Language:
Welcome Guest Login or Signup » LOGOUT

Go Back   LDS Mormon Forums > Gospel Boards > Scripture Study Forum
You are not logged into the site. Please login or signup.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by paul6150@Nov 15 2005, 01:05 PM


You see the salvation message presented in the Bible has nothing to do with what we can do (our works) but in what He has already done. All He asks of us is to believe in the Lord Jesus and what Jesus has done in dying for our sins. THIS IS WHAT THE GOSPEL IS ALL ABOUT.

You are questioning the authenticity of the BOM and rightly so for throughout its pages you find a strong emphasis on our works as being the way to heaven. THIS DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE'S MESSAGE. I strongly encourage you to not look for a witness from the BOM but rather believe in the Lord Jesus and that He died for you personally. His blood covered your sins and the sins of the whole world. All He asks is that we take up this free gift and believe.
[snapback]82379[/snapback]
thanks for your reply and your concern. However, I have a different take on the whole grace vs. works debate and would rather not discuss it here in this thread - a new one maybe? I know that Jesus died for me personally - its hard not to read any standard work and not get this message loud and clear. But thanks for reminder.

InActiveTx
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:55 PM
Ray Ray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,694
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by inactivetx@Nov 15 2005, 12:38 PM
I agree with your analysis, Ray which is why I don't get bent out of shape with horses, cement or adieu.* Joseph could have simply used the word(s) from HIS frame of reference to express what the Spirit was telling him.
But this is inadequate to describe the use of old/new testament scenarios appearing in the BoM.* In my example, it is simply more than just 'Jesus teaching timeless truths'.* It is an almost word for word quote of Christ talking to the Pharisees with just the names changed to charge the guilty - 100 years before Christ uttered the complaint.** In Ether a glaring example:
Ether 8: 10
10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the ahead• of my father, the king.
Compare with Mark 6 and the beheading of John the Baptist by a tempting dancing daughter:
How interesting that an almost identical scenario occurs twice in scripture?*

Don't get me wrong - I WANT to believe. I am one of the strange people who love Mormonism but can't quite make myself believe it lock, stock and barrel. But I am trying.* Situations like these don't make my job any easier.

InActiveTx
[snapback]82389[/snapback]
Are you also amazed to see scenarios today which occured in the past?

Don't you know that people often do what other people have done, whether or not they know or knew about those other people?

Haven't you ever used some words from the scriptures to describe some of what you have seen people do?

People have pretty much done the same things throughout time, some good, some bad, and some I'm not sure about yet, and when I see people in a scenario today which also occured in the past, I usually use the best words I can think of to describe those people or their scenario.

Or in other words, there is nothing new under the sun, as far as people are concerned, and we all use the best words we can think of to describe what we see.

And btw, it helps to realize that the scriptures reveal the history of some people, and as I said, people today have done a lot of things that other people have done before.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:57 PM
BenRaines's Avatar
Head Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: United States -
Posts: 5,222
Thanks: 66
Thanked 1,421 Times in 782 Posts
Laughs: 15
Laughs at 550 Times in 258 Posts
Default

Here is a good link to a discussion on horses in Book of Mormon times.

http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/051114horses.html
__________________
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." Sir Francis Bacon
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 02:02 PM
Jason's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 3,662
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Ben,

Congrats on being a Mod again! I just noticed.

Sorry to derail the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 02:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Well Paul, you have not answered me about our last conversation, so when you answer me what i answered to you , then we'll talk, and your äcerted view"towards the BoM, and then such way of thinking would be vindicated

And as to Inactivetx:
Hey, how many quotes doesnt have the own OT about Jesus?
How many verses didnt Jesus quoted? Were there of him or for him?
How many MANY concepts of christianism are found within judaism?
Did Christians copied?
How many "greek philosophy"is not there WITHIN Christianity?
A lot may i say... but that doesnt mean christians copied or took such thoughts from pagans, but that such knowleadge was in the world since it began. A great opportunity for people to corrupt or exalt such doctrines. If not viewed this way, then the very presence of all christian concepts within early pagan sources lead us to believe that even theJEWS took principles out of pagans...LOL.
And as to quotes, again, isnt naive of you to ask that such expression of (we are better than our brothers) is of NT times?
Dont you believe that such situation with the SAME response would have been early contemplated?
Was Jesus the only intelligent person to respond such basic answer?
Wow, then the jews were as stupid as a rock...

Regards
__________________
He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work. (Job 37:7)
"Our religion is between us and our God". Joseph Smith
"In our searching for truth, nothing can be consedered as obvious". John L. Sorenson.
"Read not to contradict". Francis Bacon
"Water, fire, light, truth and God are the same thing.Truth is Mormonism."Joseph smith
"Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one" Nephi
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 09:22 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by inactivetx+Nov 15 2005, 01:44 PM-->
Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-paul6150
Quote:
@Nov 15 2005, 01:05 PM


You see the salvation message presented in the Bible has nothing to do with what we can do (our works) but in what He has already done. All He asks of us is to believe in the Lord Jesus and what Jesus has done in dying for our sins. THIS IS WHAT THE GOSPEL IS ALL ABOUT.

You are questioning the authenticity of the BOM and rightly so for throughout its pages you find a strong emphasis on our works as being the way to heaven. THIS DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE'S MESSAGE. I strongly encourage you to not look for a witness from the BOM but rather believe in the Lord Jesus and that He died for you personally. His blood covered your sins and the sins of the whole world. All He asks is that we take up this free gift and believe.
[snapback]82379[/snapback]
thanks for your reply and your concern. However, I have a different take on the whole grace vs. works debate and would rather not discuss it here in this thread - a new one maybe? I know that Jesus died for me personally - its hard not to read any standard work and not get this message loud and clear. But thanks for reminder.

InActiveTx
[snapback]82393[/snapback]
[/b]
I am all for a discussion about grace vs. works. Nmae the place where you want to chat about this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 09:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Serg@Nov 15 2005, 02:55 PM
Well Paul, you have not answered me about our last conversation, so when you answer me what i answered to you , then we'll talk, and your äcerted view"towards the BoM, and then such way of thinking would be vindicated

And as to Inactivetx:
* * * * Hey, how many quotes doesnt have the own OT about Jesus?
* * * * How many verses didnt Jesus quoted? Were there of him or for him?
* * * * How many MANY concepts of christianism are found within judaism?
* * * * * Did Christians copied?
* * * * How many "greek philosophy"is not there WITHIN Christianity?
* * A lot may i say... but that doesnt mean christians copied or took such thoughts from pagans, but that such knowleadge was in the world since it began. A great opportunity for people to corrupt or exalt such doctrines. If not viewed this way, then the very presence of all christian concepts within early pagan sources lead us to believe that even theJEWS took principles out of pagans...LOL.
* * * * And as to quotes, again, isnt naive of you to ask that such expression of (we are better than our brothers) is of NT times?
* * * * Dont you believe that such situation with the SAME response would have been early contemplated?
* * * Was Jesus the only intelligent person to respond such basic answer?
* * Wow, then the jews were as stupid as a rock...

Regards
[snapback]82407[/snapback]

Hey Serg

The last I looked I posted last under the previous topic. Although it doesn't cover all of your point it is a starting point. I am working on the rest of my response to your post.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 09:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Laughs: 0
Laughs at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by inactivetx+Nov 15 2005, 01:38 PM-->
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ray@Nov 15 2005, 12:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Jason
Quote:
Quote:
@Nov 15 2005, 11:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?*

And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation".* English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word.* Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?* *

Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat.* We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.*

If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
[snapback]82347[/snapback]

To put it simply, "adieu" was the word Joseph Smith chose to use to represent what Nephi? (was it?) said or meant when he said what he said.

For those who don't know, a prophet usually speaks with his own words while expressing the thoughts he is given from the Lord, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, our Lord and the Holy Ghost don't always give prophets the exact words to use when giving inspiration and revelation, and instead they usually give thoughts and impressions which are interpreted into words by the prophet who receives them.

And for those who want some evidence of this, study the words of the prophets and you should be able to notice that every prophet has their own way of saying or writing certain things, even though they are all basically saying the same things, and even though some prophets give a little more detail or express their thoughts in words that are easier for others to understand.

And btw, Joseph Smith was fairly familiar with the Bible both before and after he was ordained as an apostle of our Lord, and sometimes he chose to use some of those words in the Bible to translate what the Nephites had written in their scriptures. For instance, the Nephites didn't speak in the King James vernacular either.

Anyway, you simply need to understand the process whereby we receive revelation, while trying to understand what someone says to you when they explain how they believe it was done.
[snapback]82373[/snapback]
I agree with your analysis, Ray which is why I don't get bent out of shape with horses, cement or adieu. Joseph could have simply used the word(s) from HIS frame of reference to express what the Spirit was telling him.
But this is inadequate to describe the use of old/new testament scenarios appearing in the BoM. In my example, it is simply more than just 'Jesus teaching timeless truths'. It is an almost word for word quote of Christ talking to the Pharisees with just the names changed to charge the guilty - 100 years before Christ uttered the complaint. In Ether a glaring example:
Ether 8: 10
10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the ahead• of my father, the king.
Compare with Mark 6 and the beheading of John the Baptist by a tempting dancing daughter:
How interesting that an almost identical scenario occurs twice in scripture?

Don't get me wrong - I WANT to believe. I am one of the strange people who love Mormonism but can't quite make myself believe it lock, stock and barrel. But I am trying. Situations like these don't make my job any easier.

InActiveTx
[snapback]82389[/snapback]
[/b]
You happened to mention the word "cement" and it reminded me of my notes about the temple construction and the use of cement. Here is some interesting things to ponder on.

Lehi and Saraih initially had four sons namely Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi when they left Jerusalem (1N 2:5) no mention of daughters at this time. Two additional sons were born in the wilderness namely Jacob and Joseph (1N 18:7). Zoram, the servant of Laban comes with them (1N 4:31-37). Ishmael and his wife join them with at least 5 daughters and 2 sons. No mention of Jacob, Joseph and two sons of Ishmael having wives, but let’s assume they did take some of the daughters of the other five to start their families. How many people would there be in 40 years assuming twins are born each year? Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Zoram and their wives could have had up to 160 children by the time the oldest children are 16. Then with Jacob, Joseph, and two sons of Ishmael now married, four new couples can begin having children each of the following years. Mathematically there would then be 1500 or more people inhabiting this land by the end of the 30th year. The BOM text throughout these years does not suggest any other children of Lehi or Ishmael except the reference to “my sisters” (2N 5:6). We don’t know how many sisters there were or whom they married but even under the best of conditions (twins each year) there could not have been over 3000 people in this 40 year period. If one follows the BOM story line we see the division between the Lamanites and Nephites (2N 5:6) where the Nephites, the larger group decided to move. The Nephites made swords, built buildings, even a temple, like Solomon’s temple. Some pretty awesome accomplishments for such a small number of people.

Some other interesting questions can be garnered from this section of the BOM (2N 5:5-34).

1). Solomon’s temple took a workforce of 30,000 laborers, 150,000 stonemasons and haulers, and 3,300 supervisors- a total of seven (7) years nonstop work to complete the temple (1 Kings 6:9-38). In the BOM we have an approximate workforce of 200 to 300 able-bodied men and maybe some older children building many buildings and a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine” all within a 10-12 year period.

2). Solomon’s temple was 90 feet long, 30 feet wide and 45 feet tall. The portico in front of the temple extended the width of the temple (30 feet) and was 15 feet in front of the temple. Solomon’s temple originally had another building around the outside consisting of small side rooms where the priests who took care of the temple stayed. Based on this information and the 2N 5:16 statement about a temple similar to Solomon’s temple one must ask “where is any archeological evidence that depicts a temple this big?” All the archeological ruins in Central America depict a much smaller buildings on top of pyramids. This does not seem to agree with the BOM description of the temple built like Solomon’s temple.

3). 2N 5:16 contradicts what was just stated, in the previous verse, in that “it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land” whereas verse 15 states that Nephi “did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance” . None of the remaining archeological ruins indicate construction with metal let alone precious metals such as gold and silver.

4). If one studies the information presented by the archeologists who have examined these Central and South American ruins, they will find the following facts:
a) They had no draft animals or wheeled vehicles which is contrary to what the BOM states in A 18:9 and 20:6; 3N 3:22 and 21:14. Any reference to horses would be contrary to archeological facts obtained from the ruins. The BOM, however, indicates “their land is full of horses” E 1:21.
Writings from the Mayan civilization was made on stone slabs or pillars; lintels and stairways; and on folded sheets of fibrous paper made from the inner bark of wild fig trees. Many exist today. The Aztecs used pictographic writings (conveying messages by drawing pictures). These pictorial writings were typically recorded on paper or animal hides. Many of these writings called codices are in existence today. The Inca’s probably did have some writings; however, archeologists have not found any to date. Information about the Inca’s came from the oral tradition passed from one generation to the next. There is very little evidence, if any, that indicates writings on metal plates as the BOM describes.
c) The common people of these civilizations probably lived in dwellings that were made of adobe or palm-thatched huts as seen today among their descendants. The BOM states that the Nephites “became exceedingly expert in working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement in which they did dwell” H3:7, 9 and 11. The word cement is derived from the Old French language which was not developed until the 6th or 7th century A.D. Again it must be asked how a French word gets into a work allegedly completed no later than 421 A.D.
Furthermore, there is no archeological evidence that backs up the use of cement in the pre-Columbian Americas. Cement is defined as a finely ground powder that when mixed with water sets and hardens into a solid mass. The ancient Roman civilization made cement from lime and volcanic ash and used it extensively in building their empire. In 1824 a British engineer, by the name of Joseph Aspdin, patented portland cement in which limestone and clay are the two most common raw materials. These ingredients are crushed and ground into fine powder, blended to the desired proportions and heated in a kiln at very high temperatures.
It is also interesting to note that the patent was issued in 1824 just a few short years before JS began writing the BOM. Many newspapers carried the news about this new useful product. A likely possibility is that JS during this time period may have incorporated it into the BOM. One must wonder if that is why this word shows up in the BOM.
d) The religion of these Indian civilizations was polytheistic (many gods) not just one God as we find in the Judeo/Christian beliefs. The following is a brief summary of these Indian religious systems:
Not far from the temple pyramid stood a much smaller building which some describe as a house of idols, diabolism, serpents, and having many tools needed for carving the bodies of the sacrificial victims. The Aztecs believed in a system of 13 heavens and 9 underworlds which had over 900 gods. They had gods for commerce and industry; gods for merchant-adventurers; gods for imperial armies; gods for potters, basket weavers, mat makers; gods of agriculture; gods of fisherman; gods of earth, air, fire, and water; gods of mountains, volcanoes; creator gods; gods of medicine; and gods for flowers which strange people loved.
The Mayan religious system was similar to the Aztecs in that they had a pantheon of nature gods and other duties. Some of these included: gods of abundance; rain gods; gods for travelers; medicine gods; gods of the chase; gods for fisherman; gods of maize, food plants, cocoa. Principally, the Mayans had 13 major gods and a host of minor gods. The major gods included: the death god, weather god, sky deity, moon god, maize god, war god, merchants god, sun god, serpent deity, water goddess, god with ornamented nose, old black god, and the end of the year god.
The Mayans had numerous idols. There was not an animal or reptile that didn’t have an image for it which was worshipped as a god or goddess. Additionally torture and human sacrifice were a fundamental part of the Mayan religious rituals. The drawing of human blood was thought to nourish the gods and was thus necessary to achieve contact with them.
The Inca religion also had multiple gods that they worshipped. Ancestor worship was an important feature of the Inca system. Each tribe or clan would have mummies of the kinsfolk to which were offered vases, clothes, plumes and the like. They had gods of the ocean, the earth, fish, harvests, and the moon. The Inca religion combined features of animism, fetishism and worship of nature gods.
e) The final point to be drawn from the studies made of these Native American peoples was the time frame when these civilizations existed:
Aztecs settled on Lake Tezcuco which later became the capital of the empire somewhere between 1140 and 1327 A.D. They flourished until the 15th and16th century A.D. until defeated by the Spanish.
The earliest known period of the Mayan civilization was approximately 260 A.D. when they began building temples and pyramids. They were overtaken by the Spanish and disease by approximately 1540 A.D.
The Inca civilization started to build their empire, as early as 1438 A.D., and within 100 years had gained control of 12,000,000 people.
Many BOM believers point to these great civilizations as evidence that there was a great Nephite civilization. However, the timeline for each civilization as determined by archeologists does not fit with the BOM narrative and cannot be the supporting evidence for the BOM. In fact both LDS and RLDS authorities have indicated that there is very little archeological evidence that corroborates the BOM.



So as you can see there are other things that indicate there is some problems with what the BOM says.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 10:04 PM
Snow's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,193
Thanks: 41
Thanked 708 Times in 432 Posts
Laughs: 8
Laughs at 271 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jason@Nov 15 2005, 10:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?*

And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation".* English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word.* Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?* *

Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat.* We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.*

If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
[snapback]82347[/snapback]
It;s a non-issue for me.

The original plates didn't say "and it came to pass." They said something else and JS translated it as "and it came to pass." Whatever the plates originally said in this case, JS translated as "adieu."

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

I know one of the witnesses to the translation reports that JS would see words appear and then would read them off, but JS doesn't say that. Even if that is the way it worked some of the time, that doesn't have to be the only way it worked. JS's translation and revelation processed certainly evolved over time.
__________________
There is nothing more pathetic than the anti anti-mormon Colonel Louis/Lewis Tucker
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2005, 11:10 PM
Member_Deleted
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
You just want to haggle. I for one am tired of it.
T
Quote:
hen do us all a favor and put me on your ignore list.* I know I could care less responding to you're generally useless posts.**
IOW you have no sincere desire to learn anything, you just want to plant your evil seeds of doubt. That is what you come here for? What a sad life that you go around telling anyone who puts a clear understanding out about what you're doing, that their posts are 'useless post'... well I know there are many who don't think it is useless to point out the work of evil among us.

D&C 123: 13
13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


New Posts


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0



TERMS & CONDITIONS | HELP | CONTACT US | INVITE | RSS FEEDS | ABOUT US | GET INVOLVED | ARCHIVE
*** LDS Mormon Community ***
More Good Foundation. All rights reserved.

Header art used by permission of Mark Mabry and Reflections of Christ.

LDS.Net is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon Church or LDS Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the More Good Foundation. For the official Church websites, please visit LDS.org and Mormon.org.