"doubting Thomas", And Doubting Peter, And Doubting Simon, And... "

[Bobbieaware]

it's an interesting thought, but I don't know it'd be wise to conclude that since they saw Joseph's day, or claimed to see it, that they understood the culture and issues of his day. With TV I can see lots of things from around the world, but seeing it doesn't quite give me a good detailed description of what the people are going through.Perhaps Bushman has considered this many times realizing that seeing our day does not necessarily mean they understood us.

Mormon didn't just see the 19th century in a surface sort of way. By revelation, the Lord showed Mormon all the nitty-gritty details. Read the subsequent verses that follow from that quote in Moroni 8 and you'll see what I mean.

[stemelbow]

I have a simpler faith that relies on revelation from the Holy Ghost, as per Moroni's promise, to receive and understand truth. By acting on Moroni's promise, and many other similar promises made in the scriptures, the Lord offers his saints an expressway to learning and understanding spiritual truth by the means of direct revelation; and I have learned for myself that the Lord's promises in this regard are true and faithful. Enjoy your more arduous scientifically-informed approach to discovering truth,

I'll try my best to enjoy and I certainly wish you the best. The Holy Ghost's confirmation is rather impressionistic, at least for me, and as such seems not to specify things like, "I will tell you that the words you read in scripture describe actual history" at least not all the time. For instance, I do believe Christ lived and was resurrected. I have faith that the Holy Ghost has confirmed that for me, but I do not feel confident that the resurrection occurred exactly like John's account describes. Because I don't know and the Holy Ghost hasn't said, "john's record is most accurate of the four".

[stemelbow]

Mormon didn't just see the 19th century in a surface sort of way. By revelation, the Lord showed Mormon all the nitty-gritty details. Read the subsequent verses that follow from that quote in Moroni 8 and you'll see what I mean.

That's fine. Then I have to say, "well if I were shown the details of an African villages life I might feel like I saw the nitty gritty details, when it might be that I did not".

keep in mind this is Mormon's perspective, at least as far as we know. It might be a bit overstated for starters. And if pseudepigripha, then it could be that Mormon didn't see Joseph's day at all.

Edited July 29, 2015 by stemelbow

[Gray]

As far as what Richard Bushman has to say: I'm wondering if it ever dawned on him that one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon appears to address 19th century issues is because Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, the Brother of Jared, and possibly others, we're all shown our day IN DETAIL and were therefore very familiar with the day, time, and societal & religious environment in which the Book of Mormon would come forth?

Here's what Mormon -- the great historian and actual abridger of the Book of Mormon -- has to say about this matter:

34 Behold, the Lord HATH SHOW UNTO ME great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, AT THAT DAY WHEN THESE THINGS SHALL COME FORTH UNTO YOU ('you' meaning the 19th century Gentiles).

35 Behold, I speak unto you (the 19th century Gentiles) AS IF YE WERE PRESENT, and yet ye are not. But behold, JESUS CHRST HATH SHOWN YOU UNTO ME, AND I KNOW YOUR DOING. (Mormon 8. )

I wonder what Richard Bushman might have to say regarding his 19th century centered Book of Mormon perplexities vs a vis the obvious conclusions a faithful believer can reasonably conclude about the matter simply believing what's said in the above verses?

 

I believe Bushman said that he found long quotations in the Book of Mormon from 19th century religious sermons, although he didn't have an example handy. 

[Bobbieaware]

Setting aside the cheap shot, discovering truth shouldn't be easy. It should be a lifelong dedication, and yes, it should be arduous. I've never heard anyone say that following the spirit is easy, let alone receiving revelation.

Did I say it was easy? I've had to labor hard in the spirit the whole of my life in order to learn God's truth, Just because the Lord provides a revelatory expressway to discovering truth doesn't mean it's an easy road to traverse. But what it does mean Is that one who diligently travels down that road will actually learn spiritual truth, line upon line, and not have to be consigned to spend the rest of your life perpetually left in the dark as one who is ever learning but never actually able to come to a genuine knowledge of the truth.

P.S. My remark was not intended to be snide. Since stemelbow has apparently chosen to eschew the revelatory pathway that is activated by a more simple faith, I truly wish him the best as he sincerely seeks to come to know God's truth in his own chosen way.

[stemelbow]

P.S. My remark was not intended to be snide. Since stemelbow has apparently chosen to eschew the revelatory pathway that is activated by a more simple faith, I truly wish him the best as he sincerely seeks to come to know God's truth in his own chosen way.

I didn't take it in any other way. Thanks.

[jkwilliams]

Did I say it was easy? I've had to labor hard in the spirit the whole of my life in order to learn God's truth, Just because the Lord provides a revelatory expressway to discovering truth doesn't mean it's an easy road to traverse. But what it does mean Is that one who diligently travels down that road will actually learn spiritual truth, line upon line, and not have to be consigned to spend the rest of your life perpetually left in the dark as one who is ever learning but never actually able to come to a genuine knowledge of the truth.

P.S. My remark was not intended to be snide. Since stemelbow has apparently chosen to eschew the revelatory pathway that is activated by a more simple faith, I truly wish him the best as he sincerely seeks to come to know God's truth in his own chosen way.

 

CFR that he has "chosen to eschew the revelatory pathway." 

[stemelbow]

CFR that he has "chosen to eschew the revelatory pathway."

I appreciate your concern, John, but I'm not sure it matters here. I've read Bobbie enough to realize she and I disagree on a great many things and perhaps chief of all is how revelation works. I'd say God works on us in a great many ways even outside the Holy Ghost directly telling us the "truth" of everything. I'm actually quite comfortable if she views my personal way as not respecting revelation.

[jkwilliams]

I appreciate your concern, John, but I'm not sure it matters here. I've read Bobbie enough to realize she and I disagree on a great many things and perhaps chief of all is how revelation works. I'd say God works on us in a great many ways even outside the Holy Ghost directly telling us the "truth" of everything. I'm actually quite comfortable if she views my personal way as not respecting revelation.

 

That's fine. </boardnanny>

[cinepro]

Mormon didn't just see the 19th century in a surface sort of way. By revelation, the Lord showed Mormon all the nitty-gritty details. Read the subsequent verses that follow from that quote in Moroni 8 and you'll see what I mean.

 

Honestly, I don't think we can understand in what way Mormon "saw our day".  What context would a Nephite living in the 4th century AD have for understanding what was going on in the 1800's?  Such an idea only makes sense to someone living in the 1800's (or later).

 

Imagine if you were to see America circa 4000 AD in a vision.  How would you be able to comprehend their culture or technology?  And how could you even begin to apply your understanding of the commandments to such a drastically different society?  We often hear people complain about "presentist" perceptions of the past, but how could such a judgement of future societies be anything but the most "presentist" view possible?

Edited July 29, 2015 by cinepro

[phaedrus ut]

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8.  The two oldest know manuscripts, Codes Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, don't contain Mark 16:9-20.  The Early Christian Fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all manuscripts available to them lack the longer ending. If you read closely you'll notice the awkward transition from verse 8 to verse 9, the introduction of Mary Magdalene to the narrative as if she was new but had already been party of Mark's Gospel.  The vocabulary of the ending is different with 15+ words that were never used anywhere else in Mark's Gospel.  The signs portion in verses 17-18 with the introduction of demons, drinking poison, snake handling are completely foreign to Mark's internal narrative and are without any synoptic harmony.  Some scholars, like Rudolf Bultmann, believe that even though verses 9-20 aren't the original that there was some sort of resurrection narrative of Mark that is now lost.   I personally like the version of the Markan narrative where Jesus is the wisdom teacher that just appears among the followers of John the Baptist and ends with is disappearance at the empty tomb.

 

However, the refusal of the 11 apostles to believe does have narrative support in Luke 24:11.  There are interesting parallels to today's climate in the church if you consider it's 3 women who know the truth, approach the apostles with their story, but they weren't believed and their words were considered as just "idle tales". 

 

 

Phaedrus

Edited July 29, 2015 by phaedrus ut

[Bobbieaware]

Honestly, I don't think we can understand in what way Mormon "saw our day". What context would a Nephite living in the 4th century AD have for understanding what was going on in the 1800's? Such an idea only makes sense to someone living in the 1800's (or later).

Imagine if you were to see America circa 4000 AD in a vision. How would you be able to comprehend their culture or technology? And how could you even begin to apply your understanding of the commandments to such a drastically different society? We often hear people complain about "presentist" perceptions of the past, but how could such a judgement of future societies be anything but the most "presentist" view possible?

When I read the Book of Mormon, the last chapter of which was written about 16 centuries ago, and I can understand and relate to what,s written there with little problem. Just because humans (especially humans who follow the religion and teachings of Jesud Christ) are separated by many centuries doesn't mean we aren't all still fallen human beings who strugglr with same recurring problems and issues.

We are frequently told the Book of Mormon was written for OUR DAY. Now how is that possible if, according to your point, the Book of Mormon's content began to be written over 2,600 years ago by people with whom it is impossible to relate and understand?

But beside all the above, does not the God of miracles, whom we all worship, have the ability to open a human mind by the power of the Spirit so as to enable that mind to comprehend otherwise deep and hidden mysteries? For crying out loud, do you remember that by that power of that Spirit the brother of Jared wrote a profound history of the world -- "from the beginning to the ending thereof"-- several millennia ago? And the fact that a mere unlearned boy named Joseph Smith Jr. was spiritually enabled to translate a complex and intricate record of a fallen ancient American people, by the miraculous power of God, should put all doubts on this matter to rest.

It never ceases to amaze me that when some members struggle with one church-related issue or another, they all too often seem to easily forget that our God is a God of mighty miracles. Is not a being who is capable of instantaneously raising billions of human beings from dust to immortal glory also capable of teaching a prophet what will happen 1600 years in the future?

Edited July 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

When I read the Book of Mormon, the last chapter of which was written about 16 centuries ago, and I can understand and relate to what,s written there with little problem. Just because humans (especially humans who follow the religion and teachings of Jesud Christ) are separated by many centuries doesn't mean we aren't all still fallen human beings who strugglr with same recurring problems and issues.

We are frequently told the Book of Mormon was written for OUR DAY. Now how is that possible if, according to your point, the Book of Mormon's content began to be written over 2,600 years ago by people with whom it is impossible to relate and understand?

That's why I used the term pseudepigrapha. And there's always the possibility that it wasn't written for our day--we just assume that it is.

But beside all the above, does not the God of miracles, whom we all worship, have the ability to open a human mind by the power of the Spirit so as to enable that mind to comprehend otherwise deep and hidden mysteries? For crying out loud, do you remember that by that power of that Spirit the brother of Jared wrote a profound history of the world -- "from the beginning to the ending thereof"-- several millennia ago? And the fact that a mere unlearned boy named Joseph Smith Jr. was spiritually enabled to translate a complex and intricate record of a fallen ancient American people, by the miraculous power of God, should put all doubts on this matter to rest.

I don't think any disagreement is based on what God can do. People who believe in God think He can. but it seems more about what God does do. It seems obvious he's less concerned about telling us history than to inspire us even if scripture is largely myth.

It never ceases to amaze me that when some members struggle with one church-related issue or another, they all too often seem to easily forget that our God is a God of mighty miracles. Is not a being who is capable of instantaneously raising billions of human beings from dust to immortal glory also capable of teaching a prophet what will happen 1600 years in the future?

With God anything is possible. But we're still left trying to figure out what really happened. An interesting additional case study in this is the BoA, of course. it doesn't seem like history, really. it seems like pseudepigrapha too. That doesn't mean it's not scripture, or is bad or not useful though.

[Bobbieaware]

That's why I used the term pseudepigrapha. And there's always the possibility that it wasn't written for our day--we just assume that it is.I don't think any disagreement is based on what God can do. People who believe in God think He can. but it seems more about what God does do. It seems obvious he's less concerned about telling us history than to inspire us even if scripture is largely myth.With God anything is possible. But we're still left trying to figure out what really happened. An interesting additional case study in this is the BoA, of course. it doesn't seem like history, really. it seems like pseudepigrapha too. That doesn't mean it's not scripture, or is bad or not useful though.

With all due kindness and respect (I'm being sincere), we're on two different planets with regard to this discussion. I take the Book of Mormon writers at their word; And you? not so much -- or at least so it seems. With such a wide gulf of methodology and approach existing between us, what else is there left say that might be conducive to mutual understanding? If you can think of something that might narrow the gap, let me know. Otherwise, all the best to you till the time comes that we might engage on another thread.

[cinepro]

With all due kindness and respect (I'm being sincere), we're on two different planets with regard to this discussion. I take the Book of Mormon writers at their word; And you? not so much -- or at least so it seems. With such a wide gulf of methodology and approach existing between us, what else is there left say that might be conducive to mutual understanding? If you can think of something that might narrow the gap, let me know. Otherwise, all the best to you till the time comes that we might engage on another thread.

I believe it's certainly possible to read the Book of Mormon and understand its teachings in the context of "our day," it's the principle of "likening the scriptures unto ourselves."

I think it's much less likely that anyone (even a Prophet) could see "our day" (as if the world of the 2010s is anything similar to the world of 1829, and which part of the world are we thinking of) and write specifically to us.

It would make more sense to me if Moroni saw our day and said "Behold, I have seen your day, and I do behold that ye do have a Prophet like unto myself. Heed his words, for I canst understand the least bit of what the heck it was that I saw."

I'm also less interested in what Moroni was supposedly seeing in our day and what he was supposedly seeing specifically in his day. It seems odd that in 530 pages, the Prophets don't once ask the topless women to put a shirt on.

Edited July 30, 2015 by cinepro

[halconero]

Interestingly enough the doubt of Thomas differs greatly from the doubt in the Markan Gospel. While not obvious to the modern reader, John was actually addressing Docetism, a belief that the Saviour did not have a mortal body while on the earth, but was merely a spirit. This was implied in the Gospel of Thomas, which John took a number of issues with. 

 

So in the Gospel of John, the author took the titular author of the Gospel of Thomas, and made him confront his doubts on the physical veracity of Jesus and his resurrection.

 

Motives are fun.

[cinepro]

Interestingly enough the doubt of Thomas differs greatly from the doubt in the Markan Gospel. While not obvious to the modern reader, John was actually addressing Docetism, a belief that the Saviour did not have a mortal body while on the earth, but was merely a spirit. This was implied in the Gospel of Thomas, which John took a number of issues with. 

 

So in the Gospel of John, the author took the titular author of the Gospel of Thomas, and made him confront his doubts on the physical veracity of Jesus and his resurrection.

 

Motives are fun.

 

Wow.  That's a very interesting way to look at it.

[Bobbieaware]

I believe it's certainly possible to read the Book of Mormon and understand its teachings in the context of "our day," it's the principle of "likening the scriptures unto ourselves."I think it's much less likely that anyone (even a Prophet) could see "our day" (as if the world of the 2010s is anything similar to the world of 1829, and which part of the world are we thinking of) and write specifically to us.It would make more sense to me if Moroni saw our day and said "Behold, I have seen your day, and I do behold that ye do have a Prophet like unto myself. Heed his words, for I canst understand the least bit of what the heck it was that I saw."I'm also less interested in what Moroni was supposedly seeing in our day and what he was supposedly seeing specifically in his day. It seems odd that in 530 pages, the Prophets don't once ask the topless women to put a shirt on.

I take Moroni at his word. After all, what he said he was shown about our day were things that were "great and marvelous," Also, read the succeeding verses in Mormon 8 and you'll see the prophet went on in reciting what he saw concerning the modern era in some detail. And it's important to remember Moroni was even shown that in our day there would be a great worldwide secret combination to destroy the freedom in every nation. This detail of the modern age is remarkable because although Moroni passionately warned his modern readers this satanic conspiracy would be very real and incredibly destructive, and even though President Benson warned the world that the prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled as far back as the year 1988, yet many Church members on this board would say any supposed fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy in our day is poppycock. So if Moroni -- as cited by President Benson -- turns out to be correct, that will mean some 1600 years ago Moroni knew more about an extremely important event in our day than the vast majority of those who are now alive do. Now that's impressive!

Edited July 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[cinepro]

I take Moroni at his word. After all, what he said he was shown about our day were things that were "great and marvelous," Also, read the succeeding verses in Mormon 8 and you'll see the prophet went on in reciting what he saw concerning the modern era in some detail. And it's important to remember Moroni was even shown that in our day there would be a great worldwide secret combination to destroy the freedom in every nation. This detail of the modern age is remarkable because although Moroni passionately warned his modern readers this satanic conspiracy would be very real and incredibly destructive, and even though President Benson warned the world that the prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled as far back as the year 1988, yet many Church members on this board would say any supposed fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy in our day is poppycock. So if Moroni -- as cited by President Benson -- turns out to be correct, that will mean some 1600 years ago Moroni knew more about an extremely important event in our day than the vast majority of those who are now alive do. Now that's impressive!

 

So, when Moroni saw "our day", did he see 1830, or 2015?  Or did he see all of history from 1830 -> 2015?  If so, how could he even comprehend modern society in such a way as to decipher a "secret combination"?  For example, suppose the "secret combination" was the use of the internet for illegal and immoral purposes.  How would a person in 400 AD understand what the internet is (heck, how many people today even understand what the internet is)? 

 

Do you really think Moroni saw the world of 1989 and understood what the Secret Combination was that President Benson was talking about?

 

Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)”

 

 

https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=13&topic=testimony

 

 

What do you think this Secret Combination was in 1989?

[Bobbieaware]

Per what understanding that I have once you have your calling and election made sure you have a reserved place in the Celestial Kingdom. The down side is you have used your quota of the atonement and if you stumble you must be turned over to the buffetings of satan until you have atoned for your own error.

Do some time in the D & C.

So, when Moroni saw "our day", did he see 1830, or 2015? Or did he see all of history from 1830 -> 2015? If so, how could he even comprehend modern society in such a way as to decipher a "secret combination"? For example, suppose the "secret combination" was the use of the internet for illegal and immoral purposes. How would a person in 400 AD understand what the internet is (heck, how many people today even understand what the internet is)?

Do you really think Moroni saw the world of 1989 and understood what the Secret Combination was that President Benson was talking about?

What do you think this Secret Combination was in 1989?

I'm convinced one of the main reasons why doubters and naysayers are stuck in that condition is because they don't seem to realize (and for reasons that are beyond me often seem to not want to realize) that God is a God of very great miracles. Do you recall in your reading of the Book of Moses that the Spirit of God enlarge the mind of Moses to godlike capacity, enabling the prophet to do that which would otherwise be completely impossible for a man unaided by the Spirit? Read and understand what the Spirit of God has the power to do.

25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.

26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen.

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; AND THERE WAS NOT A PARTICLE OF IT WHICH HE DID NOT BEHOLD, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. (Moses 1)

And according to our doctrine, the day will come when fallen men will be lifted up by the power of God to comprehend all that he now knows. It's a good thing to open one's mind to this marvelous promised possibility.

As for the secret combination: Like unto the long and infamous history of the ancient Gadianton robbers, it was active before 1988 and it will continue to be actively engaged in its sinister enterprise to destroy the free agency of all men until God casts Satan into the bottomless pit. Why not till then? It's because, as Moroni said in Ether 8, the devil is the chief conspirator in the secret combination. Marvel not that he has found earthly co-conspirators to do his bidding. It's happened before and now it's happening again.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[saemo]

One of the most well-told Bible stories is that of Thomas the Apostle, who doubted the resurrection of Jesus when his fellow Apostles claimed to have seen him.  Upon Jesus' appearance, Thomas believes, and Jesus says that it is better to have believed without needing to have seen.

 

This is obviously an important point for Christianity (and Mormonism), because just about all the followers of the religion aren't going to see Jesus any time soon.

 

But there is an odd facet to this story that is discussed much less often.  Specifically, in the book of Mark, after the resurrected Jesus appeared to Mary, she reportedly went and told all of the assembled Apostles and none of them believed her.

 

This would seem to be the exact same situation faced by Thomas, and they didn't believe either until Jesus appeared to them.  So Thomas was no different than the other Apostles.

 

 

So the next time someone tells you the story of "Doubting Thomas" (or, should you have wavering faith yourself, accuses you of being a "Doubting Thomas"), have them read Mark 16 and point out that Thomas was no different than the other Apostles, who also "doubted" until Jesus actually appeared to them.

One point, Jesus aided Thomas in His unbelief.

Lord, help my unbelief! ...an ancient prayer.

[cinepro]

As for the secret combination: Like unto the long and infamous history of the ancient Gadianton robbers, it was active before 1988 and it will continue to be actively engaged in its sinister enterprise to destroy the free agency of all men until God casts Satan into the bottomless pit. Why not till then? It's because, as Moroni said in Ether 8, the devil is the chief conspirator in the secret combination. Marvel not that he has found earthly co-conspirators to do his bidding. It's happened before and now it's happening again.

 

The "secret combinations" described in the Book of Mormon are a specific set of oaths dating back to Cain:

 

 15 And it came to pass that thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.

 

Ether 8

 

 

Do you really believe that there is a group of people meeting in private and administering oaths dating back to Cain, and that these people are "increasing [their] evil influence and control over America and the entire world"?  If so, who are they?