LDS and ancient record...

  • Thread starter Thread starter eo_chibears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a friend who gave me a “dissertation” on his studies of his faith as a response to four questions I had for him and somewhere in the 20 pages was something about a ring of mountains that form the Pacific Islands that was supposedly mentioned in the BOM. Anyone else hear anything like that?
:coffeeread:
 
I have a friend who gave me a “dissertation” on his studies of his faith as a response to four questions I had for him and somewhere in the 20 pages was something about a ring of mountains that form the Pacific Islands that was supposedly mentioned in the BOM. Anyone else hear anything like that?
mwok,

That was a new one. Never heard of it.

Happy Thanksgiving–wonderful day!
 
Mwok, was a character named Hagoth mentioned? He supposedly made ships and sailed off with a group of people…there was a belief that Pacific Islanders were Lamanites, though, now Mormons seem to believe there aren’t descendants of Lamanites living anywhere in particular.

This sort of stuff used to intrigue me when I was a teen. One teacher in Sunday school told us, with absolute certainty that Lehi and co. landed on the coast of Chile. I thought that was so cool! I told my dad this cool fact and he responded by telling me that was the wrong ocean! 😃 So funny now but then, it was confusing. The Book of Mormon was supposed to contain real and actual people, events, places, but try pinning those real things down. You can’t, but some Mormons spend a LOT of time on the impossible task of bringing the Book of Mormon setting to life.
 
The Book of Mormon was supposed to contain real and actual people, events, places, but try pinning those real things down. You can’t…
That’s only because Heavenly Father wants you to have faith, Rebecca, so he deliberately removed all archeological evidence of anything the BOM describes. I mean, come one… it’d be totally impossible to have any kind of faith in Heavenly Father’s plan at all if he’d left the golden plates or, say, a single piece of archeological evidence of an ancient battle involving 200,000 people. If I’ve learned anything from my last few months on the forums it’s that both evidence (the “good fruits” the LDS faith produces) and lack of evidence (Heavenly Father hid the plates because he wants you to have faith) favor LDS theology.
 
That’s only because Heavenly Father wants you to have faith, Rebecca, so he deliberately removed all archeological evidence of anything the BOM describes. I mean, come one… it’d be totally impossible to have any kind of faith in Heavenly Father’s plan at all if he’d left the golden plates or, say, a single piece of archeological evidence of an ancient battle involving 200,000 people. If I’ve learned anything from my last few months on the forums it’s that both evidence (the “good fruits” the LDS faith produces) and lack of evidence (Heavenly Father hid the plates because he wants you to have faith) favor LDS theology.
You’re good, possibly ready to be baptized by The Elders.
 
Mwok, was a character named Hagoth mentioned? He supposedly made ships and sailed off with a group of people…there was a belief that Pacific Islanders were Lamanites, though, now Mormons seem to believe there aren’t descendants of Lamanites living anywhere in particular.

This sort of stuff used to intrigue me when I was a teen. One teacher in Sunday school told us, with absolute certainty that Lehi and co. landed on the coast of Chile. I thought that was so cool! I told my dad this cool fact and he responded by telling me that was the wrong ocean! 😃 So funny now but then, it was confusing. The Book of Mormon was supposed to contain real and actual people, events, places, but try pinning those real things down. You can’t, but some Mormons spend a LOT of time on the impossible task of bringing the Book of Mormon setting to life.
Sounds familiar, but I’m not sure. Wish I’d made a copy of his report.
 
Re: “ANCIENT RECORDS” in the BOM, Please explain the 3,900 changes in it since it’s first published edition in 1830 in Palmyra, NY. Perhaps ParkerD could obtain an original copy of the BOM & compare it to a recent edition & get back to us on the 3,900 differences and what they truly mean.

Re: Burning in Bosom
I HAVE A BURNING IN MY BOSOM THAT all that YOU OWN BELONGS to ME: your money, your house, your car, your 401K, etc. Hey, come on now all you LDS posters: Sign it over - that burning in my bosom signals that it is TRUE!

Re: GOOD FRUITS 😊

LDS founder JOSEPH SMITH started his CAREER in JAIL as a “GLASS LOOKER”

Brought before the court on March 20, 1826 & found guilty by justice of the peace Justice Albert Neely - his bill charging fees of $2.68 in Bainbridge, NY: “STATE OF NEW YORK V. JOSEPH SMITH.” Also confirmed by Fraser’s magazine February 1873, p. 229. Constable Philip M. DeZeng also issued a bill for the arrest and keeping Smith in jail, notifying 2 justices and subpoenaing 12 witnesses, as well as a mittius charge for 10 miles travel - Neely & DeZeng’s papers originally put away by the Board of Supervisors of Chenango County, New York sitting for a very long time in a corner of the jail until discovered in 1971.

SMITH ends his wild career WHERE IT STARTED: IN JAIL

This time with a deadly weapon in his hand, dying by the sword it would seem with a broad swath of carnage behind him including but not limited to: plural marriage, Magic Talisman, the Indians’ potential to become a “white” & “delightsome” people, “Lt General Joseph Smith, head of the Nauvoo Legion” where Hyrum L. Andrus states Lyman L. Woods recalls that Smith: "…looked like a god’ "; enjoying tea and cigars and sets up a bar in Nauvoo where as Mayor he passed an ordinance for the “health and comfort or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time.” Passed December 12, 1843 recorded by Willard Richards in the History of the Church, vol. 6, p.111.

So much for WOW 😊
 
God’s way of doing things is to allow there to be not only a need for faith, but to allow that the only way to come to know God on a deeply personal level is to have a spiritual experience from the heart–not a mortal experience using the eyes or the ears, but an experience that touches the soul and spirit on a deeper level than using the eyes or ears alone.
Except that, in the case of the golden plates, one is asked to have faith in a man, Joseph Smith; that he actually saw the plates that mysteriously vanished before anyone else could see them. It has nothing to do with having faith in God. I have great faith in God and reading the Book of Mormon actually made me feel ill. I felt, very strongly, that I was doing something I shouldn’t be doing. That was the witness I received in my heart.
 
Except that, in the case of the golden plates, one is asked to have faith in a man, Joseph Smith; that he actually saw the plates that mysteriously vanished before anyone else could see them. It has nothing to do with having faith in God. I have great faith in God and reading the Book of Mormon actually made me feel ill. I felt, very strongly, that I was doing something I shouldn’t be doing. That was the witness I received in my heart.
SteveVH,

It shouldn’t have surprised you or anyone else who knows you that you “felt very strongly that [you were] doing something [you] shouldn’t be doing” and “felt ill”. You would have had 2000 years of tradition that was washing against what you were doing, and your reaction would have been completely to be expected.

That means not a thing about the Book of Mormon, though. One’s frame of reference has everything to do with their reaction to reading it.

As previously noted, to each their own.
 
SteveVH,

It shouldn’t have surprised you or anyone else who knows you that you “felt very strongly that [you were] doing something [you] shouldn’t be doing” and “felt ill”. You would have had 2000 years of tradition that was washing against what you were doing, and your reaction would have been completely to be expected.

That means not a thing about the Book of Mormon, though. One’s frame of reference has everything to do with their reaction to reading it.

As previously noted, to each their own.
Just as you have your churches years of tradition, and a life time of listening to the testimony of the truth of the BoM, being called upon to bear the same testimony yourself. It’s this frame of reference that has everything to do with your reaction to reading the BoM.
 
Just as you have your churches years of tradition, and a life time of listening to the testimony of the truth of the BoM, being called upon to bear the same testimony yourself. It’s this frame of reference that has everything to do with your reaction to reading the BoM.
Zaffiroborant,

It’s true that I had a different expectation when I read the Book of Mormon for the first time, in high school. But I didn’t “know it was true” at that first reading, and I recall quite vividly an early morning devotional with about twenty of my peers as a senior in high school where most everyone was standing up one by one sharing their “testimony”, and I stood up and said I expected that someday I would know the church is true and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, but at that moment I still did not “know” and didn’t feel right saying that I did, nor had I ever stood up in any setting before that time as a child or youth and shared a “testimony.”

I hadn’t received a witness from the Holy Ghost as a youth, and didn’t pretend that I had.

But frame of reference and one’s expectations (faith) certainly do have to do with whether one receives an answer through the Holy Ghost to their studies and their prayers.

Having lived a lot more of life now, I find truths in the Book of Mormon that I had not the slightest inkling of as a youth or a young adult, or as an early married adult. Some are expressed didactically, and others are expressed through an experience or a series of experiences showing truths about human nature of a group of people.

Some have a parallelism to our day that are truly fascinating to discover.
 
Truly, there is a burning in my bosom. So nothing I say, feel or think about theology can possibly be wrong.
You sound like the perfect ‘golden contract’ type that joins the LDS church. My wife’s testimony is similar and I’ve never been impressed with this type of conversion, but that’s my issue.
Zaffiroborant,

It’s true that I had a different expectation when I read the Book of Mormon for the first time, in high school. But I didn’t “know it was true” at that first reading, and I recall quite vividly an early morning devotional with about twenty of my peers as a senior in high school where most everyone was standing up one by one sharing their “testimony”, and I stood up and said I expected that someday I would know the church is true and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, but at that moment I still did not “know” and didn’t feel right saying that I did, nor had I ever stood up in any setting before that time as a child or youth and shared a “testimony.”

I hadn’t received a witness from the Holy Ghost as a youth, and didn’t pretend that I had.

But frame of reference and one’s expectations (faith) certainly do have to do with whether one receives an answer through the Holy Ghost to their studies and their prayers.

Having lived a lot more of life now, I find truths in the Book of Mormon that I had not the slightest inkling of as a youth or a young adult, or as an early married adult. Some are expressed didactically, and others are expressed through an experience or a series of experiences showing truths about human nature of a group of people.

Some have a parallelism to our day that are truly fascinating to discover.
I have witnessed other LDS testimonies that’s different from Crdl2Grv’s experience that I do respect. I believe I would enjoy ParkerD’s testimony much better about their conversion even if it disagrees with my thoughts about what is correct. I’ve often wondered if my marriage would have survived better if my wife had a testimony that I respected better. I guess I’ll never know…😦
 
SteveVH,

It shouldn’t have surprised you or anyone else who knows you that you “felt very strongly that [you were] doing something [you] shouldn’t be doing” and “felt ill”. You would have had 2000 years of tradition that was washing against what you were doing, and your reaction would have been completely to be expected.

That means not a thing about the Book of Mormon, though. One’s frame of reference has everything to do with their reaction to reading it.

As previously noted, to each their own.
So when investigators feel good about the BoM, that means its true and good. But when Steve feels bad about it, it’s no reflection on the book at all. Nope, I don’t get that. Whatever principles you feel are good about the BoM you can throw it out due to the fact that it’s author was a liar, a cheat and a pervert. Wise up Parker, Mormonism is a house built on the sand.
 
I have witnessed other LDS testimonies that’s different from Crdl2Grv’s experience that I do respect.
Friend, I’m 100% Catholic, from birth. (Hence, my screen name.) Those two posts on the previous page are a parody of LDS thought.

I thought the irony was clear, but I guess I hit a little too close to the mark. I cannot tell you how much I love the fact that someone married to a member of the LDS faith thought those posts reflected real thoughts. So awesome.
 
Friend, I’m 100% Catholic, from birth. (Hence, my screen name.) Those two posts on the previous page are a parody of LDS thought.

I thought the irony was clear, but I guess I hit a little too close to the mark. I cannot tell you how much I love the fact that someone married to a member of the LDS faith thought those posts reflected real thoughts. So awesome.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s my wife’s story and it always came across as shallow and built in sand. That said, I have met a few LDS members who have honestly done all the serious homework and simply reached a different conclusion than I did. I respect those testimonies but they are the exception in my experience and not necessarily the rule.
 
So when investigators feel good about the BoM, that means its true and good. But when Steve feels bad about it, it’s no reflection on the book at all.
If I’ve learned anything from my last few months on the forums it’s that both evidence (the “good fruits” the LDS faith produces) and lack of evidence (Heavenly Father hid the plates because he wants you to have faith) favor LDS theology.
Anyone else noticing a theme developing here?
 
Anyone else noticing a theme developing here?
The bottom line I guess is people believe what they want. Sometimes Mormons when confronted by the evidence start digging more and discover the great inconsistencies of the church and it’s repeated efforts to whitewash and hide the truth. That leads to a crisis of faith and leaving the church. Others dismiss it as “anti” literature and stick their head back in the sand. The church and it’s leaders encourage this approach by constantly talking about how Satan likes to attack your testimony, etc.
 
So when investigators feel good about the BoM, that means its true and good. But when Steve feels bad about it, it’s no reflection on the book at all.
I’ve never believed that Mormonism is a cult but it this teaching, and the Mormon rejection of the teachings of the past Presidents that makes me wonder if I am wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top