Nephites! Yea Or Nay?

[thesometimesaint]

There are more options than just atheism vs fundamentalism. 

 

Depends on how fundamental you want to get. It is one thing to say that God, Christ exist, or that the Nephites existed. It is quite another to say that everything anyone has written about them is 100% accurate. The Saints are not Bible or Book of Mormon literalists.

[bcuzbcuz]

I don't think yes, I know yes.

How is that possible? Please define how you define "know" and how your "knowing" is something else other than wishful thinking.

[bcuzbcuz]

I have heard this many times but no one seems able to provide an example.

H-o-r-s-e

[Gray]

Depends on how fundamental you want to get. It is one thing to say that God, Christ exist, or that the Nephites existed. It is quite another to say that everything anyone has written about them is 100% accurate. The Saints are not Bible or Book of Mormon literalists.

 

No one is 100% literalist, true. 

[HappyJackWagon]

You might have noticed that we seem to have a generous sprinkling of MINOs and former members.

Yeah, MINO's who are active at church, attend the temple regularly, faithfully fulfill their callings (many in leadership). Yeah, they're members in name only. Pretty lame attempt to justify dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you, Stargazer.

[Gray]

Yeah, MINO's who are active at church, attend the temple regularly, faithfully fulfill their callings (many in leadership). Yeah, they're members in name only. Pretty lame attempt to justify dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you, Stargazer.

 

Unless you're a fundamentalist, you're not a real Mormon. Everyone knows that

[longview]

Let me know when the first Nephite museum opens.

Ok, I'll PM you when you're 95 years old.      

Edited June 9, 2015 by longview

[JLHPROF]

No one is 100% literalist, true. 

 

(still trying though)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You might have noticed that we seem to have a generous sprinkling of MINOs and former members.

Generous? It seems we have been over run. And those that are faithful, at least me, don't really care for casting a vote let alone posting much these days.

[bcuzbcuz]

Ok, I'll PM you when you're 95 years old.      

I can tell you right now, that isn´t going to happen. And not just because the men in my famiy have never reached 95 years of age.

The stories of the BofM have been around for 180 years. The Smithsonian (no, it´s not named after Joseph Smith) doesn´t have a single object classified as "Nephite" or "Lamanite". In fact, they´ve gone out of their way to proclaim they do not support any claims of the BofM. Too many objects, materials or even plants named in the BofM have not been proven to have existed in any of the areas that could possibly be Nephitian or Lamanitian. Corn is mentioned once in the BofM and yet the Spaniards recorded corn as a principle ingredient in the Latin American cultures. Think "tacos".

I will not reach 95 years old, but neither my children nor my children´s children will find any Nephite museums

[hagoth7]

Corn is mentioned once in the BofM and yet the Spaniards recorded corn as a principle ingredient in the Latin American cultures.

I must be missing something. Why then do you put corn as an argument against the Book of Mormon? Or am I misunderstanding your intended point? You are aware that evidence of ancient barley, which critics had said never existed in the ancient Americas, has been discovered? The list of things that have been discovered over the years, that critics contended never would be, goes on and on. Whereas less than 10% of 60 items mentioned in the Nephite record were once known to exist, there is already evidence for 75% of them. I think the Nephite record is doing just fine, regardless of what critics may think.

More importantly, is the Book of Mormon something you have prayerfully studied?

I will not reach 95 years old, but neither my children nor my children´s children will find any Nephite museums

Your last assertion is an Interesting one. It's certainly not one that I would be willing to bet on.

Edited June 9, 2015 by hagoth7

[Lightbearer]

Of course they existed historically unless you believe Joseph Smith is a liar. Not only does he state that he translated the record on the plates but he also states he met in person, Moroni, Nephi and others! So I say unequivocally that if you believe Joseph is a true prophet of God and that God Himself verified that the record is true then you must accept its historic authenticity. There is no middle ground no matter how you try to justify it this new age mormonism is not correct.

[Stargazer]

Yeah, MINO's who are active at church, attend the temple regularly, faithfully fulfill their callings (many in leadership). Yeah, they're members in name only. Pretty lame attempt to justify dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you, Stargazer.

 

Happy Jack, are you fat, or are you tall?  You know, the song?  Right?

 

 

Not trying to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with me.  I'm stating facts.  I'm saying that there are a few LDS here who are LDS in name only, who do not believe in the theological doctrines of the church, that Christ died for their sins, possibly do not even believe in God.  I can name one of them who has freely admitted to the same here numerous times.  Shall I?  No point to it, probably, but in case you missed the curve, Jack, I was responding to someone who is new here and wondering about the faithfulness of some of the posters here.  If you are offended by the FACT that there are LDS here who are actually UNbelievers, then you are welcome to your offense.  I hope you enjoy being offended, since you seem to get offended a lot.

 

If you have a temple recommend, attend the temple frequently, serve in a bishopric, and yet don't believe in the Book of Mormon as the word of God, nor in its divine origin, nor in the divine origin of the Church itself, and don't believe that the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are literal Prophets, Seers and Revelators, then in my estimation you are a Mormon in Name Only -- a MINO.  I applaud your faithfulness to a creed in which you don't believe, and sincerely hope that one day you get your heart right with God and obtain a real testimony.  In the meantime, please stay for the social gospel, if that's all you can believe in!  I don't want anyone to leave!  And by my use of the pronoun YOU in this paragraph, I don't mean to say that YOU, Happy Jack, are a MINO.  It's a generic YOU.  If the shoe fits.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Unless you're a fundamentalist, you're not a real Mormon. Everyone knows that

 

Maybe YOU know this.  One of the very few, I might add.

[Stargazer]

I must be missing something. Why then do you put corn as an argument against the Book of Mormon? Or am I misunderstanding your intended point? You are aware that evidence of ancient barley, which critics had said never existed in the ancient Americas, has been discovered? The list of things that have been discovered over the years, that critics contended never would be, goes on and on. Whereas less than 10% of 60 items mentioned in the Nephite record were once known to exist, there is already evidence for 75% of them. I think the Nephite record is doing just fine, regardless of what critics may think.

More importantly, is the Book of Mormon something you have prayerfully studied?

Your last assertion is an Interesting one. It's certainly not one that I would be willing to bet on.

 

What YOU don't understand is that for some there is no evidence at all which will convince.  The still, small voice of the Spirit is overpowered by the shout of what the world demands for evidence.  If a traffic sign were to be found on which it were clearly engraved, "Zarahemla 20 Miles", they would have no hesitation at all in dismissing it as coincidence.

Nephi wrote (2 Nephi 33:10-11):

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth,

hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these

words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in

these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me;

and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power

and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall

stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded

of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

Moroni wrote (Moro 10:27-29):

27 And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?

28 I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.

29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.

 

If the Book of Mormon is mere religious fiction, then the bolded words above are utter lies.  Fictitious men do not stand before the judgement bar of God and declare anything, let alone that they are real people.  If they do, well, then God is a liar.  But God is not a liar. 

[Gray]

Maybe YOU know this.  One of the very few, I might add.

 

Well, you've been arguing quite strenously that Mormons who don't take a fundamentalist (i.e. literalist) interpretation of scripture are "MINOs". Personally I don't think you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Mormon.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

What say ye?

I don't think it matters whether something is literal or figurative; its Godly source and spiritual signifiance are what make it essential. That said, my response in the case of the existence of the Nephites is that they were a legitimate or factual people of flesh and blood, and that their existence is essential to the Restored Gospel since they were real people fulfilling the promsies of Joseph (of old) by keeping the records that culminated in the Book of Mormon and its coming forth as prophesied (see 2 Nephi 3). According to verse 24, there is yet more essential things to be accomplsihed by them.

[Uncle Dale]

I opted for the last choice on the list.

 

Had you asked me, say, maybe 30 years ago, I might

have replied, "Whether or not Nephites were real people

matters no more than whether Balaam's donkey really

spoke Hebrew in the old Bible story."

 

But now -- after many years of study and reflection -- my

opinion is that the leaders of the Mormon Church should

allow each adult member to form his/her own conclusions,

without any reference to worthiness, calling, or status in

the Church.

 

Is that really such a terrible opinion for one to hold sincerely?

 

UD

[Avatar4321]

Forgive me but where exactly is anyone not letting another person draw their own conclusions?

[Uncle Dale]

Forgive me but where exactly is anyone not letting another person draw their own conclusions?

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong in my observations.

 

Among the RLDS/CoC, President W. Wallace Smith was the first member

of the First Presidency to "disbelieve" in Nephites -- followed by numerous

stake presidents, apostles, seventies and high priests in elevated callings.

 

I'd say that, c. 1960, belief in Nephites was removed from the "worthiness"

estimation of Reorganized Latter Day Saints' being considered for high

offices and important callings.

 

Perhaps B. H. Roberts, Apostle Talmadge and other LDS leaders stopped

believing and still magnified their callings. But, I'm not certain of that.

 

UD

[hagoth7]

 

What YOU don't understand is that for some there is no evidence at all which will convince.  The still, small voice of the Spirit is overpowered by the shout of what the world demands for evidence.  If a traffic sign were to be found on which it were clearly engraved, "Zarahemla 20 Miles", they would have no hesitation at all in dismissing it as coincidence.

 

? Have I offended you in some way? (Or accidentally kicked your cat? ) I absolutely agree that secular evidence can't prove spiritual things. And I know full well that some will reject truth despite a mountain of evidence. In balance, however, I do believe that evidence can sometimes establish a greenhouse of hope, helping others acknowledge that there just might possibly be something to the Book of Mormon...giving them cause to investigate prayerfully.

...If the Book of Mormon is mere religious fiction, then the bolded words above are utter lies.  Fictitious men do not stand before the judgement bar of God and declare anything, let alone that they are real people.  If they do, well, then God is a liar.  But God is not a liar. 

I'm quite curious now. Why is this lengthy response in reply to me? Anyone who knows my online activity (here or elsewhere) knows that I completely accept the Book of Mormon as an actual Nephite record. (And that's an understatement). Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Or did I misunderstand your intent?

Edited June 11, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

...

Edited June 11, 2015 by hagoth7

[Stargazer]

Well, you've been arguing quite strenously that Mormons who don't take a fundamentalist (i.e. literalist) interpretation of scripture are "MINOs". Personally I don't think you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Mormon.

 

No, I haven't been arguing for a "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Book of Mormon (I said nothing about the Bible).  I've been arguing that the Book of Mormon is a historical record that chronicles events that really happened, or in other words, it is what it claims to be. 

 

As to the word "fundamentalist", I don't know what that actually means to you, but as an aficionado of Parke Godwin's two novels, "Waiting for the Galactic Bus" and "The Snake Oil Wars", Godwin always uses the word "fundamentalist" and "fundie" with the most negative connotation possible.  Which is, I suppose, your lookout as well.

 

The late Parke Godwin is not, by the way, the Godwin of Godwin's Law.

 

And no, a MINO is to me someone who doesn't believe in, or have a testimony of, the divine origins of the Church, as a whole.  Such a one remains in the Church for the social gospel, and I wouldn't ever suggest that they leave.  I suppose that a member might believe in the Book of Mormon as a divinely-inspired fiction while believing that Joseph Smith et al. were and are actually prophets, and thus avoid my thinking they're a MINO.  But how can someone believe that it's a fiction but nevertheless scripture when a character from the book (Moroni) was the one who revealed it's source to Joseph Smith?  It would be like Elmer Fudd showing up to reveal the autobiography of Bugs Bunny.  How could you ever take THAT seriously?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

? Have I offended you in some way? (Or accidentally kicked your cat? ) I absolutely agree that secular evidence can't prove spiritual things. And I know full well that some will reject truth despite a mountain of evidence. In balance, however, I do believe that evidence can sometimes establish a greenhouse of hope, helping others acknowledge that there just might possibly be something to the Book of Mormon...giving them cause to investigate prayerfully.

I'm quite curious now. Why is this lengthy response in reply to me? Anyone who knows my online activity (here or elsewhere) knows that I completely accept the Book of Mormon as an actual Nephite record. (And that's an understatement). Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Or did I misunderstand your intent?

 

Nothing at all against you.  My apologies, I was just using your post as a springboard for launching my own rant.  I thought you would see that, and I am sorry that I didn't make it more apparent.  See, you were talking about evidence to some of the most cynical posters on the board, and I was mock-chiding you for even the suggestion of finding evidence, since they don't care about evidence, and would gladly go on disbelieving if Moroni himself showed up to convince them.

[Stargazer]

I see that I am getting too wound up about this. 

 

There have been other threads dealing with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and I have largely stayed away from them, because quite frankly, some of you apparent members of the LDS church have views on the Book of Mormon that make my skin crawl.  I should have stayed away from this one, too, because I don't usually like to call people names, even when they deserve them.  Hence the MINO.

 

If the Book of Mormon is NOT actual historical narrative, then the Church cannot be what it claims to be, and I might as well be a Catholic.  In that case, I'd rather be a Catholic, in fact.  Because if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Christ's true church on earth, possessing the authority of the Priesthood of God, well, those Protestants haven't a leg to stand on because if the Catholic Church (which I believe has the superior shot at being the "true church" when compared to Eastern Orthodoxy) is apostate, then how can rebels from an apostate church have any authority?  Especially in view of their internecine conflicts (Baptists vs Methodists vs YouNameIt).

 

And with that I am ending my participation in this thread.  My apologies if I've offended anyone.