Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I know you get it. You get that God's reality is different than what we perceive in the temporal world. God is constantly trying to use temporal things to teach of His reality, and man is constantly stuck in the temporal "world." For instance throughout scripture He uses the "tabernacle" or the "ark" or temple to teach of the heavenly order of things, and man usually only sees a tent or a building... God sees the hosts of heaven He is trying to teach about, and Man sees stars. It is constant throughout scripture.

Yes, for me though I see the world as a spiritual entity, I see miracles daily in mundane things and God's "magic" everywhere. To me that IS the "temporal world"- I do not see things, I see energies in the process of becoming. To me the world is a place of constant spiritual flux created by Intelligence- God's intelligence reflected in the tiny spark inside me which is sometimes able to see perhaps as God sees, or at least that is what I imagine and therefore believe.

For me that IS the "world as it is" at least in those moments I am in tune. That is why I am constantly speaking about the frailties of language in capturing reality- for me it does not even come close to my reality and certainly does not "represent" it in any way, shape, or form.

I think it is that conditioning from Neoplatonism through Descartes that sees the gulf between the spiritual and the physical or mundane- the inferiority of the body over the spirit etc. I used to see it that way too, but not any more.

Rarely I am actually able to grasp a glimpse of what this means in D&C 131:

Quote

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

To me THAT is the world "as it is"- no separation between spirit and matter. The savior commanded the elements and they obeyed. He did not see spirit vs matter- he saw them unified. He did not see the temporal vs the spiritual, he saw them unified.

Seeing reality that way makes historical or physical "evidence" totally moot- evidence is everything you see because it is all infused by spirit.

That does not mean I am better than anyone else- or worse, or closer to the spirit. It just means I have practiced seeing the world that way now for about 45 years and have finally thrown off the shackles of dualism. A stone can reveal the universe, a blade of grass or a tin can and its reflections can dissolve into pure light and energy by shifting my point of view.

Now THAT is the religion I wish I had been raised in- the religion I now see in my version of Mormonism!! It can be taught- and if I can see it, anyone can.

I know some here see it that way too.

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, for me though I see the world as a spiritual entity, I see miracles daily in mundane things and God's "magic" everywhere. To me that IS the "temporal world"- I do not see things, I see energies in the process of becoming. To me the world is a place of constant spiritual flux created by Intelligence- God's intelligence reflected in the tiny spark inside me which is sometimes able to see perhaps as God sees, or at least that is what I imagine and therefore believe.

For me that IS the "world as it is" at least in those moments I am in tune. That is why I am constantly speaking about the frailties of language in capturing reality- for me it does not even come close to my reality and certainly does not "represent" it in any way, shape, or form.

I think it is that conditioning from Neoplatonism through Descartes that sees the gulf between the spiritual and the physical or mundane- the inferiority of the body over the spirit etc. I used to see it that way too, but not any more.

Rarely I am actually able to grasp a glimpse of what this means in D&C 131:

To me THAT is the world "as it is"- no separation between spirit and matter. The savior commanded the elements and they obeyed. He did not see spirit vs matter- he saw them unified. He did not see the temporal vs the spiritual, he saw them unified.

Seeing reality that way makes historical or physical "evidence" totally moot- evidence is everything you see because it is all infused by spirit.

That does not mean I am better than anyone else- or worse, or closer to the spirit. It just means I have practiced seeing the world that way now for about 45 years and have finally thrown off the shackles of dualism. A stone can reveal the universe, a blade of grass or a tin can and its reflections can dissolve into pure light and energy by shifting my point of view.

Now THAT is the religion I wish I had been raised in- the religion I now see in my version of Mormonism!! It can be taught- and if I can see it, anyone can.

I know some here see it that way too.

This is the "magical thnking" Joseph had and children have. The world seen is spirit is place where anything can happen, where emotion and intellect, energy and matter, the seen and unseen are one. It is simply wonderful to be alive when one can see it that way, free from care because one knows it is all part of God's purpose and therefore mine, in surrender to his will.

This is fideism, this is William James, this is Wittgenstein- the world of experience stripped of language or need for it, every paradigm a possibility. Pure reality as it is!! Man is that he might have joy!!

We must become as little children. The critics ridicule it, but as usual, "they know not what they do".

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This works when Justice is seen as a word synonymous with "fairness" and not an entity which makes demands for satisfaction. Again the false view of Justice as an entity demanding satisfaction while the entity Mercy argues against it, is again linked to this idea that if we have a word, it must point to a "thing" outside which is "real". This is called "reification". It does not work well with the Golden Rule at all, as you show, or the Great Commandments to love God and your neighbor.

I think Kevin C has also shown us a better way of seeing it, a few pages back.

I am not saying there is some third party diety demanding satisfaction. I'm saying the third party demanding satisfaction is the injured party. What should the Father do for one who demands satisfaction as an injured party by the sin of another? or one who demands their debt be repaid? The Father sitting as judge must allow the minimum of what justice calls for - to restore the parties to equality. What Yeshua taught was that it is better to show love and understanding to your offender and forgive them. That is the "higher path." And He promised if we forgive them we will be forgiven. Therefore, we can enter Heaven "clean" from our sins rather than exchanging demands for justice to be done. I don't proffer anything about "the entity Mercy." I read the pdf about LDS concepts of "moral atonement" and was curiously unimpressed by it. I haven't finished the other. If all there is to the atonement is the Golden Rule then there would be no punishment, and God would be unjust to send anyone to "hell" or "spirit prison" or outer darkness.

mfbukowski · November 22, 2016

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not saying there is some third party diety demanding satisfaction. I'm saying the third party demanding satisfaction is the injured party. What should the Father do for one who demands satisfaction as an injured party by the sin of another? or one who demands their debt be repaid? The Father sitting as judge must allow the minimum of what justice calls for - to restore the parties to equality. What Yeshua taught was that it is better to show love and understanding to your offender and forgive them. That is the "higher path." And He promised if we forgive them we will be forgiven. Therefore, we can enter Heaven "clean" from our sins rather than exchanging demands for justice to be done. I don't proffer anything about "the entity Mercy." I read the pdf about LDS concepts of "moral atonement" and was curiously unimpressed by it. I haven't finished the other. If all there is to the atonement is the Golden Rule then there would be no punishment, and God would be unjust to send anyone to "hell" or "spirit prison" or outer darkness.

If we forgive them we will be forgiven

No need to demand satisfaction. Demanding satisfaction is not forgiving.

He forgives who he will, but we forgive 7 times 70.

Those who do not forgive suffer the mental anguish here, and that is a prison. Those who forgive get a greater reward. Every knee shall bow, and all will be rewarded according to their works. The punishment is lack of glory.

Forgiveness is freedom from the crushing need for revenge. It is atainting Joy through the atonement.

Edited November 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

RevTestament · November 22, 2016

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If we forgive them we will be forgiven

No need to demand satisfaction. Demanding satisfaction is not forgiving.

Perhaps I should refer you to the parables of Jesus concerning the debtor, etc. Do u recall the one about the master paying for the debtor? Why did He do that? Because it was unjust for the agreement to pay not to be honored and equality restored. In the meantime the master is following the higher law to do that for the debtor which he could not do for himself.

Quote

He forgives who he will, but we forgive 7 times 70.

What if we don't forgive? What then? The demands of justice must be met. This is the role of the Father. This is why Yeshua laid down His life.

mfbukowski · November 23, 2016

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps I should refer you to the parables of Jesus concerning the debtor, etc. Do u recall the one about the master paying for the debtor? Why did He do that? Because it was unjust for the agreement to pay not to be honored and equality restored. In the meantime the master is following the higher law to do that for the debtor which he could not do for himself.

What if we don't forgive? What then? The demands of justice must be met. This is the role of the Father. This is why Yeshua laid down His life.

Ah yes, we go to the bank and make a withdrawal of merit points. That is the whole idea of indulgences

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_of_merit

Gervin · November 23, 2016

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And you base that notion on what experience with "gentiles"? Why would they even give you the time of day on such a question?

Most gentiles are polite and thoughtful and, if asked nicely, would give you the time of day and, perhaps, the day's forecast. If you sought the opinion of a gentile of mainstream anthropological thought about the likelihood that a clan of Hebrews lived and economically and socially thrived in Mesoamerica among the Mayan (for example), then you're going to have to bring your "A" game; maybe get the endorsement of some of those secular scholars you use in your citations; and make your case at mainstream symposiums and conferences and in research and writing. How can it be otherwise? You want the world to beat down your door? Give them a reason to.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Gervin

Robert F. Smith · November 23, 2016

13 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Most gentiles are polite and thoughtful and, if asked nicely, would give you the time of day and, perhaps, the day's forecast. If you sought the opinion of a gentile of mainstream anthropological thought about the likelihood that a clan of Hebrews lived and economically and socially thrived in Mesoamerica among the Mayan (for example), then you're going to have to bring your "A" game; maybe get the endorsement of some of those secular scholars you use in your citations; and make your case at mainstream symposiums and conferences and in research and writing. How can it be otherwise? You want the world to beat down your door? Give them a reason to.

So in answer to my question, you admit that you have no experience with non-Mormon anthropologists, nor with scholars from equivalent fields. That is why you make the false statements you do in the above paragraph. Again, a little sincerity goes a long way, Gervin. You might want to try applying it to this issue, frankly and honestly. Of course, since you have never studied anthropology and know nothing of the field, you let your imagination run riot, instead of dealing with hard reality.

Gervin · November 23, 2016

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So in answer to my question, you admit that you have no experience with non-Mormon anthropologists, nor with scholars from equivalent fields. That is why you make the false statements you do in the above paragraph. Again, a little sincerity goes a long way, Gervin. You might want to try applying it to this issue, frankly and honestly. Of course, since you have never studied anthropology and know nothing of the field, you let your imagination run riot, instead of dealing with hard reality.

0

may your insults receive multitudinous rep points. you're interestingly insular.

RevTestament · November 23, 2016

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah yes, we go to the bank and make a withdrawal of merit points. That is the whole idea of indulgences

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_of_merit

It's not about "merit points." It is about justice.

Alma 42:22

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Mosiah 15:9

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

Jacob 6:10

10 And according to the power of justice, for justice cannot be denied, ye must go away into that lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever, which lake of fire and brimstone is endless torment.

Let us look at the situation which resulted in the statement you brought up to forgive 7 times 70:

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

How can the Father do this? Because He is obliged to dispense justice, or He would not be God. But notice the punishment is not eternal in time. Punishment may be eternal in scope, but the punishment lasted until the debt was paid. Thus, the idea that those sent to hell cannot ever get another chance to correct their mistakes in another world is false. If they agree to God's plan, they can gain a body and live their "probation."

Boanerges · November 23, 2016

Justice is what we all want for everyone else. Mercy is what we all want for ourselves.

Gray · November 23, 2016

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem currently is that fake news and phony facts dominate media across the board, which is a major reason that Trump won his election. Even Mark Zuckerberg has finally recognized the problem -- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-plan-to-fight-spread-fake-news-former-employee-speaks-out/ . We can see, for example, the common notion that climate change is nonsense as a perfect indicator of the problem: The evidence and the science made no difference to the general public. It is likely that the fact of climate change will finally be accepted, but only after the Earth has suffered a series major catastrophes. Even then there will be many who remain in denial.

Granted!

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course that is correct, but the true controversy does not concern Jesus' historical existence, but rather his status as the resurrected Son of God, even if he is a famous and influential rabbi.

Yes, but of course that question is outside the purview of archaeology and critical New Testament scholarship.

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And you base that notion on what experience with "gentiles"? Why would they even give you the time of day on such a question?

You don't think archaeologists are open to the possibility of other immigrations to the Americas from the old world?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vikings-a-memorable-visit-to-america-98090935/

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to examine all of the serious scholarship which has been published by Mormons with Oxford Univ. Press, and other major publishers. Then too, scholars such as John Sorenson, John Tvedtnes, and John Welch have managed to publish some extraordinary materials in mainstream scholarly venues. This has only been possible in venues where overwhelming prejudice has not been in complete control -- and most venues are in fact closed to Mormon scholarship.

Are they though? What sorts of scholarship are LDS scholars publishing in the mainstream academic presses? Does it have anything to do with Lehites?

Would scholarship relating to evidence for Lehites in the Americas be rejected due to prejudice, or due to lack of evidence and scientific rigor?

As a non-scholar I can't evaluate the evidence the way you and others do. Like so many, I have to rely on the imperfect mechanism of scientific consensus. Imperfect yes, but I think it's a useful filter for these kinds of issues.

Robert F. Smith · November 23, 2016

17 hours ago, Gervin said:

may your insults receive multitudinous rep points. you're interestingly insular.

As usual, it is just a points game for you. Nothing substantive. No discussion. I guess those who are insular see only insularity -- you might want to take a close look at your motivation and purpose.

mfbukowski · November 23, 2016

On 11/22/2016 at 8:43 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

As far the Book of Mormon on the Atonement goes, I found this essay by Lorin Hansen to be a game changer for me.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

And of course, there is this

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Which led me in this direction:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=6

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin, brilliant stuff

I woke up at 3 am with this hymn from Eliza R Snow playing over and over in my dreaming mind

Quote

1. How great the wisdom and the love

That filled the courts on high

And sent the Savior from above

To suffer, bleed, and die!

2. His precious blood he freely spilt;

His life he freely gave,

A sinless sacrifice for guilt,

A dying world to save.

3. By strict obedience Jesus won

The prize with glory rife:

"Thy will, O God, not mine be done,"

Adorned his mortal life.

4. He marked the path and led the way,

And ev'ry point defines

To light and life and endless day

Where God's full presence shines.

5. In mem'ry of the broken flesh

We eat the broken bread

And witness with the cup, afresh,

Our faith in Christ, our Head.

6. How great, how glorious, how complete

Redemption's grand design,

Where justice, love, and mercy meet

In harmony divine!

He defines the fullness of each sacrifice for repentance we make in reconciliation to our God for the contradictions we feel in our guilt and defines the path back to Him. The moral contradictions are too much to bear and take us down the path to death- he resolves that spiritual and physical death by taking those contradictions upon himself so that we do not have to, and defines the path to life.

I think of an extreme example- one who murders a loved one in passionate anger then suffers "guilt unto death" and then actually causes his own death. Christ frees us from death and all pain by taking it upon himself.

After all we can do to repent, through our small sacrifices, his infinite sacrifice removes the guilt for what we cannot do for ourselves. We are saved after "all we can do"

mfbukowski · November 23, 2016

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It's not about "merit points." It is about justice.

Alma 42:22

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Mosiah 15:9

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

Jacob 6:10

10 And according to the power of justice, for justice cannot be denied, ye must go away into that lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever, which lake of fire and brimstone is endless torment.

Let us look at the situation which resulted in the statement you brought up to forgive 7 times 70:

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

How can the Father do this? Because He is obliged to dispense justice, or He would not be God. But notice the punishment is not eternal in time. Punishment may be eternal in scope, but the punishment lasted until the debt was paid. Thus, the idea that those sent to hell cannot ever get another chance to correct their mistakes in another world is false. If they agree to God's plan, they can gain a body and live their "probation."

Again, I suggest you read the articles suggested by Kevin.

Robert F. Smith · November 23, 2016

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Yes, but of course that question is outside the purview of archaeology and critical New Testament scholarship.

Agreed. However, I was merely pointing out the real issue, since all historians agree on that much. At the same time, evangelicals will not accept those strictures.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

You don't think archaeologists are open to the possibility of other immigrations to the Americas from the old world?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vikings-a-memorable-visit-to-america-98090935/

Of course they are. Mike Coe has been very open about his belief that Southeast Asians in fact came to Mesoamerica, and many other non-Mormon scholars accept that view for very specific reasons. And it is not simply the Vikings, but southern Japanese whom the late Betty Meggars (Smithsonian archeologist) claimed certainly came to South America. There must also have been Polynesian contact with South America.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Are they though? What sorts of scholarship are LDS scholars publishing in the mainstream academic presses? Does it have anything to do with Lehites?

Yes, and a prime exemplar is John Tvedtnes, whose work on Book of Mormon names and Hebraisms is well-known to Israeli scholars, and who have repeatedly invited him to publish with them. I have had the same experience with my own Israeli colleagues:

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:787-788, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:195-196, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Would scholarship relating to evidence for Lehites in the Americas be rejected due to prejudice, or due to lack of evidence and scientific rigor?

As a non-scholar I can't evaluate the evidence the way you and others do. Like so many, I have to rely on the imperfect mechanism of scientific consensus. Imperfect yes, but I think it's a useful filter for these kinds of issues.

Overweening prejudice is a big problem, but only scientists would understand consensus -- which always concerns matters subject to research. Since hardly any non-Mormon scholars do BofM research, we can hardly expect a consensus to have developed. Hence, no filtration. What we all can do is use actual peer-reviewed research on the basic questions (how to describe ancient American cultures). That is the base from which we must work.

LittleNipper · November 24, 2016

On 11/12/2016 at 11:44 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I choose to stay despite my belief that Book of Mormon is fiction. It definitely puts me at odds with the mainstream membership, but I just keep quiet about it and things move along smoothly. I stay because first, I do believe the Joseph Smith was inspired by God, and second, having been born into this faith and loving many parts of it, it's my home.

To briefly address your second question, I believe that revelation generally is a product of human understanding and our greatest potential. In the BoM, I see the ideas of Indians descending from Israelites as a 19th century idea (human understanding) that provide a compelling narrative to Joseph Smith and followers for doctrines of discipleship, divinization, etc. (human potential with God's help). The concept of Moroni obviously fits hand and glove with a whole host 19th century ideas, including Indian Israelite heritage, treasure hunting, and restoration expectations. Frankly, I don't think there was a physical being named Moroni, though I do believe that Joseph Smith and others had visions of this being. In other words, I think he was a product of revelation created in the minds of Joseph Smith and others. This is arguably supported by the fact that all accounts of Moroni have visionary elements to them. For example, he stands in the air, somehow floating through the ceiling in Joseph's first encounter. He appears out of nowhere surprising Joseph at the hill. Even in the mundane accounts of Moroni by David Whitmer and Mary Whitmer, where he appears without glory, there is still a visionary element. In each Moroni suddenly and mysteriously disappears at the end.

You also have to deal with the plates. I side with Dan Vogel and Ann Taves in their suggestion that JS probably made some plates. As Ann Taves suggested, I bet JS believed he was commanded by God to make them. There is even a highly related precedent in the masonic legend of Enoch, which has so many strong correlations with the Book of Mormon. Enoch sees a vision of a gold plate in a vault in a mount, and God then commands him to make the plate. This by itself isn't much to go on, but if you put it beside all of the similarities between the early mormonism and the legend of Enoch, it quickly becomes apparent that JS was inspired by the legend. Just a quick sampling to provide a little meat to my suggestions here: The masonic legend has Enoch learning the name of God and forseeing the flood and Noah. By comparison, JS' Enoch learns the name of God "Man of Holiness," and forsees the flood and Noah. Masonic Enoch makes a gold plate with God's name written in Hebrew on it, and places it in a stone vault with arches serving as the opening to each chamber complete with a stone cover in a mount along with pillars engraved with Egyptian hieroglyphics. One of the pillars is brass and has the creation account written on it among other things. The pillars have spheres on top of them, which contain the maps of the universe, and act as oracles. By comparison, the gold plates of the Book of Mormon are written in reformed Egyptian which, according to the text, is some amalgamation of Hebrew and Egyptian. The Brass plates have the five books of Moses (including the creation). The Liahona is a sphere that gives directions and divine instruction. JS discovers the plates in a concrete box with stone cover in hill CuMORAH (moriah is similar), Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith describe pillars in the box, and Lucy describes the lid as having an arch. Masonic Enoch's plate has precious stones encrusted on it and is in the shape of a triangle. By comparison, JS gets the Urim and Thummim with the plates, which Lucy describes as triangles set in glass. Some versions of the legend have Enoch making a larger plate and a smaller plate, both with the name of God written on them, which provide a possible parallel to the larger and smaller plates of the BoM. There is still a fair bit more of correlation between the masonic legend and early mormonism, which has been written about for the past half century starting with Reed C. Durham's infamous "Is there no help for the widow's son" address. Anyways, I think I've shared enough to suggest that Enoch's vision of his gold plate and then being commanded to make it, could have been a precedent and inspiration to JS.

Do you accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Do you find the Bible more believable or less believable than the Book of Mormon?

Benjamin Seeker · November 24, 2016

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Do you find the Bible more believable or less believable than the Book of Mormon?

I think we are dealing with two separate issues. When you ask about believability, you could be asking about historicicity of the text or you could be asking about whether it's "inspired." I don't neccessarily believe that those two aspects need to run hand in hand. For example, as I have heard biblical scholar Julie Smith point out, Jesus' favorite method of teaching was through parables or, in other words, through fiction.

In terms of history, I think it's much more likely that the Bible contains some actual historical accounts because its text was verifiably produced by ancient persons. That being said, I also accept that there is plenty in the Bible that is likely not historical. Meanwhile, I think it's unlikely that the Book of Mormon contains actual history, but I believe that it is inspired scripture.

We should also probably clarify what "inspired Word of God" means. I'm guessing your capitalzation isn't accidental. I don't believe that anything any man has written, spoken, or thought/heard/etc. is the verbatim word of God. I don't believe we have a mechanism for recieving that. Revelation is recieved/concieved through the filter of the human brain and understanding with all of the limitations that go along with that. I do believe that various people throughout history that have been spiritually gifted, interacted with God, and left significant written or oral contributions, which I refer to as inspired scripture. I believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain some of this.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

mfbukowski · November 24, 2016

On 11/22/2016 at 8:53 AM, Gray said:

What about this theory of atonement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Bingo.

We need to get back to that.

mfbukowski · November 24, 2016

On 11/22/2016 at 0:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem currently is that fake news and phony facts dominate media across the board, which is a major reason that Trump won his election. Even Mark Zuckerberg has finally recognized the problem -- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-plan-to-fight-spread-fake-news-former-employee-speaks-out/ . We can see, for example, the common notion that climate change is nonsense as a perfect indicator of the problem: The evidence and the science made no difference to the general public. It is likely that the fact of climate change will finally be accepted, but only after the Earth has suffered a series major catastrophes. Even then there will be many who remain in denial.

There seems to be a tendency toward elitism in the left which I suppose is inherent in academia since teachers and intellectuals presume they know better than the unwashed classes what is needed in society.

People do not like to be told what is best for them.

That was apparent in several quotes in the last campaign. Those with "God and guns" of course resent it and tend to remain silent lest they violate political correctness by speaking what they really think. To do so only results in ridicule. A sense of oppression by the "elitist class" sets in and shows up in believing nothing they have to say, with a quiet boiling resentment for being treated as children. Unfortunately that is what has happened with global warming- if the press advocates it, it has to be a lie.

And so we end up with Trump.

I think no one who voted for him ever thought he was going to do what he said he would- again, if it is reported in the press it is a lie. All they saw was the opportunity to give the elitists a digital salute.

And so now it appears to be going just as the Trump voters thought- now being elected, Trump's positions seem to be moderating significantly while those who believe the press are still protesting his election because they still believe what the press told them would happen, which of course will not. In this crazy situation, everything you know is wrong- up is down left is right and everything good is bad.

The left needs to understand they are perceived by the right as elitists who are not acting in the best interests of the country and constitution. The right has developed its own communication system which tends to be shrill and conspiracy-theory oriented- why? because the press cannot be trusted in their perception and so the independent "talk radio" types feed on its own fears. The right tends to think of the "establishment press" in similar terms as the propaganda machine "Pravda" in the cold war era Soviet Union. I don't think the left fully understands the depth of the discontent- and that is why it was surprised by the election. Few on the right were surprised in my opinion, I suspected it might happen as it did.

This huge polarization is a national tragedy and has been growing worse for years

I just hope those with "God and guns" don't use them against those who they perceive as having neither.

Liberal Mormons are in a very strange position in these times.

Edited November 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · November 24, 2016

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Liberal Mormons are in a very strange position in these times.

On one hand their fellow academics who are liberals see them as primitives for being theists, and on the other, most Mormons see them as secularist apostates.

Ya can't win for losing.

OK enough of this rant and derail- back to the regularly scheduled program.

Edited November 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

RevTestament · November 24, 2016

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, I suggest you read the articles suggested by Kevin.

I did, and they really didn't add much for me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

From his comments:

Quote

Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.⁶⁸

Atonement in the Book of Mormon includes, but involves much more than the satisfaction of an objective legal requirement, a paying of justice:

Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.⁶⁹

All I am describing is justice, and why we have a Savior. I am not saying justice = atonement. I am saying justice demands equality. Thus, the law was an eye for an eye. We see the law required the life of him who murdered. WHY? Because justice demands equality - to return the parties to an equal footing. It's not really about "punishment" but justice and equality. The atonement served to answer this demand for justice if we accept it. If not, the demands of justice remain according to the law. Thus, as the scriptures sayeth, the debtor must suffer the "punishment" or consequence until the debt is repaid, and the Father enforces it. I'm sorry if that seems harsh to you, but it is the scriptural reality. I'm not sure what you are trying to get me to see or understand by referring me back to Kevin's post. I understand what he is posting about just fine.

Now, as to the rest of what I was saying - Yes, the atonement is also Yeshua's teaching to us. That is what makes it greater than justice. Is that what you don't accept about what I am saying?

RevTestament · November 24, 2016

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Bingo.

We need to get back to that.

Again, what I have been saying is that the atonement is His great teaching. "The moral influence theory" seems to speak to that. Another name seems to be the "exemplar" theory. Well, that is not new to me. I have been saying that for more than 20 years. That was my great epiphany regarding the atonement. When I realized this, I felt I understood the atonement. Now, for those who doubt that the atonement was an example, I have many scriptures to refer them to including D&C:

1 Peter 2:21

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

John 13:15

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons—

128 And this shall be the order of the house of the presidency of the school: He that is appointed to be president, or teacher, shall be found standing in his place, in the house which shall be prepared for him.

129 Therefore, he shall be first in the house of God, in a place that the congregation in the house may hear his words carefully and distinctly, not with loud speech.

130 And when he cometh into the house of God, for he should be first in the house—behold, this is beautiful, that he may be an example—

131 Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant.

132 And when any shall come in after him, let the teacher arise, and, with uplifted hands to heaven, yea, even directly, salute his brother or brethren with these words:

133 Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen.

RevTestament · November 24, 2016

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love,

Incidentally, that last scripture speaks to the "unchanging nature of God" and why the modern doctrine of the trinity is wrong. Jesus is not "immutable" as that doctrine would have us believe. However, His righteousness is unchanging. Thus, this describes my interpretation of the house of Elohim to a T. I believe Elohim means something like family/house of immovable powers/forces/stone. This scripture from D&C reflects such immovable will or determination.

mfbukowski · November 24, 2016

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again, what I have been saying is that the atonement is His great teaching. "The moral influence theory" seems to speak to that. Another name seems to be the "exemplar" theory. Well, that is not new to me. I have been saying that for more than 20 years. That was my great epiphany regarding the atonement. When I realized this, I felt I understood the atonement. Now, for those who doubt that the atonement was an example, I have many scriptures to refer them to including D&C:

1 Peter 2:21

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

John 13:15

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons—

128 And this shall be the order of the house of the presidency of the school: He that is appointed to be president, or teacher, shall be found standing in his place, in the house which shall be prepared for him.

129 Therefore, he shall be first in the house of God, in a place that the congregation in the house may hear his words carefully and distinctly, not with loud speech.

130 And when he cometh into the house of God, for he should be first in the house—behold, this is beautiful, that he may be an example—

131 Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant.

132 And when any shall come in after him, let the teacher arise, and, with uplifted hands to heaven, yea, even directly, salute his brother or brethren with these words:

133 Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen.

I have read the scriptures. It is their interpretation that is important. I see something different than what you see. What of the subjective vs objective atonement in Hansen's article?

Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

Recommended Posts

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content