How do the Mormons do it?

[BartBurk]

Sorry, Parker, I haven’t been able to post for a couple of days. Would you please address my question as to why God would want all evidence of the Nephites destroyed so that we would have to rely on faith only, and yet not destroy the ample evidence of the ancient Jewish culture in the holy land?

Thanks.

I’m not even sure that question is even valid. It might not be a matter of God wanting it destroyed. It could have just disappeared naturally. The Book of Mormon does not leave us a detailed account of Nephite life – mostly we are making inferences from the text that might frankly be wrong. We don’t really know what “cement” meant to the Nephites for example. And it would not be hard to believe that tents and wood structures might have completely perished after 1500 years.

The more troublesome part for me about the Book of Mormon is what I see in the stories in the text. Here is one example:

Ether 12:30:

For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove – and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith.

So apparently the brother of Jared told some mountain to move and it moved. I know Christ said that if we had faith we could move a mountain, but it seems hard for me to believe someone literally told a mountain to move and it did. That and Jaredite ships are a hard sell for me. The entire Book of Ether is a hard sell for me – I’m not sold that languages were confused at a literal Tower of Babel for example. About the only way out would be to assume that Ether’s text was based on ancient Jaredite myth

 

[RebeccaJ]

In Jesus’ life and ministry, He performed many miracles, which were signs to those who followed Him of Who He is. What He did was evidence of Who He said He is.

The Gospels testify to who Jesus is, by relating His life, the miracles He performed, what He taught, His death and Resurrection.

God is the author of who we are. He gives us the gift of faith and He gives us the gift of reason. If God wanted us to follow blindly, we wouldn’t know who to follow, as anyone can claim to be the Messiah, or a prophet. Reason informs faith and faith informs reason, in this way, we are made whole by God.

To say a person should give up their reason, is to say they should give up their freedom. God never calls us to bondage.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not even sure that question is even valid. It might not be a matter of God wanting it destroyed. It could have just disappeared naturally.

I was referring to Parker’s own statements:

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Also, and more importantly, the whole reason for there to be a book given to the world by God to provide another witness that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, is so that people could receive that witness only according to their “faith, heed, and diligence”–meaning that God who has absolute omnipotence could certainly use men who were seeking vengeance to destroy the evidence of the records and of the simple homes and buildings of the Nephite people…

 

[BartBurk]

I was referring to Parker’s own statements:

I agree that God would likely not destroy their remains to hide them. It doesn’t seem to me much of a stretch to say they naturally would disappeared to the extent they might be unrecognizable as Book of Mormon artifacts.

 

[1voice]

Sorry, Parker, I haven’t been able to post for a couple of days. Would you please address my question as to why God would want all evidence of the Nephites destroyed so that we would have to rely on faith only, and yet not destroy the ample evidence of the ancient Jewish culture in the holy land?

Thanks.

After reading what the science indicates… archeologists, linguists, biology experts on DNA, Egyptologists … all of whose work has been verified and cross verified … and confirmed by LDS scientist on all of the above disciplines… showing in every case that the BoM cant be verified. … It all comes down to believing the writings of one man, Joseph Smith… Without the unsubstantiated writings of this one individual… there would be no Mormons.

---

There is a series of Videos on YouTube calles “The Book of Mormon VS the Bible, an in depth study of Latter Day Saints archeology”
… It gives an in depth comparison of the two books and explains the importance of historic validation. It is professionally done and very informative … no matter the perspective that the observer comes from.

---

Another resource that explains the difference between Joseph Smith’s translation of the Papyrus and what the experts have found … and it also verifies the fact that the papyrus did not come from the time of Abraham … as agreed by both LDS and non LDS scholars :
pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_We_Trust_the_Book_of_Abraham

---

This deals with the Question of DNA (scroll down to the info on DNA):
utlm.org/newsletters/no103.htm

equip.org/articles/dna-science-challenges-lds-history

---

 

[1voice]

It seems to me that based on the following … Mormons believe that theirs is the one true faith.

Smith told his followers that he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ in spring 1820 in answer to his question of which sect (denomination) he should join. Sometimes called the “First Vision”, Smith’s vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings was reportedly the basis for the difference in doctrine between Mormonism’s view of the nature of God and that of orthodox Christianity. Smith’s 1838 written account of this vision is considered by some Mormon denominations to be scripture and is contained in a book called “The Pearl of Great Price.” Smith further claimed that in answer to his prayer: "I was answered [by Jesus] that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” By 1830, Smith reported that he had been instructed that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

 

[KathleenGee]

Believing in Joseph Smith is then, not believing in the Holy Spirit Who would guide us…and in Jesus Christ Who said he would always be with us…

So then…what is the human entity, founded by Christ…that was present in the times of Pentecost and thereafter…?

Did the Holy Spirit then suddenly disappear? Did the Apostles not be that motivated by all the years they were with Christ to have no desire to appoint successors inspired by the Holy Spirit?..

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, Parker, I haven’t been able to post for a couple of days. Would you please address my question as to why God would want all evidence of the Nephites destroyed so that we would have to rely on faith only, and yet not destroy the ample evidence of the ancient Jewish culture in the holy land?

Thanks.

SteveVH,

If one looks at all of human history as evidence of God’s plan coming to fruition (which certainly is attested by Isaiah as he prophesied that even Egypt and Babylon would become “instruments” in the hands of God to bring about His purposes for punishing Israel, and which was attested by Paul when he said “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”–note the use of the specific words “all nations” “on all the face of the earth”, meaning that to ignore, minimize, or think unimportant the ancient inhabitants of the Americas is to be specifically against the testimony of Paul–)

then one would need to ask themselves, “what of the ancient Americas–what was God’s purpose in that scenario?”

I see different purposes in the unfolding of history in the Old World, centered in Jerusalem and Canaan if one uses the Bible as the point of reference, and the unfolding of history in the New World. If one believes God really does intend that humankind use free will choice, and that God really does have a plan that includes every baby ever born, then someone like Martin Luther or William Tyndale could (and I believe does) have a purpose in God’s plan–the purpose being to increase the level of free will choice among humankind in their own day and time and forever thereafter.

However, if the same kinds of physical evidences of the Book of Mormon peoples were prevalent for people to “see and believe by sight”, then that would greatly diminish free will choice and run exactly counter to what unfolded with the Protestant Reformation, because “seeing and believing by sight” would mean faith was minimally necessary and the “wisdom of men” would prevail rather than the “hidden wisdom of God”.

This was why I commented about the statement of the Savior about the Jews–“wisdom is justified of all her children” (Luke 7:35). He was speaking about the Jewish leaders having rejected both John the Baptist, because he didn’t meet their preconceived expectations (their “wisdom of men”), and Him who was Their Promised Christ, the Anointed One, who was teaching them in their very presence and yet was being rejected because He didn’t meet their preconceived expectations (their “wisdom of men”).

So there is a different purpose being accomplished with the “hiding” of the physical evidences of the Book of Mormon peoples (and that may change someday–I don’t know one way or the other, since there will be many kinds of “testimonies” of God’s work that will unfold during the end times) than with the evidences of the Biblical peoples and their words of testimony.

One of the differences I see is that through the Bible, humankind are given guides about having love for God and one another, about serving one another, about forgiving, about faith in God and prayer, and those basics are maintained across a wide religious spectrum. The Book of Mormon moves into a deeper level of faith, into really getting back into the presence of God through the Holy Ghost not just as something talked about but as a daily Companion and Comforter. But one who has relied and continues to rely on the “wisdom of men” is going to have sufficient doubt and reliance upon reasoning, that the Holy Ghost for them may be occasional but not a daily experience because of their reliance on the “arm of flesh” or in other words, “the wisdom of men”.

As far as reasoning, I might as well add that participating on this forum, if I were to say I began with spiritual knowledge at 100% certainty and reasoning by having studied the Bible and experienced life and its gospel fruits at another 100% certainty, then at this point those certainties are at 200% and 500%, respectively, because of what I have read and studied during this time of my participation here.

Along those lines, I truly miss the kindly remarks of JAVL, who if he is listening in I hope he is doing very well. I wish you well also, SteveVH.

 

[alwayswondering]

The fact of the matter is, a lot of it makes sense from the outside. Mormons are highly discouraged to read anything outside of “church” resources, so most Mormons only read information from mormon.org, or from church libraries or Deseret book store (an all LDS book store), or asking missionaries or leaders of their ward (similar to a parish) with questions. So of course, everything seems very logical and understandable. I didn’t fall away from the church until I started reading things outside of the church.

The thing is, that to an outsider or someone searching for a faith, the fact that a young boy was lost and trying to find out what church was true and then was visited by God and Jesus and told they were wrong, and then ending up being the founder of the “true church” and so on does, in a way, make sense. It especially helps people that were on the spiritual path like I was, trying to find the “one” right church. You can relate. A lot of the religion makes sense, like the 3 degrees of heaven (how not everyone goes to heaven or hell, that there’s a paradise, etc) and so on. How God is an eternal God, so he just wouldn’t give you one book to last you eternity, right? No, more prophets have written more books (Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price) to keep you going. The Great Apostasy that has patterns of happening in history and then a great time of religions and prophets back on the Earth…just a lot of it from the outside adds up. Like I said, it isn’t until you get into CHURCH history and history about Joseph Smith that you start realizing the church can be fishy. I didn’t fall away until I went to the temple for a dedication, and then learned about some of the rituals and ceremonies in the church they won’t tell you about. They hide a lot of things…you aren’t supposed to know about how JS had many wives, or how many times he changed his story, or how his own wife created a new religion after he was gone. They tell you that JS was able to write the BoM in 2 months time, when really 2 years past from the time he found the “golden plates” that he translated to being the BoM. They don’t tell you many members believe they can become like God and rule over their own planets. You have to research. It’s a very “feely” church where you get good feelings and that proves to you that what you’re learning is true. It’s a very homely church, where no matter where you go the churches are always identical on the inside so you always feel like you’re at home. There’s just so many contributing factors. I felt at home in the LDS church. I attended the church my grandfather pastored from the time I was born until I was 8 when he retired, then attended another Protestant church until I was 16 when I started attending the LDS church. I learned more in my 8 months at the LDS church and felt closer to God then than I EVER felt at the church I had been at 8 years. They include you. They love you. They care about you and go out of their way for you. It’s a very loving ,caring, welcome-home environment. Again, very feely.

But, if you don’t look at the facts about the religion (and the LDS will 99% of the time only tell you the good, and gather up as many facts as they possibly can to convince you it is true) and almost forbid you to look up the bad. The members that fell away fell away once they looked at facts and the history of the church. They don’t just leave.

 

[1voice]

The fact of the matter is, a lot of it makes sense from the outside. Mormons are highly discouraged to read anything outside of “church” resources, so most Mormons only read information from mormon.org, or from church libraries or Deseret book store (an all LDS book store), or asking missionaries or leaders of their ward (similar to a parish) with questions. So of course, everything seems very logical and understandable. I didn’t fall away from the church until I started reading things outside of the church.

The thing is, that to an outsider or someone searching for a faith, the fact that a young boy was lost and trying to find out what church was true and then was visited by God and Jesus and told they were wrong, and then ending up being the founder of the “true church” and so on does, in a way, make sense. It especially helps people that were on the spiritual path like I was, trying to find the “one” right church. You can relate. A lot of the religion makes sense, like the 3 degrees of heaven (how not everyone goes to heaven or hell, that there’s a paradise, etc) and so on. How God is an eternal God, so he just wouldn’t give you one book to last you eternity, right? No, more prophets have written more books (Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price) to keep you going. The Great Apostasy that has patterns of happening in history and then a great time of religions and prophets back on the Earth…just a lot of it from the outside adds up. Like I said, it isn’t until you get into CHURCH history and history about Joseph Smith that you start realizing the church can be fishy. I didn’t fall away until I went to the temple for a dedication, and then learned about some of the rituals and ceremonies in the church they won’t tell you about. They hide a lot of things…you aren’t supposed to know about how JS had many wives, or how many times he changed his story, or how his own wife created a new religion after he was gone. They tell you that JS was able to write the BoM in 2 months time, when really 2 years past from the time he found the “golden plates” that he translated to being the BoM. They don’t tell you many members believe they can become like God and rule over their own planets. You have to research. It’s a very “feely” church where you get good feelings and that proves to you that what you’re learning is true. It’s a very homely church, where no matter where you go the churches are always identical on the inside so you always feel like you’re at home. There’s just so many contributing factors. I felt at home in the LDS church. I attended the church my grandfather pastored from the time I was born until I was 8 when he retired, then attended another Protestant church until I was 16 when I started attending the LDS church. I learned more in my 8 months at the LDS church and felt closer to God then than I EVER felt at the church I had been at 8 years. They include you. They love you. They care about you and go out of their way for you. It’s a very loving ,caring, welcome-home environment. Again, very feely.

But, if you don’t look at the facts about the religion (and the LDS will 99% of the time only tell you the good, and gather up as many facts as they possibly can to convince you it is true) and almost forbid you to look up the bad. The members that fell away fell away once they looked at facts and the history of the church. They don’t just leave.

Thank you for your insight. I lived fo 7 years in Boise Idaho … there are more Mormons per capita in Boise than there are in Salt Lake. I worked at Micron Technology which is founded and run by Mormons. JR Simplot … the man that founded Ore/Ida … the company that makes every french fry that McDonalds ever sold… is a Mormon. The LDS church has a social/ youth center across the street from almost every High School in Idaho… They have a keen sense of business savvy and they know how to create a friendly/ comfortable social environment… but if you werent a Mormon … you were not going to go very far unless you had a skill that they really needed. I sensed that it is a very closed society … that operated within … but separate from the wider community.

There is a beautiful temple in Boise … Mormons are very proud of the building … and many people were focused on getting that temple recommend… being married on the temple grounds was a rare and high honor for a young LDS couple … but, as you indicated, I have read and heard that there are some very unusual customs and rituals associated with the temple… I have always been curious what those rituals were and what the logic is. The little that I heard … None of it sounded very Biblical to me and some of it sounded very strange.

 

[Miriam1947]

Thank you for your insight. I lived fo 7 years in Boise Idaho … there are more Mormons per capita in Boise than there are in Salt Lake. I worked at Micron Technology which is founded and run by Mormons. JR Simplot … the man that founded Ore/Ida … the company that makes every french fry that McDonalds ever sold… is a Mormon. The LDS church has a social/ youth center across the street from almost every High School in Idaho… They have a keen sense of business savvy and they know how to create a friendly/ comfortable social environment… but if you werent a Mormon … you were not going to go very far unless you had a skill that they really needed. I sensed that it is a very closed society … that operated within … but separate from the wider community.

There is a beautiful temple in Boise … Mormons are very proud of the building … and many people were focused on getting that temple recommend… being married on the temple grounds was a rare and high honor for a young LDS couple … but, as you indicated, I have read and heard that there are some very unusual customs and rituals associated with the temple… I have always been curious what those rituals were and what the logic is. The little that I heard … None of it sounded very Biblical to me and some of it sounded very strange.

JS was a Mason and so there are Masonic rituals in the temples.

ask.com/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry

 

[1voice]

SteveVH,

If one looks at all of human history as evidence of God’s plan coming to fruition (which certainly is attested by Isaiah as he prophesied that even Egypt and Babylon would become “instruments” in the hands of God to bring about His purposes for punishing Israel, and which was attested by Paul when he said “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”–note the use of the specific words “all nations” “on all the face of the earth”, meaning that to ignore, minimize, or think unimportant the ancient inhabitants of the Americas is to be specifically against the testimony of Paul–)

then one would need to ask themselves, “what of the ancient Americas–what was God’s purpose in that scenario?”

I see different purposes in the unfolding of history in the Old World, centered in Jerusalem and Canaan if one uses the Bible as the point of reference, and the unfolding of history in the New World. If one believes God really does intend that humankind use free will choice, and that God really does have a plan that includes every baby ever born, then someone like Martin Luther or William Tyndale could (and I believe does) have a purpose in God’s plan–the purpose being to increase the level of free will choice among humankind in their own day and time and forever thereafter.

However, if the same kinds of physical evidences of the Book of Mormon peoples were prevalent for people to “see and believe by sight”, then that would greatly diminish free will choice and run exactly counter to what unfolded with the Protestant Reformation, because “seeing and believing by sight” would mean faith was minimally necessary and the “wisdom of men” would prevail rather than the “hidden wisdom of God”.

This was why I commented about the statement of the Savior about the Jews–“wisdom is justified of all her children” (Luke 7:35). He was speaking about the Jewish leaders having rejected both John the Baptist, because he didn’t meet their preconceived expectations (their “wisdom of men”), and Him who was Their Promised Christ, the Anointed One, who was teaching them in their very presence and yet was being rejected because He didn’t meet their preconceived expectations (their “wisdom of men”).

So there is a different purpose being accomplished with the “hiding” of the physical evidences of the Book of Mormon peoples (and that may change someday–I don’t know one way or the other, since there will be many kinds of “testimonies” of God’s work that will unfold during the end times) than with the evidences of the Biblical peoples and their words of testimony.

One of the differences I see is that through the Bible, humankind are given guides about having love for God and one another, about serving one another, about forgiving, about faith in God and prayer, and those basics are maintained across a wide religious spectrum. The Book of Mormon moves into a deeper level of faith, into really getting back into the presence of God through the Holy Ghost not just as something talked about but as a daily Companion and Comforter. But one who has relied and continues to rely on the “wisdom of men” is going to have sufficient doubt and reliance upon reasoning, that the Holy Ghost for them may be occasional but not a daily experience because of their reliance on the “arm of flesh” or in other words, “the wisdom of men”.

As far as reasoning, I might as well add that participating on this forum, if I were to say I began with spiritual knowledge at 100% certainty and reasoning by having studied the Bible and experienced life and its gospel fruits at another 100% certainty, then at this point those certainties are at 200% and 500%, respectively, because of what I have read and studied during this time of my participation here.

Along those lines, I truly miss the kindly remarks of JAVL, who if he is listening in I hope he is doing very well. I wish you well also, SteveVH.

Given the standard of acceptance … of the words of Joseph Smith … that you describe above… How could you refute JRR Tolkein (author of Lord of the Rings)… if he had stated that all that he wrote had actually happened in the ancient past … but all of the evidence was wiped out … or yet to be discovered?

 

[Miriam1947]

How do the Mormons do it?

Every time I see the title of this thread I think- How do the Mormons do it? I have no idea. I just know that I couldn’t.

 

[ParkerD]

Given the standard of acceptance … of the words of Joseph Smith … that you describe above… How could you refute JRR Tolkein (author of Lord of the Rings)… if he had stated that all that he wrote had actually happened in the ancient past … but all of the evidence was wiped out … or yet to be discovered?

1Voice,

That single post had a context that included every other comment I posted on this thread, in that it was answering a question that had come up after other questions that had been responded to.

One has to first believe the Bible to be true, including the “hard parts to understand” such as Ezekiel and Isaiah and Hosea, and to be not “closed up and done with” as to God working His works among humankind.

Having never read Tolkien, I certainly am not qualified to comment on what he wrote or how he wrote it. I think I read the first paragraph of one of his books once as a youth, and had no interest in it at all–didn’t like that genre.

The truths of the Bible are reinforced and strengthened within the teachings in the Book of Mormon, and there is an authenticity that no fiction can match, despite a best effort of any author. (I don’t know if some readers know what I mean by “authenticity”, but for me it means “true to life experience and expression of genuine feelings including unpleasant ones within the context of unpleasant situations.”)

If you want me to read a few paragraphs or pages of Tolkien and detect the “un-authenticity” and the “non-Biblical” power of his fiction, then let me know and I’ll make an attempt to provide an example for you so that you can see the difference.

 

[aquabatix]

Aquabatix,

I realized that it would take a longer explanation than I had time to get into, plus the word “donkey” or “mule” doesn’t appear in the Book of Mormon, nor the word “pig”.

The word “cattle” from 1828 means any of various kinds of animals.

The verse that talks of “cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats,…” is Ether 9:18; verse 19 adds “horses, and asses, and elephants…” See also 1 Nephi 18:25, where it adds “wild goats”.

If one researches the genus and family related to those animals, with the exception of “(beast of burden with long ears)” one finds a related species that would logically be the animal being described which lived in the Americas anciently. For example, goats are related to antelope, sheep to either alpacas or llamas or the guanaco, elephants to the ancient mammoth, oxen to bison, swine to the peccary, (pigs weren’t brought on the vessels, by the way–nor were bees other than when the Jaredites were still in the Old World). (I don’t know what would match up with “(beast of burden with long ears)”, unless it was an alpaca or llama or guanaco that would be the matching animal.)

First, to say that " plus the word “donkey” or “mule” doesn’t appear in the Book of Mormon, nor the word “pig”." is just being picky and petty. Your own quotes from Ether and Nephi make you sound naive. Words like “asses” and “swine” are interchangeable and are still used today.

Second, the fact of the matter is, if these animals were around in the time that the BoM indicates, then research about them would have had the assumption that they were around hundreds of years before they state that they are. This would be regardless of faith or even knowledge of the BoM.The fact of the matter is, modern biology, zoology, and animal research will tell you that these animals were not brought to this continent until much later.

Just focus on the word “swine” out of all the others. There is no evidence of earlier species on this continent. All swine came from the other hemisphere and were brought over by explorers. Even the Wild Pig/Boar (Sus scrofa) was native elsewhere, not here.

“Pigs were brought to southeastern North America from Europe by de Soto and other early Spanish explorers. Escaped pigs became feral and caused a great deal of disruption to Native Americans cultures who had no domesticated livestock.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine
cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/hogs.htm

 

[ParkerD]

First, to say that " plus the word “donkey” or “mule” doesn’t appear in the Book of Mormon, nor the word “pig”." is just being picky and petty. Your own quotes from Ether and Nephi make you sound naive. Words like “asses” and “swine” are interchangeable and are still used today.

Second, the fact of the matter is, if these animals were around in the time that the BoM indicates, then research about them would have had the assumption that they were around hundreds of years before they state that they are. This would be regardless of faith or even knowledge of the BoM.The fact of the matter is, modern biology, zoology, and animal research will tell you that these animals were not brought to this continent until much later.

Just focus on the word “swine” out of all the others. There is no evidence of earlier species on this continent. All swine came from the other hemisphere and were brought over by explorers. Even the Wild Pig/Boar (Sus scrofa) was native elsewhere, not here.

“Pigs were brought to southeastern North America from Europe by de Soto and other early Spanish explorers. Escaped pigs became feral and caused a great deal of disruption to Native Americans cultures who had no domesticated livestock.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine
cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/hogs.htm

Hi, Aquabatix,

I don’t know that people familiar with the difference between a mule and a donkey (which term was not in use in 1828 according to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary which is online–the other term being the term actually used in the Book of Mormon) would say it was a “petty” difference. A mule can’t have offspring.

The word “pig” in 1828 would have meant a young swine, and would be associated with a domesticated animal. I think the word “swine” was the more correct term.

If you look up the words “peccary”, “llama”, “alpaca”, and “guanaco” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, you won’t find those words. So one dealing with a translation about animals in existence in ancient America would have a difficulty if they were looking at a small drawing or trying to bring over the meaning from the ancient language into English.

But you are certainly right that you can take the word “swine”, limit it to the 2011 meaning or the 1828 meaning that was exclusively swine and not “animal that looked similar to a swine and had similar characteristics”, and you will be able to be triumphant in “knowing” that the Book of Mormon “couldn’t possibly be true” because swine weren’t in the New World in 800 BC based on the assumptions from the findings of archaeology.

For me, I look at the fact that a translation in 1828 would be logical to use a word for an animal that was somewhat like the species being described, even if not the same precise species. So you have your way of looking at it, and I have my way of looking at it, and we can be different and be just fine.

 

[tskrobacz]

1Voice,
.

The truths of the Bible are reinforced and strengthened within the teachings in the Book of Mormon, and there is an authenticity that no fiction can match, despite a best effort of any author. (I don’t know if some readers know what I mean by “authenticity”, but for me it means “true to life experience and expression of genuine feelings including unpleasant ones within the context of unpleasant situations.”)

.

Does this mean the Bible in your view is weak and incomplete…that is, it is in need of reinforcement and strengthening while inspired by the Holy Spirit? If this is the case we should be seeing the same “strengthening” someday to the incomplete and weak “Book of Morman” if indeed it is also inspired by the Holy Spirit…My experience is the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is Mormon belief that scripture is not complete, ever, and their idea of continuing revelation is based on a belief that God has hidden knowledge from us that is yet to be revealed as scripture.

They have no concept or understanding of Jesus Christ as God’s perfect Word, Revealed.

I’ve asked before what it is they think Jesus left out. Still waiting for an answer on that one.

I also have a memory of a Mormon seminary teacher telling us that the polar ice caps would melt and another ancient hidden scripture would be revealed under the ice. With global climate change, I’m waiting for yet another Mormon belief to be proven as false.

 

[ParkerD]

Does this mean the Bible in your view is weak and incomplete…that is, it is in need of reinforcement and strengthening while inspired by the Holy Spirit? If this is the case we should be seeing the same “strengthening” someday to the incomplete and weak “Book of Morman” if indeed it is also inspired by the Holy Spirit…My experience is the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.

Hi, TS Krobacz,

I agree that “the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.” That doesn’t limit the Book of Mormon from adding to that pattern–except for those who choose not to reap its benefits. It is a choice one can make for themselves, a gift given for those who choose to receive the gift.

Spiritual truths are that way, as attested by the Bible in several places.

 

[Miriam1947]

Hi, Aquabatix,

I don’t know that people familiar with the difference between a mule and a donkey (which term was not in use in 1828 according to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary which is online–the other term being the term actually used in the Book of Mormon) would say it was a “petty” difference. A mule can’t have offspring.

The word “pig” in 1828 would have meant a young swine, and would be associated with a domesticated animal. I think the word “swine” was the more correct term.

If you look up the words “peccary”, “llama”, “alpaca”, and “guanaco” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, you won’t find those words. So one dealing with a translation about animals in existence in ancient America would have a difficulty if they were looking at a small drawing or trying to bring over the meaning from the ancient language into English.

But you are certainly right that you can take the word “swine”, limit it to the 2011 meaning or the 1828 meaning that was exclusively swine and not “animal that looked similar to a swine and had similar characteristics”, and you will be able to be triumphant in “knowing” that the Book of Mormon “couldn’t possibly be true” because swine weren’t in the New World in 800 BC based on the assumptions from the findings of archaeology.

For me, I look at the fact that a translation in 1828 would be logical to use a word for an animal that was somewhat like the species being described, even if not the same precise species. So you have your way of looking at it, and I have my way of looking at it, and we can be different and be just fine.

ParkerD, you are amazing. When I read the title of this thread:

How do the Mormons do it?

I often think of you. You have the gift. The gift of circular reasoning in abundance.