Lehi the prophet, was he faithless? Can Mormons save him?

[TexanKnight]

I was a nazarene, baptist. I knew that there was more scripture than only the Bible.

How did you know? And why would you think the answer would come from a convicted con man who had issues with adultery?

Some people I think were just meant to be Mormons.

That is like saying that some people were just meant to victims of deception

If you were then you will ,if not then you wont. I like catholics. They have the strongest and only argument for being Catholic. Either it is the church or it is not. Mormons are the only church with the same arguement. This comes from a Catholic, I forget his name.

Not sure how that can be. “If you are not Catholic, then it MUST be that a convicted con man who says God was once a sinful man is correct”

 

[mikehord]

TexanKnight:
You dont know my tesimony. Did you ever have one?

 

[Tarquin]

1. In the Bible, Moses and Aaron were given the Urim and Thummim to help direct the people (Ex 28:30). Like Lehi the word of the Lord comes to Moses and the Lord says, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord” (Num 27:20-21).

I find this confusing. At first, I felt this was the closest to a parallel that I had heard for the Liahona. However, as I study it, I see there are some obvious and significant problems.

If we take Exodus 31:18 literally, God gave Moses “tables of stones” on which words had been written by “the finger of God” – although the word finger is used figuratively or symbolically earlier in Exodus (8:19), and in 32:16 (which one may take literally or symbolizing harmony with God’s will), and in the Gospels “the finger of God” is symbolic of the spirit of God (Matthew 12:28). If we take Numbers 22 literally, God spoke through a member of the equine family. If we take Numbers 27:20-21 literally, decisions are obtained through the Urim and Thummim, whatever that is or those are. They may have been the stones representing the tribes, or they may have been a light or other non-physical manifestation, or the term may have referred to the casting of lots. The commentators lack confidence. Here is a place where a living prophet would come in very handy – to offer a convincing explanation that is ceremonially, ritualistically, sacerdotally, and theologically satisfactory, both for laity and for trained clergy. It would not be honest to say the nature of the Urim and Thummim “aren’t important for your salvation,” for they certainly are in the context of Mormon history and evidence (the “Three [apostate] Witnesses”).

The similarity is that in both cases, we seem to be speaking of physical objects, possibly excepting the Urim and Thummim, since some say the Urim and Thummim referred not to a physical thing, but to some manifestation such as light, or that it referred to casting lots. I confess, I do not know. Regardless, the similarity ends there.

Perhaps I should ask you for a physical description of the Urim and Thummim, and for a detailed description of how they functioned. When it comes to the differences, they are striking. I apologize if I am saying what is already obvious. The Liahona was composed of brass, spindles/pointers within, writing on the pointers (such as telling someone to go into the mountains), which writing was not always reliable! The description of the object uncannily echoes Cusick’s 1827 narration of a story about a giant who used “a curious instrument,” which he called “a pointer” which “directed him where to find game.” He “could not live without it.” When friendship was restored between the giant and a rival, the pointer, too, was restored to its original use.

I have written a bit more about this, but it seems to lead to more distant themes that I don’t feel I should bring up at this time. Short version: The main point I should like to make here, is that all the examples in the Old Testament in which God used objects, those objects were natural objects. God did not, to my recollection, construct a chariot, temple, helmet, sword, or compass. The liahona has nothing natural about it at all. It is obviously manufactured. It’s brass for goodness’ sake. To present such an object to a prophet may not be beyond God’s ability. It is however, totally out of character for Him. At least for the God of the Bible. Why should he have to manufacture a “GPS/compass”? Why not do as he has always done, speak through animals – cumoms and cureloms were aplenty – or through lots – or by inspiring a written message – or even by the spoken word, whether through a prophet, a child, a camel, or an equine? Why go through the very “curious” exercise of manufacturing “pointers” inside a ball, thus sinisterly teaching His people to rely “on the [manufacturing] arm of flesh” rather than on the [invisible] spirit and, as far as Mormon revelation is concerned, “good feelings”? What sort of God would act so contrary to his own history and nature.

 

[mikehord]

I find this confusing. At first, I felt this was the closest to a parallel that I had heard for the Liahona. However, as I study it, I see there are some obvious and significant problems.

If we take Exodus 31:18 literally, God gave Moses “tables of stones” on which words had been written by “the finger of God” – although the word finger is used figuratively or symbolically earlier in Exodus (8:19), and in 32:16 (which one may take literally or symbolizing harmony with God’s will), and in the Gospels “the finger of God” is symbolic of the spirit of God (Matthew 12:28). If we take Numbers 22 literally, God spoke through a member of the equine family. If we take Numbers 27:20-21 literally, decisions are obtained through the Urim and Thummim, whatever that is or those are. They may have been the stones representing the tribes, or they may have been a light or other non-physical manifestation, or the term may have referred to the casting of lots. The commentators lack confidence. Here is a place where a living prophet would come in very handy – to offer a convincing explanation that is ceremonially, ritualistically, sacerdotally, and theologically satisfactory, both for laity and for trained clergy. It would not be honest to say the nature of the Urim and Thummim “aren’t important for your salvation,” for they certainly are in the context of Mormon history and evidence (the “Three [apostate] Witnesses”).

The similarity is that in both cases, we seem to be speaking of physical objects, possibly excepting the Urim and Thummim, since some say the Urim and Thummim referred not to a physical thing, but to some manifestation such as light, or that it referred to casting lots. I confess, I do not know. Regardless, the similarity ends there.

Perhaps I should ask you for a physical description of the Urim and Thummim, and for a detailed description of how they functioned. When it comes to the differences, they are striking. I apologize if I am saying what is already obvious. The Liahona was composed of brass, spindles/pointers within, writing on the pointers (such as telling someone to go into the mountains), which writing was not always reliable! The description of the object uncannily echoes Cusick’s 1827 narration of a story about a giant who used “a curious instrument,” which he called “a pointer” which “directed him where to find game.” He “could not live without it.” When friendship was restored between the giant and a rival, the pointer, too, was restored to its original use.

I have written a bit more about this, but it seems to lead to more distant themes that I don’t feel I should bring up at this time. Short version: The main point I should like to make here, is that all the examples in the Old Testament in which God used objects, those objects were natural objects. God did not, to my recollection, construct a chariot, temple, helmet, sword, or compass. The liahona has nothing natural about it at all. It is obviously manufactured. It’s brass for goodness’ sake. To present such an object to a prophet may not be beyond God’s ability. It is however, totally out of character for Him. At least for the God of the Bible. Why should he have to manufacture a “GPS/compass”? Why not do as he has always done, speak through animals – cumoms and cureloms were aplenty – or through lots – or by inspiring a written message – or even by the spoken word, whether through a prophet, a child, a camel, or an equine? Why go through the very “curious” exercise of manufacturing “pointers” inside a ball, thus sinisterly teaching His people to rely “on the [manufacturing] arm of flesh” rather than on the [invisible] spirit and, as far as Mormon revelation is concerned, “good feelings”? What sort of God would act so contrary to his own history and nature.

All I can say about the urim and thummim is that it looks to have worked best in low light and that it seems to have acted more like an online dictionary because Joseph still had to choose the words to use. You can see some trouble describing the Liahona in vs 28. He didnt have an image of it, only the descrription or else he didnt know how to put it in to words. Somebody should have caught this before I did.

Thanks for the tip on the book I will find it.

 

[Tarquin]

You dont know my tesimony. Did you ever have one?

Whom are you asking?

I know as much of your testimony as you have given on Catholic Answers forums. You once gave people the impression you believed Nazarene and/or Baptist teachings, but thought something which you did not identify was missing from the Bible. You believe there was a liahona and that it was some sort of manufactured GPS device. You believe you have cutting edge perspectives “so new that even the LDS have not fully grasped” you understanding. You also are blissfully under-informed on Mormon history, and about the teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the Bible. People who spend their entire lives studying theology rarely make any noteworthy breakthrough in understanding. When I think I have done so, I ask myself, “I wonder how many other people already know this?” And when I set down a few words, thinking I’m going to write something original, I come across an article or entire book treating the same subject from “my” perspective, and better done.

“Did you ever” - what impudence! The assumption is that if whomever you are asking “did ever have one,” they do not now have it, as though they had somehow fallen lower on the celestial rung. Perhaps, on the other hand, they “did” have a testimony, and have now acquired a better one! After all, that’s what happened to Martin Harris, right? You remember his testimony? Both of them? All eight of them? After he gave a testimony about Mormonism, he gave another one about the Shakers, and said his testimony in favor of the Shakers was even stronger and more certain than his testimony about Mormonism. Do you believe the Three Witnesses when they testify of what they say they know, or only when they say what you agree with?

Martin Harris joined Anna Lee’s church–the Shakers–saying that his testimony of Shakerism was greater than that of the Book of Mormon. Although later in life he came back to the Mormon Church and took out his temple endowments, he admitted it was just to find out 'what was going on in there.

I read the Shakers’ Sacred Roll decades ago. Now it is on the interent. Whereas the Book of Mormon has only 11 or 12 (counting Joseph Smith) or however many witnesses, the Sacred Roll is a compilation of the testimonies of over 50 witnesses! Thus, it must be about four times as reliable as the Book of Mormon. A Holy Sacred Divine Roll and Book

 

[TexanKnight]

Sounds like you are angry. Glad you are where you are though if it makes you happy.

geez…admiring the experience of a poster makes that person angry?

wow

 

[Tarquin]

All I can say about the urim and thummim is that it looks to have worked best in low light and that it seems to have acted more like an online dictionary because Joseph still had to choose the words to use. You can see some trouble describing the Liahona in vs 28. He didnt have an image of it, only the descrription or else he didnt know how to put it in to words. Somebody should have caught this before I did.

Thanks for the tip on the book I will find it.

Low light. Like in a hat? Like a dictionary? Have you examined Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Grammar,” in which years before the Rosetta Stone, he correctly assigned English translations to a great number of Egyptian characters?

“he didnt know how to put it in to words” - Joseph Smith was never at a loss for words. Read his sermons. He could describe just about anything. Read his mother’s autobiography. She describes the descriptive, colorful stories he weaved while at home long before he claimed angels were visiting him to tell about a book that miraculously contained some of those very same stories. Surprise, they were real after all, and he didn’t even know it.

 

[Tarquin]

I think you failed to notice the obvious.
The Liahona was a digital compass and GPS style navigation system with mobile text messaging from God.
The obvious question is how would Joseph Smith have come up with such a device when there wasnt even electricity, radio or even science fiction to go off of.

Neither Joseph Smith, nor anywhere in his Book of Mormon, do we find mention of or description of “electricity” or “radio.” There was no mention of an extension cord stretching from the Temple in Jerusalem (the most likely source of electricity) to God knows where on the Arabian peninsula. Read it again. It was a brass ball with two spindles. GPS work whether people believe in them or not. The Liahona stopped working when people mistrusted it, and when they did trust it, it only worked correctly in proportion to the attention people would pay to it – “it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it.”
The messages were “written,” not spoken (1 Nephi 16:26-27, 29). You should call it a teletype rather than a radio. But that fails, too, because it was a ball, and teletypes are not spherical. Also teletypes spit out paper. The Liahona operated more like a magic-8 ball. Shake it and read the letters that come up – sometimes they make up words, sometimes they’re an alphabet soup.
Eventually, they gave it up altogether, probably because it only worked part of the time. Telling direction by sun and stars would have been much more reliable. Shelley’s science fiction story about “Frankenstein” relied on electricity (1818/1831).

If you need further evidence that this is the question then look at the other devices that were made handy for Joseph.

You need to reexamine your definition of “evidence.” Speculation and assumption are not evidence.

 

[Tarquin]

Tarquin;11809650:

I like you more and more, and I bow low and humbly to your unexcelled experience and knowledge about Mormonism. Most of the time, when I read one of your posts, I just shut my mouth in awe.

Sounds like you are angry. Glad you are where you are though if it makes you happy.

You are a remarkable person, Mikehord. I have no idea how you derive anger out of my attempt to compliment someone who posts on this board; nor what twisted thinking sees happiness being the result of anger. Please read what you are about to post before clicking “submit reply.” Next to that button is one that reads “Preview Post.” Using that, and editing your remarks, will make you happy.

I don’t know what “Glad you are where you are” means, unless you envy my mountain hide-a-way.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I regularly ask Mormons I meet for the first time, if they believed in Jesus before they became Mormons. Only one said he did not. I have not personally met any Jew that became Christians because of the Book of Mormon, though I have been told there are some, and I do not doubt there would be. Most of the people to whom I see Mormon missionaries go to proselytize are Christians, not Jews. Most are Christians, not “Gentiles” except of course in the Mormon redefinition of “Gentile” as “non-Mormon.” The Book of Mormon is not used to convince Jews and Gentiles of Christ, but to convince Christians of Joseph Smith.

Bingo!

 

[mikehord]

Whom are you asking?

I know as much of your testimony as you have given on Catholic Answers forums. You once gave people the impression you believed Nazarene and/or Baptist teachings, but thought something which you did not identify was missing from the Bible. You believe there was a liahona and that it was some sort of manufactured GPS device. You believe you have cutting edge perspectives “so new that even the LDS have not fully grasped” you understanding. You also are blissfully under-informed on Mormon history, and about the teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the Bible. People who spend their entire lives studying theology rarely make any noteworthy breakthrough in understanding. When I think I have done so, I ask myself, “I wonder how many other people already know this?” And when I set down a few words, thinking I’m going to write something original, I come across an article or entire book treating the same subject from “my” perspective, and better done.

“Did you ever” - what impudence! The assumption is that if whomever you are asking “did ever have one,” they do not now have it, as though they had somehow fallen lower on the celestial rung. Perhaps, on the other hand, they “did” have a testimony, and have now acquired a better one! After all, that’s what happened to Martin Harris, right? You remember his testimony? Both of them? All eight of them? After he gave a testimony about Mormonism, he gave another one about the Shakers, and said his testimony in favor of the Shakers was even stronger and more certain than his testimony about Mormonism. Do you believe the Three Witnesses when they testify of what they say they know, or only when they say what you agree with? I read the Shakers’ Sacred Roll decades ago. Now it is on the interent. Whereas the Book of Mormon has only 11 or 12 (counting Joseph Smith) or however many witnesses, the Sacred Roll is a compilation of the testimonies of over 50 witnesses! Thus, it must be about four times as reliable as the Book of Mormon. A Holy Sacred Divine Roll and Book

When did I say that I thought that the Liahona was a manufactured device?
Or that something was missing from the Bible?
I just knew that there was more and hadnt found it yet.
I am glad that you have a testimony.
I meant did you have a testimony while you were LDS?
I know LDS that dont really have one or that they will tell. There are people who go to churches their whole lives and never gain one. My old baptist preacher talked about people who go to church and dont believe.

 

[TexanKnight]

When did I say that I thought that the Liahona was a manufactured device?
Or that something was missing from the Bible?
I just knew that there was more and hadnt found it yet.
I am glad that you have a testimony.
I meant did you have a testimony while you were LDS?
I know LDS that dont really have one or that they will tell. There are people who go to churches their whole lives and never gain one. My old baptist preacher talked about people who go to church and dont believe.

I DID have a testimony. I was baptized late. I converted late. Yet…at the age of 24, I quit my job (I was already a college grad) sold my belongings, said goodbye to my fiance and served a mission. I was not a 19-year old kid like almost all the other kids on the mission…I was 24 and almost 26 when my mission ended. I would never have done that without a testimony.

I lost my testimony when I discovered all the true doctrines and teachings I had never been told about before

 

[mikehord]

You are a remarkable person, Mikehord. I have no idea how you derive anger out of my attempt to compliment someone who posts on this board; nor what twisted thinking sees happiness being the result of anger. Please read what you are about to post before clicking “submit reply.” Next to that button is one that reads “Preview Post.” Using that, and editing your remarks, will make you happy.

I don’t know what “Glad you are where you are” means, unless you envy my mountain hide-a-way.

Oh , are you just being snarky or lofty?
I cant tell.

 

[garyo49]

Where is the ark , or Moses’ staff?

Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. It is used in court every day.

To be clear though, you don’t have a problem with Joseph Smith coming up with GPS style navigation, mobile text messaging and the 3 ring binder?

We’ll soon be adding a Google glass type device used for translating languages to that list.

Ever hear the saying , truth is stranger than fiction?

So when was it that Joseph Smith said the world would end? Ive never heard that one before.

Joseph told the church that that they would see the second coming in 56 years or 1891. Just another of his 98 percent of prophesies that failed, but don’t tell my wife I said that.

 

[Tarquin]

When did I say that I thought that the Liahona was a manufactured device?
Or that something was missing from the Bible?
I just knew that there was more and hadnt found it yet.
I am glad that you have a testimony.
I meant did you have a testimony while you were LDS?
I know LDS that dont really have one or that they will tell. There are people who go to churches their whole lives and never gain one. My old baptist preacher talked about people who go to church and dont believe.

You called the “Liahona” a GPS and a compass. Those are manufactured devices. The stones on the high priest’s breastpiece were not manufactured; they were found in nature. I apologize for misconstruing, if you intended to convey the thought that the liahona was a product of nature rather than something that had been created by one or more inventive, tool-wielding, goal-oriented, sentient beings.

I also apologize if I misconstrued your words about things missing from the Bible. Every Mormon that has pressed the point, has been quite excited to inform me that the Bible is missing entire books. If you do not believe that, then I stand corrected.

I knew that there was more scripture than only the Bible.

Now it;s my turn to ask, “Who said i was LDS?”

 

[Tarquin]

Sounds like you are angry. Glad you are where you are though if it makes you happy.

You are a remarkable person, Mikehord. I have no idea how you derive anger out of my attempt to compliment someone who posts on this board; nor what twisted thinking sees happiness being the result of anger. Please read what you are about to post before clicking “submit reply.” Next to that button is one that reads “Preview Post.” Using that, and editing your remarks, will make you happy.

I don’t know what “Glad you are where you are” means, unless you envy my mountain hide-a-way.

Oh , are you just being snarky or lofty?
I cant tell.

Are you referring to my first paragraph (“You are a remarkable person…”), or to my second paragraph (“I don’t know”)?
I can’t tell.

Generally, however, I hope I am seen more often as lofty than as snarky. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I suppose snarkiness is, too.

 

[kimg901]

I asked you to tell me the date not give me a link. Im trying to keep this on a positive level. There isnt really a need to list all the bad things that people could say about eachothers church/leaders. There are many names in the Bible that are tarnished.

Recently I have read the quran just to see what muslims believe. Really, I didnt see what was so convincing when compared to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Muhammad kept talking about clear signs and he liked to point out how the Pharoh was shown very clear signs and still refused to believe. I picked up on how he realized that most wont believe anything that they dont want to or are comfortable with no matter what you show them.

So you think Joseph Smith made up this wild story and was willing to die over it?
At any time he could have said, ok, I made it all up, dont kill me.

Here is some tangible evidence. Some how, this thing called “chiasmus” ended up all over the Book of Mormon like it is in the Bible. Alma 36 has a big one. If Smith was so talented as to put hidden messages in his work, maybe he could have made a better safer living writing scifi novels. Or he was telling the truth.

Perhaps you didn’t read the link. Because there are dates there for you to read. Also. Aren’t these things that are written considered doctrine? So please continue to believe a liar than in Christ.

 

[mikehord]

Perhaps you didn’t read the link. Because there are dates there for you to read. Also. Aren’t these things that are written considered doctrine? So please continue to believe a liar than in Christ.

I believe that the reformers had common sense and brains enough to see that the church had fallen apostate. I believe that Joseph smith did what needed to be done in the right way. Joseph smith could have started a church without the Book of Mormon.

 

[kimg901]

I believe that the reformers had common sense and brains enough to see that the church had fallen apostate.So why would Christ let His Church fall away? Do you really think that low of Jesus? I believe that Joseph smith did what needed to be done in the right way.The right way? And which way is that? His way or Gods way? Remember, smith said he did more for the church then Christ or His Apostles ever did. Joseph smith could have started a church without the Book of Mormon.Of course he could have. All you need is a bible.

 

[mikehord]

kimg901:
Yeah I looked up the inflamatory statement about Joseph Smith boasting.
Then I remembered that Ive done this stuff before where I chase down every arguement put before me.
In a short answer, im not going to do this because I dont enjoy it like I did before.
There is an answer for your accusations but I remember that those who dont want an answer that nullifies their complaint wiill not hear what they dont want to hear and they will not find the answer themselves and I am not going to do the work for you.

I have seen too many lies against Joseph Smith over turned.
I also know that rhetoric is not debate and that you dont really want debate, you want hit and run with no return for discussion.

I haggled with one antimormon guy for years not realizing that it was all a waste of time.

No thank you. Say what ever you want to say. I quit listening to talk radio rhetoric for the same reason. It makes me sick.Rhetoric, spin, purposeful misrepresentation
Cheapshots, negativity and fear. I’d listen to Hannity if I wanted any of that.