The Exodus - Did It Really Happen?

[thesometimesaint]

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. I didn't believe it either.

 

I was a little old for seminary when I joined. In the Institute classes I took it was never claimed as doctrine.

[saemo]

I was a little old for seminary when I joined. In the Institute classes I took it was never claimed as doctrine.

But it was taught?

[thesometimesaint]

But it was taught?

 

Sure. How do you think I heard about it? But it wasn't taught as doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I find this naive frankly.

There are no facts, only interpretations.  I trust my own interpretations over those of others.  What I accept on faith, I have decided to accept on faith, not because someone else tells me I should because it is "tradition" or grows out of someone's unreasonable philosophy.

 

What God tells me, I accept on faith because I know it in my heart.  All else is suspect.

[Gray]

Sure. How do you think I heard about it? But it wasn't taught as doctrine.

 

If it was taught it was doctrine. That's what doctrine means - "that which is taught"

 

However, not all doctrine is correct

[thesometimesaint]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

— Isaac Asimov (via invisiblelad)

Edited February 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

If it was taught it was doctrine. That's what doctrine means - "that which is taught"

 

However, not all doctrine is correct

 

Not really. I've heard just about every silly idea out there in Gospel Rumor classes.

[mfbukowski]

 

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

— Isaac Asimov (via invisiblelad)

 

I have no clue why people think that because some institution is old, it must be true, that because there is historical evidence for something that it has to be right.

 

I left one church precisely because I found that way of thinking totally unreasonable.  For me what is important is knowing what you believe and knowing precisely WHY you believe it, what function that belief has in your life and where that belief came from. 

 

If you find that "reasonable", then for you, it IS reasonable.

 

I could not find that in the church I was in, so I left.  I left behind perhaps a thousand years of tradition in my family because it did not make sense to me

 

"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a statement attributed to Socrates, and I have accepted that perspective totally.  I cannot imagine believing something because it was traditional, historical, or someone else's word for ANYTHING.

 

Now if these folks said to me "I believe in Religion X because I have found that my life is better for these beliefs" or that "The Holy Spirit has told me this is the path I should be on", I would say "more power to you- God bless you in your journey".

 

But if they say to me that they believe a religious faith because there is what they think is "historical evidence" for those beliefs, or that their beliefs are "traditional" I would put those folks in the category you mention above.  I put folks who say "I am fifth generation Mormon and so will always be Mormon" in the same category.  If you don't have a testimony for yourself, I think you need to get one or start looking for a faith that actually will work for YOU personally.

 

I think Socrates was completely right about that.  Why live a life based on what others tell you, and not what you have found out for yourself?

[MiserereNobis]

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 don't mean this as any disrespect to the LDS church, but it seems rather clear that despite having a prophet, the members of the LDS church differ, sometimes vastly, on what constitutes doctrine, what should be believed or not, and what the truth is.  We could point to all the examples on this board in the recent weeks as evidence.  Brigham Young, race/priesthood, age of the earth, evolution, etc, etc.  Despite having a prophet, it seems that you all are trying to figure it out like the rest of us

 

I might go further and say that it also appears that this isn't just members dissenting, but that in fact clear doctrinal statements are hard to come by, because what a prophet might be saying can easily end up just being personal opinion (Brigham Young's controversies testify to this).

 

In fact, I might go even farther and say that things are clearer in the Roman Catholic Church, because we have solemnly defined dogmas that have been codified and clearly presented.  It appears that the LDS church eschews things such as creeds and catechisms and defined dogmas, but it certainly helps in clarity.

 

So I'm not so sure you should casually toss out "sounds like you are in need of a prophet" when uncertainty about what is and is not doctrine is found within your church with a prophet.

 

It would be interesting to compare the Magesterium of the Catholic Church with the leadership of the LDS church, both in principle and in practice.  This kinda relates to the revelation thread... I think we are actually closer to each other, at least in practice, than appears.

[MiserereNobis]

I have no clue why people think that because some institution is old, it must be true, that because there is historical evidence for something that it has to be right.

 

I left one church precisely because I found that way of thinking totally unreasonable.  For me what is important is knowing what you believe and knowing precisely WHY you believe it, what function that belief has in your life and where that belief came from. 

 

If you find that "reasonable", then for you, it IS reasonable.

 

I could not find that in the church I was in, so I left.  I left behind perhaps a thousand years of tradition in my family because it did not make sense to me

 

"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a statement attributed to Socrates, and I have accepted that perspective totally.  I cannot imagine believing something because it was traditional, historical, or someone else's word for ANYTHING.

 

Now if these folks said to me "I believe in Religion X because I have found that my life is better for these beliefs" or that "The Holy Spirit has told me this is the path I should be on", I would say "more power to you- God bless you in your journey".

 

But if they say to me that they believe a religious faith because there is what they think is "historical evidence" for those beliefs, or that their beliefs are "traditional" I would put those folks in the category you mention above.  I put folks who say "I am fifth generation Mormon and so will always be Mormon" in the same category.  If you don't have a testimony for yourself, I think you need to get one or start looking for a faith that actually will work for YOU personally.

 

I think Socrates was completely right about that.  Why live a life based on what others tell you, and not what you have found out for yourself?

 

As someone who believes in that Church that you left, I totally agree with you here.  It's not about tradition, or history (though I have to say that such things are wonderful additions), but about what I believe is true.

 

Now, don't bring up neo-Platonism or Rorty or I'm outta here

[mfbukowski]

As someone who believes in that Church that you left, I totally agree with you here.  It's not about tradition, or history (though I have to say that such things are wonderful additions), but about what I believe is true.

 

Now, don't bring up neo-Platonism or Rorty or I'm outta here

Good to see you!

 

Hmmmm- don't tempt me! 

[Anteojito]

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

2 Nephi 5:15

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

 

Jarom 1:8

8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

 

 

Ether 7:9

9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

 

 

Steel, was clearly part of the BOM narrative.I think it is safe to assume, that if they knew how to make swords out of steel, they would have made other stuff out of steel too, Just like every other society that had the know how and technology to produce steel. 

[mfbukowski]

I don't mean this as any disrespect to the LDS church, but it seems rather clear that despite having a prophet, the members of the LDS church differ, sometimes vastly, on what constitutes doctrine, what should be believed or not, and what the truth is.  We could point to all the examples on this board in the recent weeks as evidence.  Brigham Young, race/priesthood, age of the earth, evolution, etc, etc.  Despite having a prophet, it seems that you all are trying to figure it out like the rest of us

 

I might go further and say that it also appears that this isn't just members dissenting, but that in fact clear doctrinal statements are hard to come by, because what a prophet might be saying can easily end up just being personal opinion (Brigham Young's controversies testify to this).

 

In fact, I might go even farther and say that things are clearer in the Roman Catholic Church, because we have solemnly defined dogmas that have been codified and clearly presented.  It appears that the LDS church eschews things such as creeds and catechisms and defined dogmas, but it certainly helps in clarity.

 

So I'm not so sure you should casually toss out "sounds like you are in need of a prophet" when uncertainty about what is and is not doctrine is found within your church with a prophet.

 

It would be interesting to compare the Magesterium of the Catholic Church with the leadership of the LDS church, both in principle and in practice.  This kinda relates to the revelation thread... I think we are actually closer to each other, at least in practice, than appears.

The key here is personal revelation.

 

The bottom line is that if God himself doesn't confirm a teaching to you, you should not believe it.

 

So yes, we disagree because God is teaching each of us at our own paces.  Some are learning addition, others are doing vector calculus.

 

But our church is based on personal testimony, and we know all that, so none of this bothers us.  It's kind of like politics.  There is no one set of doctrine you need to believe to be a Democrat.  If you look at it that way, you will understand us better I think.

[mfbukowski]

Miserere

You know we only disagree on philosophy but that doesn't really matter much.

 

I have to look you up on the other side sitting on a cloud in a quiet corner of heaven (if we both make it!) so we can REALLY hash this one out! 

[MiserereNobis]

The key here is personal revelation.

 

The bottom line is that if God himself doesn't confirm a teaching to you, you should not believe it.

 

So yes, we disagree because God is teaching each of us at our own paces.  Some are learning addition, others are doing vector calculus.

 

But our church is based on personal testimony, and we know all that, so none of this bothers us.  It's kind of like politics.  There is no one set of doctrine you need to believe to be a Democrat.  If you look at it that way, you will understand us better I think.

 

That makes sense, but it appears to me that not all Mormons agree with what you just said.  Some are quite clear that there are specific doctrines you have to believe to be Mormon.

 

mfb, would you say that your view in this matter is in the majority or minority of Mormons?  I sometimes get the sense that this board isn't representative of Mormon belief as a whole, based on my experience with Mormons in the flesh instead of digitized.  I'm just trying to get a handle on what the overall Mormon position is.

[MiserereNobis]

Miserere

You know we only disagree on philosophy but that doesn't really matter much.

 

I have to look you up on the other side sitting on a cloud in a quiet corner of heaven (if we both make it!) so we can REALLY hash this one out! 

 

Sounds good to me!  The Beatific Vision combined with a discussion of philosophy... now that's heaven indeed

[Gray]

Not really. I've heard just about every silly idea out there in Gospel Rumor classes.

 

There is a difference of course between a private doctrine and an official doctrine

[mfbukowski]

That makes sense, but it appears to me that not all Mormons agree with what you just said.  Some are quite clear that there are specific doctrines you have to believe to be Mormon.

 

mfb, would you say that your view in this matter is in the majority or minority of Mormons?  I sometimes get the sense that this board isn't representative of Mormon belief as a whole, based on my experience with Mormons in the flesh instead of digitized.  I'm just trying to get a handle on what the overall Mormon position is.

Well of course I think I am right.  Surprise surprise.

 

The bottom line is that the very fact that we argue about doctrine shows that it is not that important.  One Mormon theologian Blake Ostler says we don't have any.  If you can pass a temple recommend interview, you are as Mormon as anyone can me- that is the only measure.

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

The bottom line is that this guy has major books published by Deseret, which is about as close to an "Imprimatur" that you are going to find in Mormonism for a non- General Authority.

http://deseretbook.com/Exploring-Mormon-Thought-Vol-2-Problems-Theism-Love-God-Blake-T-Ostler/i/4967483

[mfbukowski]

Well of course I think I am right.  Surprise surprise.

 

The bottom line is that the very fact that we argue about doctrine shows that it is not that important.  One Mormon theologian Blake Ostler says we don't have any.  If you can pass a temple recommend interview, you are as Mormon as anyone can me- that is the only measure.

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

The bottom line is that this guy has major books published by Deseret, which is about as close to an "Imprimatur" that you are going to find in Mormonism for a non- General Authority.

http://deseretbook.com/Exploring-Mormon-Thought-Vol-2-Problems-Theism-Love-God-Blake-T-Ostler/i/4967483

In my experience in leadership, passing a recommend interview is all that matters.

 

In any given ward you find all kinds of beliefs, weird and otherwise, but if they pass the interview, they are off to the temple to receive all the ordinances- and for Mormons that is all that matters.

[saemo]

I find this naive frankly.

There are no facts, only interpretations.  I trust my own interpretations over those of others.  What I accept on faith, I have decided to accept on faith, not because someone else tells me I should because it is "tradition" or grows out of someone's unreasonable philosophy.

 

What God tells me, I accept on faith because I know it in my heart.  All else is suspect.

When you run out of straw let me know and I'll buy you more.

[Calm]

The bottom line is that this guy has major books published by Deseret, which is about as close to an "Imprimatur" that you are going to find in Mormonism for a non- General Authority.

http://deseretbook.com/Exploring-Mormon-Thought-Vol-2-Problems-Theism-Love-God-Blake-T-Ostler/i/4967483

I think that is just being sold through DB, not published by it. I think he is published by Eborn.

You can find Harry Potter at DB too.

Oops, not Eborn, Greg Kofford.

Edited February 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile.

 

If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. 

 

In other words "Show me the money"...............

PART II

 

Formal Biblical Oath formula:  I Nephi 3:15, 4:33, 21:18 are fully authentic.  See Blane Conklin, Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 5 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011). 

 

The “Caractors” on the so-called “Anthon Transcript” (RLDS Archives), or “Memento” given to Oliver, were judged by two non-Mormon Egyptologists to be Egyptian cursive:  William C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker, both now deceased.  Hayes even provided Mormon grad student Stanley Kimball with his translation notes of several hieratic characters on the first line as a date formula (copy in my possession).  There is even an Egyptian hieratic character for mr-mn which Frederick G. Williams said he got from Joseph Smith and which meant “Mormon.”  It has since been published, and appears to be authentic Egyptian – Benjamin Urrutia, “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983), 39, citing Nancy C. Williams,  After One Hundred Years (Independence, Missouri: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Co., 1951), plate between pages 102–103.

 

The late William F. Albright signed two letters (1949 and 1966) stating frankly that the Book of Mormon names Paanchi and Pahoran are certainly Egyptian, and told Hugh Nibley the same when Nibley was on Sabbatical at Johns Hopkins Univ (1953-54).  Egyptian pa means “the,” and pa-names were commonly used for personal and place names (such as Pathros, “The Land Southward, i.e. Upper Egypt”).  Note that the sons of Pahoron₁ are Pahoron₂, Paanchi, and Pacumeni, all high caste Nephites (Alma 50:40, Helaman 1:3), while one of their enemies is named Pachus (Alma 62:6-9), suggesting the popularity of pa-names in that time and place.

 

Book of Mormon chronology is strikingly annalistic and precise from beginning to end, and three dates in particular can and must be tightly coordinated with each other:

 

(1) beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (I Nephi 1:4);

(2) birth of Jesus 600 years after that first year of Zedekiah (I Nephi 10:4, Helaman 14:2, III Nephi superscription, 1:1, 2: 8 ).

(3) death of Jesus at age 33 years and 3 days old (III Nephi 8:5).

 

Since all scholars are certain that Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon placed Zedekiah on the throne by 10 Nisannu (= 22 April) 597 B.C.,* it turns out that the only system which can coordinate those three dates effectively is the 360-day year (the Mesoamerican “Long Count”).  Moreover, since we know that Jesus was Crucified at Passover, we can also say with certainty that 33 years earlier would have lost 6 months in solar years, placing his birthdate within the Jewish New Year & Tabernacles festivals in the Autumn.  Thus, scholarly consensus that Jesus could not have been born later than 5 B.C. (Herod the Great died in early 4 B.C.) is fully supported by the Book of Mormon.  Biblical chronology does not fare as well.

 

* On 2 Addaru in his 7th year (= 16 March) 597 B.C., Nebuchadrezzar had captured Jerusalem and taken King Jehoiachin prisoner:  "the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin" (J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed., §437, citing A. Green, "The Last Days of Judah," JBL, 101 [1982], 68-73.  Actually even to even, 15 to 16 March 597 B.C. = 2 Addaru; Miller & Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed., 254).

 

However, 360-day years are not used only in the New World:  see, for example, Frederick A. Larson, “The Star of Bethlehem” (Mpowerpictures, 2007; DVD available at  http://www.bethlehemstar.net ), using “Starry Night” software – at nn. 23 & 24, Larson demonstrates that 360-day years are used at Revelation 11:3-4, in which 42 months = 1260 days, with months of 30 days each, and 360-day years; then, 7 x 7 = 49, 7 X 62 = 434, and 49 x 434 = 483, but 483 yeas x 360 days each = 173,880 days, which = 476 years in our 365.24 day solar calendar.

 

Entire chapters have long since been written on all these subjects, which are here merely summarized.  Additional explanation and documentation available on request.  The upshot of all these short comments is that Joseph Smith could not have known enough about the ancient world to have gotten these entire systems right.  Secular scholarship on these matters has only become available in more recent times.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Why doesn't a group of Mormons excavate the Hill Cumorah in NY?

Hi saemo,

Mormon archeologists have done several excavations in New York State in the past, such as the site of the original Joseph Smith Sr cabin, but no excavation of that drumlin near Manchester which many now call the "Hill Cumorah" -- where a pageant is held annually.  The LDS Church owns the hill and has made major alterations to it for use as a pageant center.  There is not now and never has been any reason to conduct a major archeological excavation there.  Joseph did not refer to it as the Hill Cumorah until the late 1830s, and then only because that had become a common reference.

 

The original Hill Cumorah does not fit the description of that drumlin and there has never been any evidence of a major battle there (archeololgists can survey a site merely by walking across it and gathering surface artifacts which are exposed by erosion).  Nor was there ever a major, high civilization in the vicinity -- nor anywhere in North America for that matter.  In general, see John E. Clark, “Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology,” paper presented at the Aug 4, 2005, FAIR Conference in Sandy, Utah, available online at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/ 2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html .

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

What you are saying about the Book of Mormon here, saemo, does not comport with the secular evidence, as I have pointed out in posts 99 and 147 in this thread.

 

Also Ernst Benz (a non-Mormon scholar) has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:

 

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith=s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.^[1]

 

The notion of deification as the ultimate objective of the early Christian believer is entirely orthodox,^[2] and was also a fundamental belief of the ancient Egyptians.^[3]  Both Bible and Book of Mormon appear to contain this doctrine (Alma 5:19, III Nephi 28:10, Moroni 7:48 ǁ1 John 3:2), and it was common to the Ante-Nicene Fathers,^[4] and to pre-Christian Judaism.^[5]  Both likewise focus on what Dietrich Wildung suggests are Acontemporary events as the setting of God=s ongoing salvation drama.@^[6]

^[1] ADer Mensch als Imago Dei,@ in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

 

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

 

English version in Benz, AImago Dei: Man in the Image of God,@ in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

^[2] Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).

^[3] Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt (NYU Press, 1977).

^[4] Daniel Graham, AFree Will in the Early Church,@ paper delivered Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of SMPT at USU, Logan, Utah.

^[5] John J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in J. J. Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 43-58.

^[6] Paul Hanson in Harper=s Bible Dictionary, 1062.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

That is the problem with the Book of Mormon. Nothing holds still long enough to examine. Everything disappears.

Actually, saemo, it is a rather long book, with lots of concrete assertions in it.  As Hugh Nibley used to observe, it is easily examined, provided the examiner is serious and willing to approach it with an open mind.  The Bible demands the same of us, although many dismiss it out of hand without actually reading it or giving it a fair hearing.

 

How would you feel about such scurrilous statements about the Bible?  Or about the Roman Catholic sacred deposit of the faith?  Is it appropriate to engage in party politics when it comes to religion?  Or should there be mutual respect and serious consideration of divergent points of view?