The Marvels Of The Book Of Mormon

[Avatar4321]

When I first got baptized, I had no doubt that the BOM was not historical.  No way could it be, I thought.

 

But it didn't matter one iota.  Buddhism is not based on the historicity of their scriptures, it is based on the CONTENT.  My life had been changed totally by studying philosophy, NONE of which was based on any of it being "historical".

 

I left Catholicism as a young man because the philosophy didn't make sense to me.  Historical "chain of priesthood from Peter though all the Popes?"  I never ever bought that except perhaps as a child- my connection was with the Eucharist which I was convinced was the actual body Christ- when the philosophy behind that theory went, so did my belief in the RC Church.

 

So my membership in the LDS way of life has always been based on testimony and the fact that I am totally convinced that the philosophy behind it is the best possible paradigm any human has ever created by inspiration or otherwise.  The Book of Mormon is a phenomenal piece of scripture- and totally consistent with the rest of Mormon philosophy and the basis of most of the doctrines.   The first time I read it I saw it as a total enigma.  How could Joseph come up with a profound philosophy that totally anticipates postmodernism (Alma 32). William James, John Dewey, Michael Polyani, and therefore Kuhn and Rorty.??   How is that possible?

 

How could Joseph answer questions raised by existentialism before they were even dreamed up?

 

How could he know so much about Christianity and its problems and solve them, and turn 2000 years of confused theology on its head?

 

A farmboy who lived about 100 miles from my birthplace?   In my youth I knew old farmers in the area, born in the 1880's.  Yes, they played with folk mythology, dousing and all the rest.   Did they understand anything at all that Joseph "saw" instinctively?   Of course not.

 

So historicity was a non-issue for me from the beginning.

 

Then I thought about it.   I noticed it was incredibly important for many members of the church.  I could not understand that on one level, but on another I could see the problem.   If the gospel was not historical, it was not to be believed at all, or so they said.

 

I looked at who believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I found many people I thought to be totally brilliant who believed.   That did not make sense to me.

 

No one outside the church believed that the BOM was historical.   Yet all this totally brilliant people who understood the philosophy and knew far more than I did, believed in historicity.  Why could they not see it??

 

Then suddenly I got it.  Believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is actually a religious belief, that has nothing to do with the allegedly "impartial" analysis  data.   But guess what?  There is no such thing as "impartial" analysis of data.  Nietzsche coined the memorable statement "there are no facts, just interpretations".

 

Using a religious filter (paradigm) is just as rationally permissible as using a scientific filter (paradigm).  Both are perfectly rational, according to whom?  Oh, just James. Dewey. Nietzsche, Michael Polyani, Kuhn (sort of) and Rorty, all the postmodernists and every philosopher (the majority) who believes in the deflationary theory of truth. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/    In other words, all my heros, not the least of which is Joseph himself.

 

So guess what?

 

I started reading more about the evidence for historicity and found a bunch.

 

My paradigm had shifted.  I was ready.   It took me 36 years.  I have no problem now with the idea that the BOM IS historical.

Amazingly articulate

[cinepro]

I absolute guarantee you that if the Book of Mormon plates were ever revealed for all the world to see, those who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true would say it's just an elaborate hoax, and the vast majority of the rest would loose interest almost immediately.

 

Based on the current state of The Book of Abraham eveidences, I have to say I agree with you.

[mfbukowski]

I've been trying to come up with an appropriate word myself. I've used the terms "fiction" and "pseudepigrapha" in the past. I'm starting to toy with the word "novel." There just aren't that many, if any, terms I could used without immediately being accused of saying the Book of Mormon isn't true. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is true (better, True); it's just not historical. If Bokovoy is successful in redeeming the term "pseudepigrapha" for Latter-day Saints, I'll stick with that. If I had a term that was precise enough to capture what I mean while being positive (or at least neutral) in connotation, I'd use it.

I am not sure it is necessary to even use one word to describe it, any more than one would use any of those words to describe the Book of Exodus.  It might very well be an unsubstantiated story, regarded by billions as scripture and historically accurate.  Isaiah may have lived, but when you think about it, what does that idea even mean?   Was "he" really named "Isaiah" or Fred?    What if (as seems to be right) vast portions were written essentially by a committee?  I am obviously not a scholar on the subject, but the reason I am not is because I am not sure of the relevance of spending all that time to become a scholar- of what?  Of a work of "fiction"?  What is the importance of even worrying about it or trying to answer the puzzle, which I think is unsolvable.

 

Either you accept it as "scripture" or you don't.  Either you think it's from God or you don't.

 

For me, that's why I keep it simple.   The Book of Mormon is "true"- that is a religious position accepted on faith and a testimony experience.  I stand up in church and say that without reservation because I now what "true" means.   It is what it is in the deflationary theory of truth.

 

Is it "historical"? There definitely is plausible evidence that it could be, but I accept it as historical as a religious position, the same as I accept that there was a real human being named Isaiah, who wrote at least part of the book.

 

Is it spiritually "true"?  Does it give my life meaning?  Does it resolve intellectual questions about religious matters for me?  Absolutely without question.  Does it help me define my place in the universe so that I can lead a happy and peaceful life?  Do I know it is "from God"?  Unquestionably.

 

You really can't expect more from any collections of letters on a page.   The fact that letters on a page can do all that is a continuing marvel to me.  Letters on a page can change lives.   Incredible.

 

Beyond that, I don't need a single word to describe it.

[Bobbieaware]

Based on the current state of The Book of Abraham eveidences, I have to say I agree with you.

Yet the same Spirit has revealed to me that the Book of Abraham is as true and historical as is the Book of Mormon.

Has it ever dawned on you that in order to preserve the full breadth of our free agency and also provide sufficiently difficult tests of faith to determine who will and who will not learn to recognize and implicitly trust the voice of the Spirit, God cannot allow convincing empirical evidences that could prove the restored gospel is true to intrude upon and frustrate his eternal purposes in developing a people of unconquerable faith and indestructible hope? Developing this kind of genuinely powerful faith, hope and trust in God cannot be accomplished in an environment where the exercising of these holy attributes is not challenged to the utmost. If God's purposes are going to succeed, he must allow an environment to exist where the evidences amassed against the truthfulness of the restored gospel seem to be at least as powerful as the evidences amassed in its favor.

There is no other way. And expecting that God can carry out his work in some other way is evidence of a spiritual immaturity that cannot comprehend the conditions needed in order to develop the purest and most powerful testimonies of God's latter-day work. Those who cannot appreciate the validity of what I'm saying are like little children who never learn how to ride a bike without training wheels.

The mockers who point and laugh at the saints from the windows of the large and spacious building are convinced by what they consider to be irrefutable evidence that they are right and the saints are pathetically naive and embarrassingly wrong. But in the end the wisdom of the world's wisemen will perish as they learn to their utter shock and astonishment that the saints they once laughed to scorn had it right all along. The inheritors of the celestial kingdom will be men and women of genuine faith, while those who inherit the lower kingdoms of glory will, to one degree or another, be those sign seekers who would not believe until they were impelled to believe.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[tagriffy]

I suggest you read this and refute it somehow or show how it doesn't apply before you try to reinvent the wheel.

 

Outside of religious universities, where heads seem to be firmly in the sand, this is pretty much the main view of truth, or is at least THE 800 pound gorilla in the room to at least be acknowledged.  https://www.google.com/search?q=deflationary+theory+of+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

I've had all of two hours of sleep now. My brain is still too mushy to deal with it, so for now all I can do is acknowledge what you are saying and then come back and deal with it later.

[tagriffy]

I'm always surprised when a seasoned member of the Church appears to be ignorant ot the Church's teachings. Moroni teaches us the Book of Mormon is its own best evidence. All that's needed to gain a living testimony of it is to sincerely follow through on Moroni's promise and then the truthfullness of that most amazing Book will be revealed by revelation from God through the Holy Ghost. I have sincerely followed through on Moroni's promise and have received the promised revelation that has confirmed to my spirit, with spiritual evidence greater than sight, that that sacred book is verily true. If someone has not as yet had the experience of receiving revelation from God that confirms the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, trying to explain what it's like to receive that revelation is like trying to describe to a man who's been blind from birth what the color green looks like. What follows is God's own prescribed way that explains how to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)

I absolute guarantee you that if the Book of Mormon plates were ever revealed for all the world to see, those who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true would say it's just an elaborate hoax, and the vast majority of the rest would loose interest almost immediately. And if Book of Mormon cities and artifacts were ever discovered, those who think they already know the Book of Mormon is false would just say it's one of those false miracles the Book of Revelation warns will take place in the last days to lead the sons and daughters of men astray, and the rest would go back to their comfort zones of spiritual ignorance after lifting their eyes to watch the TV news report for 30 seconds.

God knows what he's doing. His prescribed way to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon is for the truth seeker to have a TRULY sincere heart, TRULY sincere intent and REAL faith in Christ. But for all too many it seems exercising a sincere heart, sincere intent and real faith in Christ are the hardest things in the world to do. My hope is that when those who doubt my words get the whole picture they will apologize to the Lord for ever thinking it was a good idea to try to build the ranks of the Church by satisfying faithless sign-seekers.

 

And that means if one doesn't get a testimony, they are doing something wrong. How nice that we have an out where we don't have to provide any actual evidence to back up our claims. Heads, you win; tails I lose. Seriously, back in the days I was having a problem obtaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon, if you had said it I didn't truly have a sincere heart, or didn't truly have sincere intent, or didn't have real faith in Christ, I would have said .... something I'm not allowed to actually say here. As it was, I was doing something wrong--asking the wrong question. I was asking whether the Book of Mormon is true when I should have been asking whether the Book of Mormon was True. So long as I was asking the former question, the only answer I would get "Figure it out." My testimony only came when I asked the latter question. Alma 32 combined with the parable of the sower. And if you now want to say my testimony is somehow less real because my testimony of the Book of Mormon is decoupled from the question of its historicity, then I am going to say ... something I'm not allowed to actually say here.

Edited June 30, 2015 by tagriffy

[Mormonmaniac]

And you see this as true across the board?  So that all limited geography theorists made the limited assumption first and then tried to find facts which would justify the assumptions and guesswork?  None of them could possibly have based their limited geography theory on scientific deduction or anthropological reality?  No scholarly basis for any of it?  Right?

 

Are there any scholarly articles or books available which systematically argue that case?  If it is all mere guesswork, it should be pretty easy to show the lack of evidence at each crucial point in the argument. 

 

The other problem is that you assert that the Book of Mormon "paints a much bigger and much broader picture than some small limited meso-american model. It thus does a great disservice to the Book of Mormon to put such extreme limits on the ancients spoken of in the BoM."   Would you make the same assertion about the even bigger Bible?  Why do we put such extreme limits on the geography of biblical events?  Because we already know the geographical context.  That is the only apparent reason.  Otherwise we could just as well give the Bible a continental canvas.

 

I lived and walked in the Holy Land for four years, and it doesn't seem so small when experienced firsthand.  Perhaps a proper sense of perspective is needed.

I don't need to compare the Bible lands with the Book of Mormon lands- they are on opposite sides of the earth and tell tales of different peoples. There really is no comparison with geography. The problem you have with the meso-american model is that you have two great civilizations, who numbered well into the millions, perhaps tens or even hundreds of millions as far as the Jaredites go, and you have them traipsing around a very small piece of geography for well over two thousand years. The text, especially that of the Nephite and Lamanite account paints a much broader picture of the which meso-america cannot possibly cover or fit. Mesoamerica theorists have two basic problems that are seemingly insurmountable. The first is the most obvious in the "narrow neck". Being on the ground, the narrow neck as proposed by mesoamerica believers is not a narrow neck when you consider that by that same standard, the entire Yucatan is a narrow neck being barely wider than the Isthmus itself. The second most obvious problem is that the land northward as described by early Nephites was considered to be an exceedingly great distance and that migrations to the land northward began with ocean bound vessels to take voyagers to this far off land- it being such a great distance to the north. The distance must have been great enough because we know that the Jaredites themselves never encroached into the land southward at all to inhabit with cities. With Mesoamerican theory, you do not have a recognizable "narrow neck". Neither is the land northward where the "Olmecs" inhabited, a very great distance. Besides that, the Olmecs inhabited areas south of the narrow neck. Nothing adds up. Its basic logic, open and shut case.

[Storm Rider]

And that means if one doesn't get a testimony, they are doing something wrong. How nice that we have an out where we don't have to provide any actual evidence to back up our claims. Heads, you win; tails I lose. Seriously, back in the days I was having a problem obtaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon, if you had said it I didn't truly have a sincere, or didn't truly have sincere intent, or didn't have real faith in Christ, I would have said .... something I'm not allowed to actually say here. As it was, I was doing something wrong--asking the wrong question. I was asking whether the Book of Mormon is true when I should have been asking whether the Book of Mormon was True. So long as I was asking the former question, the only answer I would get "Figure it out." My testimony only came when I asked the latter question. Alma 32 combined with the parable of the sower. And if you now want to say my testimony is somehow less real because my testimony of the Book of Mormon is decoupled from the question of its historicity, then I am going to say ... something I'm not allowed to actually say here.

 

I am not sure what we are supposed to do with this threat; knock yourself out, go for it.  Frankly, I don't give two drops of cold water what you may or may not say.

 

First, let's clarify that the scriptures tell us that we all have spiritual gifts.  Some must live by the faith of others; some have faith of themselves. How do we square this differences of gifts with the promise of the Book of Mormon?  Find your own answer, i doubt you would believe anything anyone says the conflicts with your own opinion.

 

Your "testimony" is your own.  It just happens to conflict completely with my own.  it may be that God has different a different plan for you.  It is up to you. 

[Mormonmaniac]

Humans are indeed fallible, but what you are saying here doesn't make any sense.  Historians are part of a self-correcting, group endeavor.  You make it sound like they get it all wrong all the time.

 

You claim to have "learned native American history from 'scholars' in school."  What school?

Very few students in the USA ever learn Amerindian history from scholars.  Only college training in anthropology provides that kind of scholarship.  Very few people have any idea what that means.  In California (where I studied anthropology) elementary and secondary students are introduced to a small amount of Amerindian material, and there are some excellent museums which show what life was like before the arrival of Columbus.  However, visiting a museum, or reading a short passage about California Indians in a textbook does not constitute "scholarship."

 

There is nothing wrong with the larger community of anthropologists.  They are very smart.  But almost none of them has any idea about the Book of Mormon, have not read it, and they do not concern themselves with it.  Why would they?  When the automatic assumption (without having studied it) is that the Book of Mormon is fiction, the die is cast from the outset.

I think you summed up nicely the state of anthropology in this country concerning the history of America. They automatically assume the BoM to be fiction because they themselves are right so there is no need to examine all the evidence.

[Bobbieaware]

And that means if one doesn't get a testimony, they are doing something wrong. How nice that we have an out where we don't have to provide any actual evidence to back up our claims. Heads, you win; tails I lose. Seriously, back in the days I was having a problem obtaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon, if you had said it I didn't truly have a sincere, or didn't truly have sincere intent, or didn't have real faith in Christ, I would have said .... something I'm not allowed to actually say here. As it was, I was doing something wrong--asking the wrong question. I was asking whether the Book of Mormon is true when I should have been asking whether the Book of Mormon was True. So long as I was asking the former question, the only answer I would get "Figure it out." My testimony only came when I asked the latter question. Alma 32 combined with the parable of the sower. And if you now want to say my testimony is somehow less real because my testimony of the Book of Mormon is decoupled from the question of its historicity, then I am going to say ... something I'm not allowed to actually say here.

A testimony is not a static thing but a living, growing spiritual tree of life. We all have to start somewhere, and if for now you can only accept the Book of Mormon as some sort of divine fiction, you're still way ahead of those who only see the Book of Mormon as a fictional work of the devil. It could also be that it's just not your time yet. Perhaps, like Lehi, the Lord wants you to trek for a time through a lone and dreary wilderness so that when relief finally comes you'll rejoice all the more when the Spirit's divine assurance replaces doubt. Remember, the Lord answers prayer but he does so in the wisdom of his own due time. And remember also that the Lord often intervenes to save his children just in the nick of time. The key is to endure until the clouds break and the shadows flee.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[tagriffy]

Yet the same Spirit has revealed to me that the Book of Abraham is as true and historical as is the Book of Mormon.

Has it ever dawned on you that in order to preserve the full breadth of our free agency and also provide sufficiently difficult tests of faith to determine who will and who will not learn to recognize and implicitly trust the voice of the Spirit, God cannot allow convincing empirical evidences that could prove the restored gospel is true to intrude upon and frustrate his eternal purposes in developing a people of unconquerable faith and indestructible hope? Developing this kind of genuinely powerful faith, hope and trust in God cannot be accomplished in an environment where the exercising of these holy attributes is not challenged to the utmost. If God's purposes are going to succeed, he must allow an environment to exist where the evidences amassed against the truthfulness of the restored gospel seem to be at least as powerful as the evidences amassed in its favor.

There is no other way. And expecting that God can carry out his work in some other way is evidence of a spiritual immaturity that cannot comprehend the conditions needed in order to develop the purest and most powerful testimonies of God's latter-day work. Those who cannot appreciate the validity of what I'm saying are like little children who never learn how to ride a bike without training wheels.

The mockers who point and laugh at the saints from the windows of the large and spacious building are convinced by what they consider to be irrefutable evidence that they are right and the saints are pathetically naive and embarrassingly wrong. But in the end the wisdom of the world's wisemen will perish as they learn to their utter shock and astonishment that the saints they once laughed to scorn had it right all along. The inheritors of the celestial kingdom will be men and women of genuine faith, while those who inherit the lower kingdoms of glory will, to one degree or another, be those sign seekers who would not believe until they were impelled to believe.

 

Oh, the full breadth of our agency is not going to be threatened and there will still be difficult tests of faith if God gives us a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla sign." As I said elsewhere:

 

 

One can accept the Book of Mormon is historical without necessarily accepting the ideas it presents are true. Maybe there really was a Lehi, but that doesn't in itself prove Lehi's teaching about the Fall of Adam is also true.

 

The reason why Lehi's teaching about the Fall wouldn't be proven true if Lehi's existence were empirically proven is that the teaching is not dependent on Lehi's existence. You're confounding things that really ought to be kept distinct. Whether the Book of Mormon is historical is an empirical question that can be answered through empirical means. And whereas God has given me a brain that can be used to sort out that kind of question, I figure he expects me to use it on that question. Whether the Book of Mormon is true is another question altogether, and that is where we must exercise hope and faith.

[Bobbieaware]

Oh, the full breadth of our agency is not going to be threatened and there will still be difficult tests of faith if God gives us a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla sign." As I said elsewhere:

 

 

The reason why Lehi's teaching about the Fall wouldn't be proven true if Lehi's existence were empirically proven is that the teaching is not dependent on Lehi's existence. You're confounding things that really ought to be kept distinct. Whether the Book of Mormon is historical is an empirical question that can be answered through empirical means. And whereas God has given me a brain that can be used to sort out that kind of question, I figure he expects me to use it on that question. Whether the Book of Mormon is true is another question altogether, and that is where we must exercise hope and faith.

Of course you know the prophet Joseph Smith would say this is a load of nonsense. That is, of course, unless, as the church's enemies say, he was nothing but a charlatan and a liar. Do you believe Moroni's visits and the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses are also fiction? If so, there is no other choice but for you to personally declare the church was built on a foundation lies. deception and conspiracy. Not a very good way to restore the church of Christ to the earth. If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the entire history of the coming forth of the book is nothing but a mass of lies. I'm wondering if you ever really stopped to think your position through because it's absolutely untenable.

[Nevo]

If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the entire history of the coming forth of the book is nothing but a mass of lies.

 

"But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. . . . wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." (Moroni 7:13–14, 16).

[tagriffy]

I don't need to compare the Bible lands with the Book of Mormon lands- they are on opposite sides of the earth and tell tales of different peoples. There really is no comparison with geography. The problem you have with the meso-american model is that you have two great civilizations, who numbered well into the millions, perhaps tens or even hundreds of millions as far as the Jaredites go, and you have them traipsing around a very small piece of geography for well over two thousand years. The text, especially that of the Nephite and Lamanite account paints a much broader picture of the which meso-america cannot possibly cover or fit. Mesoamerica theorists have two basic problems that are seemingly insurmountable. The first is the most obvious in the "narrow neck". Being on the ground, the narrow neck as proposed by mesoamerica believers is not a narrow neck when you consider that by that same standard, the entire Yucatan is a narrow neck being barely wider than the Isthmus itself. The second most obvious problem is that the land northward as described by early Nephites was considered to be an exceedingly great distance and that migrations to the land northward began with ocean bound vessels to take voyagers to this far off land- it being such a great distance to the north. The distance must have been great enough because we know that the Jaredites themselves never encroached into the land southward at all to inhabit with cities. With Mesoamerican theory, you do not have a recognizable "narrow neck". Neither is the land northward where the "Olmecs" inhabited, a very great distance. Besides that, the Olmecs inhabited areas south of the narrow neck. Nothing adds up. Its basic logic, open and shut case.

 

Well, what's narrow? "Narrow" is a comparative term. All that is really necessary is to describe a bit of geography as a "narrow neck" is that it be narrow compared to the other sides. Practically any isthmus will do for that purpose. And what's a great distance? Two thousand miles is a great distance if you have to walk it; not so much if all you have to do is hop on a plane. Even considering just walking, only ten miles is a great distance if you're making that journey into the desert in the middle of summer, or as Robert suggested elsewhere, you have to hack your way through a jungle. The reason why ships may have become necessary to get to the land northward of the Bountiful/Desolation border could have much more to do with the terrain than actual distance. Consider the map of Panama here. If you're traveling from La Palma to Chilre, it's going to be much easier to just sail there even though the overland distance probably isn't that horribly great--and we still haven't began considering terrain. Your case is not as open and shut as it may seem because the question about the size of the Book of Mormon lands is itself not as simple as it may seem. The Book of Mormon simply doesn't give us enough information to work with.

[filovirus]

We know Moroni was an actual person. He visited Joseph time and time again.

[Mormonmaniac]

as

Well, what's narrow? "Narrow" is a comparative term. All that is really necessary is to describe a bit of geography as a "narrow neck" is that it be narrow compared to the other sides. Practically any isthmus will do for that purpose. And what's a great distance? Two thousand miles is a great distance if you have to walk it; not so much if all you have to do is hop on a plane. Even considering just walking, only ten miles is a great distance if you're making that journey into the desert in the middle of summer, or as Robert suggested elsewhere, you have to hack your way through a jungle. The reason why ships may have become necessary to get to the land northward of the Bountiful/Desolation border could have much more to do with the terrain than actual distance. Consider the map of Panama here. If you're traveling from La Palma to Chilre, it's going to be much easier to just sail there even though the overland distance probably isn't that horribly great--and we still haven't began considering terrain. Your case is not as open and shut as it may seem because the question about the size of the Book of Mormon lands is itself not as simple as it may seem. The Book of Mormon simply doesn't give us enough information to work with.

Going the other direction in thought, 100-200 miles cannot be defined as "exceedingly great" in BoM standards, especially when you use the mesoamerican theorists approach to the isthmus of Tehuantepec as 120 it being a day and a half journey for a Nephite. That makes the distance to the lands northward a few days at most travel time. That is not exceedingly great. My own theory tends to lean towards the isthmus of Panama as the narrow neck as building ships by Hagoth makes sense to go over water versus struggling through hundreds of miles of jungle to deal with. It provided a natural barrier also and as such the reason why the Jaredites never built cities south of the narrow neck. One could correctly assume that if one is going to build a ship that goes in the ocean that can hold a lot of people such as Hagoth built, it wasnt to transport people a hundred or two hundred miles upshore. The isthmus of Tehuantepec is not an area that one would use ships to go around to get to the other side on the north. Panama however is such a place and still to this day ships are used to transport goods, services and people from the North American continent to the South American continent.

[tagriffy]

I am not sure what we are supposed to do with this threat; knock yourself out, go for it.  Frankly, I don't give two drops of cold water what you may or may not say.

 

First, let's clarify that the scriptures tell us that we all have spiritual gifts.  Some must live by the faith of others; some have faith of themselves. How do we square this differences of gifts with the promise of the Book of Mormon?  Find your own answer, i doubt you would believe anything anyone says the conflicts with your own opinion.

 

Your "testimony" is your own.  It just happens to conflict completely with my own.  it may be that God has different a different plan for you.  It is up to you. 

 

Oh, I agree with you. It's the inherent judgmentalism and arrogance of Bobbieaware's post I would be responding to. Our testimonies conflict, probably more in the details than in the overall testimonies themselves. I'm just as willing to live and let live as you are here. You have your own relationship with God and it simply isn't my place to question that. Start questioning the sincerity of the one seeking truth then you are attacking the person, and one shouldn't be surprised if the person responds accordingly. After all, you can't possibly know what is in a person's heart. Likewise when it comes to suggesting the resulting testimony is any less real or valid than one's own.

 

To wit, what's with the quotation marks?

[tagriffy]

Of course you know the prophet Joseph Smith would say this is a load of nonsense. That is, of course, unless, as the church's enemies say, he was nothing but a charlatan and a liar. Do you believe Moroni's visits and the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses are also fiction? If so, there is no other choice but for you to personally declare the church was built on a foundation lies. deception and conspiracy. Not a very good way to restore the church of Christ to the earth. If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the entire history of the coming forth of the book is nothing but a mass of lies. I'm wondering if you ever really stopped to think your position through because it's absolutely untenable.

 

I wouldn't be so sure that Joseph would say it is a load of nonsense. Note Nevo's quotation of Moroni 7:13-14, 16. Moroni's visits and the experiences of the witnesses were subjective, supernatural events. As such, they are not subject to fast and easy categories like fact and fiction any more than Isaiah's vision as depicted in Isaiah 6/2 Nephi 16 is subject to such categories. Though one may well question what really happened, I see no reason to think they were lying about about the experiences themselves. So what we have on one hand are experiences that are subject to empirical verification and on the other we have a Book of Mormon than can be tested when it comes to the question of whether it is historical. Looks like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges from my perspective.

[tagriffy]

as

Going the other direction in thought, 100-200 miles cannot be defined as "exceedingly great" in BoM standards, especially when you use the mesoamerican theorists approach to the isthmus of Tehuantepec as 120 it being a day and a half journey for a Nephite. That makes the distance to the lands northward a few days at most travel time. That is not exceedingly great. My own theory tends to lean towards the isthmus of Panama as the narrow neck as building ships by Hagoth makes sense to go over water versus struggling through hundreds of miles of jungle to deal with. It provided a natural barrier also and as such the reason why the Jaredites never built cities south of the narrow neck. One could correctly assume that if one is going to build a ship that goes in the ocean that can hold a lot of people such as Hagoth built, it wasnt to transport people a hundred or two hundred miles upshore. The isthmus of Tehuantepec is not an area that one would use ships to go around to get to the other side on the north. Panama however is such a place and still to this day ships are used to transport goods, services and people from the North American continent to the South American continent.

 

"Exceedingly great" is an exceedingly imprecise figure, any way you look at it. How far would Limhi's diplomatic party have gone had they not discovered the Jaredite ruins? It seems unlikely that they would mistake the ruins for Zarahemla unless they had reason to believe they were still in the right ballpark. Of course, an "exceedingly great distance" is going to mean different things to a small party of men and an "exceedingly great many" people (Helaman 3:3) undertaking a mass migration. It may well be a significant fact that "exceedingly great" is applied to distance only in this passage even though the term gets thrown around rather casually in the Book of Mormon. Is that enough to get "only" 100-200 miles described as "exceedingly great"? Beats the heck out of me. I wouldn't definitively rule it out, but that just underscores my contention that the Book of Mormon simply doesn't give us enough information to gauge the size of the land it pictures.

[Bobbieaware]

"But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. . . . wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." (Moroni 7:13–14, 16).

Just in case you don't realize it, one of those GOOD things the Spirit of God inspires is being honest and telling the truth. "God cannot lie."

[Bobbieaware]

I wouldn't be so sure that Joseph would say it is a load of nonsense. Note Nevo's quotation of Moroni 7:13-14, 16. Moroni's visits and the experiences of the witnesses were subjective, supernatural events. As such, they are not subject to fast and easy categories like fact and fiction any more than Isaiah's vision as depicted in Isaiah 6/2 Nephi 16 is subject to such categories. Though one may well question what really happened, I see no reason to think they were lying about about the experiences themselves. So what we have on one hand are experiences that are subject to empirical verification and on the other we have a Book of Mormon than can be tested when it comes to the question of whether it is historical. Looks like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges from my perspective.

The Testimony of the Eight Witness is not at all based on a subjective experience but hard and fast eyewitness testimony. So Joseph Smith either showed the eight witnesses the real Book of Mormon metal plates he took out of the hill Cumorah, or he showed them an elaborately constructed forgery designed to deceive the "witnesses" into believing a hoax.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. AND WE LIE NOT, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

But as I said previously, if the only way you can believe in the Book of Mormon is to believe it's inspired fiction, well then I guess that's better than not believing in it at all. At least it's a place to start.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

Yet the same Spirit has revealed to me that the Book of Abraham is as true and historical as is the Book of Mormon.

Has it ever dawned on you that in order to preserve the full breadth of our free agency and also provide sufficiently difficult tests of faith to determine who will and who will not learn to recognize and implicitly trust the voice of the Spirit, God cannot allow convincing empirical evidences that could prove the restored gospel is true to intrude upon and frustrate his eternal purposes in developing a people of unconquerable faith and indestructible hope? Developing this kind of genuinely powerful faith, hope and trust in God cannot be accomplished in an environment where the exercising of these holy attributes is not challenged to the utmost. If God's purposes are going to succeed, he must allow an environment to exist where the evidences amassed against the truthfulness of the restored gospel seem to be at least as powerful as the evidences amassed in its favor.

There is no other way. And expecting that God can carry out his work in some other way is evidence of a spiritual immaturity that cannot comprehend the conditions needed in order to develop the purest and most powerful testimonies of God's latter-day work. Those who cannot appreciate the validity of what I'm saying are like little children who never learn how to ride a bike without training wheels.

The mockers who point and laugh at the saints from the windows of the large and spacious building are convinced by what they consider to be irrefutable evidence that they are right and the saints are pathetically naive and embarrassingly wrong. But in the end the wisdom of the world's wisemen will perish as they learn to their utter shock and astonishment that the saints they once laughed to scorn had it right all along. The inheritors of the celestial kingdom will be men and women of genuine faith, while those who inherit the lower kingdoms of glory will, to one degree or another, be those sign seekers who would not believe until they were impelled to believe.

 

I confess I don't understand the value of this idea. Is anything without convincing evidence behind it to be taken as God's own truth? Did agency not exist in the pre-mortal life, where they had direct access to God? Do people not have agency to choose to smoke or not, now that we all know the health risks? 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[Tacenda]

I've been trying to come up with an appropriate word myself. I've used the terms "fiction" and "pseudepigrapha" in the past. I'm starting to toy with the word "novel." There just aren't that many, if any, terms I could used without immediately being accused of saying the Book of Mormon isn't true. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is true (better, True); it's just not historical. If Bokovoy is successful in redeeming the term "pseudepigrapha" for Latter-day Saints, I'll stick with that. If I had a term that was precise enough to capture what I mean while being positive (or at least neutral) in connotation, I'd use it.

What I'm going to say is way off in left field, here goes...after watching a movie about Beach Boy's Brian Wilson, it made me think of Joseph Smith. Brian tried LSD once or a few times and it gained him a religious experience with God. Ever since he's had to deal with hallucinations and voices in his head. The specialists determined later on in Brian's life that he was not Schizophrenic, like his psychiatrist treated him for, which screwed up his life, until his current wife rescued him. Brian also suffered from an abusive father, very traumatic and probably caused him to lose hearing in one ear.

Ok, here is why I thought of JS. Joseph had a tramatising experience with leg surgery. No anesthesia, nothing. Doctors who didn't have modern technology probably handled it wrong, physically and mentally.

This has not been proven (Joseph taking hallucinogens) but have read that in Joseph's time people would try hallucinogens that are found in plants or mushrooms like Peyote to receive spiritual experiences. What if that happened and Joseph connected to God that way and was able to hear words and come up with the BoM and other scripture. What is so ludicrous about that? I believe many in Bible times ate these plants or mushrooms. Where else would we get talking donkeys or talking serpents/snakes? I just wonder if our minds are so closed or shut off that for some it takes these drugs.

I know that the Indians believe it connects them to God. Sometimes we are so inhibited by our surroundings it takes something like this to open up our minds. But I am not saying I think it's right to go do drugs. This is just a thought I had. No proof whatsover.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Please demonstrate how the rest of his life outside of the visions reflects someone who was impacted by drugs.

[Bobbieaware]

I confess I don't understand the value of this idea. Is anything without convincing evidence behind it to be taken as God's own truth? Did agency not exist in the pre-mortal life, where they had direct access to God? Do people not have agency to choose to smoke or not, now that we all know the health risks?

One day you will be brought to understand the Book of Mormon is its own best and most convincing evidence. Just because you seem to lack the spiritual ability to see it doesn't mean it isn't so. For some a testimony of the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity comes more easily than it does for others. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie said it has something to do with the fact that some have an affinity for understanding spiritual things that they developed in preexistence.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware