Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 21 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well I raise you a different ex mtc president who thought taking advantage of position and prestige to score ladies kinda like Brigham Young did is the most heavenly of arrangements, and godly men of all stripes should do all they can do defend such a thing. Although since he grew old he grew weak on maintaining that teaching. Please don’t derail. Start your own thread to beat this dead horse some more, please.
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) Here’s a summary of biblical material explained further in the Book of Mormon or not found in the Bible. Bernard Gui: The purpose, significance, universality, covenant, and mode of baptism. A more comprehensive understanding of the resurrection. A fuller understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The pre-mortal foundation, the significance, and the role of the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. A confirmation that Jesus organized a church in the Old World. The requirements for authority in administering the gospel. The role of the 12 Apostles in the final judgment. The pre-mortal nature of Christ. The pre-mortal existence of man. The urgency, benefits, and significance of the Fall of Adam. The restoration of Israel and gathering of the Jews. A record of the other sheep. A promise that more records will come forth. A rationale for plural marriage. The significance of the descendants of Joseph of Egypt. The role the Lehites will play in the end times. The Lehite “land of promise” covenant also pertains to us today. The explanations of the justice and mercy and mercy of God. The imperative of the opposition of good and evil in the Plan of Salvation. The primacy of agency. Foreordination. The extraordinary status of the Apostle John. John the Baptist was not the first to perform baptisms for repentance. The role of Gentiles in the end times and the gathering of Israel. JAHS: Revelation from God to prophets other than those in the Bible. Meerkat: The role of the Holy Ghost confirming true religion and other facts. Kevin Christensen: Much more information on life after death The notion that specific plain and precious things were missing. (1 Nephi 13, specifying covenants and specific teachings, such as that "the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father"), the means by which they were lost, and additional texts appearing via then gentiles after the appearance of the Book of Mormon besides the Book of Mormon by which they will be restored and confirmed. A method for evaluating competing paradigms that is not completely paradigm dependent. Alma 32. A notably distinct theory of the Atonement, as noted by Lorin K. Hansen. (Gethsemane and Calvary) Clark Gobel: It's worth noting again that we're missing the 116 pages (which Don Bradley suggests might be of significant length in terms of percentage of the whole - perhaps as much as half). We're also missing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. So there's a lot left to be revealed. Stemelbow The notion that pacifism is preferred to national wars and pride is a good one. The teachings on racism are a bad thing. (Opposed by Okrahomer) The notion that leaders in any society should lead by serving is a good teaching. The notion that magical events will save special people while destroying others is a bad thing. Longview: The BoM provides an amazing array of perspectives on the Biblical account of what transpired in the Garden of Eden. Many insights can be derived: Two commandments given by God both of which could not be obeyed (mutually exclusive, only one or the other could be kept). One is to keep away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (do not even touch it). The other is to be fruitful and multiply. God needed to remove Himself from undue influence that would cause Adam/Eve to favor one choice over the other. Why would God create a pristine Garden of Eden that was a place of no death and functioned like Utopia? Why would God place both trees that could cause problems? Did not God have the power of creating obedient and wise beings that would have childlike purity without a hint of malice? Most of the christian world believe that humans born into the world began their existence in the mother's womb (both body and spirit). The BoM teach that we were spirit beings before the Creation. This is a major distinction that helps us to understand the purpose of the Garden of Eden and how it was structured. The BoM gives us the "Big Picture" in describing the Plan of Happiness. It describes what transpired in the Pre-Existence and how the War in Heaven started. The importance of the Fall and the necessity for a Savior to provide the Atonement that enables the Plan of Happiness to be put into operation. Rodheadlee: The Book of Mormon clarifies the position of the United States, North America and the new world in the latter days. CA Steve: (Quoted A Campbell 1831, italicized words challenged by TKV) “[It] decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man” Any more thoughts? Edited June 21, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2
longview Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 10:47 AM, Bernard Gui said: Any more thoughts? What was the point of Job's suffering? He was nearly perfect. What was God's Purpose in allowing Job to have so many terrible afflictions? Alma 36:3 And now, O my son Helaman, behold, thou art in thy youth, and therefore, I beseech of thee that thou wilt hear my words and learn of me; for I do know that whosoever shall put their trust in God shall be supported in their trials, and their troubles, and their afflictions, and shall be lifted up at the last day. Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. D&C 136:31 My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.
Damien the Leper Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 9:32 AM, Bernard Gui said: Check out the compiled list below and explain how the items on it were plagiarized. Those examples are not plagiarized but are points of interest to Mormonism. The "answers" provided by the BoM do not superimpose themselves onto the NT text or tradition. They don't fill in the blanks of the ancient and first century theology. 19th century ideas have no bearing on the OT and NT scriptures. To be clear. In the same way that the NT cannot project itself onto the OT neither can the BoM project itself onto either testaments. Christianity is a cult of Judaism. I don't mean cult in a negative sense. Furthermore, Mormonism is a world religion in the same way Judaism and Christianity are.
tkv Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 On 6/19/2019 at 12:23 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, and the number "116" is actually only an estimate based on the number of pages in the replacement Small Plates translation known from the numbered-page Printer's Manuscript. Could have been much more. Well, I see it's in the 1832 history as a specific reference, and I see that 116 goes up to Words of Mormon in the printer's manuscript. So did Joseph Smith estimate that? Where did you read it was only an estimate?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, tkv said: Well, I see it's in the 1832 history as a specific reference, and I see that 116 goes up to Words of Mormon in the printer's manuscript. So did Joseph Smith estimate that? Where did you read it was only an estimate? I guess you missed the point that we have only one piece of evidence as to how many pages probably constituted the lost book of Lehi, and that is the 1829 Printer's Manuscript which covers the same period and has 116 pages. That is where the count comes from. Since the book of Lehi translation is not available, we cannot check it to see how many numbered pages it contains. 1
tkv Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I guess you missed the point that we have only one piece of evidence as to how many pages probably constituted the lost book of Lehi, and that is the 1829 Printer's Manuscript which covers the same period and has 116 pages. That is where the count comes from. Since the book of Lehi translation is not available, we cannot check it to see how many numbered pages it contains. That's my question. Who first indicated that 116 is an estimate based on the printer's MS?
Exiled Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 On 6/20/2019 at 9:54 AM, Calm said: Why appeal to Rex Williams for his opinion on polygamy? I would value his opinion on whether or not Bishop is telling the truth about what goes on behind the scenes in the MTC, but you have given nothing to see his value as an authority on polygamy. Was he a historian? Did he study the journals of those involved in polygamy? Or would his opinion be based on his beliefs about the appropriate relationships between men and women or something else? Appeals to authority is what moves the needle here, or so it seems. Hence the reaction and automatic doubt and questioning whether or not I even know the man. How many arguments over what this supposed authority said or didn't say happen here? If you notice, a lot of my comments are about how I know some of the supposed authorities personally and find them to be good people but unremarkable. So, I agree with you that whatever some supposed authority says or doesn't say is meaningless. Would you say the same thing about other church authority?
Exiled Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 9:47 AM, Bernard Gui said: Here’s a summary of biblical material explained further in the Book of Mormon or not found in the Bible. Bernard Gui: The purpose, significance, universality, covenant, and mode of baptism. A more comprehensive understanding of the resurrection. A fuller understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The pre-mortal foundation, the significance, and the role of the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. A confirmation that Jesus organized a church in the Old World. The requirements for authority in administering the gospel. The role of the 12 Apostles in the final judgment. The pre-mortal nature of Christ. The pre-mortal existence of man. The urgency, benefits, and significance of the Fall of Adam. The restoration of Israel and gathering of the Jews. A record of the other sheep. A promise that more records will come forth. A rationale for plural marriage. The significance of the descendants of Joseph of Egypt. The role the Lehites will play in the end times. The Lehite “land of promise” covenant also pertains to us today. The explanations of the justice and mercy and mercy of God. The imperative of the opposition of good and evil in the Plan of Salvation. The primacy of agency. Foreordination. The extraordinary status of the Apostle John. John the Baptist was not the first to perform baptisms for repentance. The role of Gentiles in the end times and the gathering of Israel. JAHS: Revelation from God to prophets other than those in the Bible. Meerkat: The role of the Holy Ghost confirming true religion and other facts. Kevin Christensen: Much more information on life after death The notion that specific plain and precious things were missing. (1 Nephi 13, specifying covenants and specific teachings, such as that "the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father"), the means by which they were lost, and additional texts appearing via then gentiles after the appearance of the Book of Mormon besides the Book of Mormon by which they will be restored and confirmed. A method for evaluating competing paradigms that is not completely paradigm dependent. Alma 32. A notably distinct theory of the Atonement, as noted by Lorin K. Hansen. (Gethsemane and Calvary) Clark Gobel: It's worth noting again that we're missing the 116 pages (which Don Bradley suggests might be of significant length in terms of percentage of the whole - perhaps as much as half). We're also missing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. So there's a lot left to be revealed. Stemelbow The notion that pacifism is preferred to national wars and pride is a good one. The teachings on racism are a bad thing. (Opposed by Okrahomer) The notion that leaders in any society should lead by serving is a good teaching. The notion that magical events will save special people while destroying others is a bad thing. Longview: The BoM provides an amazing array of perspectives on the Biblical account of what transpired in the Garden of Eden. Many insights can be derived: Two commandments given by God both of which could not be obeyed (mutually exclusive, only one or the other could be kept). One is to keep away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (do not even touch it). The other is to be fruitful and multiply. God needed to remove Himself from undue influence that would cause Adam/Eve to favor one choice over the other. Why would God create a pristine Garden of Eden that was a place of no death and functioned like Utopia? Why would God place both trees that could cause problems? Did not God have the power of creating obedient and wise beings that would have childlike purity without a hint of malice? Most of the christian world believe that humans born into the world began their existence in the mother's womb (both body and spirit). The BoM teach that we were spirit beings before the Creation. This is a major distinction that helps us to understand the purpose of the Garden of Eden and how it was structured. The BoM gives us the "Big Picture" in describing the Plan of Happiness. It describes what transpired in the Pre-Existence and how the War in Heaven started. The importance of the Fall and the necessity for a Savior to provide the Atonement that enables the Plan of Happiness to be put into operation. Rodheadlee: The Book of Mormon clarifies the position of the United States, North America and the new world in the latter days. CA Steve: (Quoted A Campbell 1831, italicized words challenged by TKV) “[It] decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man” Any more thoughts? I side with CA Steve. Whatever one thinks of the Book of Mormon, true or not, it did answer the biblical/religious controversies brewing in the 19th century. 1
Calm Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Exiled said: Hence the reaction and automatic doubt and questioning whether or not I even know the man. Who said I doubted or questioned you knew him? Evaluating the value of a claimed source and wondering why it was provided is not the same thing as doubting. Maybe you are projecting your own way of doing things on others because you don't seem to be able to put aside certain assumptions about others' way of thinking and thus continue to engage in mindreading.
Exiled Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Who said I doubted or questioned you knew him? Evaluating the value of a claimed source and wondering why it was provided is not the same thing as doubting. Maybe you are projecting your own way of doing things on others because you don't seem to be able to put aside certain assumptions about others' way of thinking and thus continue to engage in mindreading. Above, you raised the issue of how does anyone know if I knew him or not because I'm anonymous, even though you backed away from this right after. Anyway, would you have pushed back if my appeal to authority would have been in support of polygamy?
tkv Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I guess you missed the point that we have only one piece of evidence as to how many pages probably constituted the lost book of Lehi, and that is the 1829 Printer's Manuscript which covers the same period and has 116 pages. That is where the count comes from. Since the book of Lehi translation is not available, we cannot check it to see how many numbered pages it contains. Wait a second, we have a lot of the original MS for the small plates section, enough to estimate the number of pages from that as well. What is that number? How do we know Joseph wrote 116 in 1832 based on the printer's MS? Or is it just speculation? And why wouldn't he have used the original MS to estimate the number?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, tkv said: Wait a second, we have a lot of the original MS for the small plates section, enough to estimate the number of pages from that as well. What is that number? How do we know Joseph wrote 116 in 1832 based on the printer's MS? Or is it just speculation? And why wouldn't he have used the original MS to estimate the number? Martin Harris took the 1828 book of Lehi translation home so that his relatives could look at it, and it has never been seen since. We don't have a page-count on it. It is very unlikely that it had the same number of pages which constitute the 1829 Printer's MS. We have only a partial 1829 Original MS, so cannot use it to give an exact page count. That is why we normally use the 116-page figure, not because it is an actual count of the pages of the 1828 book of Lehi -- which we do not have. The 1828 book of Lehi is a very different book from the 1829 translation of the Small Plates of Nephi. The book of Lehi is an abridged version of the Large Plates of Nephi. It was edited and abridged by Mormon, but we don't any longer have a copy of the 1828 translation of it. The 1829 English translation of the Small Plates of Nephi was unedited, and that is the form in which we now have the first part of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi to Words of Mormon). The 1828 English translation of the Large Plates of Nephi (= book of Lehi) also apparently contains a page or two of the beginning of Mosiah (which we no longer have). 1
tkv Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 Thanks for the response. Do we know the first time 116 was mentioned as the number of lost pages? Was it before JS–History 1832?
Calm Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Exiled said: Above, you raised the issue of how does anyone know if I knew him or not because I'm anonymous, even though you backed away from this right after. Anyway, would you have pushed back if my appeal to authority would have been in support of polygamy? Yes, if I had paid attention to the post and noticed it, which you would likely know if you paid attention to my posts...there are a few believing posters I have put on ignored in the past because they were so bad and refused to consider altering their methods after multiple complaints from multiple posters, so between that and a few posters causing me to glaze over, I probably miss a good deal these days. I also used to try to read every post out of respect for the effort people put into them, but some posters don't show much effort, so I have lost that desire. I tend to follow a semiacademic view of sources/references across the board, though I am probably a bit lazier right now as stuff is distracting me. If you had known my dad, you might understand my habit better. One had to be prepared to discuss stuff with him and be taken seriously. And my mother was a voracious reader and I picked up referencing sources because she always gave credit for her ideas, I see that as respectful to those who made the effort to study, research, and then cared enough to share their work with others. If casual conversation on the board, I don't usually mention namedropping or crappy sourcing as that is not the purpose of the conversation; if using an anonymous source for support in an argument, I will point out the low value of it if I notice. I ask for quotes rather than paraphrases from pretty much everyone if I am not already familiar with it because I know everyone misinterprets stuff sometimes, believers as much as critics. I follow the same standards here as I do with FairMormon, where if I catch what I think is a poor source or interpretation, I will mention it. I have corrected several believers face to face for criticism of catholic beliefs where they got it wrong, for example, even at church. I have mentioned the Thomas Marsh story has tons more to it than just strippings. I do that to my family at times which really bugs my daughter, especially when it's while she is trying to make a joke. My professor husband, otoh, starts arguing sources with me. Quote ou raised the issue of how does anyone know if I knew him or not because I'm anonymous, even though you backed away from this right after. I don't know why you think .I backed away from it. You are an anonymous poster. It is impossible for anyone to tell if you know those you claim to know or not. Therefore any hearsay you use is of low value as evidence/support. Even if I believe you, it is of low value. Edited June 24, 2019 by Calm 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, tkv said: Thanks for the response. Do we know the first time 116 was mentioned as the number of lost pages? Was it before JS–History 1832? Don't know, but it is an easy comparison to make at any time in 1829-1830 directly from the Printer's MS.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Exiled said: I side with CA Steve. Whatever one thinks of the Book of Mormon, true or not, it did answer the biblical/religious controversies brewing in the 19th century. Whatever else one may say about Alexander Campbell's immediate and predictable response to the Book of Mormon, the main difficulty for him is that he assumes that it must be addressing the 19th century, if only because it was published at that very time. Now that we know that the language in which it was published is EModEnglish, that moves the response time back to the 16th century -- and to the controversies then current. Were they the same religious controversies which we see in the 19th century, or are they different? What would an author writing in 1540 know about such matters? What were his potential concerns? Does the tail wag the dog?
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2019 Author Posted June 25, 2019 9 hours ago, Exiled said: I side with CA Steve. Whatever one thinks of the Book of Mormon, true or not, it did answer the biblical/religious controversies brewing in the 19th century. How do you think Joseph managed to do that?
tkv Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Don't know, but it is an easy comparison to make at any time in 1829-1830 directly from the Printer's MS. Well, after checking a few things, an explanation based on the length of Psp doesn't work chronologically. See pp. 136-37 here.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, tkv said: Well, after checking a few things, an explanation based on the length of Psp doesn't work chronologically. See pp. 136-37 here. 2 hours ago, tkv said: Here Metcalfe made a mistake (in note 1). I see no error. In fact Metcalfe probably got that 116-page notion from me, as I had been saying this long before he began publishing his views. Back in those days, Metcalfe was the new boy on the block (just like you) and didn't quite understand the basics.
tkv Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 Maybe you didn't read pages 136 to 137 above. There Skousen plainly wrote in 1994 that the number 116 couldn't have come from the number of pages in P of the small plates section, because when 116 was first typeset for the preface in August 1829, P didn't even have 116 pages yet. The matching numbers are just a coincidence.
Exiled Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Whatever else one may say about Alexander Campbell's immediate and predictable response to the Book of Mormon, the main difficulty for him is that he assumes that it must be addressing the 19th century, if only because it was published at that very time. Now that we know that the language in which it was published is EModEnglish, that moves the response time back to the 16th century -- and to the controversies then current. Were they the same religious controversies which we see in the 19th century, or are they different? What would an author writing in 1540 know about such matters? What were his potential concerns? Does the tail wag the dog? Do Messrs Carmack and Skousen claim the entire thing was written in EmodE? I thought their claim was that they merely found some archaic structures in the text and then made the standard "how would Joseph Smith have known this" claim afterward.
Exiled Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: How do you think Joseph managed to do that? I think he, himself, or perhaps with the help of others, composed the thing and with it attempted to settle then current biblical controversies such as infant baptism, etc.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, Exiled said: I think he, himself, or perhaps with the help of others, composed the thing and with it attempted to settle then current biblical controversies such as infant baptism, etc. One conspicuous puzzle that shows up in Givens's By the Hand of Mormon, his Oxford published reception history of the Book of Mormon, and studies of the use of the Book of Mormon by early members is, they never used it to settle Biblical controversies in this way. The Saints accepted and used the Book of Mormon as a witness rather than as a way to settle Bible controversies. And one more thing I find amusing in Campbell's oft quoted assessment that "it settles all the great controversies" is that he seems rather offended that anything outside of the document that produced the Great Controversies should resolve them. As if that is the last thing God would try to do is settle controversies. And of course, if someone else besides Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, that implies that a full document existed and the loss of the first 116 pages of dictation should have posed no crisis. If the translation was just play-acting in some form, reading a prepared script, then there would be no trouble in doing it again. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Recommended Posts