The Marvels Of The Book Of Mormon

[Mormonmaniac]

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.

Thanks, I was having a long long day. But thanks to you, I laughed and now I am in a good mood. Thanks.

[Gray]

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.

 

Yes, I'm sure all the points where I disagree with you are due to my own defects as a person.   

[Stroopwafel]

I keep pondering the Book of Mormon and the message. It makes me marvel to think how an uneducated fanboys dictates a book that is internally consistent with itself and the Bible and teaches the redemption and atonement of man so clearly and powerfully unless it is what he claimed it was.

And why would you be willing to go to your death if it wasn't true.

What reasonable explanation is there for this marvelous book? How can it be anything other than what it claims?

 

So... nobody mentioned yet that Muslims use the same argument about Mohamed and the Quran?

 

"How could an uneducated man like Mohamed produce the Quran?"

[mfbukowski]

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.

No problem.

 

It took me most of a lifetime.

[Tom m]

The Bom is awesome

[Bobbieaware]

Yes, I'm sure all

the points where I disagree with you are due to my own defects as a person.

We're all defective to one degree or another. It's called the fallen nature. Our challenge from God is to overcome that fallen nature. The only way to prevail in that challenge is by living faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement -- an infinite and eternal sacrifice that was wrought by a LIVING, not imaginary, Savior. Edited July 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

Thanks, I was having a long long day. But thanks to you, I laughed and now I am in a good mood. Thanks.

I went several hours and forgot I posted that, and hurried to possibly delete it. But glad it made you laugh. Edited July 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[tagriffy]

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.

 

Something I'm not actually allowed to say here to you and your condescending attitude! I am not in some "lone and dreary wilderness" looking for relief. I found the relief I needed about twenty years ago. I wouldn't have become a Mormon otherwise. The Lord has already answered my prayer. The clouds have already broken and the shadows have fled. True, I am still growing spiritually, but the hard part has been over for a very long time. I already have everything I need to continue growing. If God wants me to accept Book of Mormon historicity, he knows exactly what he needs to provide in order to do it, as does anyone else who has read my posts since I've been here. And should it be provided, my response would along the lines of, "How nice! What's for dinner?" Rather than "replacing doubt," it would simply add another fact to my store of knowledge. It wouldn't affect my spiritual life or my testimony any more than my knowledge of gravity does.

[tagriffy]

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."

 

You know, when scripture talks about God not lying (usually a better way of rendering it than "cannot lie"), it is in reference to doing what he says he's going to do, i.e., keeping promises, being faithful to the covenant, etc. It is not necessarily a reference to saying things he knows to be false.

 

In any case, what is also clear is that God speaks to people "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." If that means using the means of myth, folklore, parable, allegory, symbols, or novels, then so be it. If we humans insist on turning mythos into logos, God might do a facepalm, but he's not going to stop us. God may not lie, but we humans can sure be idiots.

[tagriffy]

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.

 

Or the experience was visionary. There are good reasons to believe the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses are based on a subjective, supernatural experience. First and most important, in all references to seeing the plates, it is accomplished through the power of God and/or by their faith through the will of God (2 Nephi 27:12-14; Ether 5:2-4; D&C 5:11-13; 17). Martin Harris, who was in a position to know, and in line with the revelations, affirmed the Eight Witnesses experience was visionary, an affirmation he regretted not because it was untrue, but because it hurt his own position on the Book of Mormon (Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson 15 April 1838 letter;  Warren Parrish to E. Holmes, 11 August 1838, in Evangelist (Carthage, OH) 6 (1 October 1838): 226). And finally, John Whitmer, who wound up rejecting the Book of Mormon, but did not recant his testimony, would also go on to say the plates were "shown to me by a supernatural power" (Theodore Turley, "Memoranda").

 

You previously wondered I had stopped to think my position. Stop wondering. I have. I've also done my homework.

[tagriffy]

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.

 

In most textbooks on the psychology of religion, you're going to find discussions of altered states of consciousness. What it is, how they are induced, and so forth. The big debate when it comes to spiritual experiences and religion is whether those experiences can be reduced to what caused the ASC or whether something more is going on. I'm not going to take a position here, but it might be worthwhile for you to explore the literature starting with the references in the Wikipedia article.

[Bobbieaware]

Something I'm not actually allowed to say here to you and your condescending attitude! I am not in some "lone and dreary wilderness" looking for relief. I found the relief I needed about twenty years ago. I wouldn't have become a Mormon otherwise. The Lord has already answered my prayer. The clouds have already broken and the shadows have fled. True, I am still growing spiritually, but the hard part has been over for a very long time. I already have everything I need to continue growing. If God wants me to accept Book of Mormon historicity, he knows exactly what he needs to provide in order to do it, as does anyone else who has read my posts since I've been here. And should it be provided, my response would along the lines of, "How nice! What's for dinner?" Rather than "replacing doubt," it would simply add another fact to my store of knowledge. It woulddn't affect my spiritual life or my testimony any more than my knowledge of gravity does.

Yours is a prime example of the near infinite capacity of the human mind to be able to rationalize and explain away virtually anything. And since you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, I'm wondering if you would be equally nonchalant if the Lord one day told you nothing about the book is true? That seems likely because you have already rejected the testimonies of the Book of Mormon prophets which are presented most solemnly as authentic heart-felt expressions of real men. So then, since you believe large portions of the Book of Mormon are already untrue, the whole of it becomes nothing more than literary shifting sands. Where does one draw the line on its truthfulness and untruthfulness when in the end it turns out to be little more than a moralizing fairy tale for adults? How God could allow the following passage to be included in the Book of Mormon, while knowing full-well it's a an outrageous lie, is beyond anything I can imagine a God of truth would allow:

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. (2 Nephi 31)

P.S. I'm wondering if you believe a real-live resurrected John the Baptist in actuality and in reality appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the Aaronic Priesthood?

Edited July 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

We're all defective to one degree or another. It's called the fallen nature. Our challenge from God is to overcome that fallen nature. The only way to prevail in that challenge is by living faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement -- an infinite and eternal sacrifice that was wrought by a LIVING, not imaginary, Savior.

 

I'm sure if I'm ever able to vanquish my personal defects I will hold all the same opinions as you

[Robert F. Smith]

On the other hand, one of the reasons we already know the geographical context is because Bible itself (basically) defines it in terms of real world geography. Genesis 15:18 may set ideal boundaries, but it does set boundaries.

What I said.

 

Even in the wider world of Paul's journeys, Acts gives identifiable reference points and therefore we don't speculate about him going to, say, China, in those journeys. If Acts just said Paul traveled "many days" north and then "many days" west, for all we would know he could have wound up in Germany via Russia.

You are being so rational here, tagriffy.

 

But with a few notable exceptions, that's all we get for measuring distances in the Book of Mormon.

Here is your  problem:  You are gloriously unaware of the detailed matrix of short distances in the BofM, and therefore unable to see how unrealistic your overall assessment is.

 

Until we nail down some of those locations in the real world, everything we might say about the land's size will necessarily be speculative.

I might accept an actual discussion of the full range of "real world" considerations applied to the matrix of short distances in the Book of Mormon -- which have been developed for over a generation by scholars -- but you have chosen thus far to ignore that larger conversation in books and articles by anthropologists and other students of the BofM.

 

By all means, cite your sources and specify what it is in the published arguments which you find wanting or speculative.  I'd be open to actual arguments pro or con, but you have yet to present any.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

You know, when scripture talks about God not lying (usually a better way of rendering it than "cannot lie"), it is in reference to doing what he says he's going to do, i.e., keeping promises, being faithful to the covenant, etc. It is not necessarily a reference to saying things he knows to be false.

 

In any case, what is also clear is that God speaks to people "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." If that means using the means of myth, folklore, parable, allegory, symbols, or novels, then so be it. If we humans insist on turning mythos into logos, God might do a facepalm, but he's not going to stop us. God may not lie, but we humans can sure be idiots.

I gave you a rep point on this.

[Alma 11:44]

What I find interesting about the Book of Mormon is the teaching of the Trinity in 556 BC one thousand years approximately before the claim the trinity was formulated in the 4th and 5th century. 2 Nephi 31:21 has the date 556 BC and it teaches three eternal persons separate and distinct yet ONE GOD

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Kevin Christensen]

What I find interesting about the Book of Mormon is the teaching of the Trinity in 556 BC one thousand years approximately before the claim the trinity was formulated in the 4th and 5th century. 2 Nephi 31:21 has the date 556 BC and it teaches three eternal persons separate and distinct yet ONE GOD

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Read The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God by Margaret Barker.

Many of the old certainties have been destroyed by new knowledge. What has become clear to me time and time again is that the evidence indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use that word. Many in first century Palestine retained a world view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh the Lord could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel, or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord.

A summary from her website at www.margaretbarker.com:

The Great Angel, 1992

In The Great Angel. A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992) she tested the hypothesis that when the early Christians read the Old Testament as an account of the pre-incarnate Christ, they were reading in a traditional way and were not innovators. She proposed that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the generally accepted sense of that word. From a comparison of ancient versions of the OT she proposed that Israel had known a High God and a second, national God, known as the Son of God Most High. Since crucial textual variants arose relatively late, as can be seen from the Qumran evidence, the second God remained a living issue during the second temple period. The hypothesis was tested in Philo, early rabbininc texts (building on the work of A Segal Two Powers in Heaven Leiden: Brill, 1978, but reaching very different conclusions), in Gnostic texts and, with unexpected success, in the Christian writings of the first three centuries. Finally she tested the hypothesis in the New Testament where the results convinced her that this was the key to understanding Christian origins. She concluded that when the Christians declared ‘Jesus is the Lord’ they were affirming that Jesus was the final manifestation of Yahweh, the national God of Israel in the Old Testament. Thus the origins of Trinitarian belief are pre-Christian, and the heir to temple tradition is Christianity. The sensitive nature of these results made further study imperative, but nothing she has discovered since has in any way altered these conclusions. The Lord of the Old Testament as the Lord of the New Testament was fundamental to all her subsequent work. This book caught the attention of Mormon scholars [Latter Day Saints] who now take a great interest in Margaret Barker's work.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen, one of the Mormon scholars who takes great interest in her work.

Canonsburgh, PA

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Sabellianism

 

 

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three persons, and is not consistent with either modalism/Sabellianism or standard Nicene trinitarianism

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon teaches Sabellianism, also called modalism, i.e., the belief that Christ and the Father are a single individual expressing himself in different modes.^[1]

 

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three persons, and is not consistent with either modalism/Sabellianism or standard Nicene trinitarianism.

 

 

See link for evidence....

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf
 
The Truth about What The Book of Mormon Teaches about the Trinity: Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?

Edited July 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[Alma 11:44]

Modalism is considered a heresy with main line Christians since main liners teach three separate and distinct persons in the GODHEAD and modalism teaches ONE

[Calm]

Yes, we know.  Your point?

[Alma 11:44]

Yes, we know.  Your point?

Great !! didn't realize you did since Holland at LDS.com accused main line Christianity as believing in modalism

[Calm]

It has been discussed extensively on the board.

Given that mainstream Christianity is best identified as Catholicism (it makes up 50% of the world's Christian population, not even combined Protestant faiths come close, let alone individual faiths), Elder Holland's description does not apply to the "mainstream", but there are plenty of individuals (even if the doctrine of their denomination is not) in my experience and not a few popular Christian groups that do teach or describe God as in modalism. One example of Christian faiths that are modalistic are the Oneness Pentecostal, which according to wiki number about 24 million.

Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

In most textbooks on the psychology of religion, you're going to find discussions of altered states of consciousness. What it is, how they are induced, and so forth. The big debate when it comes to spiritual experiences and religion is whether those experiences can be reduced to what caused the ASC or whether something more is going on. I'm not going to take a position here, but it might be worthwhile for you to explore the literature starting with the references in the Wikipedia article.

Many people get confused about the "causation" of altered states being "natural" or "artificially induced" and seem to think that one is "genuine" while the others are not.

I have not read the article yet, but what is important to realize is that what the brain IS is a ball of electrical and chemical reactions, and in my view, trying to separate out what is "natural" or not is akin to trying to figure out what "natural" food is and is not.

Does a "genuine" spiritual experience "cause" the chemical reaction in the brain, or does the brain "cause" the experience?

It cannot be defined. "It is what it is". Seeing God does not happen to everyone every day, and one man's "hallucination" might be another man's reality.

I suppose you can tell that I survived the '60's before I was a member of the church. These questions might be trite, but they are very real questions. Of course I do not, have not, nor ever would advocate the use of such hazardous chemicals for any purpose, but strictly as a philosophical problem "causation" of mental states is a very thorny issue, not amenable to easy answers.

[mfbukowski]

fergitaboutit

Edited July 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Alma 11:44]

It has been discussed extensively on the board.

Given that mainstream Christianity is best identified as Catholicism (it makes up 50% of the world's Christian population, not even combined Protestant faiths come close, let alone individual faiths), Elder Holland's description does not apply to the "mainstream", but there are plenty of individuals (even if the doctrine of their denomination is not) in my experience and not a few popular Christian groups that do teach or describe God as in modalism. One example of Christian faiths that are modalistic are the Oneness Pentecostal, which according to wiki number about 24 million.

You are correct oneness Pentecostals and the way international are modalism believers . I have never met a member from that group, probably less than 002 % represent that group while Catholics and protestants who teach that as heresy represent 99.9 % are believers in the Trinity which teaches ONE GOD, three separate and distinct person like Alma 11:44 teaches