Jump to content

Most compelling evidence for/against the Book of Mormon?


Recommended Posts

On September 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, cdowis said:

Gervin, I don't think nothing ( to be crude).  I made no statement at all.  

Anyway, I am simply questioning your assertion.  Your use of the word "known" is interesting, rather than "speculating", so let's see what you got SPECIFICALLY in the preClassic period of Mayan culture.

You see, I know the difference between opinion/speculation/assertion and fact/ data.  So help me out.

If you perform a wiki search of "pre classic maya" you'll find a list of mayan cities that should sate your curiosity; real places excavated to reveal actual remnants of material cultures.  Happy hunting. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.  I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value. As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.  I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  However, there is no accounting for taste.

A  Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.

B      I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value.

C          As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  

C          Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.

B      I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  

A  However, there is no accounting for taste.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
4 hours ago, cinepro said:

The "pieces of silver" is actually a good example of metal being used for exchange that isn't a coin.

But if a community decides that a certain weight of silver will have a set value, and in order to make it easier on people they're going to make these pieces of silver distinguishable on sight so people don't have to weigh them every time, and then they give it a name for people to refer to them, then they've just invented coins.

Yes, and that is why coins were eventually invented -- in fact not long after Lehi left Jerusalem, minting began in Anatolia.  However, the set values which a certain weight of silver, gold, or copper had carried names, same as later coins.  Just as  the weight of the early shekel was not a minted coin, but did later become such.  That was the purpose of the limestone dome weights used in Classical Israel (which were backed up by royal weights made of metal).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

A  Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.

B      I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value.

C          As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  

C          Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.

B      I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  

A  However, there is no accounting for taste.

Clever, Honorentheos, although I don't find it convincing.  :pirate:

I try to be just a bit more systematic:

ABR 3,21-23 EXAMPLE.pdf

Link to post
1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm definately talking about place-values because that is what defines a system. It's incredibly wrong to state that the Nephite system is base-8 .................................................................

...................................................................

In contrast, which the Kletter evidence helps show, the Judaean system does exactly what a base-8 notation system should do. It progresses to 77, then it moves to the 100, sixty-four position. The 1450 g weight is equal to two of these units.

Again, for the 77 time, the Nephite system in Alma 11 is not a base-8 system. At best it's a binary system (halving and doubling) with an odd unit at the end equal to the sum of the units from the whole senum to the ezrom.

It's black and white. It doesn't matter how many apologists believe the Nephite system is base-8. It's not. It's not even that hard to see why it's not. 

Equating multiplication with base-notation is incredibly off. 

More gobbledygook in order to cover up your misdirection and intransigence.

If the system in Alma 11 were binary, then it would be easy to see that everything was either doubled or halved.  That's what binary means.

Dever deliberately contrasted the normative Egyptian decimal system with the Israelite-Egyptian adapted system using a base-module of 8 shekels, followed by multiples of 8, because he wanted us to see how simple the overall systems were, and how easily they could be converted back and forth for mercantile reasons.  You have certainly made hash of that.  As is your wont.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More gobbledygook in order to cover up your misdirection and intransigence.

If the system in Alma 11 were binary, then it would be easy to see that everything was either doubled or halved.  That's what binary means.

Dever deliberately contrasted the normative Egyptian decimal system with the Israelite-Egyptian adapted system using a base-module of 8 shekels, followed by multiples of 8, because he wanted us to see how simple the overall systems were, and how easily they could be converted back and forth for mercantile reasons.  You have certainly made hash of that.  As is your wont.

I'm sure countrycowboy will agree with you, because numbers. But it's a fact that the Nephite system is not base-8 as described in Alma 11. I can't lay it out more plainly and anyone who fails to see it has 143 problems and base notation is one.

Dever's showed something meaningful and applicable to the actual evidence available in the near east where we see real, attested cultures that left evidence behind for examination. I find the reality that the Kletter weight being potentially 128 shekels, or two 64 (200 in base-8 ) shekel units consistent with the evidence. He doesn't try to tell people that the maneh should equal 56 shekels. He doesn't try and compel anyone to see the 7/8 shekel unit as having a primary position in the Judaean system. He is making completely different arguments for completely different reasons.

Having appropriated his evidence and then wrongly applied it, the "hash" you see made of it is the over-extended structure you created by trying to make it into something it was not: a system to reconcile Egyptian, Judaean, and some American pre-Columbian system that is unattested in the archaeological record.

Your apologetic is dead. May it rest in piece.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm sure countrycowboy will agree with you, because numbers. But it's a fact that the Nephite system is not base-8 as described in Alma 11. I can't lay it out more plainly and anyone who fails to see it has 143 problems and base notation is one.

Dever's showed something meaningful and applicable to the actual evidence available in the near east where we see real, attested cultures that left evidence behind for examination. I find the reality that the Kletter weight being potentially 128 shekels, or two 64 (200 in base-8 ) shekel units consistent with the evidence. He doesn't try to tell people that the maneh should equal 56 shekels. He doesn't try and compel anyone to see the 7/8 shekel unit as having a primary position in the Judaean system. He is making completely different arguments for completely different reasons.

Having appropriated his evidence and then wrongly applied it, the "hash" you see made of it is the over-extended structure you created by trying to make it into something it was not: a system to reconcile Egyptian, Judaean, and some American pre-Columbian system that is unattested in the archaeological record.

Your apologetic is dead. May it rest in piece.

:beatdeadhorse:

Once again you create a straw man in talking of "some American pre-Columbian system" that I did not discuss.  I dealt only with the BofM text in the ANE context which it presupposes.  If we cannot even agree on that, then what hope is there for any agreement on its appliciation anywhere in the Americas -- which you would automatically reject in any case.  You are only interested in beating dead horses.  That is the only thing that keeps your polemic alive.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you create a straw man in talking of "some American pre-Columbian system" that I did not discuss.  I dealt only with the BofM text in the ANE context which it presupposes.  If we cannot even agree on that, then what hope is there for any agreement on its appliciation anywhere in the Americas -- which you would automatically reject in any case.  You are only interested in beating dead horses.  That is the only thing that keeps your polemic alive.

I have to say that is an amazingly ironic post. The basics of base notation killed your apologetic and you switched to dismissing the obvious fatal flaw in your argument because I noted that the Book of Mormon system described in Alma 11 is unattested in the archaeological record (as opposed to those Devers describes) and every bit fits the description of being "American pre-Columbian" if it is what it claims to be.

Base-8. It would be your friend and guide you to truth if you'd only let it.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
11 hours ago, Risingtide said:

That's a very interesting point RT. I've never considered it. Thanks.

You are welcome. Paul says, if it wasn't a mystery to them, God's plan would have been frustrated.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Link to post
15 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I have to say that is an amazingly ironic post. The basics of base notation killed your apologetic and you switched to dismissing the obvious fatal flaw in your argument because I noted that the Book of Mormon system described in Alma 11 is unattested in the archaeological record (as opposed to those Devers describes) and every bit fits the description of being "American pre-Columbian" if it is what it claims to be.

Base-8. It would be your friend and guide you to truth if you'd only let it.

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

I've often said the only horses in the BoM are the ones that critics and apologists keep beating to death.  I respect those who want to make any argument for or against the BoM. Things like the CES letter might bother some people so there is a needed place for line by line rebuttals of some items and restating research. Personally, I value the time I spend expanding our conversation about the BoM instead of repeating arguments I've heard for decades.  Thats why I'm looking at re assessing our understanding of the BoM, such as my recent FAIR presentation and I've been applying to the Mormon Theology Seminar: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/futile-victory-in-jacob-726.html

You'll notice that there are valuable things to say about the BoM without ever having to comment on its historicity. (Though as a historian it would be ridiculous to say that placing the BoM in history is useless.)  This desire to expand the conversation is also why I don't spend too much time here. But I liked your comment about beating a dead horse because I feel the same way. Cheers! 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, morgan.deane said:

I've often said the only horses in the BoM are the ones that critics and apologists keep beating to death.  I respect those who want to make any argument for or against the BoM. Things like the CES letter might bother some people so there is a needed place for line by line rebuttals of some items and restating research. Personally, I value the time I spend expanding our conversation about the BoM instead of repeating arguments I've heard for decades.  Thats why I'm looking at re assessing our understanding of the BoM, such as my recent FAIR presentation and I've been applying to the Mormon Theology Seminar: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/futile-victory-in-jacob-726.html

You'll notice that there are valuable things to say about the BoM without ever having to comment on its historicity. (Though as a historian it would be ridiculous to say that placing the BoM in history is useless.)  This desire to expand the conversation is also why I don't spend too much time here. But I liked your comment about beating a dead horse because I feel the same way. Cheers! 

Trust me, I understand.  I left the Church in 1989 and returned in 2015.  As an attorney, I found so many things about the Church I felt I could defeat in court.  

Last year, it occurred to me as I was on the road back:  Jesus was defeated in Court...did that mean He was wrong?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
18 hours ago, Gervin said:

If you perform a wiki search of "pre classic maya" you'll find a list of mayan cities that should sate your curiosity; real places excavated to reveal actual remnants of material cultures.  Happy hunting. 

You make an assertion and you are putting the burden on me to prove it?  Interesting.

Thank you for the honor, but I decline your invitation.  You will have to do your own hunting.... alone.

Edited by cdowis
Link to post
5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You are welcome. Paul says, if it wasn't a mystery to them, God's plan would have been frustrated.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Excelent catch RT. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

 

5 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

:)

Let's keep going, why don't we?

On to gold. In Alma 11, starting in verse 14, we get this:

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

 15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

 16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

 17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

No mention of smaller denominations of gold, just silver.

So what?

Well, back to the idea that the Nephite system is base-8. In the gold system, it begins with the senine, to the seon, then the shum, culminating with the limnah.

 5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

In other words, the gold system has a 1, 2, 4, and 7 where the limnah is worth seven senine.

It really should go without saying, but clearly Robert F. Smith and Countryboy are proof positive you can't assume that, but the gold system isn't even close enough to a base-8 notation system to be able to set up the problem well. Why? Because the simplicity of it being a binary system with an odd culminating unit lacks complexity to even demand a notation system.

I know you'll be back without comment on how to repair your apologetic, Robert. And CB will probably add another substance-less comment. But it just gets worse and worse for your pet apologetic.

And, again just in case anyone is feeling like this is an attack on the BoM itself, the entire apologetic is contradicted by the Book of Mormon. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

 

:)

Let's keep going, why don't we?

On to gold. In Alma 11, starting in verse 14, we get this:

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

 15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

 16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

 17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

No mention of smaller denominations of gold, just silver.

So what?

Well, back to the idea that the Nephite system is base-8. In the gold system, it begins with the senine, to the seon, then the shum, culminating with the limnah.

 5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

In other words, the gold system has a 1, 2, 4, and 7 where the limnah is worth seven senine.

It really should go without saying, but clearly Robert F. Smith and Countryboy are proof positive you can't assume that, but the gold system isn't even close enough to a base-8 notation system to be able to set up the problem well. Why? Because the simplicity of it being a binary system with an odd culminating unit lacks complexity to even demand a notation system.

I know you'll be back without comment on how to repair your apologetic, Robert. And CB will probably add another substance-less comment. But it just gets worse and worse for your pet apologetic.

And, again just in case anyone is feeling like this is an attack on the BoM itself, the entire apologetic is contradicted by the Book of Mormon. 

oh...are you still here with your stuff?  lol.

I must say, I love it that you keep getting beat yet keep coming back....the dead horse population loves you :)

 

Link to post
12 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

oh...are you still here with your stuff?  lol.

I must say, I love it that you keep getting beat yet keep coming back....the dead horse population loves you :)

 

I recognize it seems like a good idea to offer up contentless back-slaps because there isn't much to lose, right? I mean, why not right?

But lean in, CountryBoy, I have a secret just for you. See, this is all going on the internet. And you might not realize this yet but you have signed your name in permanent ink to this position. And it's as wrong as wrong gets.

So, this whole dead horse thing? It's just adding up to more and more points against that wrong position that you approve of but have not contributed to or even attempted to state in a way that shows you know what the conversation is about. 

So, keep posting. Cuz this is forever, amigo. And I feel the spirit when I think about it.

But, there's always hope for you CB. You COULD try and point out where it is exactly that you think I'm wrong and Robert has proven it time after time. Fill your lamp, little lady, the bridegroom cometh!

Honorentheos has been thread banned.

Link to post
7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I recognize it seems like a good idea to offer up contentless back-slaps because there isn't much to lose, right? I mean, why not right?

But lean in, CountryBoy, I have a secret just for you. See, this is all going on the internet. And you might not realize this yet but you have signed your name in permanent ink to this position. And it's as wrong as wrong gets.

So, this whole dead horse thing? It's just adding up to more and more points against that wrong position that you approve of but have not contributed to or even attempted to state in a way that shows you know what the conversation is about. 

So, keep posting. Cuz this is forever, amigo. And I feel the spirit when I think about it.

But, there's always hope for you CB. You COULD try and point out where it is exactly that you think I'm wrong and Robert has proven it time after time. Fill your lamp, little lady, the bridegroom cometh!

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

Link to post
1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

Let's hear you take on what you think makes the Nephite system base 8, cowboy. Put it in writing with Robert. Confirm you have no idea what it means for something to be base 8. 

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
15 hours ago, cdowis said:

You make an assertion and you are putting the burden on me to prove it?  Interesting.

No, I'm responding to your assertion that what we know about pre-classic Mayan culture is based on speculation.  If you don't want to defend your assertion, I'll understand  

 

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gervin said:

No, I'm responding to your assertion that what we know about pre-classic Mayan culture is based on speculation.  If you don't want to defend your assertion, I'll understand  

 

I already gave you the reference, in case you did not read my post.

You would agree that discussion is a waste of time.  Best of luck to you.

Edited by cdowis
Link to post
2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

CB, come on. Nobody has been "bested" in this conversation. Any outside observer (and there are several) can see that it has been a great back and forth with a lot of interesting info on a specific detail of the Book of Mormon. 
It has helped clarify some questions I've had on the Nephite monetary system. There's been good stuff from both Robert and Honorentheos.

It's true the conversation has run its course; the horse has been beaten. But your comments remind me of a fly hovering, waiting for more dead horse juice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll. 
      What do you think? 
      --Erik
    • By HappyJackWagon
      As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.
      We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.
      But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?
      It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.
      Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.
      The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.
    • By Calm
      Posting this even before I get a chance  to read it (dinner bell just rang and I missed it conference time) .  That is how much I like you guys:
       
      http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/history-and-historicity-in-the-book-of-mormon
    • By mfbukowski
      I don't really have the time right now to push this thread along, but in terms of full disclosure this is about historicity making value statements true, or whether or not historical individuals endorsing them make them more true or credible.
       
      This is the proposition:
       
      "People should give of themselves selflessly"
       
      I would maintain that we "know this is true" just based on being human and having lived a few years on this planet.  It works for humanity, and so we see it as a "good thing to do".
       
      Here David Letterman "bears his testimony" of the principle, as recorded in Reader's Digest, March, 2014, page 34
       
      I think this is a true principle, but not because David Letterman wrote it.
       
      I think that Santa Claus would also endorse it.
       
      But someone might argue that it could not be a true principle because there is no evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole or that Santa even exists.
       
      But even mythic figures can teach true principles.
       
      (By that I am not meaning to imply that God or Christ are "myths" in the sense that word is often taken hereabouts- ie: "fictitious" )
       
      I find this similar to those who think that the scriptures require historical evidence to be "true".  I do not hold that position.  I believe that the scriptures ARE "historical", contain true history, but that fact must be taken on faith where no evidence exists, which is actually most cases.  So historicity of scripture is itself a faith-based position.  That is why those who do not have the faith, debate the position.
       
      Further, Mother Theresa, a historiclal figure, who lived in India, would definitely also endorse the statement on giving as being "true".
       
      Are you more likely to endorse the principle because David Letterman is a historical person?   Or would you endorse it because you know it is true based on your own experience?
       
      How is historicity relevant to the truth of this statement?  It appears that some believe such moral statements are "true" strictly because they are in the scriptures and the scriptures can be proven "true" by their historicity.
       
      Again, I do not intend to contribute much because I have made my opinions clear here already.
       
      I fail to see how historicity is at all relevant to the truth of such statements as this moral belief, and therefore I question that historicity is relevant to the moral beliefs preached in scripture, though many seem to think that historicity absolutely makes or breaks the truth of such propositions.   I don't see it at all.
       
      Educate me.
    • By mfbukowski
      In another thread about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, now locked for inexplicable reasons, I made the following comment
      http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64358-is-belief-in-the-book-mormon-as-history-important/?p=1209432815
       
      bcuzbcuz returned this VERY important point, about which I think everyone has questions.  This raises important issues key to most people here, and I propose we deal with it directly in this thread
       
       
      I thought for a minute and had very little time, and my first notion was to answer quickly and somewhat snarkily - as is my usual "natural man" tendency when I post with little time, something like this:
       
      Yeah, well we all have to deal with the fact that ALL scriptural interpretation effectively IS the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture", like it or not.  It is impossible to separate scripture from its interpretation when we think about theological issues, because we grow up with philosophical predispositions inherited from our times.
       
      Those who grew up in the church inherited 19th century interpretations, and now we have at least 20th century interpretations- no telling what will happen when we finally start making 21st century interpretations of the Book of Mormon.
       
      Of course I never made that reply because the thread was locked.  Hence this discussion.
       
      New data brings with it new interpretations of data, and that is the natural process of human thought.  Looking out at the horizon, one could well believe the earth is flat, and so many thought for thousands of years.
       
      But the data made that belief difficult.  Ships going over the horizon disappeared from the bottom up, the last thing visible being the top of their mast.  The view from the ship was similar- the first thing to disappear looking back into port was the shoreline, then the hills, then the highest mountains, but eventually they also disappeared into the distance.
       
      The only explanation possible for this phenomenon was that the earth was "in fact" round, and so that "modern" conception was born.
       
      There is no reason to think that religious thinking is any different.  YET  MORMONS GET CRITICISM for following the same rules of thought that have been used by mankind forever.
       
      Paradigms shift.  There is a famous philosopher of Science, Thomas Kuhn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn, who has gotten credit largely for "discovering" paradigm shifts, but that idea had been around for perhaps a hundred years before he came along.
       
      If you aren't familiar with the concept, that wikipedia article is a good place to start.
       
      But because we have been raised with the paradigm that "TRUTH never changes" - a pagan Greek idea- we are stuck with the Neoplatonic sectarian Christian idea that this is the case.
       
      Now we are reaping the damage from accepting the philosophy and theology of the apostasy, and grafting the apostasy "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" into the Restoration "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" with results that leave us with questions like the one bcuzbcuz raises.   This is not a trivial issue, it goes to the core of Mormon doctrine and its interpretation.
       
      So how do we get out of this quandary?   Come on class, pretend we are seminary.  What is the usual right answer to all questions in seminary?
       
      "Pray, follow the spirit, and keep the commandments"
       
      Philosophies come and go, interpretations come and go, science even comes and goes, new paradigms come and go, but God will always communicate with his children.  It is what He does.  It's his job as our Father.  He has to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives.
       
      You can't do that without communication. 
×
×
  • Create New...