The Nehor Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 13 hours ago, Freedom said: Why is accepting that the tower event was real a problem? I have no idea.
CA Steve Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 13 hours ago, Freedom said: Why is accepting that the tower event was real a problem? What was the single language being spoken before 2200 B.C.?
Teancum Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 3:01 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job. Yep. Big problems are they not? I predict before reading any responses to your OP that many will argue for a local flood, symbolism, that you take the scriptures to literally, that prophets speak as men or that you have some flaw in not understanding religion is really here just to get you in touch with your spiritual side and to help you through life.... and so on.... 2
Teancum Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yep. Big problems are they not? I predict before reading any responses to your OP that many will argue for a local flood, symbolism, that you take the scriptures to literally, that prophets speak as men or that you have some flaw in not understanding religion is really here just to get you in touch with your spiritual side and to help you through life.... and so on.... Yep.... I was right...... 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 With an omnipotent God literally anything is possible.
omni Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: With an omnipotent God literally anything is possible. Then how big of a rock can he create before it's too large for him to lift?
mnn727 Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Actually the only thing I have to believe is this: The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. I don't necessarily have to believe in the appendages. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 14 hours ago, omni said: Then how big of a rock can he create before it's too large for him to lift? I don't know. We can "create" rocks in the lab, and we do have rock hard concrete. So I guess God could "create" any object that he with his body alone couldn't lift. His/our power is a different question.
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: With an omnipotent God literally anything is possible. Omnipotence is a false concept, along with omniscience and omnipresence. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Omnipotence is a false concept, along with omniscience and omnipresence. It may be, but the LDS church claims it.
Teancum Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Omnipotence is a false concept, along with omniscience and omnipresence. LDS prophets and apostles disagree with you and use those terms in the way the terms are generally understood. Scripture, while not using those words specifically certainly teach the concepts.
cinepro Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 3 hours ago, mnn727 said: Actually the only thing I have to believe is this: The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. I don't necessarily have to believe in the appendages. Are you Mormon? Because pretty much every Christian believes that, so pretty much every unique LDS doctrine is an optional "appendage" to Christianity. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) On 3/5/2016 at 11:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, well once you have managed to separate the great tower from "Babel," and once you are able to acquaint yourself with the many much earlier flood stories from Mesopotamia, then you need to address what "literal" means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk . "Literal" does not necessarily mean "real." And for weirdos like me, "literal" NEVER means "real" because literature cannot ever duplicate "real" experience. Symbols are not reality. Edited March 6, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) Quote mnn727 said: Actually the only thing I have to believe is this: The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. I don't necessarily have to believe in the appendages. Sounds like the Apostles Creed to me. Edited March 6, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: LDS prophets and apostles disagree with you and use those terms in the way the terms are generally understood. Scripture, while not using those words specifically certainly teach the concepts. Doesn't make them right. The three omni's are based on false notions and are not correct. If applied correctly to specific spheres and circumstances they can be true, but generally they are applied in ways that are meaningless. 1
BCSpace Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 1:01 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job. Why can't Noah's Ark or the Tower of Babel be literal? Both essentially depend on the definition of "the earth" which, besides meaning the whole earth, could also simply refer to a much smaller locality within the knowledge range of the author. 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 29 minutes ago, BCSpace said: Why can't Noah's Ark or the Tower of Babel be literal? Both essentially depend on the definition of "the earth" which, besides meaning the whole earth, could also simply refer to a much smaller locality within the knowledge range of the author. I never said they couldn't be literal. I said they need to be literal for the scriptures.
Teancum Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Doesn't make them right. The three omni's are based on false notions and are not correct. If applied correctly to specific spheres and circumstances they can be true, but generally they are applied in ways that are meaningless. Does not mean you are right either. What is it Scott Lloyd often says about choosing between someone's view here and the Prophets and Apostles. They run the church. You don't. Elder Maxwell was quite fond of the omni's. He also argued God was outside of time and space and lived in one eternal now. Additionally I find it astounding that you simply can dismiss a few thousand years of deep thinking Christian theologians and philosophers as simply based on false notions and are not correct. So give us some evidence for your claim.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 0:18 PM, Buckeye said: The Lord could have told Joseph "you are not yet like Tevya" and that wouldn't have made Tevya real. It's quite possible to compare real people to fictional people, or real events to fictional events, in an attempt to convey something profound, while still not suggesting that the fictional elements are literally true. As another example, I can tell my children: "remember how Simba got his life together when he remembered his divine heritage; you should do the same" and I can tell my children this without suggesting that Simba was literally real. As for the Tower of Babel and Moroni visits - those are stronger cases for literalness because the authors speaking of them clearly believed them to be literal. However, those events could still be fictional (though important) if the author was mistaken. As an example of this, Joseph also thought that he was literally translating the Egyptian papyri in writing the BOA, yet many faithful LDS scholars hold that he was mistaken in this literal belief and was merely using the papyri as a catalyst. If that can be true - if Joseph could mistake the literalness of his translation - then maybe the first vision, Moroni's visit, Elijah's visit, etc. were also divinely-providential events that Joseph mistook to be literal. So maybe we don't really have priesthood keys, but God allows us to childish believe in the fiction because it helps us to build eternal bonds. To be clear, I'm not advocating for non-literal belief. I'm simply defending against the idea that non-literal belief is irrational or incoherent. Believing that Moroni's visit was a divinely-approved fiction is no more irrational that believing that Moroni is a real living being. There's simply no objective way to disprove either view. Well that last paragraph is the key If the "reality" is unknowable- then there IS no "reality" for all practical purposes. If the reality is space aliens all the way down, and we cannot know that, what difference does it make?? In effect there is no reality and we are left to our own devices and then who cares anyway? Suppose God has a plan of certain things we must do, but there is no way to find out what it is. What kind of God is that? Would he be just to punish us for NOT finding the impossible to find plan? It is like the question we ask the EV's- why would God send people to hell because they never had the opportunity to learn of Christ? Sounds to me like a medieval plan designed to control people- "Do what I tell you, or burn forever"- and that is what I believe that nonsense is! The originators of that idea wanted followers and they got them. So as I see it, any just God would not do that. I think no one here could believe the EV position that we must find the path without any indication that there IS a path or burn in hell. So either God does not exist, does not care what we do, or this is a test to find the truth. If he does not care what we do, then he doesn't care and we need not care ourselves. If it is a test, then it must be a fair test, or God is unjust, and all bets are off, and it will not be a pleasant afterlife. Now what means has he given his children to figure this out? Scriptures of every variety, Christian and non-Christian. He has given us our minds which seem to have some connection and some need to believe. He has given us the world, the stars at night, the wonders of nature and a yearning for something greater. That has to be clue. But for me the biggest clue is the spirit of revelation. After we even think for a short time that there MIGHT be a God, he seems to start directing us. I believe he directs us in the path which is best for us individually to return to him, I think there are many paths to "truth" but there must also be a best path which is most direct. I believe that this is it, and God has told me that it is. So now we look at the stories in the BOM. They tell us much more than the Bible- I find it to be far more profound than the simple stories in the Bible. The BOM is just plain good philosophy. Look at Alma 32 among others. Moroni specifically makes clear the path we have already deduced- to "ask God" and he will tell us! There it is- right there in black and white! God is just, there is a test, and if we don't figure it out here, we get a second chance in the afterlife. We are judged by how "good" we strive to be, and the intents of our hearts. We have the key- it is the spirit. Those who find it, have a blessed life and return for an eternal reward in taking the test. Those who do not, get a re-test. It is just as logical as can be. It doesn't matter about the plates or any of it- it could have happened or not- it just doesn't matter because what "really happened" is unknowable anyway. Stories are stories, but what do they point toward? What is the essential concept behind the stories? THAT is what is important. No one worries if the parables of Christ "really happened' or not! Think about it- ALL of Christ's teachings are in parables! There is no pretense that they ever actually "happened"!! THAT is the nature of religious teaching!! THAT is how we learn the principles of the gospel- through stories! I don't care if Joseph was staring into a fire or watching the ocean or had his head in a bucket of water, whatever he received and however it happened should be judged on the same standards we judge the parables of Christ- WHAT OTHER STANDARD IS THERE FOR TEACHING RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES BUT THAT OF THE GREATEST TEACHER?? 2
BCSpace Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I never said they couldn't be literal. I said they need to be literal for the scriptures. They do indeed. But such literalness need not conflict with today's understanding of science, archeology, anthropology, or history because some of the details indeed may be figurative or simply unknown.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I never said they couldn't be literal. I said they need to be literal for the scriptures. But that depends entirely on what you mean by "literal."
cinepro Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, BCSpace said: Why can't Noah's Ark or the Tower of Babel be literal? Both essentially depend on the definition of "the earth" which, besides meaning the whole earth, could also simply refer to a much smaller locality within the knowledge range of the author. This theory was mentioned by Old Testament scholar Donald Parry in his Ensign article about different views of the flood. It does make you wonder what he meant when he said "we Latter-day Saints"... Quote Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence. There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng Edited March 7, 2016 by cinepro
cinepro Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 1 hour ago, BCSpace said: They do indeed. But such literalness need not conflict with today's understanding of science, archeology, anthropology, or history because some of the details indeed may be figurative or simply unknown. It does if you want to defend (or believe) the Church's and Prophets' teachings on the subject. But if you don't care, then the limited or allegorical understanding is much easier. But don't fool yourself into thinking your describing or defending LDS teachings on the subject.
thesometimesaint Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: This theory was mentioned by Old Testament scholar Donald Parry in his Ensign article about different views of the flood. Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during man's existence on this planet. There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered some of the earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets. It does make you wonder what he meant when he said "we Latter-day Saints"... There fixed it. I have no idea what he meant by "we Latter-day Saints". I assure you I'm every bit as much a Latter-day Saint as any.
Freedom Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/5/2016 at 1:45 PM, CA Steve said: What was the single language being spoken before 2200 B.C.? Where does it say there was a single language spoken?
Recommended Posts