Nephites! Yea Or Nay?

[thatjimguy]

My faith lies in the ideas behind the events told in the scriptures. It is these ideas that create the heartstring tug, not the events themselves.

[longview]

My faith lies in the ideas behind the events told in the scriptures. It is these ideas that create the heartstring tug, not the events themselves.

Spoken like a true Deist?  You not believe that God was involved with the world after Adam/Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden?

 

I believe God is capable of commanding the elements and bringing about wondrous events.  He even does things either simpler or harder just to provide a better teaching illustration.  But the experiences were real.  The participants actually saw history unfold in front of their own eyes!  Sometimes whole masses of people.

[tagriffy]

I believe God is capable of commanding the elements and bringing about wondrous events.  He even does things either simpler or harder just to provide a better teaching illustration.  But the experiences were real.  The participants actually saw history unfold in front of their own eyes!  Sometimes whole masses of people.

 

Whether the experiences were real is a debatable matter. I think a better way to put it is that the experiences are real.

[Gray]

I see the flaw in your reasoning.  If it didn't happen it there is no way it could affect you at any time.  It would be just a fairy tale story. 

 

I don't know about you, but I can be as equally moved and inspired by a story based on real events as one not based on real events

Edited June 29, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

I don't know about you, but I can be as equally moved and inspired by a story based on real events as one not based on real events

 

Do you, as a rule, order your life on fiction?

[Gray]

duplicate post 

Edited June 29, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Do you, as a rule, order your life on fiction?

 

No, but I don't order my life on history texts either, although I may be influenced or inspired by both. I order my life according to what I believe to be good principles. 

[Stargazer]

Well, what would change in your relationship with God if the resurrection were not a literal occurrence? If it were symbolic of something else, would you stop believing in God? After all, it's not the event itself that affects you in there here and now - it's the meaning you draw from the story. 

 

In any case, the original context was ALL the miracles attributed to Jesus. Why MUST all of them have really happened? That's a lot of weight to put in a genre (scripture) not noted for producing faithful retelling of actual events (that has never been the point of scripture). Why is any of that important? What does the story of loaves and fishes mean to you if it's only a literal event? After all, neither the loaves nor the fishes are available for you to eat.

It's just as well, since I am not particularly fond of fish. For eating, that is.

How would it affect my relationship with God if the resurrection were not literal? I'd have to say that a relationship based on a lie is not a relationship with any future. God is very clear on the notion that we will all be resurrected, and He has said so in many places, and quoted by many of His chosen authorities. If God will say at the end "April Fool!" on that, then what else is He lying about?

[thatjimguy]

Spoken like a true Deist?  You not believe that God was involved with the world after Adam/Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden?

 

I believe God is capable of commanding the elements and bringing about wondrous events.  He even does things either simpler or harder just to provide a better teaching illustration.  But the experiences were real.  The participants actually saw history unfold in front of their own eyes!  Sometimes whole masses of people.

 

The idea between Adam and Eve is that we cannot stay ignorant and must learn good vs evil. It is the nature of man to grow. I'm cool with this.

 

However, I do not need to believe literally to understand this, or any other lesson.

[cinepro]

The idea between Adam and Eve is that we cannot stay ignorant and must learn good vs evil. It is the nature of man to grow. I'm cool with this.

 

However, I do not need to believe literally to understand this, or any other lesson.

 

But that's just as much against LDS doctrine as not believing in Adam and Eve at all.

 

Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it. I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.³

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng

[Gray]

It's just as well, since I am not particularly fond of fish. For eating, that is.

How would it affect my relationship with God if the resurrection were not literal? I'd have to say that a relationship based on a lie is not a relationship with any future. God is very clear on the notion that we will all be resurrected, and He has said so in many places, and quoted by many of His chosen authorities. If God will say at the end "April Fool!" on that, then what else is He lying about?

 

God does not write scripture, and ancient scripture writers did not "lie" as you and I would understand the term. They were not concerned with fact vs non-fact. They were concerned with spiritual truths. The narratives were constructed to support those truths. It's anachronistic to expect ancient scripture to be historically accurate. They had neither the means to write history nor the understanding of how to write it, any more than they had the understanding to build an airplane.

[rodheadlee]

It's anachronistic to expect ancient scripture to be historically accurate. They had neither the means to write history nor the understanding of how to write it, any more than they had the understanding to build an airplane.

Boy is that  load of progressive elitist B.S. I'm sure you think you are so much brighter, more informed intelligent than the ancients. The truth is the ancients knew enough about writing history to destroy it with a regime change and create their own version for the masses to consume.

 

Mormon 8: 34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

  35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

  36 And I know that ye do ^awalk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not ^blift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of ^cvery fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

 

Edited July 5, 2015 by rodheadlee

[thesometimesaint]

Boy is that  load of progressive elitist B.S. I'm sure you think you are so much brighter, more informed than the ancients. The truth is the ancients knew enough about writing history to destroy it with a regime change and create their own version for the masses to consume.

 

Not necessarily brighter, but more informed; YES

[rodheadlee]

Not necessarily brighter, but more informed; YES

See my edit. Mormon 8: 35.

[rodheadlee]

Not necessarily brighter, but more informed; YES

More informed than Enoch? Mormon? etc, I doubt it. More informed as a mass of humanity, certainly.

[thesometimesaint]

See my edit. Mormon 8: 35.

 

We are to be wiser than serpents, and gentler than doves.

[Hagoth]

I'm late to this discussion but I would just like to suggest that there might be a lot more members who don't have a literal belief in Nephites than many here would believe. I know several myself who are active, tithe paying, recommend holding members, some bishops among them. I think it is human nature to assume that everyone on your team feels exactly the way you do. If you sit members of the church down and ask them about their beliefs you might be surprised at what people think is doctrine and what isn't.

 

 

Example: sit down with a roomful of 70-80 year-old members and ask them what the church teaches about evolution, then do the same with a roomful of young members who are recent college graduates.

 

For people who are more evidence-based it would really help if we could at least come to a consensus of what part of the hemisphere the Nephites lived in. We appear to have two opposing sets of evidence putting them in two distinct, non-overlapping locations and our leaders are doing nothing to help us.  And again, ask those older members and you will find that they were raised to understand that the story includes both North and South America with an obvious Narrow Neck at Panama.

[rodheadlee]

We are to be wiser than serpents, and gentler than doves.

Well I'm having trouble on both fronts.

[Gray]

 

Boy is that  load of progressive elitist B.S. I'm sure you think you are so much brighter, more informed than the ancients. The truth is the ancients knew enough about writing history to destroy it with a regime change and create their own version for the masses to consume.

 

Mormon 8: 34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

  35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

  36 And I know that ye do ^awalk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not ^blift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of ^cvery fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

 

 

It has nothing to do with being progressive, it has to do with what good scholarship has to say on the topic. If you think that ancient people were keeping careful and accurate histories before the discipline was invented, you might as well be saying they had airplanes too.

 

Passive aggressive scripture bashing won't change that!

Edited July 5, 2015 by Gray

[rodheadlee]

I'm late to this discussion but I would just like to suggest that there might be a lot more members who don't have a literal belief in Nephites than many here would believe. I know several myself who are active, tithe paying, recommend holding members, some bishops among them. I think it is human nature to assume that everyone on your team feels exactly the way you do. If you sit members of the church down and ask them about their beliefs you might be surprised at what people think is doctrine and what isn't.

 

 

Example: sit down with a roomful of 70-80 year-old members and ask them what the church teaches about evolution, then do the same with a roomful of young members who are recent college graduates.

 

For people who are more evidence-based it would really help if we could at least come to a consensus of what part of the hemisphere the Nephites lived in. We appear to have two opposing sets of evidence putting them in two distinct, non-overlapping locations and our leaders are doing nothing to help us.  And again, ask those older members and you will find that they were raised to understand that the story includes both North and South America with an obvious Narrow Neck at Panama.

For an alternative look at the meaning of narrow neck of land may I suggest this article? http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-narrow-small-neck-of-land.html

 

I tend to agree with their theory, mostly because we are overshooting the mark. If we are looking for evidence of Nephites or Lamanites we may find it in North America, Central America, South America and even Europe. If we are looking for Zarahemla then we need to narrow the search,

[rodheadlee]

It has nothing to do with being progressive, it has to do with what good scholarship has to say on the topic. If you think that ancient people were keeping careful and accurate histories before the discipline was invented, you might as well be saying they had airplanes too.

 

Passive aggressive scripture bashing won't change that!

If you think the ancients didn't start keeping careful and accurate records with the advent of written languages I'd say you are mistaken. It's an opinion though so a CFR won't do any good.  

[Hagoth]

For an alternative look at the meaning of narrow neck of land may I suggest this article? http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-narrow-small-neck-of-land.html

 

I tend to agree with their theory, mostly because we are overshooting the mark. If we are looking for evidence of Nephites or Lamanites we may find it in North America, Central America, South America and even Europe. If we are looking for Zarahemla then we need to narrow the search,

 

Thanks, rodheadlee, that's very interesting. And it's a great example of what I'm talking about. Many people believe 100% in the Book of Mormon but even among them there is a lot of contention about some very basic things, like where it actually happened (as is well illustrated by the discussion on this board).  In some cases folks seem to have a stronger testimony of the geography than they do of the contents! But that is a fairly new development. I'm in my mid-fifties and when I was a kid the hemispheric model was the only one you ever heard. People believed it, they accepted it without question and something like a Narrow Neck between the Great Lakes or a second Cumorah would never have entered into their heads. Personally, I think the diversity of theories, whether about geography, origin or textual issues, is great and I am fascinated to hear the opinions of everyone from skeptics, which is more or less where I am these days, to people who think the whole thing took place in Indonesia. Everyone is satisfied that the other guys are are wrong, yet they all believe the book is true.There's something oddly heartwarming about that.

[Gray]

If you think the ancients didn't start keeping careful and accurate records with the advent of written languages I'd say you are mistaken. It's an opinion though so a CFR won't do any good.  

 

I don't think that describes any ancient scripture that I know of. In many cases scripture is pseudepigrapha, written centuries after the alleged events described, with no actual sources for the material, or at best based on oral tradition. That's not the way to get a careful, accurate record of actual events  

Edited July 6, 2015 by Gray

[Hagoth]

I don't think that describes any ancient scripture that I know of. In many cases scripture is pseudepigrapha, written centuries after the alleged events described, with no actual sources for the material, or at best based on oral tradition. That's not the way to get a careful, accurate record of actual events  

 

I notice that in Sunday School people tend to scrutinize the details of the wording in the KJV as if there had been a stenographer following Adam & Eve, Moses, Jesus, whoever around recording every detail in 15th Century English as it happened. "Adam used the word X because he was implying Y."  I wish we would devote an adequate amount of time to explaining how the scriptures came about.