posted
Perhaps you should examine your tone when posting. The way people perceive something determines whether or not it is anti-Mormon, not just the intent. If you ask what you feel is a "difficult question" in a condecending way, people will be insulted, and the thread will be removed. If you ask the same question with the intent to learn, rather than point out problems, it will more than likely stay long enough for a discussion to take place.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In what context would it be acceptable for me to ask about, say, New World horses in the pre-contact period?
If you were to ask about it like this, it would be easy to tell you that the Spaniards never made it past the Mississippi river in the US. The fact that there weren't any horses in the heavilly forested Eastern US doesn't prevent the possibility of there being wild horses at the time in the wide open plains of the west. Rule #1 of history, you can only know what documents and archaelogical remains tell you, and you can suppose no more of history, but assuming that those documents contain absolute truth about history is just plain...well...stupid.
[ December 13, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If something claims to authoritatively talk about the events of the past, then it is a historic document.
The Book of Mormon, however, would not be the first or the most prominent historic document to seem inconsistent with certain other pieces of evidence. Almost every major religious document I can think of has a similar problem, at least among those which talk about the events of the past. Many nonreligious documents too....
quote:The fact that there weren't any horses in the heavilly forested Eastern US doesn't prevent the possibility of there being wild horses at the time in the wide open plains of the west.
Fossil record, anyone? People have searched for bones all over the Great Plains; it beggars belief that they would not have found horses if there were any. Particularly since they did find the Eohippus, or whatever it was called, that the paleo-Indians wiped out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How far back do you want to go? And exactly how deep are people digging to find fossils? There are a million things that could prevent more modern fossils from appearing, but, here. Continuing, what do you get when you remove the water-storage device found on camels (The hump). Can someone say, "Llama." Well, those are all over the place in South America. How many lamma fossils have been found and no one cares? How many times could a horse fossil have been found and no one cared because horses are all over the place for crying out loud? How possible is it that the dating of the horse fossils that were found is incorrect? You can't prove something is wrong using archeological evidence because we simply haven't found it all.
[ December 13, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Could those who have been through the temple be considered LDS insiders?
They could be, but some people would not consider them real insiders, since it is so easy to qualify to enter the temple.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand what the llamas have to do with it. They may look like camels, though according to Wiki you can distinguish them by dentition :
quote:The isolated canine-like premolar which follows in the camels is not present.
But they don't look anything like horses. Further, people have been studying the American megafauna for quite some time, and they do indeed find horses, lots of them. Before historical times, that is. They disappear along with the mammoths 12000 years ago. How likely is it that people would find horses up to 12k years ago, and then mistake any horses found after that for a llama?
Best link I can find. Ye gods, twenty hits on some game called "American Megafauna" and one actual article? My Google-fu must be weakening.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Wow, Tom, you're great at debate aren't you? I think my comment there was a little hasty, since I hadn't read the whole article. But it isn't going to get deleted because someone thinks it is insulting. The fact of the matter in this thread is that a man published a work that was passed off as a scholarly work by a person with a long background in the church that was more of a personal opinion piece. It did not fit the ideals of the church, even though the author made a point of giving his church background as a basis for his authority on the subject. That's just bad in all ways. My comment in the other thread was made under the impression that a select few people complained that a monument to a dead soldier was considered "insulting" because it depicted an Eagle and said (paraphrasing) "We support our troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Those detractors even went so far as to contest the word "Support." Come on man, it's like they were reading it as just "We support Operation Iraqi Freedom." Yes, I think wording is important, but I think meaning is more important, and for some reason, people who nit-pick over wording seems to miss what is meant in a statement....Much like you have, Tom.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But they don't look anything like horses. Further, people have been studying the American megafauna for quite some time, and they do indeed find horses, lots of them. Before historical times, that is. They disappear along with the mammoths 12000 years ago. How likely is it that people would find horses up to 12k years ago, and then mistake any horses found after that for a llama?
Llamas have nothing to do with horses. I just threw that in for fun Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The King James Bible refers to Joseph in ancient Egypt growing corn. Does this mean that what we know today as corn isn't a new world plant like we had supposed and was actually growing in the ancient middle east?
No, it means that word usage has changed since the middle English of the King James version. Who's to say that the "horses" mentioned in the Book of Mormon aren't some other beast of burden that we don't have a name for? Who's to say that the events didn't occur in an isolated, small geographical area not condusive to fossil formation and that the populations of horses weren't fleeting in duration?
The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record. The very first prophets of the book, Nephi and Jacob, state that the small plates (the record from which Joseph translated) were meant as a spiritual record of the people and that the historical and day-to-day events were to be recorded on a separate set of plates.
quote:And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings. -Jacob 3:13
posted
King James is in modern English (not in the sense that some people use it, but in the sense that it is not middle English and comes after middle English), and it is known to have (many) translation problems, both intentional and mistaken.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'd say that most of the more provable problematic possibilities with Mormon texts arise from the Pearl of Great Price, rather than the BoM.
In the case of the BoM, the only apologetics necessary are "its a case of equivocation of meaning!" (the "horses") and "just because nobody's found it yet . . ." (lots of things).
The Pearl of Great Price has more significant problems.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting disclaimer, written by Moroni, the last author in the Book of Mormon:
23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock• at these things, because of our weakness• in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty• in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness• of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote• were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot• write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness•, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock• at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools• mock•, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness•. I give• unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble• themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak• things become strong unto them.
Ether 12:23-27
[ December 14, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate because it teaches you to be humble? *blink*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Just that Moroni knew this would be happening, it freaked him out, and the Lord told him not to worry about it, his grace is enough to make up for any defficiencies.
The Book of Mormon makes a great deal more sense with the Spirit.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how to answer your question. As I was using the term 'insiders' meant anyone who actively believes in the basic doctrines of the church i.e. who has a testimony.
Certainly those members who have gone through the temple have received access to 'inside' things, but because I see the temple covenants as being profoundly personal, I wouldn't consider a member who has been through the temple more of an insider than one who hadn't -- at least not if we are going by the term 'insiders' to mean like "Washington insiders" or "sources close to the team" or whatever.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that the "anti" label is a carte blanche to stifle questions; how far am I from the truth?
Foust:
Not at all. You seem to have misunderstood what I have been trying to say [not an unusual circumstance for me].
I responded the way I did because the instances you bring up are the standard script that I mention on page 3.
You have your obejections. The Mormon apologetics have their responses. We can go through the routine, but I'd prefer not to. It's a level of debate that I don't find all that fruitful and that boils down to what all amateur religious and political discussions seem to get to --- one's worldview -- i.e. whether one is accepting of spiritual evidences or not -- affects how one approaches the 'physical' evidences. Is it horses or llamas? Swords or war clubs? etc. etc.
Anything the apologists come up with is going to be dismissed as apologetics. And unless you are a serious expert in the field, any of the historical objections you are going to come up with are going to be founded on the work of anti-Mormons -- those who are actively trying to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon for ideological reasons (and I'm willing to be corrected on this point -- but so far, I don't know of any scholars who have approached the historicity of the Book of Mormon sans agenda).
In other words, it seems to me that you are trying to start what is at least for me a rather tired out conversation. Thus my previous response.
What I've also tried to suggest is that there are a lot of interesting things going in the Book of Mormon that I haven't seen non-LDS actively engage in. The horses et. al. stuff is small potatoes, imo.
Does that make more sense?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: and I'm willing to be corrected on this point -- but so far, I don't know of any scholars who have approached the historicity of the Book of Mormon sans agenda
I have a question: Would a Baptist scholar who approached this be considered to have an agenda simply because they were Baptist? What if they didn't mention their religious affiliation, but rather it was dragged up by someone else? Wouldn't anyone who disbelieves in Mormonism be considered to have an agenda?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a level of debate that I don't find all that fruitful and that boils down to what all amateur religious and political discussions seem to get to --- one's worldview -- i.e. whether one is accepting of spiritual evidences or not -- affects how one approaches the 'physical' evidences. Is it horses or llamas? Swords or war clubs? etc. etc.
Isn't one's worldview based on reasons, though? And if so, can't one's reasons be critiqued and discussed in a way that might allow you to question or better understand them?
Just because the difference comes down to a conflict in worldviews does not mean the discussion is not fruitful. It just means that when you get to that point, you must then discuss whether the worldviews in question are wrong or right.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the agenda Zalmoxis is referring to is one of actively trying to undermine the church--for whatever reason, usually ideological--and devoting time and attention to this pursuit. Obviously a Baptist will have different viewpoints than Mormons, but that doesn't necessarily consitutute an agenda. We can vocally disagree, but do so respectfully.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Which isn't to say that there would be no merit in their arguments. I'm all for a diversity of voices.
My emphasis, however, is always on a person's ability to engage in rigorous, intersting, fruitful dialogue (not that I'm a paragon of this). What I'm mainly objecting to is discussions -- in textual discussios (there's more leeway for in-person stuff which should be more casual) -- that basically follow the standard script for apologetics and its detractors. It's not that there is *no* value in re-hashing the same ground. But in my experience much of this is performance rather than communication -- like talk radio.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact of the matter in this thread is that a man published a work that was passed off as a scholarly work by a person with a long background in the church that was more of a personal opinion piece.
I have not read the book. Have you? I think it is a stretch to say that the fact is that this is just a personal opinion piece. I will buy the book today. It seems the author uses many sources, not just anti-Mormon literature. He also states pretty clearly that the anti-Mormon literature has an agenda, but we must be willing to look at all sides.
I don't think that is merely an opinion, I will let you know, AFTER I have read it and personally checked the different sources.
quote: The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record.
I was reading some of the author’s motivation for writing this book, and it seem you two are in agreement. He still is a Mormon because he believes in the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon.
If you look at it like a metaphor, then you are right, archaeological evidences don't matter.
But the Book of Mormon is supposed to be more then just a metaphor, it is literal--right? If it is literal, then we have every right to examine it with scientific eyes. There is a great deal of archaeology in Jerusalem. The location of the cities and the history being uncovered very much adds to the spirit of the Bible.
It seems strange to me to defend the Book of Mormon by dismissing the archaeology against someone who wrote a book saying that the archaeology is not important. Focus on Christ, re-examine your beliefs about the literalness of the Book of Mormon, and appreciate the stories.
The LDS church can’t do that. If they admit it is a metaphor, then it denigrates the priesthood authority. If they hold it is literal, then they are open to honest criticism to the lack of archaeological evidence. It opens doors to justified doubt. Not all doubt is anti-Christian and cantankerous in nature. The church is in a tough position, but they are a strong enough social force that I have no doubt will find a way.
I do doubt that there ever was Gold Plates that someone translated by peering at two stones in a hat. Oops, that sounded cantankerous.
It is hard to make religion literal because when you state it as it is, it just sounds flippant. Say “Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by placing two stones in a hat and looking at them to decipher glowing words” out loud. It just sounds so un-inspirational. The Gift and Power of God has a much better ring.
This is the dilemma for those of us who are re-examined the church at the request of a loved one. I am not sure if it is a dilemma for the Church.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, Zal, under what circumstances could someone attempt to research the Book of Mormon's historical claims in a manner you would consider unbiased?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The LDS church can’t do that. If they admit it is a metaphor, then it denigrates the priesthood authority. If they hold it is literal, then they are open to honest criticism to the lack of archaeological evidence. It opens doors to justified doubt. Not all doubt is anti-Christian and cantankerous in nature. The church is in a tough position, but they are a strong enough social force that I have no doubt will find a way.
It's hard to see how the Book of Mormon could be a metaphor. It's not set up to tell another story metaphorically. It is set up to illustrate and elucidate a whole bunch of doctrine while quite literally recounting events and lives. It contains metaphor in a few spots to illustrate doctrine, but that metaphor is fairly easy to distinguish from the majority of the text.
Criticism of the Book of Mormon based on archaeological evidence tends to strike Mormons as somewhat beside the point. The Book of Mormon doesn't take many pains to establish a geographical context. It's more concerned with the people, their teachings, and their interactions in the context of those teachings. The majority of its material was taken from far more comprehensive records kept by the people. Whatever appears in the Book of Mormon is there by specific and stated intent.
And with all its alleged archaeological shortcomings, we still believe it to contain the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is its intent, and that is its value to us. We believe that these people did exist and that these events really did take place, but our interest lies primarily in the application of their teachings and the lessons they learned.
Having doubt is a natural part of the learning process. Taking that doubt, however, and setting it up publicly as an alternative to Church doctrine goes against Church regulations, and the Church handles it accordingly. Why should it be any different?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, exactly. Any justification of word usage using the KJV should skip back to the Greek to double check.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:have a question: Would a Baptist scholar who approached this be considered to have an agenda simply because they were Baptist? What if they didn't mention their religious affiliation, but rather it was dragged up by someone else? Wouldn't anyone who disbelieves in Mormonism be considered to have an agenda?
Everybody who approaches anything does it with an agenda, at least at first, and anyone who says they don't is kidding themselves.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am astounded at the attitude toward apologetics here.
I love apologetics, I do apologetics research as a hobby. Apologetics is defending the faith with factual truth. That shouldn't be something to be shied away from.
If your faith is true - if what you believe is sound, then you should welcome questions against it! It should give you a chance to 1) reaffirm your own beliefs and 2) help to show others the truth of what you believe.
I read constantly - things written by Christians and by those who do not believe and set out to disprove some of the claims of Christianity.
I've had fellow Christians tell me things like "Oh don't read Da Vinci code, it attaks Christianity." No thank you, I want to know what it says, because I believe I know the truth and it doesn't threaten me. Only by reading it and dealing with the claims made in it (which were ridiculous) was I able to say confidently that nothing in that book is a threat to my belief system. If I don't read it and confront what it says, it's always in the back of my mind "Gee, I wonder if the reason nobody wanted me to read the Da Vinci code is because there is some truth to it..."
I watched "Last Temptation of Christ", it was a way of generating some intriguing conversation. What if the devil had tempted Christ with such a vision - it certainly would have been powerful, but the point is Christ didn't give into such temptations. Since I know he didn't give into it, then why is that movie a threat to me?
If you believe the book of MOrmon to be historically true - and the other sacred texts - they why not welcome questions about it and have dialogue with the people who are questioning you? Deleting posts and refusing to discuss it because everyone who brings up a question is immediately labeled as "anti-Mormon" smacks of fear.
This book written by this guy should be something that Mormons read and then address - not just the apologetics groups, but everyday Mormons so they can be aware of it and address the points brought up by it.
I think it's inherent on the follower of any belief system to be firmly grounded in what they believe and why they believe it. Like I said in an earlier post, we are to love God with all our mind - not just our heart and spirit. We should use the intelligence we were given to examine our beliefs, and if what we beleive is true it will hold up under the scrutiny. If you're afraid to even examine it (and I know many Christians even in my own church who are, so this isn't an attack merely on Mormons) then you seem to have a pretty shallow faith indeed.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's inherent on the follower of any belief system to be firmly grounded in what they believe and why they believe it.
I agree.
But the belief system is not based on historical research and mental gymnastics. To be firmly grounded in what he believes and why he believes it, one studies the scriptures like crazy, prays for the spirit, and lives in accordance with the gospel as best one can.
FARMS is not necessary - just helpful sometimes, for some people. It's not canon, and it's not sine qua non.
No one is unbiased. And I'd say that's even more true when it comes to a faith as young and as highly charged as Mormonism.
Note I have never said that there is *no* value in looking critically at the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And I have said that a plurality of voices is important -- although some voices have more credibility than others.
My points are these:
1. In my experience because of the particular conditions related to Mormonism those who engage in a study of it -- esp. those based on historicity concerns -- tend to have more of an agenda/bias than say your normal, everyday academic (I have my doubts that such a thing exists, but for the sake of clarity here).
2. No. 1 is evidenced by the fact that most work in this field is done by and marshalled by those who engage in apologetics and Mormon skeptic-ness (to not use the anti word) -- thus my comments about the whole script thing -- horses, swords, etc. Because both sides are convinced one way or the other, their arguments are only convincing to those who are already convinced.
3. Academics who are doing work in, say, Latin American archeology and anthroplogy are, naturally, not going to buy into Book of Mormon historicity. Thus one might assume that any descriptions that they come up with of the ancient Americas that don't seem to fit in with Book of Mormon historicity automatically discount that historicity. I think that such work should be given more weight than the work of the skeptics and the apologists. However, to what extent those sources apply are complicated by the fact that they weren't intended to prove anything one way or the other in terms of Mormonism.
The question then becomes -- how does one make such application? And that again thrusts us into the realm of apologetics.
-----
Also: of course then there's the whole problem and the crux of dealing with an ideology that makes both spiritual and historical claims and privileges personal exepriences with deity as a way of knowing the truth of something.
How can a person who has not had such (subjective -- which raises a whole other set of problems, something we've discussed before) experiences be trusted to get it right, to not let their skepticism interfere with the lenses and assumptions they bring to their research?
How can someone who has had such subjective experiences be trusted -- afterall, aren't they going to be more willing to consider evidences and create explanations that fit in with what they believe to be true on a metaphysical level?
This is why, I think that when one is approaching a study of Mormonism, a person should focus on three things.
1. The core doctrines taught and how they cohere --- thinks like the premortal life and the eternal nature of our being (i.e. the rejection of creation ex nihilo), the nature of God, the Mormon understanding of Christ, the whole thing with priesthood and ordinances, etc.
2. The community and practices of worship. What is it like to worship with Mormons?
3. Study of scripture and sincere prayer for the subjective (i.e. personal) spiritual experiences. Such experiences form the foundation of believing Mormons testimonies.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Things of the spirit must be understood with the spirit. I agree with Galileo (I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.) and Paul (But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.).
Attempting to understand the mysteries with only intellect and neglecting the things the Lord has said will lead to knowledge and testimony (repentance, prayer, obedience, and scripture study) is a great way to get to know your own mind better, but heaven stays closed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Okay, so mental gymnastics is the scholarly study of the scripture without discerning the spirit? Or are you defining it another way?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I agree with what you say about apologetics. I think it has its place.
At the same time there are major limitations to such a form of discourse -- as I've mentioned.
In fact the only thing that I really take issue with is this:
quote:If you believe the book of MOrmon to be historically true - and the other sacred texts - they why not welcome questions about it and have dialogue with the people who are questioning you?
That's totally fine with me. But I'd like to emphasiss the "dialogue" part of it. In my experience, many who bring up the issue aren't looking for dialogue -- after all, they've probably already read the responses by apologetists -- instead they're looking to follow the script [I'm not saying there's a specific actual script out there -- rather I'm saying this is the type of conversation that apologetics-type discussions tend to encourage]. Again -- it's like talk radio. I don't find that much value in talk radio.
But that's just me.
This is the entire problem with conversations between believers and skeptics. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. But I try to do my best here. And I appreciate those like TomD and Belle who are at willing to listen to and address the substance of our discussions.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I have no objection to Palmer writing his book. I don't think it's dangerous for Mormons to read. I have read plenty of books in my time that challenge my faith. I like to live by the maxims of one of my favorite teachers: "Don't be afraid to ask the hard questions. The Gospel is true; it can take whatever you throw at it."
I do, however, have a problem with Palmer writing a book like this and citing his positions of Church authority to qualify him as an "insider," giving the mistaken idea to many that what he is teaching is sanctioned by a church, or worse, kept as some deep dark secret by a church that doesn't want it to get out. That is the problem here, and why I've been defending the church's actions.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, since you're posting here I'm going to assume that either A) You're taking a break from your paper, or B) You haven't started yet, C) You've finished. If it's either C, or A for another little bit, you should be aware that I'm on AIM.
posted
Annie, I did not say the church should endorse his book. I have no problem with the church's actions, they don't have to support something that goes against what they believe to be truth.
And kat, I do not mean to insinuate that the spirit has nothing at all to do with faith. I just don't think that God intends us to say "Spiritually, I know through prayer and revelation that God is real and that's the end of it." I think it's inherent upon us to know the factual basis behind our beliefs, not necessarily for our own sake, but as a witnessing tool.
quote:This is the entire problem with conversations between believers and skeptics. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is.
Well the solution certainly isn't to refuse to have the conversation.
I have dialogued or argued or whatever you want to call it with plenty of people who have pre-conceived notions - and in most cases it wasn't at all immediately clear if it was beneficial for me. I've been beaten down by people who've called me names. And I've gone through periods of time where I just didn't want to do it anymore and I've taken breaks.
But, since I know what I believe to be true, I always come back to it. And I've had people come back to me later to tell me they admired my stand and that much of what I said made sense to them, they just didn't want to admit it at the time.
That would not have been possible if I were afraid or just unwilling to have the conversation because I thought the person's mind was already made up. If you think someone's mind is made up - then change it! I mean, if you possess the ultimate truth, isn't that possible? After all, I'm just a messenger, it's God who changes hearts and minds, but part of my mission on earth is to obey him and carry the truth to others, even if they seem hostile to me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you ask the same question with the intent to learn, rather than point out problems, it will more than likely stay long enough for a discussion to take place.
And that is exactly what I want to do. I'm sitting here in London, Canada, and Mormons aren't exactly thick on the ground. The LDS here are pretty much the only flesh and blood sources I have.
quote:If you were to ask about it like this, it would be easy to tell you that the Spaniards never made it past the Mississippi river in the US.
Boris, isn't it a standard position among the LDS that the BOM took place largely in Mesoamerica?
I understand the distinction between official doctrine and popular LDS belief, and I know the local of the BOM isn't official doctrine. But am I right to think that is the standard belief among churchmembers?
Where do you stand on that issue? If the BOM took place in Mesoamerica, than the Spaniards' experiences weigh heavily.
quote:No, it means that word usage has changed since the middle English of the King James version. Who's to say that the "horses" mentioned in the Book of Mormon aren't some other beast of burden that we don't have a name for?
Here's a point of doctrine I need clarification on.
Wasn't the BOM miracuously translated from the Reformed Egyption? I didn't think Joseph Smith was relying on his own abilities.
Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
quote:The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record.
Over here, people are talking about the value of a religion if its historical claims are invalid.
So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
That seems to me to be what you're suggesting, Annie. By insisting that the BOM is not a historical record, are the LDS saying it doesn't matter if the historical claims are literally accurate?
quote:And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock• at these things, because of our weakness• in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty• in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them
What does this mean? It seems like you're saying that the historical facts stated in the BOM are not connected to the truth of the spiritual doctrines.
quote:Anything the apologists come up with is going to be dismissed as apologetics. And unless you are a serious expert in the field, any of the historical objections you are going to come up with are going to be founded on the work of anti-Mormons
Do you believe that the entire fields of North American archeology and paleontology are intentionally anti-mormon, then?
When an archeologist that knows nothing of the LDS faith outlines a Mesoamerican timeline that has no room for an advanced Jewish civlization, what is the basis of that? Is it a matter of spiritual corruption - that he unintentionally attacks the faith? Or has he been misled by others in the field who are intentionally anti-Mormon?
quote:What I've also tried to suggest is that there are a lot of interesting things going in the Book of Mormon that I haven't seen non-LDS actively engage in. The horses et. al. stuff is small potatoes, imo.
I am 100% willing to talk about this stuff with someone. I've got a copy of the BOM sitting beside me, and if any of the LDSers here want to educate me over email or MSN, I'm willing to have a go at it.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not the Book of Mormon is 'historically accurate' or not is beside the point. There are evidences for its claim that it comes out of a Middle Eastern milieu, there are evidences against it. Most members of the Church are uninterested in either of those sides. To them (us) its relevance, its importance, its proof, come from what it has done for them. It has transformed their lives, made them better people, and most importantly, brought them to Christ. Even Palmer admits it is to be commended for that. THAT is where its worth lies. Everything else is irrelevant. So what if it's proven to be 100% historically correct; if it hasn't done what it says it's designed to do: "convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations", then it's pointless. And let's not forget that 'historical accuracy' is a pretty fragile base to build on. What is thought of as historically accurate is constantly being revised in many areas.
This is one of my favourite OSC quotes, from The Call of Earth: "The story the Oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true - but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life, and the life that disgusts me - your life, your view of life - is the lie."
The only proof of the Book of Mormon possible is the one that an individual can gain for him or herself, by seeing if the book does what it claims it can do - bring us to Christ. The other stuff is largely fairly meaningless trimmings: interesting, fun to argue about, but in the end irrelevant. I love the richness that the presence of a chiastic structure brings to the message of Alma chapter 36, for example, and that seems pretty strong evidence for a Middle Eastern origin. But I loved the MESSAGE of Alma 36 long before I knew of the chiasmus there, and the worth of its message of reconciliation and forgiveness through Christ does not depend on whether it is a genuine Hebrew chiasmus or a contrive 19th century one.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
Yes, the LDS faith would be invalid. There are some, like the author of the book we are talking about, who would say that we can take the spiritual lessons taught in the Book of Mormon and apply them to our life.
However, a major tenant of the LDS faith is priesthood authority. They are true because they have the authority from God to do their ordinances. If Joseph Smith lied about the BoM and did not have the priesthood authority to translate the BoM, the LDS church looses its’ claim of being the restored church.
The church defines itself as non-protestant. It is not just a good church, it is THE CHURCH. Joseph Smith can't lie and the church be true. The stories in the BoM are factual; otherwise, the church is false.
The BoM title page states:
quote: Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
It is the keystone of the faith. It must be true (including the story of how it was translated) or everything else falls apart.
quote:Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
I don't know about other Mormons, but I've never claime that it's inerrant -- innerrant and inspired aren't the same thing in my book.
I also don't think that the source material is inerrant -- it's clearly filtered through both the authors and the overall editor/compiler.
There's also a question of translating for a target audience. That sounds like a cop out to any skeptic, but what if God was actually working with the translator's existent discursive resources and the intended audience?
--------
quote:Do you believe that the entire fields of North American archeology and paleontology are intentionally anti-mormon, then?
When an archeologist that knows nothing of the LDS faith outlines a Mesoamerican timeline that has no room for an advanced Jewish civlization, what is the basis of that? Is it a matter of spiritual corruption - that he unintentionally attacks the faith? Or has he been misled by others in the field who are intentionally anti-Mormon?
Of course not. They are what they are -- secular fields with certain assumptions and methodologies -- assumptions and methodologies that are subject to change, I might add -- although, usually such changes are for the better. Are you saying that the current MesoAmerican narrative categorically leaves no room for Book of Mormon historicity?
The whole problem, as I see it, is that skeptics see the current field and think "well that's settled." On the other hand, the apolgists keep saying "well that could be this and there's still more we don't know."
How much is enough to discount or prove the historicity?
----- You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it.
----- Belle's fine post on engaging in conversation aside (and I mean that --- very good and something I needed to hear). Finally, I have neither the time nor interest (nor is this really the place -- or at least so I undersand) to engage in a drawn out discussion of Book of Mormon historicity. There are plenty of places on the Net where you can find that.
But I would like to ask: What do you think about the Book of Mormon in terms of meta-narration? All those places where it seems rather postmodern (to use a term incredibly loosely and faciley) in its awareness of the text as text (and even as scriptural text).
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it
Well so far no archeologist has ever uncovered a counting machine in acient Meso-America.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
