A Catholic " HI "

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hello again Traveler,

The catastrophic battle of thousands with swords, breast plates, chariots, etc. I then read sources of absolutly no archeolgy findings at all from this event . ( your comments would again be helpfull to me )


Thanks again for your time,
God bless,
Carl

What artifacts have been found of the great battle that took place at Troy? What evidence is there of a catastrophic flood that destroyed all the civilizations of Earth. What artifacts demonstrate that there was ever a Moses or a King David?

Just in Mexico less than 2% of all the known ancient sites have been professionally excavated. The argument is that because certain specific artifacts have not been found that we should assume that an entire story is wrong. No one knows even where to look for Book of Mormon artifacts – unlike Moses or David or Troy where we know where to look the artifacts just have not been found. I use Troy because there has been an artifact found the references the city of Troy but not one article to prove there was a battle.

I suggested we consider the Book of Mormon ancient description of things in Arabia that were not known in America at the time of Joseph Smith. I suggested this because we know exactly where to look from the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. In 1985 Thomas Key (Mormon Critic) wrote in the “Journal of American Scientific Affiliation” that since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with much fruit and also wild honey, and no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship. The problem with saying there was no evidence is that Thomas Key failed to consider that there was evidence of everything he criticized in a place known today as the port of Moscha at Taqah, known anciently as Khor Rori. The experts were wrong and Joseph Smith was correct.

My point is that since the Book of Mormon was provided the evidence that has been found supports the Book of Mormon and not the critics.

My point about a good tree verses a bad tree is simple – If the Book of Mormon is corrupt the evidence will be with the fruit – or the people that live its teachings.

The Traveler

Originally Posted by Traveler

What artifacts have been found of the great battle that took place at Troy? What evidence is there of a catastrophic flood that destroyed all the civilizations of Earth. What artifacts demonstrate that there was ever a Moses or a King David?

Just in Mexico less than 2% of all the known ancient sites have been professionally excavated. The argument is that because certain specific artifacts have not been found that we should assume that an entire story is wrong. No one knows even where to look for Book of Mormon artifacts – unlike Moses or David or Troy where we know where to look the artifacts just have not been found. I use Troy because there has been an artifact found the references the city of Troy but not one article to prove there was a battle.


The Traveler

Good morning Traveler,

Thanks again for sharing with me in the kind and generous way that you have.

The light you have shed on the "artifacts " is an interesting one and I would like a chance to digest it .

Because I sincerly appreciate your perspective on the few things you have been willing to offer me, would you consider looking at post 50 and lending me the " traveler " thoughts regarding it.

Thanks again,
God bless,
Carl

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hello again Islander,

Okay, I will try and explain.

The different accounts of JS history has a few layers in my mind, I will offer the one that gives me the most trouble. ( I would add that because it gives me trouble is NOT to demand a satisfactory reply, rather it is to ask LDS members that would willingly lend me their observations.)

The " translation " by JS from the gold tabs. The varying acoounts go like this.

He had gold bars in front of him while scribes, sitting next to him, wrote it down.

He sometimes has gold tabs present and sometimes he did not ( they were hidden in woods )

He " translated BOM from using seer stones while looking in the bottom of a hat ( NO GOLD TABS)

he used urim and tellium ( sorry forgot the words and spelling ) " similar to eye spectacles"
to translate.

To me, ( I realize I am nobody specialial and indeed broken like the rest of us ) to " traslate " would be to take an unknown language and put it in the language for the people to undersatnd. If the ancient gold tabs were not even in the same room as JS, what was he translating from?

I am NOT judging, I AM VERY confused as to the very birth and origin of the BOM.

Thanks,
God bless,
Carl

One of the unique aspects about the Book of Mormon is we have windows into scripture that we have had in no other time period. For example, we do not know how it was that Moses recorded the book of Genesis. We do know from ancient time that a place was constructed where by the prophet high priest was to converse with the L-rd in private, unseen by the eyes of men. This structure was reflected in both the Tabernacle and the Temple where the prophet high priest would interface with the L-rd and angles in what was called “The Holy of Holies”.

But what was the process prior to the building of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The closest we have recorded would be Moses before the “burning bush”. In other places the prophet high priest tells us that they were “taken” to a mountain not always able to identify if they were even in their physical body.

When Joseph Smith was given the “Golden Plates” he was commanded by G-d that he should not show the plates to anyone. The translation of the Book of Mormon had to take place in such a manner that the plates were to remain “out of sight” of everyone but Joseph. We know later by witnesses that the plates were seen by others following the translation and in the case of the three witnesses an angel was also seen.

One problem that Joseph Smith had was because he was not wealthy and also because there were efforts to take his life, there was no permeate place he could translate uninterrupted. The translation had to take place with Joseph on the run – hiding for his life. For most of the time Joseph was behind a curtain with the plates and the Urim and Thummim. According to some sources there were times that Joseph translated by use of a seer stone placed in a hat as the only means to continue without breaking the commandment to keep the plates hidden from everyone else.

Regardless of the efforts of the opposition the work of G-d moves forward – sometimes by very simple means. Joseph tells us that without divine help he would not have been able to produce even a single word. I do not know the exact process that Joseph employed to translate the Book of Mormon. Nor do I know by what means we have Genesis, Revelation or many other books of divine instruction. What I find most interesting is all the critical interest we have in only in the Book of Mormon – even you have not asked about my opinion on any other book of revelation.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

Hey Ceeboo, I haven't ever read anything stating that joseph translated when the plates were not present. My understanding was that the plates were hidden in the woods shortly after the angel gave them to Joseph because men were hiding in the woods trying to steel them. He then later retrieved them with the help of his wife Emma. Thru out the course of the translation process, the plates were hidden in many creative spots. Sometime in brick walls or in the false bottom of a barrel.

The process of translating the record was quite simple. Joseph would sit at a table or desk and his transcriber would sit across from him. A white sheet would separate them. And, yes, Joseph would use the Urim and Thumum to translate.

When you say that you, Ceeboo, are confused about the birth of the record, are you only referring to Joseph's role in making the record known? Or are you clear on the fact that the BofM is the Readers digest version of many centuries of historical and spiritual records kept by a group of Jewish immigrants who lived on the American continent?

Originally Posted by Traveler

What I find most interesting is all the critical interest we have in only in the Book of Mormon – even you have not asked about my opinion on any other book of revelation.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Traveler

Hi Traveler,

I know I have thanked you many times now but I would sincerly like to thank you AGAIN for your time and thoughts you have shared with me. ( very generous and to be honest I am not certain I would do the same if " my " beliefs were put under the skeptical microscope ) thanks

My reaction to the first 90% of your post ( thought I atleast owed you that courtesy considering your courtesy extended to me ) was filled with plausible possabilities at a minimum. I admire the ability you have to offer such an articulate response to what many would see as a rather loaded question. In addition, to answer ( as i feel you did ) in a warm a respectfull way, to me , speaks volumes to the Christian you claim to be.

Lastly, your comment regarding " why all the critical interest in only BOM and not any other book of revelation ". My response in simple, all revelation you speak of is from 2000 plus years ago and most Christians believe or atleast do not hold them to be nearly as important to what Jesus said or taught. Joseph Smith claimed to restore this and he did it less then 200 years ago. TO ME, that warrants this " critical interest " because I believe it CRITICAL for one who believes it to be true.

Thanks again Traveler for all your perspective,
God bless,
Carl

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

Hey Ceeboo, I haven't ever read anything stating that joseph translated when the plates were not present. My understanding was that the plates were hidden in the woods shortly after the angel gave them to Joseph because men were hiding in the woods trying to steel them. He then later retrieved them with the help of his wife Emma. Thru out the course of the translation process, the plates were hidden in many creative spots. Sometime in brick walls or in the false bottom of a barrel.

The process of translating the record was quite simple. Joseph would sit at a table or desk and his transcriber would sit across from him. A white sheet would separate them. And, yes, Joseph would use the Urim and Thumum to translate.

When you say that you, Ceeboo, are confused about the birth of the record, are you only referring to Joseph's role in making the record known? Or are you clear on the fact that the BofM is the Readers digest version of many centuries of historical and spiritual records kept by a group of Jewish immigrants who lived on the American continent?

Hi Misshalfway,
Very nice indeed to talk with you without having to form it as a question.

I believe the Jeff Lindsay site is where I read witness accounts that said sometimes the plates were present and sometimes they were not. ( That was the origin of one of my confusions, If plates were not present then what was JS translating from ?)

Not to debate you, the witness accounts I read also implied that the Urim and Thumum was used sometimes and sometimes a seer stone and hat were used.

To clarify your last comment, I am confused about the birth of the BOM ( The way or ways in wich JS translated these ancient gold plates to produce the now BOM. )

God bless,
Carl

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Traveler,

I know I have thanked you many times now but I would sincerly like to thank you AGAIN for your time and thoughts you have shared with me. ( very generous and to be honest I am not certain I would do the same if " my " beliefs were put under the skeptical microscope ) thanks

My reaction to the first 90% of your post ( thought I atleast owed you that courtesy considering your courtesy extended to me ) was filled with plausible possabilities at a minimum. I admire the ability you have to offer such an articulate response to what many would see as a rather loaded question. In addition, to answer ( as i feel you did ) in a warm a respectfull way, to me , speaks volumes to the Christian you claim to be.

Lastly, your comment regarding " why all the critical interest in only BOM and not any other book of revelation ". My response in simple, all revelation you speak of is from 2000 plus years ago and most Christians believe or atleast do not hold them to be nearly as important to what Jesus said or taught. Joseph Smith claimed to restore this and he did it less then 200 years ago. TO ME, that warrants this " critical interest " because I believe it CRITICAL for one who believes it to be true.

Thanks again Traveler for all your perspective,
God bless,
Carl

As a religious engineer and scientist I believe that a quest for truth is a method and journey - not an event or arrival. Like you I tend to be skeptical and critical of new things – yet new things are often the most rewarding. I believe all things should be investigated and evaluated and that things that are true are so regardless of place or time.

In my travels I have discovered that many things that appear foolish can indeed be helpful. I believe the most important consideration of a truth is not how someone came about it but the effect that it has on those that use it.

I admire your efforts to voice your concerns and listen to possibilities. I think this method will serve you will.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Misshalfway,
Very nice indeed to talk with you without having to form it as a question.



To clarify your last comment, I am confused about the birth of the BOM ( The way or ways in wich JS translated these ancient gold plates to produce the now BOM. )

God bless,
Carl

To clarify Joseph told us that when translating he would see two sets of texts. One was the text as it was anciently written and the other was the English texts that was the intended translation. This vision of two texts existed wether or not he was looking at the exact plates or a vision of them.

The Traveler

The Traveler

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Misshalfway,
Very nice indeed to talk with you without having to form it as a question.

I believe the Jeff Lindsay site is where I read witness accounts that said sometimes the plates were present and sometimes they were not. ( That was the origin of one of my confusions, If plates were not present then what was JS translating from ?)

Not to debate you, the witness accounts I read also implied that the Urim and Thumum was used sometimes and sometimes a seer stone and hat were used.

To clarify your last comment, I am confused about the birth of the BOM ( The way or ways in wich JS translated these ancient gold plates to produce the now BOM. )

God bless,
Carl

Ceeboo:

I also appreciate inquiry and research. I would caution you, however that in order for the process to be productive and thus rewarding one needs to "design" the experiment and conduct research in a careful and systematic fashion in order. Such as to avoid the pitfalls of contaminating the findings with erroneous data. In summary, I would suggest the you read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. Take in the text, the doctrine, the language and the context. Then, you can come back and ask questions if you have any about very specific items.

I have noted that you are pulling information from diverse sources (some not very reliable) in a somewhat disorganized fashion. That makes the process cumbersome an d not quite efficient. Read the message and then we can talk about the messenger. The reliability of the message is the critical portion here. Try to follow that sequence and see what happens. The truth can not be so complex and veiled that the average person with the help of the Spirit can not find it.

Originally Posted by Traveler

As a religious engineer and scientist I believe that a quest for truth is a method and journey - not an event or arrival. Like you I tend to be skeptical and critical of new things – yet new things are often the most rewarding. I believe all things should be investigated and evaluated and that things that are true are so regardless of place or time.

In my travels I have discovered that many things that appear foolish can indeed be helpful. I believe the most important consideration of a truth is not how someone came about it but the effect that it has on those that use it.

I admire your efforts to voice your concerns and listen to possibilities. I think this method will serve you will.

The Traveler

Hi T ( thought I could call you "T" now that we are becoming such good friends LOL )

I would agree that truth is truth regardless of place or time ( well said IMHO )

I would respectfully not agree with your offering that the most important consideration of a truth is the effect that it has on those that use it ( VERY DANGEROUS in my estimation), rather I believe the most important thing is simply if it is true.

God bless,
Carl