Book of Mormon foolishness--Jaredite ships

[PaulDupre]

But, you are giving the Christian definition of the trinity. I have found that certain LDS members must be pinned down before they will admit to the entire Mormon definition of their god.

Or the entire Mormon definition of anything. Mormonism depends on the ignorance and gullibility of its victims. So Mormons say whatever is calculated to please and comfort, and never reveal anything that might make the intended victim wary or alert him to the bizzaro, double-think world of Mormonism. Mostly, they want to avoid anything that will lead the intended victim to think through to its logical conclusion any distinctly Mormon teaching. To think critically is to cease to be Mormon.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer,
I assume you want a response.

That’s why I asked.​

The following description of the members of the Godhead describe how we view the Godhead in the LDS church:

"The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct persons:

"254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.“87”

So, the Catechism is saying that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are distinct persons."

Given your answer: how is God the Father a “perfected man” - & who was god (or God) while he was coming to perfection on “an earth” (whichever that may have been) ? If the Spirit is “a personage of spirit”, is the Spirit also a “perfected man” ?​

Nothing quoted is incompatible with:

• Tritheism
• Polytheism
• Anthropomorphism
• Arianism
• Macedonianism

• as a result, even Modalism & Sabellianism are not completely guarded against If God, in any of the Persons, is a “perfected man”, he cannot be unchangeable: & a changeable God could easily become the Modalist God. The text as quoted is open to all sorts of errors - nothing is said God’s Transcendence, nor of most of His other attributes, such as Eternity, Omniscience, Holiness, etc. It is what is not said, & what is not guarded against, that is bothersome.

But thanks anyway

Does Mormonism accept that some of God’s attributes are incommunicable, & others are communicable ?

Maybe that’s off the topic… Thank you again

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And so they are: three distinct persons who are one being. Or rather, one being whose nature it is to exist as a family of three persons.

That’s what I thought - that quotation lets in a whole army of errors . We are really fortunate to belong to a Tradition & a Church that niggles over details.​

 

[ParkerD]

That’s what I thought - that quotation lets in a whole army of errors . We are really fortunate to belong to a Tradition & a Church that niggles over details.​

Gottle of Geer,
If the quotation you were referring to was the one I posted, then I’m not sure if you are aware that it is evidently from Catholic catechism, since I copied it from one of the responses of a Catholic.

Rather than go back and forth on this topic, I will add a simple statement to the thread where this topic was thoroughly discussed recently, so it comes up on the first page again and you can easily find it and read as much as you would like to. Again, it is quite thorough. It is a thread started by Lamb of God Girly.

 

[cothrige]

Just to add a note of fairness, do you literally believe in the story of Noah’s Ark? Or that the sun actually stood still for Joshua? I don’t, but I still think the Bible is full of truth. Parker finds a lot of truth in the Book of Mormon. I’m not sure it has to be literally true either.

I think the real issue, at least for me, is not whether Noe really bult an ark, but that nothing is in it which would contradict an ancient date of origin. Whoever wrote the text of the Noe story, regardless of whether you believe it, lived many years before Christ. We know this to be true for many reasons and the text is also consistent with that fact. But, can the same thing be said about the BoM and what is said in this story about the barges and Jared?

And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.

Ether 2:23​

Here we are presented with a text which takes for granted an existence of glass windows. God speaks assuming that people knew about them and therefore would have desired them. This means that the people would have already had developed glass window panes at the time of the tower of Babel, which is outrageously false.

Not only that, but these windows would also have been clear, to let in light. There is another reference to such an idea a bit further on:

And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord…

Ether 3:1​

As far as I can tell, from what I have available to me, such clear glass did not exist until some time after Christ when the Romans developed the necessary technology. It certainly would not have been known and taken for granted by people from the time of the Tower of Babel.

So, as far as I would be concerned, the problem is not whether this story, or that of Noe, is true. The problem is when was it written. We know that the Noe text is ancient, but not the Book of Mormon. We can only trace that back to Joseph Smith. And anachronisms such as these certainly give every indication that the text was written by somebody to whom clear glass window panes were well known, and not someone contemporary with the Tower of Babel, or anything even close to it.

 

[ParkerD]

I think the real issue, at least for me, is not whether Noe really bult an ark, but that nothing is in it which would contradict an ancient date of origin. Whoever wrote the text of the Noe story, regardless of whether you believe it, lived many years before Christ. We know this to be true for many reasons and the text is also consistent with that fact. But, can the same thing be said about the BoM and what is said in this story about the barges and Jared?

Here we are presented with a text which takes for granted an existence of glass windows. God speaks assuming that people knew about them and therefore would have desired them. This means that the people would have already had developed glass window panes at the time of the tower of Babel, which is outrageously false.

Not only that, but these windows would also have been clear, to let in light. There is another reference to such an idea a bit further on:

As far as I can tell, from what I have available to me, such clear glass did not exist until some time after Christ when the Romans developed the necessary technology. It certainly would not have been known and taken for granted by people from the time of the Tower of Babel.

So, as far as I would be concerned, the problem is not whether this story, or that of Noe, is true. The problem is when was it written. We know that the Noe text is ancient, but not the Book of Mormon. We can only trace that back to Joseph Smith. And anachronisms such as these certainly give every indication that the text was written by somebody to whom clear glass window panes were well known, and not someone contemporary with the Tower of Babel, or anything even close to it.

Cothrige,
Glass seems to have been invented/discovered earlier than 3000 BC. The logic of using glass for “windows” doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, with the guidance of God who is omniscient. Joseph Smith translated into words that would be familiar to him and others of his time, so the use of the term does not mean the Jaredites used the term for windows in their language. They could have used the term for “opening” and a term for “glassy material”, and Joseph Smith could have simply translated those words into the single word, “window”.

 

[why_me]

Here is something about the Jaredites:

en.fairmormon.org/Story_of_Jaredites_added_to_explain_presence_of_animals_in_New_World

Background
Critics suggest that the Book of Ether was simply an “afterthought” added by Joseph Smith to the Book of Mormon in order to explain the presence of a wide variety of animals in the New World at the time of the arrival of Lehi’s party. The verses used by critics to support this assertion are Ether 2:1-3…

You can read the rest from the website.

 

[why_me]

And then we have this:

Glass
When the Jaredites were building their barges the brother of Jared was concerned about the lack of light in their vessels. The Lord asked: “What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed to pieces…” (Ether 2:23.)
Some critics have taken this to mean that the Jaredites understood the concept of glass—which, they claim, is anachronistic for the time period (approximately 2000 B.C.).

Thanks to modern research, however, we find that some Egyptians had plaques of blue glass and glass beads as early as the third millennium B.C.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms6.pdf

 

[why_me]

And here is more book of mormon foolishness:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

And so, here we can see that there is no slam dunk by the critics. That mormons can find faith enhancing evidence is relevant to any discussion.

Book of Mormon foolishness has been out there from a very early date. And mormons have been countering with their own faith supporting evidences. Can we claim that the book of mormon is foolish, written by a very young man who wanted to dominate the world? I don’t think so. He did not have the brains to write that book. And the sidney and solomon debate has been negated at this moment.

 

[cothrige]

Hello Parker,

Good to talk with you again.

Glass seems to have been invented/discovered earlier than 3000 BC.

Yes, I would agree that it is quite ancient. But, from what I can find, that isn’t the case for either glass window panes or clear glass in general. These simply didn’t exist at such an early date, or for a very long time after.

The logic of using glass for “windows” doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, with the guidance of God who is omniscient. Joseph Smith translated into words that would be familiar to him and others of his time, so the use of the term does not mean the Jaredites used the term for windows in their language. They could have used the term for “opening” and a term for “glassy material”, and Joseph Smith could have simply translated those words into the single word, “window”.

Okay, I will grant you that the second reference, the one to the small stones, might possibly be a choice of translation for a modern audience. If so it would seem a troubling method, unless the comparison was to something absolutely lost to modern history and therefore would mean nothing to us, such as perhaps “urim and thummim.” Perhaps unlikely, but I can’t say it isn’t plausible.

However, that doesn’t seem to be the case for the first reference in which we are told God says What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces. Here God is certainly referring to windows which would shatter, and the fact that he is telling this person that such is not an option indicates that the listener would have considered this. This would mean that this text is depicting a people already familiar with the idea of glass windows, which just isn’t true of anyone of that period.

I am very open to the idea that God knows what we don’t, and that concepts or events may be revealed in scripture before they are revealed in time. I wouldn’t argue against that. But, I don’t get anything like that impression here. This is not a prophetic text, and neither does it appear to allow for a translation gloss or choice, as might be suggested for the other verse I mentioned. Here God is disabusing someone of a notion which they could only entertain if they had some contact with the technology. I would say that in the case of a book with no solid provenance this is a terrible problem. It gives every indication of an author who lived, not during the time of the Tower of Babel, but during an age in which glass windows were commonplace technology. The people being depicted in these texts didn’t in fact live during such a period of history, but Joseph Smith did.

 

[po18guy]

That mormons can find faith enhancing evidence is relevant to any discussion.

"Religion: LDS and Catholic"

It is well known that lies and deceit are not sins in the furtherance of the LDS organization. But, please choose a faith. It is 100% obvious that you are LDS and NOT Catholic. Another LDS user tried the same trick. Know this: It is a sin to lie or deceive - no matter the reason.

 

[why_me]

Hello Parker,

Good to talk with you again.

Yes, I would agree that it is quite ancient. But, from what I can find, that isn’t the case for either glass window panes or clear glass in general. These simply didn’t exist at such an early date, or for a very long time after.

.

Did you look at my links? It seems that a certain glass variation was known to the Egyptians.

 

[ParkerD]

“Religion: LDS and Catholic”

It is well known that lies and deceit are not sins in the furtherance of the LDS organization. But, please choose a faith. It is 100% obvious that you are LDS and NOT Catholic. Another LDS user tried the same trick. Know this: It is a sin to lie or deceive - no matter the reason.

Po18Guy,
Since the word Catholic means “universal” in its basic meaning, I suppose I could say I am also Catholic. I believe that religion is universal, that God counts what is in our heart more than the label we carry around with us to be “seen of men”, and that as Dickens said, “Mankind was my business.” Have a nice day.

 

[ParkerD]

Cothrige,
I liked your logic, and the points you made as well as the flow of expression. Thanks. (I love language as art. You do it well.)

One of my strong beliefs is that humankind has often retrogressed during history in lieu of making consistent progress. This is amply evident in many archeological evidences, of course, but not in the case of the use of glass based on archeology. Even so, I honestly would ask, “How hard is it to conceive of a certain group of people whose ancestors were taught by God Himself, to have learned how to molten rock material into a translucent material and form it into a device to use as a “window””? I just don’t think that was such difficult “technology”, and I think it would have been very logical for advanced peoples to figure out such a process. I also think that it was advanced enough “technology” that it makes sense to me that only a few people would use it and it wouldn’t be a widespread archeological “find”.

Real deep thinkers, especially those who connect the spiritual and the temporal and are able to advance in both areas of their lives, are extremely rare in history.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
I liked your logic, and the points you made as well as the flow of expression. Thanks. (I love language as art. You do it well.)

Thank you Parker, you are very kind.

One of my strong beliefs is that humankind has often retrogressed during history in lieu of making consistent progress. This is amply evident in many archeological evidences, of course, but not in the case of the use of glass based on archeology. Even so, I honestly would ask, “How hard is it to conceive of a certain group of people whose ancestors were taught by God Himself, to have learned how to molten rock material into a translucent material and form it into a device to use as a “window””? I just don’t think that was such difficult “technology”, and I think it would have been very logical for advanced peoples to figure out such a process. I also think that it was advanced enough “technology” that it makes sense to me that only a few people would use it and it wouldn’t be a widespread archeological “find”.

I cannot deny that what you say is possible. Not being an expert I wouldn’t know how much evidence of glass working may remain after a civilization, and I won’t deny that new discoveries are made all the time which change our ideas and knowledge. It may just happen that we will find one day that people did have such a technology and we just didn’t know it. Or perhaps all such evidence could be lost forever. It may be unlikely, but probably no more than building boats and sailing to the New World two millenia before Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Po18Guy,
Since the word Catholic means “universal” in its basic meaning, I suppose I could say I am also Catholic. I believe that religion is universal, that God counts what is in our heart more than the label we carry around with us to be “seen of men”, and that as Dickens said, “Mankind was my business.” Have a nice day.

Universalism is not the meaning of Catholic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can we claim that the book of mormon is foolish, written by a very young man who wanted to dominate the world?

Sure we can, and do. Though “a very young man who wanted to dominate the world” is you, using rhetoric. It is clear that JS sought to deceive people, from a young age. His deceptions only grew as he did.

 

[RebeccaJ]

hich, they claim, is anachronistic for the time period (approximately 2000 B.C.).

Thanks to modern research, however, we find that some Egyptians had plaques of blue glass and glass beads as early as the third millennium B.C.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms6.pdf

Which is just more Mormon nonsense which FAIR is profoundly adept at producing. Glass beads and blue glass do not windowpanes make. It is the same nonsensical argument used everywhere by Mormons. A glass bead = the more sophisticated technology to make a window. When there is no evidence anywhere that any such technology existed, and, that a window was never made until 3000 years later. It is not even pseudo-science, it is just plain illogical and throwing coins into a wishing well.

There is no evidence in the New World either, for glass making. None. It strains credibility to believe that such a valuable technology was used once to make a boat or two and then discarded.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Po18Guy,
Since the word Catholic means “universal” in its basic meaning, I suppose I could say I am also Catholic. I believe that religion is universal, that God counts what is in our heart more than the label we carry around with us to be “seen of men”, and that as Dickens said, “Mankind was my business.” Have a nice day.

“catholic” - Little “c.” Maybe. But not “Catholic” - Capital “C.”

 

[ParkerD]

Universalism is not the meaning of Catholic.

Hi, Rebecca,
Thanks for the smile, and the kindness behind it.

I guess I should have used a small “c”, which is what I meant, when I looked it up in Webster’s Collegiate and it said as meaning one: “Universal or general; affecting mankind as a whole, or affecting what is universal in human interest.” 3. “Of or pertaining to the church universal; specif., designating, or pertaining to, the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it;”