Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[JarMan]

21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Yes, but we never resolve the problems with that interpretation. The Gentiles obtain the promised land first. They then scatter and smite the Lamanites. This all took place where the Nephites had been slain, not in Europe. The battles on land and water were in the New World. Its difficult to fit the Spanish Armada into 1 Nephi 13.

The Book of Mormon never says the battles took place in the new world. Besides,  the first part of the chapter is an obvious reference to the Catholic Church. They were literally torturing and killing millions of Protestants (if you include the death toll from the thirty years war) and a common description during that time was that the clergy chased prostitutes and dressed lavishly. It is these Gentiles (the Catholics) that brought the other people (Protestants) into captivity.

If you take the mother Gentiles to be the British then the first part of the chapter doesn’t make sense. Once you understand the great and abominable church is the Catholic Church the whole chapter makes sense in a 16th/17th Century context. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Alma 41:5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

The portions I highlighted first hint at a graduated resurrection of the righteous according to their "desires of good." This takes in a lot of territory as there are many people who are living pretty sinful lives, but yet have good qualities on up to people who are trying their best to do good. Contrast that with the evil person that Alma describes as "he who has desired to do evil all the day long." If one reads this standing lone, it is only a hint. But if one reads this in the context of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, it makes sense.

You keep trying to dodge my point by talking about everything except what I have challenged you on. I’m not going to try anymore as it’s clear you want to dodge instead of engage. 

[Kevin Christensen]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon never says the battles took place in the new world. Besides,  the first part of the chapter is an obvious reference to the Catholic Church. They were literally torturing and killing millions of Protestants (if you include the death toll from the thirty years war) and a common description during that time was that the clergy chased prostitutes and dressed lavishly. It is these Gentiles (the Catholics) that brought the other people (Protestants) into captivity.

If you take the mother Gentiles to be the British then the first part of the chapter doesn’t make sense. Once you understand the great and abominable church is the Catholic Church the whole chapter makes sense in a 16th/17th Century context. 

Then there is Stephen Robinson's notable take on the Great and Abominable church as pre-Catholic, that church be a result of early apostasy, not the cause.  It also appeared in the Ensign.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1397&index=6

And there is also the notion that the Second Temple was a harlot, and the use of such imagery in earlier writing in Isaiah and Proverbs, etc. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

(There's even a tradition that Zeus was originally human and ascended to become the God Zeus --)

Would you please elucidate?

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Would you please elucidate?

This was a claim by Euhemerus in his writings. (4th century BC) Euhemerus, at a time where most Greek intellectuals were allegorizing away myths, took the view that they mostly could be attributed to real people but that the narratives had just become exaggerated and corrupt over time. His main work, Sacred History, isn't extant but is found in various other quotations. Here's a good overview as part of a review of a book on him.

Edited July 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[TOmNossor]

On 7/16/2018 at 7:43 AM, Exiled said:

I suspect your position would change if there were some discovery making historicity more probable. As it stands, however, possible plus prayer is really the only thing one can say. 

I think your assertion evidences to just two things.  One, I TOm, enjoy evidence and problems so for me personally I would very much enjoy such things.  Two, you WISH to make this assertion because it fits your agenda.  But, you are mistaken, my position would not change because I embrace the position of the Church and the BOM.

Long before anyone thought about ancient travels from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful, long before anyone thought about horses or cement in the New World, long before …; the Church has been claiming along with the text of the BOM and a large number of Biblical verses that one should PRAY to know.  I see ZERO reason that a large cash of archeological finds would change this. 

I do not follow this board enough to know all the histories of its posters.  What is your experience with “praying to know?”  Have you done it?  Did you once believe?  If you once believed, is it your position that the historical problems with the BOM caused you to revision your answers to prayers and abandon faith in the CoJCoLDS?  I have no doubt that this describes some of the things that lead to journeys out of the CoJCoLDS.  But, I like Ryan Dahle, Daniel Petersen, and a number of posters on this thread do not see the evidence breaking this way. 

Charity, TOm

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

You keep trying to dodge my point by talking about everything except what I have challenged you on. I’m not going to try anymore as it’s clear you want to dodge instead of engage. 

Just to bring up my earlier point while rhetorically Mormons tend to see the three degrees of glory/kingdoms all as heavens I think one should read D&C 76 really as bifurcating heaven and hell. That is heaven is split into the terrestrial and celestial kingdom based upon how they accept Christ. This is still at odds with later conceptions of vicarious work for the dead, but is really just a split of the traditional Book of Mormon concept of heaven. Likewise hell is split into outer darkness and the telestial kingdom. Terminology associated with hell is associated with both.

Your point about being administered to by angels instead of ruled by the devil is a good one. I've argued it's a bit more ambiguous though due to 28-38. That is the traditional Book of Mormon hell becomes outer darkness. Telestial glory is those who don't fully reject Christ yet are "they who are thrust down to hell." Your point about accepting Christ is again a good one especially verse 82. What's interesting is that I think the rejection of Christ is qualified in verse 100. This is those who never accept the gospel on Mormon terms. But clearly some think they are Christian. While it's anachronistic to the time Joseph and Sidney saw the vision, my impression is that those in the telestial glory are those who never accept the gospel in the spirit world even when offered. Eventually those who don't accept still are resurrected and still "shall bow the knee and every tongue...confess to him" (110) and thus still meet the criteria of the Book of Mormon.

In this model hell is this waiting place for those not in paradise. Everyone who finally accepts Christ even if not his gospel or testimony gets taken out of that place. Some are left there with the devil. Whether you see that as contradicting the Book of Mormon depends upon how you see the semantics of accepting Christ.

Edited July 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I think your assertion evidences to just two things.  One, I TOm, enjoy evidence and problems so for me personally I would very much enjoy such things.  Two, you WISH to make this assertion because it fits your agenda.  But, you are mistaken, my position would not change because I embrace the position of the Church and the BOM.

 

Long before anyone thought about ancient travels from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful, long before anyone thought about horses or cement in the New World, long before …; the Church has been claiming along with the text of the BOM and a large number of Biblical verses that one should PRAY to know.  I see ZERO reason that a large cash of archeological finds would change this. 

 

I do not follow this board enough to know all the histories of its posters.  What is your experience with “praying to know?”  Have you done it?  Did you once believe?  If you once believed, is it your position that the historical problems with the BOM caused you to revision your answers to prayers and abandon faith in the CoJCoLDS?  I have no doubt that this describes some of the things that lead to journeys out of the CoJCoLDS.  But, I like Ryan Dahle, Daniel Petersen, and a number of posters on this thread do not see the evidence breaking this way. 

 

Charity, TOm

 

I was born to members of the church and both sides of my family were members since at least Nauvoo. I grew up in slc. So, I took on the belief system of my parents and the group. A lack of evidence for the church's various claims certainly led me to rethink my beliefs and what I thought were answers to prayer.

Religious experience is based a lot on what the dominant group says it is. One can get what one thinks is an answer and if the "answer" says the brethren are wrong, then "obviously" that person's answer is wrong, simply because it goes against the group. This happens in pretty much all religion.

Anyway, I suspect if there were more concrete evidence pointing to actual nephites in the americas, like the evidence for the existence of the Romans, for example, your position of mere possibility plus religious experience equals truth would change.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Then there is Stephen Robinson's notable take on the Great and Abominable church as pre-Catholic, that church be a result of early apostasy, not the cause.  It also appeared in the Ensign.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1397&index=6

And there is also the notion that the Second Temple was a harlot, and the use of such imagery in earlier writing in Isaiah and Proverbs, etc. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

I realize it’s not politically correct to associate the Catholic Church with the great and abominable church. But during the reformation the Catholic Church was commonly associated with the whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18. Luther, Calvin, Knox and many, many others all made this association. In light of this, 1 Nephi 13 and 14 make a lot of sense from an early modern perspective. I don’t think the politically correct interpretation of these chapters fits very well with historical events whereas the early Protestant view fits perfectly. 

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

You keep trying to dodge my point by talking about everything except what I have challenged you on. I’m not going to try anymore as it’s clear you want to dodge instead of engage. 

I answered. Maybe you just do not understand my point. Again, I did note that the Book of Mormon casually reads as binary heaven or hell narrative, and it would seem that those who do go to hell will be under the rules of Satan. I was responding to your post saying that there is no way one can honestly say that the Doctrine and Covenants clarifies that binary read. I just pointed out a scripture in the Book of Mormon that hints at, and in the light of later revelation, can be read as providing for rewards based on how one desired and lived his or her life, leaving only those who desire to do evil "all the day long," the truly evil, the sons of perdition on whom there can be shown no mercy, will be cast into outer darkness and ruled bay Satan. I may be wrong about what it is saying, but Alma 41:5 can be read that way.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I realize it’s not politically correct to associate the Catholic Church with the great and abominable church. But during the reformation the Catholic Church was commonly associated with the whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18. 

It's interesting the Book of Mormon doesn't use the terms "whore" or "harlot." As you mention it was common in the reformation through the 19th century to associate it with Catholicism. I think that informs early Mormon conceptions of the apostasy and most likely affected the form the translation takes. The Book of Mormon term, great and abominable church, is less symbolic and more direct like much of Nephi's apocalypse. (Or I'd argue better called a proto-apocalypse)  Even McConkie associated it with Catholicism though. I understand why many, especially apologists, don't want to do this. 

Interesting doing a quick Google search there's a 17th century text on the apostasy that uses the phrase "great and abominable" although the subject is the anti-christ not a church. However the antichrist in this text is the pope. Interestingly it dates the apostasy to 382.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to bring up my earlier point while rhetorically Mormons tend to see the three degrees of glory/kingdoms all as heavens I think one should read D&C 76 really as bifurcating heaven and hell. That is heaven is split into the terrestrial and celestial kingdom based upon how they accept Christ. This is still at odds with later conceptions of vicarious work for the dead, but is really just a split of the traditional Book of Mormon concept of heaven. Likewise hell is split into outer darkness and the telestial kingdom. Terminology associated with hell is associated with both.

I guess that one could look at the telestial kingdom as a type of hell because the inhabitants will be cut off from all contact with God and as Jarman noted will only be ministered to by angels. All there will have seen what they could have achieved and maybe that regret will linger with them for eternity. Yet, we are informed in 76:89 that the the glory of the telestial kingdom is such that we cannot comprehend it. But those who attain it will, as you pointed out, will be "thrust down to hell" and be subject to the devil until the final resurrection.I do not think that such a concept does violence to the vicarious work for the dead doctrine though as those who are sent there will be by God's judgment and will not merit such work for whatever reason.

There is much LDS theology not contained in the Book of Mormon and I do not believe that it will profit us to read it alone from a theological perspective.

Glenn

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It's interesting the Book of Mormon doesn't use the terms "whore" or "harlot." As you mention it was common in the reformation through the 19th century to associate it with Catholicism. I think that informs early Mormon conceptions of the apostasy and most likely affected the form the translation takes. The Book of Mormon term, great and abominable church, is less symbolic and more direct like much of Nephi's apocalypse. (Or I'd argue better called a proto-apocalypse)  Even McConkie associated it with Catholicism though. I understand why many, especially apologists, don't want to do this. 

Interesting doing a quick Google search there's a 17th century text on the apostasy that uses the phrase "great and abominable" although the subject is the anti-christ not a church. However the antichrist in this text is the pope. Interestingly it dates the apostasy to 382.

1 Nephi 10, 14, 22 and 28 use “whore” several times to describe the great and abominable church, even using “whore who sat upon many waters” which is a clear allusion to Revelation 17:1.

You alluded to another popular reformation description of the Catholic Church which is as the Antichrist. This view was held almost universally by Protestants. However, Grotius refused to make this connection and was severely criticized for it. Notice that the Book of Mormon does not call the great and abominable church the Antichrist either. 

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

1 Nephi 10, 14, 22 and 28 use “whore” several times to describe the great and abominable church, even using “whore who sat upon many waters” which is a clear allusion to Revelation 17:1.

Quite right. I'm an idiot. Not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for catching that.

[JarMan]

On 7/14/2018 at 7:10 PM, Glenn101 said:

Please explain the Book of Mormon concept of hell that that has been abandoned.

 

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I answered. Maybe you just do not understand my point. Again, I did note that the Book of Mormon casually reads as binary heaven or hell narrative, and it would seem that those who do go to hell will be under the rules of Satan. I was responding to your post saying that there is no way one can honestly say that the Doctrine and Covenants clarifies that binary read. I just pointed out a scripture in the Book of Mormon that hints at, and in the light of later revelation, can be read as providing for rewards based on how one desired and lived his or her life, leaving only those who desire to do evil "all the day long," the truly evil, the sons of perdition on whom there can be shown no mercy, will be cast into outer darkness and ruled bay Satan. I may be wrong about what it is saying, but Alma 41:5 can be read that way.

The idea of a binary afterlife is not the point I am trying to defend. You asked what Book of Mormon concept of hell has been abandoned. Here’s my answer: the Book of Mormon hell is a place where all people go who do not accept Christ. It is a place of endless torment ruled by Satan. The D&C hell meets part of this definition (D&C 76:36). But it is a place where very few go (the sons of Perdition), not the vast majority of humanity. Alternatively you have the telestial kingdom which contains those who did not accept Christ. But it is not a place of torment ruled by Satan. It is a kingdom ministered to by angels. The eternal fate of those who do not accept Christ is the idea that has changed here. And it has changed quite dramatically, I might add. 

[clarkgoble]

Just now, JarMan said:

The idea of a binary afterlife is not the point I am trying to defend. You asked what Book of Mormon concept of hell has been abandoned. Here’s my answer: the Book of Mormon hell is a place where all people go who do not accept Christ. It is a place of endless torment ruled by Satan. The D&C hell meets part of this definition (D&C 76:36). But it is a place where very few go (the sons of Perdition), not the vast majority of humanity. Alternatively you have the telestial kingdom which contains those who did not accept Christ. But it is not a place of torment ruled by Satan. It is a kingdom ministered to by angels. The eternal fate of those who do not accept Christ is the idea that has changed here. And it has changed quite dramatically, I might add. 

Isn't then the only thing that changed the number of people in hell? Or, since it appears that the hell as a place of waiting and the hell of outer darkness are the same place, the issue is how long people wait there. So the bigger change is whether eternal & endless is taken as temporal duration or a kind of magnitude without reference to duration. That is the big change isn't so much D&C 76 as it is D&C 19:10-11.

Anyway while I get the complaint about size, it seems to me that your other complaint really isn't a complaint since the people the telestial kingdom have accepted Christ even if not fully.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon never says the battles took place in the new world. Besides,  the first part of the chapter is an obvious reference to the Catholic Church. They were literally torturing and killing millions of Protestants (if you include the death toll from the thirty years war) and a common description during that time was that the clergy chased prostitutes and dressed lavishly. It is these Gentiles (the Catholics) that brought the other people (Protestants) into captivity.

If you take the mother Gentiles to be the British then the first part of the chapter doesn’t make sense. Once you understand the great and abominable church is the Catholic Church the whole chapter makes sense in a 16th/17th Century context. 

Wasn't there a truce between Spain and the Dutch Republic? Grotius himself wasn't held captive or forced into exile by Spanish Catholics, but rather by Calvinist counter-remonstrants.

The primary dispute in Grotius' lifetime was between Calvinists and Arminians, and that spilled over into the Colonies. The Spanish also maintained their control over much of the New World, so the victory of the captive gentiles over the mother gentiles doesn't seem to fit South America and Central America. The Dutch colonies died out in North America very early.  If Grotius was the author, the successful Dutch colonies in the East Indies would be a better fit. Did Grotius have any interest in the Dutch colonization of Mesoamerica? 

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't then the only thing that changed the number of people in hell? Or, since it appears that the hell as a place of waiting and the hell of outer darkness are the same place, the issue is how long people wait there. So the bigger change is whether eternal & endless is taken as temporal duration or a kind of magnitude without reference to duration. That is the big change isn't so much D&C 76 as it is D&C 19:10-11.

Anyway while I get the complaint about size, it seems to me that your other complaint really isn't a complaint since the people the telestial kingdom have accepted Christ even if not fully.

It’s much bigger than the number of people. We’re talking two completely different narratives. The Book of Mormon has no war in heaven where two-thirds keep their first estate. So no justification for the unrighteous to deserve a kingdom. And those in the telestial kingdom don’t “accept” Christ. At least not salvifically. The Book of Mormon narrative is as far from the modern Mormon narrative as the Protestant narrative is. But this is precisely because the Book of Mormon narrative IS a Protestant narrative. 

[JarMan]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Wasn't there a truce between Spain and the Dutch Republic? Grotius himself wasn't held captive or forced into exile by Spanish Catholics, but rather by Calvinist counter-remonstrants.

The primary dispute in Grotius' lifetime was between Calvinists and Arminians, and that spilled over into the Colonies. The Spanish also maintained their control over much of the New World, so the victory of the captive gentiles over the mother gentiles doesn't seem to fit South America and Central America. The Dutch colonies died out in North America very early.  If Grotius was the author, the successful Dutch colonies in the East Indies would be a better fit. Did Grotius have any interest in the Dutch colonization of Mesoamerica? 

The 80 Years War was from 1568-1648 with a truce from 1609-1621. I’m hypothesizing a date of 1635-1645 which is when the Dutch Empire was essentially at its height. The Dutch naval conflict with Spain and Portugal played out all over the world in Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and Europe. 

The Arminian dispute was certainly the most personal dispute Grotius was involved in. But he lived in perhaps the most contentious age in the history of Europe barring the 20th Century. From 1633-1645 he served as Sweden’s ambassador to France. The 30 Years War (1618-1648) was the deadliest in human history up to that point in time. Early in his career he was the official Dutch historian and chronicled the war between Spain and the Netherlands. He was also a historiographer who closely studied the ancient Greco-Roman historians. In short, he was intimately familiar with war including extreme war on a large scale. In other words he was perfectly suited to author a story revolving largely around warfare. 

[Rajah Manchou]

Just now, JarMan said:

The 80 Years War was from 1568-1648 with a truce from 1609-1621. I’m hypothesizing a date of 1635-1645 which is when the Dutch Empire was essentially at its height. The Dutch naval conflict with Spain and Portugal played out all over the world in Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and Europe. 

The Arminian dispute was certainly the most personal dispute Grotius was involved in. But he lived in perhaps the most contentious age in the history of Europe barring the 20th Century. From 1633-1645 he served as Sweden’s ambassador to France. The 30 Years War (1618-1648) was the deadliest in human history up to that point in time. Early in his career he was the official Dutch historian and chronicled the war between Spain and the Netherlands. He was also a historiographer who closely studied the ancient Greco-Roman historians. In short, he was intimately familiar with war including extreme war on a large scale. In other words he was perfectly suited to author a story revolving largely around warfare. 

But how did Grotius speak of the Spanish and the Catholics in his writings? Was he, as you say, politically correct or did he drop the whore of the earth bomb on them?

From what I can see, he was pretty PC about it all. Not like we would expect from the author of 1 Nephi 13.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/15/2018 at 10:48 PM, Exiled said:

The church has always taught an historical book of mormon. It has always taught that Christ actually came to the americas and taught the people here. It never taught that Christ's coming to the americas was merely figurative. This should be owned and not discounted just because there are good questions as the truth of the historicity claim.

I put what the spirit teaches above what the church teaches. For many years the church was seriously tainted with the desire to sit with the cool kids at the "Christian" table

Those were the McConkie days when many here got a false impression of "Mormon Doctrine".

We are just starting to come into our own consistent views, at last

Our scriptures have always said what they say and our individual interpretations always must be confirmed individually.

Absent individual testimony, the church is nothing. It's claims are preposterous on their face. The only conclusion is to always put individual testimony ahead of what others teach, because that is precisely the whole reason for having an individual testimony.

Long story short what you think the church has "always taught" is irrelevant and erroneous. It has not always taught that.

Besides all that we have it open Canon. The church used to teach polygamy and no longer does. The church used to ban Blacks from the priesthood and no longer does.

I personally believe in miracles and I believe that Christ came to the Americas literally.

Clearly those questions are not on the temple recommend interview therefore one can be a full-fledged Mormon without believing those. One must on the other hand believe the Book of Mormon is revealed scripture.

If one takes that figuratively you are not a judge of whether or not that individual qualifies as a member of the church or not. 

In my opinion your point is totally irrelevant.

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But how did Grotius speak of the Spanish and the Catholics in his writings? Was he, as you say, politically correct or did he drop the whore of the earth bomb on them?

From what I can see, he was pretty PC about it all. Not like we would expect from the author of 1 Nephi 13.

1 Nephi 13 is actually pretty tame compared to Calvin or Luther. I think the author of 1 Nephi 13 was just incorporating biblical language from Revelation 17: “the great whore that sitteth upon many waters” (verse 1) and “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (verse 5). But he didn’t drop the Antichrist bomb. 

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

  The idea of a binary afterlife is not the point I am trying to defend. You asked what Book of Mormon concept of hell has been abandoned. Here’s my answer: the Book of Mormon hell is a place where all people go who do not accept Christ. It is a place of endless torment ruled by Satan. The D&C hell meets part of this definition (D&C 76:36). But it is a place where very few go (the sons of Perdition), not the vast majority of humanity. 

I feel you are contradicting yourself or at least D&C here. D&C plainly states that those who have not accepted Christ are thrust down to hell. That is a large portion of humanity. However, most will eventually be redeemed by the time of the resurrection. I don't really feel that contradicts the BoM. The BoM is just kind of like the Bible in that it doesn't specify what happens beyond punishment in hell(except Revelation does say hell will give up the dead for final judgment). However, it does stress that our time is the time to follow God, which certainly implies we can lose our exaltation if we don't accept Christ in this life. D&C does not contradict this. In D&C all who do not accept Christ in this life also go to hell. It is just temporary until their resurrection at the end, whereas those who do accept Christ go to paradise, and some can end up as ministers to those in spirit prison. The sons of Perdition don't really go to "hell" after the resurrection but to "outer darknesss" which I interpret as the permanent hell from which there is no redemption. They go there because even in their resurrection standing before Yeshua, they do not accept him, nor repent (I am adding this last part of my own belief).

Edited July 19, 2018 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

It’s much bigger than the number of people. We’re talking two completely different narratives. The Book of Mormon has no war in heaven where two-thirds keep their first estate. So no justification for the unrighteous to deserve a kingdom. And those in the telestial kingdom don’t “accept” Christ. At least not salvifically. The Book of Mormon narrative is as far from the modern Mormon narrative as the Protestant narrative is. But this is precisely because the Book of Mormon narrative IS a Protestant narrative. 

Certainly the narratives are different, although closely related in both imagery and content. But I'm not following your logic after that. Why is the war in heaven necessary for those who don't accept Christ willingly to have a kingdom? Further, as our Evangelical friends so constantly emphasize, deserve has nothing to do with it. None of those in celestial glory deserve it. Finally to say that those in the telestial kingdom don't salvically accept Christ seems wrong given that D&C explicitly says they do (43). The emphasis there is that the Father reveals Christ and if you still deny him even then you get outer darkness otherwise waiting to accept him until he's revealed gives you the telestial kingdom.

What it really comes down to is that you think nothing in the Book of Mormon relative to judgment is at odds with Protestantism whereas clearly some things in D&C 76 are. However that's not really a claim of contradiction.

Edited July 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

 

The idea of a binary afterlife is not the point I am trying to defend. You asked what Book of Mormon concept of hell has been abandoned. Here’s my answer: the Book of Mormon hell is a place where all people go who do not accept Christ. It is a place of endless torment ruled by Satan. The D&C hell meets part of this definition (D&C 76:36). But it is a place where very few go (the sons of Perdition), not the vast majority of humanity. Alternatively you have the telestial kingdom which contains those who did not accept Christ. But it is not a place of torment ruled by Satan. It is a kingdom ministered to by angels. The eternal fate of those who do not accept Christ is the idea that has changed here. And it has changed quite dramatically, I might add. 

Okay. But to abandon a doctrine it firstly has to be embraced as such. I do not know that Joseph Smith ever embraced that concept. Almost contemporaneous with the publishing of the Book of Mormon came D&C 19 which thew a monkey wrench into the traditional concept of what eternal or endless punishment means, or rather what God means when he says it. Other parts of the Doctrine and Covenants came later, expanding on the themes of hell, punishment, the three kingdoms, outer darkness, etc. I think that probably most of our disagreement has to do with what is meant by "accepting Christ." As Clark has pointed out, there will come a point in time when come a time when just about everyone will accept Christ. All except those who become sons of perdition. That understanding has definitely changed.

Glenn