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

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

If God is unchangeable he cannot interact with his children or be the God who weeps. He cannot progress, nor can his children. Righteousness is an abstraction in language, of course he is always righteous, or he would not be God.

Edited November 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

On November 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

I'm interested in this little detail from your longer post. Vogel suggests he made them from tin; however, tin does not match the details given by those who saw and touched them. What material do think he used?

Do you have evidence that Joseph knew or had access to the Enoch legends to which you refer?

[LittleNipper]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

Parables are stories that reveal truth. They maybe fictional or they maybe factual. I believe Jesus being God had a treasure trove of human incidents to choose from and didn't have to make up anything. It would be like me saying, :There once was a great vessel which was claimed to be unsinkable. It was said the God Himself could sink that vessel... Unfortunately, God didn't need to ---- a great mountain of ice did it for Him. And because this vessel was revered to be unsinkable there were not enough lifeboats available for all the passengers on board. And many didn't even attempt to enter any of the lifeboats until it was nearly too late. This resulted in more drowning then should have. True story with a message. The story is known to me and it suits a purpose intended.  

Another question might be ---- would God lie to inspire? I don't believe this is impossible it would undermine truth by making it appear trite.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

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

Yes, but within that set we also find a group which actually understand that Mormonism is fully humanistic and based on natural law -- which is quickly rejected by other so-called liberal Mormons, and as blatant apostasy by so-called conservative Mormons.  Can the gap be bridged?

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but within that set we also find a group which actually understand that Mormonism is fully humanistic and based on natural law -- which is quickly rejected by other so-called liberal Mormons, and as blatant apostasy by so-called conservative Mormons.  Can the gap be bridged?

We need a critical mass and that is not easy to obtain.  We are so mired in Protestant theology and the subsequent correspondence theory of truth, that I am beginning to doubt people will see it.  Frankly I think one of the main problems is that those who do understand it work for BYU and fear they will be seen as "blatant apostates" if they openly advocate the philosophy as it is, and so they end up writing cutsie books for the general membership and never get down to an alternate theory of truth.

There are plenty of phenomenologists at BYU who totally get this stuff, but do they publish on it?   I have not seen it

Within our community we have our own version of "political correctness" and the idea of contextual truth is definitely not in the set of orthodox beliefs, yet many believe it silently.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

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

There is much in both Bible and Book of Mormon which is clearly unbelievable or preposterous.  Some of that judgment is based on our own lack of knowledge about the world of the past, while much else depends on accepting miraculous or very unusual events which abrogate natural law.  However, evaluating the historicity of everything in the Bible or BofM entails some hard choices:  How to account for descriptions of events for which  there is a lack of adequate evidence (I'm not talking parables here)?  How to account for systematic synchronisms and other correlations which should not be possible?  Not possible simply because it is statistically unlikely, and the law of parsimony is thereby violated if we try to account for everything as fiction.  Any work of literature can be tested for historicity.

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

How then does the BofM engage in authentic word-play using ancient linguistic sources?  How then does it repeatedly employ ancient literary tropes?  So, are you arguing that God inserts that authentic stuff to give His fiction verisimilitude?

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

I don't have a problem with this, but I do wonder what you mean in the application phase:  Is that what Bob Dylan meant when he attributed the source of his poetry to God?

[Glenn101]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is much in both Bible and Book of Mormon which is clearly unbelievable or preposterous.  Some of that judgment is based on our own lack of knowledge about the world of the past, while much else depends on accepting miraculous or very unusual events which abrogate natural law.

Maybe that would be better stated as miraculous or very unusual events which abrogate natural law as far as we currently understand it. I believe that God fully acts within natural laws which we do not fully understand nor maybe even have an inkling as to their nature.

Glenn

[flameburns623]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

Some quotes which might further the conversation. They reflect much of my approach to Scripture, ancient or latter-day:

"[My friend who is a Rabbi said], 'That's something about you Christians which never made much sense to me as a Jew. We don't read stories in the Bible looking for beliefs. We read them looking for meaning. Most of us aren't literalists, and we aren't looking for timeless, abstract statements about reality. We're looking for meaning to guide us in the predicaments of life, to help us to know who we are, why we're here, where we're going, to help us be better people so we can heal the world. And we never let one interpretation end the conversation. We see our sacred stories as bottomless wells of meaning'."

Brian McLaren

". . . . A novel, like a myth or any great work of art, can become an initiation that helps us to make a painful rite of passage from one phase of life, one state of mind, to another. A novel, like a myth, teaches us to see the world differently; it shows us how to look into our own hearts and to see our world from a perspective that goes beyond our own self-interest . . . Theology is-- or should be-- a species of poetry,which read quickly or encountered in a hubbub of noise makes no sense. You have to open yourself to a poem with a quiet, receptive mind, in the same way you might listen to a difficult piece of music... If you seize upon a poem and try to extort its meaning before you are ready, it remains opaque. If you bring your own personal agenda to bear upon it, the poem will close upon itself like a clam, because you have denied its unique and separate identity, its inviolate holiness".

Karen Armstrong

"If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, of self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology".

Karen Armstrong

“The first question, and the most important one, is whether the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scriptures . . . Did such a move toward a closed canon of scriptures ultimately (and unconsciously) limit the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church? More precisely, does the recognition of absoluteness of the biblical canon minimize the presence and activity of God in the church today? . . . On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the Church now calls its Bible? . . . . If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?”

Lee M. McDonald

Many biblical verses are like ink blot tests, revealing more about us than about the text in question.

Harold S. Kushner

"The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period".

Montefiore, Hugh

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm interested in this little detail from your longer post. Vogel suggests he made them from tin; however, tin does not match the details given by those who saw and touched them. What material do think he used?

Do you have evidence that Joseph knew or had access to the Enoch legends to which you refer?

Bernard, I agree with Vogel's interpretation that the eight witness had a visionary experience of the plates. I find Martin Harris's reported statement very telling, which is that the eight witnesses saw the plates in vision, and for that reason the witnesses were hesitant to sign the testimony of eight witnesses document. This is supported by John Whitmer's statement that he was shown the plates by supernatural means, the doctrine and covenants scripture that says all who see the plates are shown them by God's power, and by Lucy Mack's account stating that an ancient nephite brought the plates to the 8 witnesses in the family grove and took them away after (the presence of an ancient nephite strongly suggests some type of spiritual experience). If visionary experience mediated the witnesses interaction with the plates, then all kinds of possibilities open up, meaning the witnesses could have been handling one thing and seeing another, or they could have been experiencing the plates entirely in vision.

Mary Whitmer's experience with Moroni and the plates also has a couple markers of visionary experience. Again, she is dealing with an angelic though not glorified being. She doesn't handle the plates herself, though I think this is totally plausible in visionary experience, similar to out of body experiences that seem more real than typical reality to the experiencer. Lastly, Moroni vanishes into thin air at the end of the experience.

Joseph's first experience with the plates seemed to have also been mediated by spiritual experience. He tried to take them and couldn't. He set them down and they disappeared and reappeared in the cement box. Then, when Joseph eventually took the plates home, Josiah Stowell, the only eye witness whose experience we don't have reason to believe involved visionary experience, said he saw the corner of the plates, which was uncovered when Joseph passed them through the window. Stowell specified that what he saw appeared to be a stone of a greenish caste. It's also telling that many people were allowed to heft the plates while covered and some people handled them, but actually looking at the plates was always off the table.

Lastly, when we turn to accounts of returning the plates, they also have markers that suggest some kind of vision is involved. Examples include the hill opening up and various plates sinking into the wall when Orin Porter Rockwell (I think that's who it was) tried to grab them.

Basically, I think descriptions of the gold plates are most likely descriptions of visionary experiences and not representative of the physical object that Joseph Smith had in his possession.
 

On the Enoch legend, yes, there is data. This is cut and pasted from an earlier post in the thread:
 

Quote

 

Joseph Smith Sr. was made a Master Mason in 1818(?) in Canandaigua. Hyrum Smith was member of the Palmyra Mount Moriah lodge contemporary with the Book of Mormon dictation. Oliver Cowdery was a freemason, though I haven't found a source dating when he joined. Also, the antimasonic movement started in 1826 in Batavia New York (60 miiles distant), and exploded throughout the area and the country. There were various publications sharing masonic ceremonies, etc., and it's easy to imagine that in such an environment that it would have been easy for non-masons to learn masonic lore. In fact, the movement started with a kidnapping, allegedly performed by masons, and the a petition by the wife, Lucinda Pendleton Morgan (later married name of Harris) of the man who was kidnapped, bears the name Joseph Smith. Whether this is JS jr or sr or some other Joseph Smith is impossible to say. However this same lady does join the church in 1834 and becomes one of the polyandrous wives of JS jr.

Another early evidence pointing to JS' knowledge of Freemasonry can be found in Joseph Smith Sr's 1828 interview with a newspaper reporter, as presented by Don Bradley at a past Fair Conference. JS Sr. tells the story of a Nephite leader finding the Urim and Thummim and taking it into the Tabernacle where he talks to God about it, The conversation between God and the leader uses language that is a close match to masonic ceremony of the time period, and Mormon temple goers recognize the language from the endowment as well.

Generally it's thought that JS doesn't become associated with freemasonry until 1842, but there is at least one other evidence pointing to his knowledge of freemasonry in 1834(5). In his translation of Princess Kitumen from the Egyptian papyrus he uses masonic dating for the two or three dates given in the short text (found on JSP). Masonic dating consists of counting forwards from a 4000 B.C. Adam's fall start date (3000 B.C. becomes 1000), and is used generally in freemasonry, but not so much in Egyptian.

 

I'll also point you to a couple of faithful Mormon scholars who have addressed the connection. The first link is to Reed C. Durham's infamous lecture, "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" He was the first to discover the connections between the Book of Mormon and the masonic Enoch legend among other things. However, his presentation was highly controversial (apparently it turned Leonard Arrington's head which was no small task), and the church asked him not to publish and issue a letter of apology. He complied and he was offered a promotion to be director of CES, which I think he turned down. Anyways, he never published, but a transcription of his presentation began circulating very quickly. You can find the address in various sources in print and online. The link I'm provided is just the first copy that popped up on Google. The second presentation is by a more contemporary Mormon scholar, Cheryl Bruno, who specifically argues that the Masonic legend shaped how Joseph and others related his experiences with the plates.

http://www.mormonismi.net/temppeli/durhamin_puhe1974.shtml

http://www.academia.edu/14586250/The_Book_of_the_Law_Masonic_Usages_in_the_Story_of_the_Coming_Forth_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Parables are stories that reveal truth. They maybe fictional or they maybe factual. I believe Jesus being God had a treasure trove of human incidents to choose from and didn't have to make up anything. It would be like me saying, :There once was a great vessel which was claimed to be unsinkable. It was said the God Himself could sink that vessel... Unfortunately, God didn't need to ---- a great mountain of ice did it for Him. And because this vessel was revered to be unsinkable there were not enough lifeboats available for all the passengers on board. And many didn't even attempt to enter any of the lifeboats until it was nearly too late. This resulted in more drowning then should have. True story with a message. The story is known to me and it suits a purpose intended.  

Another question might be ---- would God lie to inspire? I don't believe this is impossible it would undermine truth by making it appear trite.

Little Nipper, we are coming from two very different places. While historicity appears to be a tenet of your faith, which you extend to parables, a genre widely recognized as fiction, my faith is willing to throw out historicity entirely. My faith survives in tact even if it turns out Jesus wasn't an actual historical person (my guess is that he was, but I don't need him to be). I think we should probably just agree to disagree.

[Avatar4321]

The more I learn about the Book of Mormon, the more convinced I am that it is true. In fact this evening I was reading about how alma blessed amuleks house after he ate and was full. An interesting passage considering the command in Duet to give thanks and blessings when you are full. A command mostly ignored and forgotten by Christendom.

The Book is true. And I'm grateful for the light I find in it every day.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Avatar4321

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is much in both Bible and Book of Mormon which is clearly unbelievable or preposterous.  Some of that judgment is based on our own lack of knowledge about the world of the past, while much else depends on accepting miraculous or very unusual events which abrogate natural law.  However, evaluating the historicity of everything in the Bible or BofM entails some hard choices:  How to account for descriptions of events for which  there is a lack of adequate evidence (I'm not talking parables here)?  How to account for systematic synchronisms and other correlations which should not be possible?  Not possible simply because it is statistically unlikely, and the law of parsimony is thereby violated if we try to account for everything as fiction.  Any work of literature can be tested for historicity.

How then does the BofM engage in authentic word-play using ancient linguistic sources?  How then does it repeatedly employ ancient literary tropes?  So, are you arguing that God inserts that authentic stuff to give His fiction verisimilitude?

I don't have a problem with this, but I do wonder what you mean in the application phase:  Is that what Bob Dylan meant when he attributed the source of his poetry to God?

I admit to the presence of Hebrew word-play (though I'm not clear on what using ancient linguistic sources refers to) and ancient literary tropes in the Book of Mormon. I am open to the possibility that they made it there by "supernatural" or spiritual means. Personally, I believe that revelation can occur in conjunction with creative process, and that instead of being controlled by God, it may be directed by some innate gift, that perhaps God gifts or maybe humans can just tap into.

Edgar Allen Poe is an interesting example of someone who held strong beliefs about intuition (and I'm making the argument that there is a definite link between intuition and revelation), whose creative works have possibly predicted future events and outlined physical principles of the universe. Eureka, the work Poe considered to be his greatest creative work, and he specifically asked that it only be considered a creative work, outlines the big bang along with spiritual principles that have been compared to Joseph Smith's teachings and revelations by scholars. Here is some relevant but light reading on Poe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe#Physics_and_cosmology and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27480/did-edgar-allan-poe-predict-a-shipwreck

Distance viewing is another interesting example of a revelation-like user directed experience that has produced verifiable results, along with plenty of noise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

All of that being said, I'm also open to more skeptical secular explanations.

What do you mean by your last questions: "I don't have a problem with this, but I do wonder what you mean in the application phase:  Is that what Bob Dylan meant when he attributed the source of his poetry to God?"

Edited November 25, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Bernard, I agree with Vogel's interpretation that the eight witness had a visionary experience of the plates. I find Martin Harris's reported statement very telling, which is that the eight witnesses saw the plates in vision, and for that reason the witnesses were hesitant to sign the testimony of eight witnesses document. This is supported by John Whitmer's statement that he was shown the plates by supernatural means, the doctrine and covenants scripture that says all who see the plates are shown them by God's power, and by Lucy Mack's account stating that an ancient nephite brought the plates to the 8 witnesses in the family grove and took them away after (the presence of an ancient nephite strongly suggests some type of spiritual experience). If visionary experience mediated the witnesses interaction with the plates, then all kinds of possibilities open up, meaning the witnesses could have been handling one thing and seeing another, or they could have been experiencing the plates entirely in vision.

Mary Whitmer's experience with Moroni and the plates also has a couple markers of visionary experience. Again, she is dealing with an angelic though not glorified being. She doesn't handle the plates herself, though I think this is totally plausible in visionary experience, similar to out of body experiences that seem more real than typical reality to the experiencer. Lastly, Moroni vanishes into thin air at the end of the experience.

Joseph's first experience with the plates seemed to have also been mediated by spiritual experience. He tried to take them and couldn't. He set them down and they disappeared and reappeared in the cement box. Then, when Joseph eventually took the plates home, Josiah Stowell, the only eye witness whose experience we don't have reason to believe involved visionary experience, said he saw the corner of the plates, which was uncovered when Joseph passed them through the window. Stowell specified that what he saw appeared to be a stone of a greenish caste. It's also telling that many people were allowed to heft the plates while covered and some people handled them, but actually looking at the plates was always off the table.

Lastly, when we turn to accounts of returning the plates, they also have markers that suggest some kind of vision is involved. Examples include the hill opening up and various plates sinking into the wall when Orin Porter Rockwell (I think that's who it was) tried to grab them.

Basically, I think descriptions of the gold plates are most likely descriptions of visionary experiences and not representative of the physical object that Joseph Smith had in his possession.
 

On the Enoch legend, yes, there is data. This is cut and pasted from an earlier post in the thread:
 

I'll also point you to a couple of faithful Mormon scholars who have addressed the connection. The first link is to Reed C. Durham's infamous lecture, "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" He was the first to discover the connections between the Book of Mormon and the masonic Enoch legend among other things. However, his presentation was highly controversial (apparently it turned Leonard Arrington's head which was no small task), and the church asked him not to publish and issue a letter of apology. He complied and he was offered a promotion to be director of CES, which I think he turned down. Anyways, he never published, but a transcription of his presentation began circulating very quickly. You can find the address in various sources in print and online. The link I'm provided is just the first copy that popped up on Google. The second presentation is by a more contemporary Mormon scholar, Cheryl Bruno, who specifically argues that the Masonic legend shaped how Joseph and others related his experiences with the plates.

http://www.mormonismi.net/temppeli/durhamin_puhe1974.shtml

http://www.academia.edu/14586250/The_Book_of_the_Law_Masonic_Usages_in_the_Story_of_the_Coming_Forth_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

 I am familiar with these things, but thanks anyway. My questions were simply about the materials Joseph used to make the plates (Vogel said tin) and Joseph's access to the Enoch legends.

[LittleNipper]

I 1 Corinthians 15:1-32

New International Version The Resurrection of Christ 1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. The Resurrection of the Dead 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. 29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Edited November 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

I must say, that I firmly believe the Bible is true and the inspired Word of God. I also believe that the Book of Mormon (though containing quotes from the Bible) is in all historic fact (in part or in the whole) a late 18th century/early 19th century novel, which was originally meant to both uplift and entertain ----- much as THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII and BEN HUR. It appeared at at time of great religious fervor and was the means through which Joseph Smith determined to gain notoriety and a following. 

The Bible stands alone without further need of enlightenment from other texts as a complete and sealed presentation of the Messiah.  

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

... Basically, I think descriptions of the gold plates are most likely descriptions of visionary experiences and not representative of the physical object that Joseph Smith had in his possession. ...

Mmm-kay.  To each, his own, I suppose.  I may be entirely alone in thinking along these lines, but if "visionary experiences ... not representative of [a] physical object" are sufficient to describe all of the witnesses' experiences with the plates, one wonders about all of the "see[ing], and handl[ing], and heft[ing]" (along with a complete lack of mention of supernatural elements) going on in the experience of the Eight Witnesses with the plates.  

To me, it's as though the Lord said, "OK, some of you are of a more spiritual bent and are going to be most impressed by a supernatural, visionary experience with a being from another world so here you go," and He provided the Testimony of Three Witnesses, while, on the other hand, he said, "OK, some of you are of a much more practical bent and are going to be more impressed by a less supernatural, less visionary, more natural, more practical experience with the tangible physical object that is this collection of plates, so here you go," and He provided the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.  The latter experience seems entirely too physical to be dismissed as simply a crackpot's (or Eight Crackpots', if you will) "visionary experience."  Then, too, the Book of Mormon seems, to me, to be entirely too obsessed with its own source material to be a good fraud.

That's also why Ann Taves' explanation that Joseph Smith created the plates as companion to his otherwise-otherworldly experiences doesn't cut it for me, but, hey, maybe I'm simply an unsophisticated rube.  

Your mileage likely varies.  

Edited November 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I must say, that I firmly believe the Bible is true and the inspired Word of God. I also believe that the Book of Mormon (though containing quotes from the Bible) is in all historic fact (in part or in the whole) a late 18th century/early 19th century novel, which was originally meant to both uplift and entertain ----- much as THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII and BEN HUR. It appeared at at time of great religious fervor and was the means through which Joseph Smith determined to gain notoriety and a following. 

The Bible stands alone without further need of enlightenment from other texts as a complete and sealed presentation of the Messiah.  

Well, OK, then, Li'l Nipster!  If that's what you believe it to be "in all historic fact," then, Q.E.D.  "Shut 'er down, Clancy!  She's pumpin' mud!"  

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm interested in this little detail from your longer post. Vogel suggests he made them from tin; however, tin does not match the details given by those who saw and touched them. What material do think he used?

Do you have evidence that Joseph knew or had access to the Enoch legends to which you refer?

"Knew or had access to"?!  Silly Don Bernardo!  It's enough to prove the mere simultaneous existence of the source material from which Brother Joseph so obviously cribbed the Book of Mormon!  Why, I'll bet he simply trotted on down to the Palmyra Public Library, logged onto Ye Olde Internet, and ...   (I'm still eagerly awaiting Bill Hamblin's promised intellectual biography, Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years) . 

[LittleNipper]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, OK, then, Li'l Nipster!  If that's what you believe it to be "in all historic fact," then, Q.E.D.  "Shut 'er down, Clancy!  She's pumpin' mud!"  

The truth will stand up to confrontation and scrutiny. The early Church faced it daily, yet they didn't run from it or simply throw the switch. They were convinced of the truth and not afraid of shadows. 

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You may wish to look at the following regarding the Bible canon http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/7_The_New_Testament_Canon/

The Fundamentalist Evangelical Bible Believing view of the Bible (both Old & New Testaments) is that it is HIS STORY. God created perfectly. Man listened to a lie and as a result lost his perfect relationship with God. God promises to save. God chooses a nation through which the Savior would come. The Savior arrives primarily to be the perfect final sacrifice, The Savior is risen from the dead giving hope of a new body to all who believe in Him. Christ ascends and will return to claim His redeemed also known Universally as His Church (the body of ALL believers). Christ then along with His Church will return to reign and rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years. After that will be the final showdown with Satan and his followers (Armageddon) and then FINAL JUDGEMENT.  This will culminate in recreated New Space and Matter (heaven & Earth) and a return to "Eden" (New Jerusalem) exactly as God always intended it to be. 

The reality of God seems a joke to those who wish to fully control their own destiny. 

 

Little Nipper:

It is a good thing for you  to be in a place where you trust the Scriptures to the degree that you do.

There are spiritual dangers (pride,  even Phariseeism; and/or a myopic fundamentalism which denouunces anyone who disagrees as one numbered among the damned. Such attitudes shut down any opportunity for discussion and in extreme cases can impel one to bullying or even violence against the less-fervent). 

Another pertinent citation:

Religion is at it's best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves. It is at it's worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everyone else.

Archibald MacLeish

But, in general,  a simple and straightforward faith is good, where one can maintain it. You might look into Fowler's Stages of Faith and Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development,  for some insights into where various participants on this message board see themselves.  And where they see people such as yourself.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/fowler_stage.htm

http://www.education.com/reference/article/kohlbergs-moral-reasoning/

Apart from Kushner,  all those I cited in my earlier post are or were Christians. All are (or were, when they lived) believers in God. All believe(d) the Bible (meaning the Old Testament in Kushner's case) is inspired and "true". But not true in a strictly literal, scientific, or historical sense, the way that you apparently believe the Scriptures to be true. Many members of this board share a similar paradigm. 

Again, so long as such people avoid intellectual snobbery, so long as they do not look down upon you as a philistine,  dialogue is possible to maintain.  

Be blessed!

Edited November 25, 2016 by flameburns623
Added links

[Benjamin Seeker]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-kay.  To each, his own, I suppose.  I may be entirely alone in thinking along these lines, but if "visionary experiences ... not representative of [a] physical object" are sufficient to describe all of the witnesses' experiences with the plates, one wonders about all of the "see[ing], and handl[ing], and heft[ing]" (along with a complete lack of mention of supernatural elements) going on in the experience of the Eight Witnesses with the plates.  

To me, it's as though the Lord said, "OK, some of you are of a more spiritual bent and are going to be most impressed by a supernatural, visionary experience with a being from another world so here you go," and He provided the Testimony of Three Witnesses, while, on the other hand, he said, "OK, some of you are of a much more practical bent and are going to be more impressed by a less supernatural, less visionary, more natural, more practical experience with the tangible physical object that is this collection of plates, so here you go," and He provided the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.  The latter experience seems entirely too physical to be dismissed as simply a crackpot's (or Eight Crackpots', if you will) "visionary experience."  Then, too, the Book of Mormon seems, to me, to be entirely too obsessed with its own source material to be a good fraud.

That's also why Ann Taves' explanation that Joseph Smith created the plates as companion to his otherwise-otherworldly experiences doesn't cut it for me, but, hey, maybe I'm simply an unsophisticated rube.  

Your mileage likely varies.  

Just to be clear, I think it's most likely that handling and hefting was with a physical object, probably made by JS, and any seeing of the plates was mediated by visinoary experience. Like you inferreed, we have very different views. Above, I cited the various pieces of evidence that suggest the 8 witnesses' experience had visionary elements and wasn't just a plain look at the plates like the document infers. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I am familiar with these things, but thanks anyway. My questions were simply about the materials Joseph used to make the plates (Vogel said tin) and Joseph's access to the Enoch legends.

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Knew or had access to"?!  Silly Don Bernardo!  It's enough to prove the mere simultaneous existence of the source material from which Brother Joseph so obviously cribbed the Book of Mormon!  Why, I'll bet he simply trotted on down to the Palmyra Public Library, logged onto Ye Olde Internet, and ...   (I'm still eagerly awaiting Bill Hamblin's promised intellectual biography, Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years) . 

Bernard, to answer your question more directly, based on what I wrote above, the plates could have been made from tin, and the witnesses' visual description may have varied from that due to the visionary nature of their interaction with the plates. Though from Stowell's description, It appears that he maybe brought something else home entirely at first.

On access to the Enoch legend, Joseph Smith Sr., a documented Master Mason (1818, Canandaigua, NY), is a possible access point. Cheryl Bruno, in the presentation I linked to above, cites a Joseph Smith Sr. description of the plates that has the emblems of freemasonry on the first plate and has the spectacles under the lid of the first plate, consistent with a variant of the Masonic legend, which she goes into detail on. A version of the legend was published and available in the Palmyra New York area as early as 1801(or 3, if I remember correctly). Like I inferred above, in the antimasonry movement which exploded in 1826, all kinds of exposes were being printed and being discussed. So there you have general access through available publication (possibly multiple) and through a cultural phenomenon, and you have specific access through Joseph Smith Sr. As far as evidence that JS not only had access to but also knew the legends, not only does the Book of Mormon and it's latterday coming forth  reflect knowledge of the masonic legend, so does the Enoch account from the Pearl of Great Price. In the book of Moses, Enoch learns the name of God in the pure language, foresees the flood and Noah, all within a significant vision of God. Two separate JS revelations reflect the masonic legend. From a secular standpoint, these two revelations and the description of how the plates all being from the same time period (1827-1830), and their inclusion of masonic elements with freemasonry being one of the hottest cultural topics of the time period and locale (don't forget the antimsaonry movement started in Batavia, NY and spread across the U.S., and Batavia is 60 miles to Palmyra, and it's possible that one of Mormonism's JSs signed a petition with the subject of the disappearance of Captain Morgan, whose dissapearance started the movement in the first place), this is all evidence that strongly suggests JS knew of the masonic legend.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

Again, this is the way I now see the atonement: the physical suffering and death Yeshua endured at the time was answering the needs of justice. That is the usual answer I got when I said I did not understand the atonement as a young man. That is what Hansen is calling the objective atonement. If one accepts that atonement for them, they can repent and be forgiven and saved. I believe most Christians get this, and that the atonement has been available to them, and that some form of salvation is offered them.

Now, I personally believe that there was more to the atonement than just offering to meet the demands of justice on everyone's behalf. I believe Christ was making an example of Himself as to how we can follow Him. To what end I ask? I believe this is what Hansen is calling the "subjective atonement." Why subjective? Because there is not a hard and fast rule attached to it. If we do choose to follow Jesus is He obligated to offer us co-rule with Him? I do believe He does reward those who follow, but heaven has an order. This seems contrary to what most Christians think. Not everyone will receive the celestial kingdom. Not everyone will receive the highest orders of heaven. This is at least partially due to this subjective nature of the atonement which is what I believe you are calling it. It is dependent upon their understanding and willingness to follow, and upon Christ's willingness to offer His hand of brotherhood. It is not like everyone in this world can meet some rule, and automatically make it. There is a limited number of seats...by the design of the Father. Not everyone is chosen. Not everyone is foreordained. There is an element of subjectivity here. That is the way I see it. I am sure that is not quite what you are trying to communicate, but it is the reality of the atonement as I see it. I don't normally talk about it this way, and Jesus didn't flat out talk about it this way. He just went about a did it. He lived it, and asked others to follow. He led by inspiration, and promised eternal life to all who followed. There was not much in the way of "limiting language" which came from Him. However, there are some examples:

Mark 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

 37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

Bernard, to answer your question more directly, based on what I wrote above, the plates could have been made from tin, and the witnesses' visual description may have varied from that due to the visionary nature of their interaction with the plates. Though from Stowell's description, It appears that he maybe brought something else home entirely at first.

Tin plate does not match the physical descriptions of the Book of Mormon plates. While the witnesses describe them as the thickness of common tin plate, the color is wrong, they are not pliable, nor do they rustle like thick paper when rubbed by the thumb. Tin can be perforated and stamped, but it would be daunting to engrave plates on both sides with very small characters. Witnesses would have been very familiar with tin and would have spotted the fraud immediately. Sheets of tin in the described volume of the plates would probably not be as heavy as those who lifted them said. I don't think tin is a good suggestion. But anything is possible with visionaries.

[Calm]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all

""I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address, that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, Jr., has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. And in this thing the wisdom of the wise most assuredly has perished. Therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve.""

"During an 1839 exchange with Theodore Turley, the Latter-day Saint business agent who had bravely stayed behind in Missouri to settle financial affairs there after the Mormon expulsion, John confessed to doubts about the Book of Mormon. Speaking of the original text on the plates, he said, "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not." 

Nonetheless, he insisted, "I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.""

Doesn't sound very "visionary" to me.