The strangest part of The Book of Mormon

[RevTestament]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:51 AM, Josh Khinder said:

The Creeds teach The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Co-Eternal like the Book of Mormon teaches for starters 

 

On 6/8/2018 at 10:29 AM, Josh Khinder said:

As it seems you are not going to let up, I will be happy to show the ways the scriptures do not comport with the doctrine of the Trinity, but first let me clarify that D&C is not the Book of Mormon. 

D & C says God created man after His own likeness. Trinitarians generally believe the Father has no corporeal form despite Exodus, John 5, and Yeshua being in his express image. If Yeshua is in His express image, doesn't that mean that Yeshua looks like Him? Does that include having scars in His hands and feet like the name YHWH implies? Isn't the Father called YHWH as well in the OT? If Yeshua shall be called the Father, does that mean He will give up His body which He resurrected to show us the way in order to conform to your doctrine of the trinity of the Father not having a body? Doesn't your doctrine of the trinity say that the Father is not the Son? So where does this leave the Son when He shall be called the Father per Isaiah 9:6? Without His body? Or not to be the Father? Where do the scriptures say that the Son is "eternally begotten" or "begotten before all ages/worlds" like your doctrine of the trinity proclaims? Instead, don't the scriptures proclaim that He was begotten when His Father said to Him "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee"? What was He before the Father adopted Him as His Son by saying unto Him "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5. 

You see in its attempt to make the Son always existent as the Son, the creeds took away his changing status, so to essentially make him unbegotten of the Father. In doing this, however, they also took away His rightful inheritance as our Father in which He will hold the government of the Father.

These are the faults of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one Elohim or family of immovable force is not a scriptural problem. It is the doctrines of the Trinity which you do not speak of which are the problems - and I would add insurmountable and unscriptural problems which serve to prevent our Lord from receiving His inheritance as our Father, and receiving the government of the Father. So the question becomes, who will you continue to serve? The true Son who shall inherit the holy mountains of the Father and receive the government of the Father, and be called the Father rather than the Son, or your immutable, unscriptural Savior who is creedally doomed never to be the Father, nor to receive His rightful inheritance of the Father? I do and will serve the our Lord until and when He becomes "the everlasting Father."  

[clarkgoble]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:04 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

I have no problem with LDS who want to shift the Garden of Eden to Jackson County or the concept of a promised land to Mesoamerica, but the weight of history, and numerous anachronisms in the text, makes it a very heavy and difficult task. And I don't feel that the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, unless you start saying things like "of course it was Columbus."

Shift the garden? Wasn't that explicitly done by Joseph Smith? 

I think you raise a good point regarding the Columbus prophecy and the Saints of God. Although I also would say that the vision is an apocalypse and thus probably isn't going to have a one to one correspondence with history. Particularly when cast into a cosmic dualistic battle. (Particularly chapter 14) 

To those discussing Columbus as evil, I'd note that God often works through evil people. I don't think Cyrus was particularly a righteous guy even if he restored Judah to Israel. Likewise if Nebuchadnezzar was acting as God's will, as deutero-Isaiah presents him, then that's kind of analogous to Columbus and company, isn't it? I think people want to read prophecy as if God is micromanaging everything. However typically what he does is just make small nudges, stop helping people who are wicket, and let human nature do what it does best.

Comparing Nephi's vision with the prophecies in Isaiah is worth doing before getting too upset about Columbus. Culturally we have this weird assumption God only does good things. But so the spirit goes and whispers to people that they should cross the oceans. Maybe dozens or even hundreds heart it. Most don't act upon it or are unsuccessful in trying. Columbus does. Then he has free will to be just or be a complete monster and embrace slavery and pillage. He picks the latter. Doesn't mean he wasn't inspired. Further given the history of the Aztecs, I'm not sure the Spanish were much worse. The history of the world is typically horrible empires run by horrible people doing horrible things. 

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Shift the garden? Wasn't that explicitly done by Joseph Smith? 

For millennia Paradise was placed in the far east, and the vast majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims still place it somewhere in the east. Columbus himself died thinking he had discovered paradise in the Orient, and he seemed to believe that the Spirit had led him there. I don't think he was wrong, rather I think we might expand our understanding of what paradise, and the promised land, include.

"In conclusion, the Admiral [Columbus] says, that the holy theologians and the wise philosophers rightly said that paradise on earth lies at the furthest end of the East, because it is the most temperate place. So, then, these lands that he had newly discovered is, he says, the end of the Orient." - Bartolomé de las Casas

"For my part, although it was tiring for me, I was well-assured that this would be realised no less, and I am so, continually, because it is true that everything will pass away, but not the word of God, and all that he said will come to be fulfilled; regarding which he so clearly spoke concerning these lands through the mouth of Isaiah, in so many places in Scripture... I discovered for them, by divine virtue, three hundred and thirty three leagues of terra firma, at the end of the Orient, and seven hundred named islands, besides those discovered in the first voyage." - Columbus

Obviously Columbus felt Isaiah and the scriptures were speaking of the East Indies and that his discovery of hundreds of islands between Spain and Cambodia (known anciently as Kamara) was fulfillment of prophecy. I don't know who was the first to shift everything exclusively to the Americas. I think Thomas Jefferson and a few others were saying it before Joseph Smith. 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Comparing Nephi's vision with the prophecies in Isaiah is worth doing before getting too upset about Columbus. Culturally we have this weird assumption God only does good things. But so the spirit goes and whispers to people that they should cross the oceans. Maybe dozens or even hundreds heart it. Most don't act upon it or are unsuccessful in trying. Columbus does. Then he has free will to be just or be a complete monster and embrace slavery and pillage. He picks the latter. Doesn't mean he wasn't inspired. Further given the history of the Aztecs, I'm not sure the Spanish were much worse. The history of the world is typically horrible empires run by horrible people doing horrible things. 

True, but there is still that long standing tradition I mentioned earlier, of Israelites who were led from Jerusalem to a promised land in the 6th century BC. They lived seperate from those horrible empires run by horrible people, who were not at all humble like the gentiles Nephi saw in vision. According to this very old tradition, these Israelites were visited by a righteous gentile who after fasting and prayer, was led by God across the waters. I think it a better fit and confirmation that the Book of Mormon narrative is in sync with other ancient Judeo-Christian texts. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Lagrange]

Couldn't help myself.
 

 

[cdowis]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That would mean anachronisms are a logical fallacy. 

"Anachronism" == depends on how you use the term.   Indeed, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your claim of an anachronism -- that something was impossible or very unlikely in that time or location.

Anyway, in a new thread  give us specific example of a BOM anachronism and I will be delighted to demonstrate.  In fact I will begin the conversation with Laban's steel sword     https://bookofmormoncentral.org/qa/how-could-laban-have-possessed-a-sword-of-“most-precious-steel”

Also see 

also 

Look forward to your response. 

Oh yes == "elephants"

At one time all of these were "anachronisms".  I could mention cement cities and barley.  And what about........  well, let;s see whatcha got.

Edited June 12, 2018 by cdowis

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

"Anachronism" == depends on how you use the term.   Indeed, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your claim of an anachronism -- that something was impossible or very unlikely in that time or location.

Anyway, in a new thread  give us specific example of a BOM anachronism and I will be delighted to demonstrate.  In fact I will begin the conversation with Laban's steel sword

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70664-anachronisms-or-not/

Edited June 12, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Paiute]

On 6/11/2018 at 8:19 PM, cdowis said:

"Anachronism" == depends on how you use the term.   Indeed, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your claim of an anachronism -- that something was impossible or very unlikely in that time or location.

Anyway, in a new thread  give us specific example of a BOM anachronism and I will be delighted to demonstrate.  In fact I will begin the conversation with Laban's steel sword     https://bookofmormoncentral.org/qa/how-could-laban-have-possessed-a-sword-of-“most-precious-steel”

Also see 

also 

Look forward to your response. 

Oh yes == "elephants"

At one time all of these were "anachronisms".  I could mention cement cities and barley.  And what about........  well, let;s see whatcha got.

What is a howler is the entire notion and the waste of decades of time that the Hill Cumorah and the final Jaredite and Nephite battles were in Mesoamerica; 

Even when Oliver Cowdrey, the second Elder of the Church, i.e. a member of the First Presidency when the Church was organized in 1830, wrote a series of eight "letters" or essays of the coming forth of the Church and in defense of the Book of Mormon when it was claimed to be a work of fiction plagiarized from the unpublished Spaulding manuscript.

Olive Cowdery wrote as shown in the attached image in seventh "letter" that the final battles were at the Hill Cumorah in New York.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

These eight "letters" were published in then Church newspapers and it was well known in the Church that the final battles were in New York. The Prophet Joseph Smith asked that they be included in his personal history and now can be seen at the Joseph Smith Papers site.

[cdowis]

11 hours ago, Paiute said:

What is a howler is the entire notion and the waste of decades of time that the Hill Cumorah and the final Jaredite and Nephite battles were in Mesoamerica; 

Even when Oliver Cowdrey, the second Elder of the Church, i.e. a member of the First Presidency when the Church was organized in 1830, wrote a series of eight "letters" or essays of the coming forth of the Church and in defense of the Book of Mormon when it was claimed to be a work of fiction plagiarized from the unpublished Spaulding manuscript.

Olive Cowdery wrote as shown in the attached image in seventh "letter" that the final battles were at the Hill Cumorah in New York.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

These eight "letters" were published in then Church newspapers and it was well known in the Church that the final battles were in New York. The Prophet Joseph Smith asked that they be included in his personal history and now can be seen at the Joseph Smith Papers site.

 

"appeal to authority" , "everybody knows" logical fallacy.

"When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" 

What is his source of this statement ==
a vision/revelation,  the angel Moroni told him, he is the prophet and BOM geography is a doctrine of the church,
OR was this just his assumption -- a personal opinion?

Please document your answer from the Joseph Smith Papers. 

I hate to be the one to break to you, but BOM geography  is an issue of fact, not  doctrine. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by cdowis

[Paiute]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

"appeal to authority" , "everybody knows" logical fallacy.

"When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" 

What is his source of this statement ==
a vision/revelation,  the angel Moroni told him, he is the prophet and BOM geography is a doctrine of the church,
OR was this just his assumption -- a personal opinion?

Please document your answer from the Joseph Smith Papers. 

I hate to be the one to break to you, but BOM geography  is an issue of fact, not  doctrine. 

BOM geography is not doctrine.

But the location of the Hill Cumorah and the final Jaredite and Nephite battles are doctrine.

You don’t know the difference?

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

I hate to be the one to break to you, but BOM geography  is an issue of fact, not  doctrine. 

We don't know where the Book of Mormon events took place. The geography is neither fact nor doctrine. It is a matter of opinion.

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Paiute said:

BOM geography is not doctrine.

But the location of the Hill Cumorah and the final Jaredite and Nephite battles are doctrine.

You don’t know the difference?

Heber C. Kimball wrote in 1841 that Joseph Smith walked to the top of a mound that they had located on the bank of the Illinois River. Kimball states, "On the top of this mound there was the appearance of three altars, which had been built of stone, one above another, according to the ancient order; and the ground was strewn over with human bones." That prompted Kimball and the others to dig into the mound after sending for a shovel and a hoe:

"At about one foot deep we discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire; and between two of his ribs we found an Indian arrow, which had evidently been the cause of his death. We took the leg and thigh bones and carried them along with us to Clay County. All four appeared sound."

After continuing on their journey, Kimball reports that it "was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had enquired of the Lord and it was made known in a vision."

----

This would mean that the final battle was in west-central Illinois near Griggsville. That doesn't seem right. So the location of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles are not doctrine, they are a matter of opinion.

[cdowis]

25 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 

This would mean that the final battle was in west-central Illinois near Griggsville. That doesn't seem right. 

It indicates that the war was also waged in the "land northward", where  Zelph lived.  We do not have any of the records for the land northward and little is known about its history.

Search for the Hill Cumorah

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by cdowis

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We don't know where the Book of Mormon events took place. The geography is neither fact nor doctrine. It is a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of unknowable fact on which opinions are both divided and divisive.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Paiute said:

 

But the location of the Hill Cumorah and the final Jaredite and Nephite battles are doctrine.

 

Nothing personal, but I really do not remember raising my hand to sustain you in General Conference.

Edited June 14, 2018 by cdowis

[Paiute]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Nothing personal, but I really do not remember raising my hand to sustain you in General Conference.

Nothing personal taken, thank you.

I guess I'm just better read than you are.

Here are Apostles teaching Church Doctrine; that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred at the Hill Cumorah in New York:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-last-words-of-moroni?lang=eng

Do you remember raising your hand to sustain any of them in General Conference?

And theirs and your Priesthood Line of Authority come through Oliver Cowdery.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Paiute

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

It's a matter of unknowable fact on which opinions are both divided and divisive.

And therefore irrelevant practically to the message of the gospel, and because it IS divisive it is actually a destructive element in the church.  Is this thread leading to unity or division?

Somehow the church has existed without knowing it all these years which proves it is unnecessary to the usefulness of the  spiritual truths in the Book of Mormon.

 

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Paiute said:

Nothing personal taken, thank you.

I guess I'm just better read than you are.

Here are Apostles teaching Church Doctrine; that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred at the Hill Cumorah in New York:

 

I failed to see the word "doctrine"   May I suggest that you look at this article regarding what constitutes doctrine from a First Presidency, 12 Apostles official, inspired, approved (but not canonized)  source.   https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

This source DOES mention the word "doctrine" and basically says that every word that comes forth from an apostle is not considered doctrine but could simply be an opinion.

It's clear we will just have to agree to disagree.  I give you the last word.

[Paiute]

On 6/14/2018 at 8:27 AM, cdowis said:

I failed to see the word "doctrine"   May I suggest that you look at this article regarding what constitutes doctrine from a First Presidency, 12 Apostles official, inspired, approved (but not canonized)  source.   https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

This source DOES mention the word "doctrine" and basically says that every word that comes forth from an apostle is not considered doctrine but could simply be an opinion.

It's clear we will just have to agree to disagree.  I give you the last word.

I'll use your words in my last word:

----------------

   On 6/13/2018 at 6:00 PM,  cdowis said: 

Nothing personal, but I really do not remember raising my hand to sustain you in General Conference.

--------------

I was in attendance during those General Conferences, in 1973 and in 1978. How about you? 

Did you raise your hand to sustain them as Apostles? I did.

Or did you raise your hand to sustain the RLDS Book of Mormon Mesoamerica Theory written here by Louis Edward Hills in the 1920's published in Independence, MO?

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007560520

Thumb through the pages of Hills' book and learn how the RLDS theory was plagiarized by LDS Mesoamerica Scholars:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=2up;seq=4;skin=mobile

 

Do not insult posters by questioning who they sustain.

 

 

 

 

[Paiute]

Look at Pages 131-132 of Hills' book. Sound familiar about the Hill Cumorah in New York?

Same argument used by LDS Mesoamerica scholars, from a RLDS member of an Apostate Church.

"

NEW LIGHT ON AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 131 

and waters, as many of them are already doing, accord ing to recent advices. 

Elder H. A. Stebbins has always been considered one of the best Book of Mormon students we have ever had in the church. He goes on to state the following: 

To return especially to the location of the original hill Cumorah: We find no word by angels or by the voice of the Lord that the hill where Joseph found the plates was the historic hill. No revelation in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants so designates it, and nowhere in his history did Joseph Smith write of it as Cumorah. In Times and Seasons volume 3, page 771, he says "stands a hill," and "this hill," and the angel told him to come to "that place" each year. At the final time he says that he went to "the place" where the plates were deposited. 

1 am aware that Moroni wrote that he made his synopsis of the Jaredite history "from the twenty and four plates," but at what time he did this I do not know. It may have been done before his father's death, to be in preparation for the Lord's purpose that such "account" of the Jaredites should be known in our time. At least Oliver Cowdery's statement of the contents of the box, namely, that it contained a "sketch" of the two peoples seems to make it plain that Moroni did not place the original Jaredite record in the New York hilL I have no objection to that hill being also called Cumorah, with the understanding that the ancient hill Cumorah is still undiscovered, and that sometime its secrets will be revealed and come to the knowledge of God's people.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/11/2018 at 6:00 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

For millennia Paradise was placed in the far east, and the vast majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims still place it somewhere in the east. Columbus himself died thinking he had discovered paradise in the Orient, and he seemed to believe that the Spirit had led him there. I don't think he was wrong, rather I think we might expand our understanding of what paradise, and the promised land, include.

"In conclusion, the Admiral [Columbus] says, that the holy theologians and the wise philosophers rightly said that paradise on earth lies at the furthest end of the East, because it is the most temperate place. So, then, these lands that he had newly discovered is, he says, the end of the Orient." - Bartolomé de las Casas

"For my part, although it was tiring for me, I was well-assured that this would be realised no less, and I am so, continually, because it is true that everything will pass away, but not the word of God, and all that he said will come to be fulfilled; regarding which he so clearly spoke concerning these lands through the mouth of Isaiah, in so many places in Scripture... I discovered for them, by divine virtue, three hundred and thirty three leagues of terra firma, at the end of the Orient, and seven hundred named islands, besides those discovered in the first voyage." - Columbus

Obviously Columbus felt Isaiah and the scriptures were speaking of the East Indies and that his discovery of hundreds of islands between Spain and Cambodia (known anciently as Kamara) was fulfillment of prophecy. I don't know who was the first to shift everything exclusively to the Americas. I think Thomas Jefferson and a few others were saying it before Joseph Smith. 

True, but there is still that long standing tradition I mentioned earlier, of Israelites who were led from Jerusalem to a promised land in the 6th century BC. They lived seperate from those horrible empires run by horrible people, who were not at all humble like the gentiles Nephi saw in vision. According to this very old tradition, these Israelites were visited by a righteous gentile who after fasting and prayer, was led by God across the waters. I think it a better fit and confirmation that the Book of Mormon narrative is in sync with other ancient Judeo-Christian texts. 

Traditionally, "The East", where the sun is resurrected daily, is the abode of God, heaven and all things good.  Likewise "West" is where the sun dies and in all ancient religions, the location of the underworld which is of course called the "underworld" because it is where the sun apparently goes "under" the world, in its journey to be resurrected again in the east.  And of course that symbology works from any location on earth.  There is always somewhere further east and somewhere further west

Obviously for us the idea is relational- there IS no "East" because theoretically one could just continue traveling east forever, circling the globe for eternity.

But now we are talking about geography here and actual locations, not spiritual ways of seeing the world.  There is no location that IS "THE East"

So I think here we might be mixing religious symbology with scientific geographical descriptions as has been done in the past and has even entered our culture as the expression "The Far East" which of course is as much west as it is east in our present way of seeing the world, depending on from where one begins.

In the real world, Missouri could be in the center of the "East" from anywhere in the world if one was traveling east until reaching Missouri .

I don't see the importance of knowing the "real" location of the Garden even IF it was a physical location as opposed to a state of innocence.  It could have been anywhere or nowhere. 

If Joseph said it was in Missouri- there can be no evidence either way to determine that he was right or wrong.

So who cares?

[Rajah Manchou]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Traditionally, "The East", where the sun is resurrected daily, is the abode of God, heaven and all things good.  Likewise "West" is where the sun dies and in all ancient religions, the location of the underworld which is of course called the "underworld" because it is where the sun apparently goes "under" the world, in its journey to be resurrected again in the east.  And of course that symbology works from any location on earth.  There is always somewhere further east and somewhere further west

Obviously for us the idea is relational- there IS no "East" because theoretically one could just continue traveling east forever, circling the globe for eternity.

But now we are talking about geography here and actual locations, not spiritual ways of seeing the world.  There is no location that IS "THE East"

So I think here we might be mixing religious symbology with scientific geographical descriptions as has been done in the past and has even entered our culture as the expression "The Far East" which of course is as much west as it is east in our present way of seeing the world, depending on from where one begins.

In the real world, Missouri could be in the center of the "East" from anywhere in the world if one was traveling east until reaching Missouri .

I don't see the importance of knowing the "real" location of the Garden even IF it was a physical location as opposed to a state of innocence.  It could have been anywhere or nowhere. 

If Joseph said it was in Missouri- there can be no evidence either way to determine that he was right or wrong.

So who cares?

I'm all for just saying the Book of Mormon lands were in "The East" or "The West" and calling it good. That worked for Jews, Christians and Muslims for millennia. But what you are missing is that Mormonism (Joseph Smith) was unsatisfied with such uncertainty and revealed the location. Mormons (not the Book of Mormon) are the only ones that ever claimed to know the exact location of everything. 

The whole geography problem would be resolved if we'd let go of our opinions about the physical location where the Garden of Eden was located and where the Book of Mormon took place. Instead of arguing unknowable things, we could just say it happened on an island, across the Great Waters, at the far ends of the Earth, past the Sabbath River east of Paradise surrounded by a great wall of dark clouds. I'm fine with that, but it doesn't seem to fly with Mormons,

I have been arguing here for a long time that this unidentified location, the Island of the Blessed, has long been known as the home of the Lost Tribes, the Rechabites and the Sons of Moses. But whenever I suggest that the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulek also went there, I'm informed that this cannot ever be true. It is impossible! Joseph said "this continent" and there is no other solution.

So your argument is really with Joseph Smith, the first and only person in history to make the location of the Garden of Eden, and the physical location of the  tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, scriptural fact.

Quote

So who cares?

Joseph Smith.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

Quote

I'm fine with that, but it doesn't seem to fly with Mormons...

There is a desire to make sacred spaces by linking the here and now with the ancient sacred.  Sealings and temples and rituals and clothing...all bringing God down to earth so man can rise up to God.

People visit Jerusalem so they can walk where Jesus walked.

Mormons want to do the same thing in their own backyards.  

Edited June 16, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a desire to make sacred spaces by linking the here and now with the ancient sacred.  Sealings and temples and rituals and clothing...all bringing God down to earth so man can rise up to God.

People visit Jerusalem so they can walk where Jesus walked.

Mormons want to do the same thing in their own backyards.  

I also understand the importance of that, but there are billions in Asia and Africa who don't easily relate to the Book of Mormon because it is often associated with a limited geography that is half a world away. I'm looking for something in between symbolic geography and physical geography. There is a perfect fit between what Columbus knew as the "Indies" and the Island of the Blessed in Judeo-Christian traditions. They are the same place.

But as you can see, my model isn't exactly breaking down paradigms. Too physical for the critics and too symbolic for the believers.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm all for just saying the Book of Mormon lands were in "The East" or "The West" and calling it good. That worked for Jews, Christians and Muslims for millennia. But what you are missing is that Mormonism (Joseph Smith) was unsatisfied with such uncertainty and revealed the location. Mormons (not the Book of Mormon) are the only ones that ever claimed to know the exact location of everything. 

The whole geography problem would be resolved if we'd let go of our opinions about the physical location where the Garden of Eden was located and where the Book of Mormon took place. Instead of arguing unknowable things, we could just say it happened on an island, across the Great Waters, at the far ends of the Earth, past the Sabbath River east of Paradise surrounded by a great wall of dark clouds. I'm fine with that, but it doesn't seem to fly with Mormons,

I have been arguing here for a long time that this unidentified location, the Island of the Blessed, has long been known as the home of the Lost Tribes, the Rechabites and the Sons of Moses. But whenever I suggest that the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulek also went there, I'm informed that this cannot ever be true. It is impossible! Joseph said "this continent" and there is no other solution.

So your argument is really with Joseph Smith, the first and only person in history to make the location of the Garden of Eden, and the physical location of the  tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, scriptural fact.

Joseph Smith.

And of course Joseph never claimed infallibility, and in fact often referred to his own weaknesses. 

So no, the problem is with people who believe in infallible prophets and make it an issue, as has been here in this thread.  If Mormons preached infallibility the fallout is our own fault.

If we stopped agreeing with the anti-mormons in their assumptions maybe apologetics would disappear because people would understand that such discussions just create more problems than they solve.

The very assumptions of anti-mormons are false

THAT is what Mormons need to learn and then they need to learn to stop enabling anti-mormons by agreeing with their assumptions.

"Joseph and other prophets made mistakes therefore the church is false" = FALSE

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course Joseph never claimed infallibility, and in fact often referred to his own weaknesses. 

So no, the problem is with people who believe in infallible prophets and make it an issue, as has been here in this thread.  If Mormons preached infallibility the fallout is our own fault.

If we stopped agreeing with the anti-mormons in their assumptions maybe apologetics would disappear because people would understand that such discussions just create more problems than they solve.

The very assumptions of anti-mormons are false

THAT is what Mormons need to learn and then they need to learn to stop enabling anti-mormons by agreeing with their assumptions.

"Joseph and other prophets made mistakes therefore the church is false" = FALSE

Question for you. If the Karen of Burma, or any other group of people anywhere else in the world, accept the Book of Mormon as their lost golden record, are they right? 

https://ldsmag.com/the-golden-book-a-young-refugees-testimony-of-the-book-of-mormon/