying to prove that God exists. There will never be enough "proof" or "evidence".
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Can you take me to where Zarahemla was?I know this is your thread...how does this question fit?
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) So you're saying Mormon and Moroni made up their civilizations? Or more probably you are saying that Joseph Smith made it up.I say again, the Book of Mormon IS the historical proof of these civilizations existed. Just as the OT is proof of the existence of the ancient Hebrew culture, just as hieroglyphs etc are proof of the Egyptian culture, just as the philosophers writings are proof of the Greek culture, just as Hammurabi's Code is proof of the Babylonian culture.And again, expecting proof of a religion is as a ridiculous notion as trying to prove that God exists. There will never be enough "proof" or "evidence".Evidence of a civilization actually existing as described is not asking for religious evidence. The civilizations from whence the Greek philosophers came from has evidence of its existence outside of the philosopher's writings.I disagree that there is no evidence for God. I can by the reasoning ability God gave me, see nature unfold and recognize there is *something* outside of it that causes its existence! I admit, I have a hard time getting how this can be recognizable in an LDS framework, which has no uncaused cause. Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Hi, steel swords of the same age have been recovered in the wet climates of Europe. You can see them in museums. The Book of Mormon claims steel weaponry was in use by a LOT of men. What evidence is there for this? (none.) But steels swords are not the only problem with the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence for the culture of the Book of Mormon. No contemporary writings in "reformed Egyptian", no evidence of Hebrew worship let alone Christian worship. And the list goes on.Paul addresses apostasy of individuals and of groups, being or becoming apostates FROM the Church not of the Church being apostate from itself. Paul talks about the Church being the pillar of truth and of Jesus teaching that he leads the Church unto truth. Do you think both Jesus and Paul were lying? Jesus established His church with an objective, to teach of Christ crucified and risen, our Salvation. Mormons and other Restorationists groups ignore the very evidence before their eyes. The thing you call apostate is the thing that has been fulfilling Jesus' prophecy. Myself, I find that hard to ignore, and offensive to the Holy Spirit. Europe has well established continuous civilization dating for thousands of years. The America's not so much. No the Book of Mormon makes no claim as to LOTS of steel weapons. SEE Examples of reformed Egyptian. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hieratic Brother Paul isn't that exclusive. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Europe has well established continuous civilization dating for thousands of years. The America's not so much.No the Book of Mormon makes no claim as to LOTS of steel weapons.SEE Examples of reformed Egyptian. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hieraticBrother Paul isn't that exclusive. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;Hundreds of thousands of warriors? What would be a lot to you? Oh, how long has Taos Pueblo been inhabited? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation#America.2C_MiddleYou really think that is an example of reformed Egyptian? Okee dokee. Again, that someday, far over the rainbow, when you have evidence from THiS continent, of verifiable, provenance, let me know.There again, Paul is speaking of A man, not of the Church. Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The LDS aren't sciptural literalists either. Ancient peoples made no such distinctions. That is a fairly recent invention from no earlier than The Enlightenment.The accepted literal events in the Book of Mormon are that Nephites and Lamanites actually existed. That the Book of Mormon accurately describes their spiritual experiences.6000 yr old earth is the one thing I was thinking of. Premillennialism coming from that literal belief.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 6000 yr old earth is the one thing I was thinking of. Premillennialism coming from that literal belief. I've been a active faithful member of the Church for close to 43 years, and have never believed in a literal 6000 year old earth. I know some think I'm an Atheist or at least a heretic, but I'm neither.
pogi Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You should understand, I understand there are elements of pagan mythology to be found in the OT. I'm not a Bible literalist, in the Mormon/Evangelical traditionalist.I'm happy to take the same approach to the Book of Mormon, however, I would like to know the definitive authority that declares what is a literal event and what is being represented as cultural mythology. Ie, does the LDS Church teach that the Nephite/Lamanite cultures are mythological representations? Literary devices, rather than literal?I'm not interested in personal interpretation. If you are not interested in personal interpretation, who is your "definitive authority" that declares what is literal and what isn't when it comes to the Bible? Sounds like you are in need of a prophet. Without a prophet, you are left to your own personal interpretation. Sounds like a prophet (to you) is only a prophet when he affirms your own personal interpretation of the evidence as you see it.
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 If you are not interested in personal interpretation, who is your "definitive authority" that declares what is literal and what isn't when it comes to the Bible? Sounds like you are in need of a prophet. Without a prophet, you are left to your own personal interpretation. Sounds like a prophet (to you) is only a prophet when he affirms your own personal interpretation of the evidence as you see it.I'm Roman Catholic, and believe Christ gave to His Church the authority. Which is exercised by the Magesterium, a congregation of Bishops. I believe our Bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit. Hope that helps.
saemo Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I've been a active faithful member of the Church for close to 43 years, and have never believed in a literal 6000 year old earth. I know some think I'm an Atheist or at least a heretic, but I'm neither.I recognize there is a distinction between what the LDS Church teaches and what individual LDS believe.I was taught the 6000 year idea in Mormon seminary. One day is a thousand years, the earth is 6000 years old, ie 6 days, Jesus will reign during the 7th 1000 years, a day of rest. I didn't believe it either. Skousen was popular then, Edited February 13, 2014 by saemo
Recommended Posts