jkwilliams Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 YOu and I have way different ideas of what "know" means, I think. Moroni came in vision. the plates were taken heavenward, apparently. The witnesses saw the plates and were told about them when conversing in vision. For all we know Moroni had the plates in Peru back when he was alive, and Joseph's interaction with them, meaningless as it seemed to translation, were interacting with plates given him from heaven, converted to lesser forms before they were taken back. Or some other thing like that.In other words, in my mind, we don't know much of anything, surely not what you are claiming we do know in the above.But we all disagree about something, I guess. The bottom line for me is that there aren't any American settings for the Book of Mormon that don't have a lot of problems. IMO, the Mesoamerican setting is the least problematic if one goes strictly by the text, but there are still huge problems with that setting. Meanwhile, a heartland or hemispheric model are most compatible with the traditional teachings of church leaders. If there were a possible setting that met all criteria, there wouldn't be so much debate. 1
stemelbow Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 The bottom line for me is that there aren't any American settings for the Book of Mormon that don't have a lot of problems. IMO, the Mesoamerican setting is the least problematic if one goes strictly by the text, but there are still huge problems with that setting. Meanwhile, a heartland or hemispheric model are most compatible with the traditional teachings of church leaders. If there were a possible setting that met all criteria, there wouldn't be so much debate. The circumstance makes it all impossible it seems. Seeing as we'd have no other circumstance for a book describing ancient people we simply don't know what to expect or how to model it. If at all true, Joseph didn't show the plates to those even really close to him for a reason. We can't even describe why. We have no idea what the plates had to do with the text we call the Book of Mormon. How we can claim knowledge about this except for perhaps in a spiritual sense (as in God telling us) there's nothing to "know" here. We're guessing and assuming. I like David Bokovoy's notion of the BoM (and other scripture) not doing historicity. That alone could make our assumptions (like knowing where Moroni put the plates) go out the window. 1
Bobbieaware Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) The circumstance makes it all impossible it seems. Seeing as we'd have no other circumstance for a book describing ancient people we simply don't know what to expect or how to model it. If at all true, Joseph didn't show the plates to those even really close to him for a reason. We can't even describe why. We have no idea what the plates had to do with the text we call the Book of Mormon. How we can claim knowledge about this except for perhaps in a spiritual sense (as in God telling us) there's nothing to "know" here. We're guessing and assuming.I like David Bokovoy's notion of the BoM (and other scripture) not doing historicity. That alone could make our assumptions (like knowing where Moroni put the plates) go out the window.Both true and not true at the same time? For a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the adoption of this totally untenable position is a perfect example of how the adversary uses great care and cunning as he attempts to lead the saints away from the truth. If he can't get the members to reject the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel all at once, he's more than happy to adopt a strategy that attempts to cause the once-faithful to increamentally reject the historicity of the Restored Gospel and thereby lose all confidence in the veracity of the Church leaders -- both past and present. As the leader of those fallen spirits who are united in the unholy cause of trying to destroy the Latter-day Kingdom of God on earth, what better strategy could there be than to execute a plan to, as much as possible, fill the ranks of the Church with semi-believers who don't believe the canonized scriptural accounts of the history of the Restored Gospel are true? Then at that critical moment when the adversary launches the prophesied full external assault against the Church, there will be thousands of nominal members in perfect positions to "convince" the faithful that the Book of Mormon (the beloved keystone of the LDS faith) is a just a myth and that the Church might avoid further persecution if -- among giving up on many other core beliefs -- they adopt the "enlightened" position that the Book of Mormon is a sort charming book of "inspired" fiction that can help those who read it be better people, kind of like Aesop's fables. During the days of the apostolic era, the adversary implemented a similar strategy to undermine the Church when his earthly agents caused many formerly faithful members to accept the idea that the scriptural accounts of Christ's literal resurrection from the dead were fiction and that a physical resurrection of the Christ has no bearing nor import when it comes to anyone's salvation. After all, in that "enlightened" Hellenistic age, who but an ignorant country bumpkin could be foolish enough to believe it was expedient for a so-called Son of God to materially rise from the dead, when the educated of that day "knew" the true eternal world was a purely immaterial realm of pure thought? Edited November 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware
jkwilliams Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Both true and not true at the same time? For a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the adoption of this totally untenable position is a perfect example of how the adversary uses great care and cunning as he attempts to lead the saints away from the truth. If he can't get the members to reject the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel all at once, he's more than happy to adopt a strategy that attempts to cause the once-faithful to increamentally reject the historicity of the Restored Gospel and thereby lose all confidence in the veracity of the Church leaders -- both past and present. As the leader of those fallen spirits who are united in the unholy cause of trying to destroy the Latter-day Kingdom of God on earth, what better strategy could there be than to execute a plan to, as much as possible, fill the ranks of the Church with semi-believers who don't believe the canonized scriptural accounts of the history of the Restored Gospel are true? Then at that critical moment when the adversary launches the prophesied full external assault against the Church, there will be thousands of nominal members in perfect positions to "convince" the faithful that the Book of Mormon (the beloved keystone of the LDS faith) is a just a myth and that the Church might avoid further persecution if -- among giving up on many other core beliefs -- they adopt the "enlightened" position that the Book of Mormon is a sort charming of "inspired" book of fiction that can help those who read it to be better people, kind of like Aesop's fables. During the days of the apostolic era, the adversary implemented a similar strategy to undermine the Church when his earthly agents caused many formerly faithful members to accept the idea that the scriptural accounts of Christ's literal resurrection from the dead were fiction and that a physical resurrection of the Christ had no bearing nor import when it comes to anyone's salvation. After all, in that "enlightened" Hellenistic age, who but an ignorant country bumpkin could be foolish enough to believe it was expedient for a so-called Son of God to materially rise from the dead, when the educated of that day "knew" the true eternal world was a purely immaterial realm of pure thought?I know more than a few people who have testimonies of the gospel and do not see the Book of Mormon as necessarily a history of an ancient American civilization. Are you suggesting that someone like that has been deceived by Satan? 1
ERayR Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Okay...then what was your point...that there are Nephites now or that something in the civilization back then still holds for the US while not being available anywhere else in the Americas? http://candlestickstudio.com/files/Nephites.pdf
rodheadlee Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 What do you guys think of the new Book of Mormon geography model. I'm proposing there are six seas not four Sea East, East Sea, West Sea, Sea West, North Sea and a South Sea. Also I think the narrow neck and the narrow passage are different geographic features. I think the Land Bountiful is what would be in present day Michigan. See link below.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Here is evidence for native american practicing hebrew beliefs and practiceshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Here is evidence for Nephite metalurgy and animals listed in the Book of mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/Here is dna proof for the Book of Mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/I don't know I haven't had the chance to read it yet. I'm curious though, have you read Mormon's Codex? I think Sorenson nails it. I'm not finished with it yet though. I think the term "Land of Promise" applies to the entire western hemisphere. 3
stemelbow Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Both true and not true at the same time? For a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the adoption of this totally untenable position is a perfect example of how the adversary uses great care and cunning as he attempts to lead the saints away from the truth. If he can't get the members to reject the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel all at once, he's more than happy to adopt a strategy that attempts to cause the once-faithful to increamentally reject the historicity of the Restored Gospel and thereby lose all confidence in the veracity of the Church leaders -- both past and present. As the leader of those fallen spirits who are united in the unholy cause of trying to destroy the Latter-day Kingdom of God on earth, what better strategy could there be than to execute a plan to, as much as possible, fill the ranks of the Church with semi-believers who don't believe the canonized scriptural accounts of the history of the Restored Gospel are true? Then at that critical moment when the adversary launches the prophesied full external assault against the Church, there will be thousands of nominal members in perfect positions to "convince" the faithful that the Book of Mormon (the beloved keystone of the LDS faith) is a just a myth and that the Church might avoid further persecution if -- among giving up on many other core beliefs -- they adopt the "enlightened" position that the Book of Mormon is a sort charming book of "inspired" fiction that can help those who read it be better people, kind of like Aesop's fables. During the days of the apostolic era, the adversary implemented a similar strategy to undermine the Church when his earthly agents caused many formerly faithful members to accept the idea that the scriptural accounts of Christ's literal resurrection from the dead were fiction and that a physical resurrection of the Christ has no bearing nor import when it comes to anyone's salvation. After all, in that "enlightened" Hellenistic age, who but an ignorant country bumpkin could be foolish enough to believe it was expedient for a so-called Son of God to materially rise from the dead, when the educated of that day "knew" the true eternal world was a purely immaterial realm of pure thought? Interesting. Not sure what to say exactly, except that I think discussing ideas and being open to seeing things in a new way is helpful overall and not the devil tricking us, all the time. It seems likely God wants us to expand our understanding. But, each to his/her own, I guess. 1
jkwilliams Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Interesting. Not sure what to say exactly, except that I think discussing ideas and being open to seeing things in a new way is helpful overall and not the devil tricking us, all the time. It seems likely God wants us to expand our understanding. But, each to his/her own, I guess. Yep, no two people are going to approach faith the same way, and it seems rather counterproductive to suggest that anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way we do is deceived by the devil. 1
ERayR Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Yep, no two people are going to approach faith the same way, and it seems rather counterproductive to suggest that anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way we do is deceived by the devil. I heard Hartman Rector Jr. say one time that old scratch gets too much credit. 1
jkwilliams Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 I heard Hartman Rector Jr. say one time that old scratch gets too much credit. Absolutely agree. In my experience, we like to offload the blame for our poor choices on Satan, and it goes without saying that it's much easier to disagree with someone if you decide that anyone who disagrees with you is following Satan. 1
Anijen Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 I don't know I haven't had the chance to read it yet. I'm curious though, have you read Mormon's Codex? I think Sorenson nails it. I'm not finished with it yet though. I think the term "Land of Promise" applies to the entire western hemisphere.Not just the western hemisphere, but wherever the Lord desires. 2
The Nehor Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 The Book of Mormon took place on the Falkland Islands.
ksfisher Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Not just the western hemisphere, but wherever the Lord desires. It would seem that anywhere that people are trying to live the gospel and keep the commandments that they've been given that the Lord would bless that land for their sake. 1
rodheadlee Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Not just the western hemisphere, but wherever the Lord desires.This is true, the way you phrased it. It's good to see you here.
Bomgeography Posted November 2, 2015 Author Posted November 2, 2015 I don't know I haven't had the chance to read it yet. I'm curious though, have you read Mormon's Codex? I think Sorenson nails it. I'm not finished with it yet though. I think the term "Land of Promise" applies to the entire western hemisphere.Every time I tell a mesoamerican apologist that I working on the North American model. They always reply with that same question have I read Mormon codex. The answe is no and I think the reason why is because all the claims made by sorenson are not corroborated by non LDS colleagues. I'm familiar with some of sorenson's most basic claims and how non LDS researchers do not agree.On the other hand all research and historical accounts that are sited Are given by no LDS researchers. Historical accounts are also non LDS or even hundreds of years before the church was even restored.I have proposed some very controversial theories but I believe I give enough supporting evidence to back up those theories.If you see evidence that you think mesoamerican has a better answer for let me know we can discuss and compare.
The Nehor Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Every time I tell a mesoamerican apologist that I working on the North American model. They always reply with that same question have I read Mormon codex. The answe is no and I think the reason why is because all the claims made by sorenson are not corroborated by non LDS colleagues. I'm familiar with some of sorenson's most basic claims and how non LDS researchers do not agree.On the other hand all research and historical accounts that are sited Are given by no LDS researchers. Historical accounts are also non LDS or even hundreds of years before the church was even restored.I have proposed some very controversial theories but I believe I give enough supporting evidence to back up those theories.If you see evidence that you think mesoamerican has a better answer for let me know we can discuss and compare. Are you arguing that your model is agreed on by non LDS researchers because if so I might have to break my "CFRs are stupid" rule and ask for a CFR. 2
Bomgeography Posted November 2, 2015 Author Posted November 2, 2015 Are you arguing that your model is agreed on by non LDS researchers because if so I might have to break my "CFRs are stupid" rule and ask for a CFR.No what I'm saying is the research cited is all done by non LDS geneticist, anthropologists, and archeologists. Historical accounts are the same.
The Nehor Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 No what I'm saying is the research cited is all done by non LDS geneticist, anthropologists, and archeologists. Historical accounts are the same. So your argument is that they used the research of non-LDS and that disqualifies it?
Bomgeography Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 No what I'm saying is the research that I have cited is all done by non LDS researchers. In the case of mesoamerica not everybody agrees that a tapir can be a Book of Mormon horse or that metallurgy in mesoamerica lines up with Book of Mormon timelines etc.
Bomgeography Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Are you arguing that your model is agreed on by non LDS researchers because if so I might have to break my "CFRs are stupid" rule and ask for a CFR.See evidence cited.New Geography modelhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Technology and animalshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/DNAhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/Native American ties to Hebrewshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Jaredites and a Caucasian race of Indianhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-1/Sources citedhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-6/
The Nehor Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 No what I'm saying is the research that I have cited is all done by non LDS researchers. In the case of mesoamerica not everybody agrees that a tapir can be a Book of Mormon horse or that metallurgy in mesoamerica lines up with Book of Mormon timelines etc. And non-LDS researchers are more likely to be correct? 1
Bomgeography Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 And non-LDS researchers are more likely to be correct?Non LDS researchers do not have a bias.
The Nehor Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Non LDS researchers do not have a bias. See evidence cited.New Geography modelhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Technology and animalshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/DNAhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/Native American ties to Hebrewshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Jaredites and a Caucasian race of Indianhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-1/Sources citedhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-6/ So all the links you gave to a site called "Mormon Bandwagon" are non-biased non-LDS sources? The search for perfect objectivity sounds good but is also impossible. 1
Bomgeography Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Non LDS researchers do not have a bias.Let me rephrase that non LDS researchers do not have a bias to prove the Book of Mormon.
ERayR Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Non LDS researchers do not have a bias. :rofl: 1
Recommended Posts