Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_truth dancer]

You either don't know, or your are deliberately ignoring all the information that has come out lately in support of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and various elements of Church history. Which is it?

Picking a fight again?

I know of no real evidence for the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

That goes both ways. Which is why the Book of Mormon is attracting more and more scholarly investigation from non-LDS.

I know of no non-LDS scholars who are interested in the Book of Mormon as anything other than a religious text written by a man.

"Common knowledge" that the Book of Mormon is some kind of very bad 19th novel with relgiouis pretensions, when exposed to the light of better knowledge is swinging toward the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document.

I am unaware of any such claims other than from believers. Perhaps you could give us some information on the non-LDS scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document.

I know quite a few believers who are making the move to inspired fiction.

There is no conflict between true science and true religion.

Well, if by "true religion" you mean actual ultimate truth then fine.

If however you mean the claims of prophets, and factual knowledge than I disagree.

It is only when one is in error that there is a problem.

]

My point is, it is easy for humans to believe say for example, Adam and Eve existed in Missouri six thousand years ago when there was no understanding of evolution, geology, anthropology, etc., etc. etc. Today, for folks to believe this, they must discount quite a bit of accepted knowledge and rely on faith that Genesis is true and all science is wrong.

Do you think the Internet (available information) is helping or hurting the cause of the LDS church?


~dancer~

[_charity]

The Internet is the greatest asset for spreading information ever created.

But the internet does not filter out error and out and out lies. I can't quote it exactly, but this is apropos. "Falsehood can march a thousand miles before truth can get its boots on."

[_CaliforniaKid]

The Internet is the greatest asset for spreading information ever created.

But the internet does not filter out error and out and out lies. I can't quote it exactly, but this is apropos. "Falsehood can march a thousand miles before truth can get its boots on."

This is true. Just look how long Gee's missing papyrus argument has been in print. And still there is no published response!

[_charity]

You either don't know, or your are deliberately ignoring all the information that has come out lately in support of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and various elements of Church history. Which is it?

Picking a fight again?

I know of no real evidence for the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

Then you are saying that you are not aware of any information supporting the Book of Mormon, etc. or else you would report it in your responses. I am glad to know you are uneducated, rather than deceitful.

That goes both ways. Which is why the Book of Mormon is attracting more and more scholarly investigation from non-LDS.

I know of no non-LDS scholars who are interested in the Book of Mormon as anything other than a religious text written by a man.

You can't now say that the Book of Mormon must only be considered by non-LDS as an archeological or anthropological text.

But since you want to know of non-LDS scholars who are now seriously considering Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, try this list on for size:

Theologians and scholars: Jacob Neussner, Harold Bloom, James Charlesworth, Ernest Wilhelm Benz (now deceased),Heikki Raisanen

Literary scholars: Seth Kunin and Viola Sachs

Historian: Nathan Hatch

[

"Common knowledge" that the Book of Mormon is some kind of very bad 19th novel with relgiouis pretensions, when exposed to the light of better knowledge is swinging toward the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document.

I am unaware of any such claims other than from believers. Perhaps you could give us some information on the non-LDS scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document.

Did you notice the phrase "swinging toward?" I don't know of any who accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient document delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel, and tranlsated by Joseph Smith with the gift and power of God. Any one who came to that knowledge, would no longer be non-LDs, now would he?

[

I know quite a few believers who are making the move to inspired fiction.

Apostates, you mean. There is no way a believer can deny that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is and still be a believer. A nominal Mormon, a cultural Mormon, a "new" Mormon, but not a true Latter-day Saint. To believe the Book of Mormon "inspired fiction" is to believe that every prophet of the Church has been an liar, that every Saint who has had a witness of the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is deluded.

[

There is no conflict between true science and true religion.

Well, if by "true religion" you mean actual ultimate truth then fine.

If however you mean the claims of prophets, and factual knowledge than I disagree.

Science, itself, bases much of what it says on "facts" it cannot see. Atoms are not visible, even with the most powerful microscope. But science confidently proclaims there are such things. Angels are not visible to everyone, but those have seen them can confidenlty proclaim they exist.

It is only when one is in error that there is a problem.

]

My point is, it is easy for humans to believe say for example, Adam and Eve existed in Missouri six thousand years ago when there was no understanding of evolution, geology, anthropology, etc., etc. etc. Today, for folks to believe this, they must discount quite a bit of accepted knowledge and rely on faith that Genesis is true and all science is wrong.

We rely on basic truths from the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and in the Book of Moses. What people add to those basic truths may or may not be correct.

Do you think the Internet (available information) is helping or hurting the cause of the LDS church?

I think it may even help the Church. The mission of the Church has always been about gathering. Those who will hear the Voice of the Shepherd will become members of His flock. Those who do not have that inclination won't. It was never expected, nor probalby even desired, that every person, regardless of their willingness to be obedient to God, would join the church willy nilly.


~dancer~[/quote]

[_truth dancer]

Then you are saying that you are not aware of any information supporting the Book of Mormon, etc. or else you would report it in your responses. I am glad to know you are uneducated, rather than deceitful.

Spoken like a true disciple of Christ. (Like I said, you spit in the eyes of playmates and wonder why others return the favor).

Why not start a thread and share with us all your evidence?

You can't now say that the Book of Mormon must only be considered by non-LDS as an archeological or anthropological text.

I didn't say that Charity. Please... I said I know of no non-LDS interested in the Book of Mormon as something other than a religious text written by a man.

But since you want to know of non-LDS scholars who are now seriously considering Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, try this list on for size:

Theologians and scholars: Jacob Neussner, Harold Bloom, James Charlesworth, Ernest Wilhelm Benz (now deceased),Heikki Raisanen

Literary scholars: Seth Kunin and Viola Sachs

Historian: Nathan Hatch

Are you suggesting these folks believe in the truth claims of the LDS church regarding the Book of Mormon? Or actually believe the Book of Mormon is a story of real and true?

Did you notice the phrase "swinging toward?" I don't know of any who accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient document delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel, and tranlsated by Joseph Smith with the gift and power of God. Any one who came to that knowledge, would no longer be non-LDs, now would he?

Again, I do not know of any non-LDS archaeologists who support the claims of the LDS church regarding the Book of Mormon.

Apostates, you mean.

Nope, I mean believers. Some high up in the church.

There is no way a believer can deny that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is and still be a believer.

Because YOU say so doesn't make it true. Others see it differently.

A nominal Mormon, a cultural Mormon, a "new" Mormon, but not a true Latter-day Saint.

You do not get to be the voice for the church or for Jesus Christ. Sorry about that.

To believe the Book of Mormon "inspired fiction" is to believe that every prophet of the Church has been an liar, that every Saint who has had a witness of the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is deluded.

You are not the prophet, judge, or authority Charity. Best leave the judging to those who are called for the work.

We rely on basic truths from the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and in the Book of Moses. What people add to those basic truths may or may not be correct.

Yes, people cherry pick scripture.

I think it may even help the Church. The mission of the Church has always been about gathering. Those who will hear the Voice of the Shepherd will become members of His flock. Those who do not have that inclination won't. It was never expected, nor probalby even desired, that every person, regardless of their willingness to be obedient to God, would join the church willy nilly.

My observation is that the LDS church leaders are more concerned than you.

~dancer~

[_hopeofzion]

Hi Truthdancer... if you are the same dear woman I once new from the ZLMB.
Hope all is well with you!

[_charity]

You do not get to be the voice for the church or for Jesus Christ. Sorry about that.

No, but President Ezra Taft Benson was. "The Book of Mormon was written for us today. God is the author of the book. It is a record of a fallen people, compiled by inspired men for our blessing today. Those people never had the book—it was meant for us. Mormon, the ancient prophet after whom the book is named, abridged centuries of records. God, who knows the end from the beginning, told him what to include in his abridgment that we would need for our day" ("The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God," Ensign, May 1975, 63)

President Gordon B. Hinckkley was: "I would think that the whole Christian world would reach out and welcome it and embrace it as a vibrant testimony. It represents another great and basic contribution which came as a revelation to the Prophet [Joseph]" ("The Great Things which God Has Revealed," Liahona and Ensign, May 2005

I could go on and on with these.

To believe the Book of Mormon "inspired fiction" is to believe that every prophet of the Church has been an liar, that every Saint who has had a witness of the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is deluded.

You are not the prophet, judge, or authority Charity. Best leave the judging to those who are called for the work.

Absolutely. But you really make a mistake if you think that the Book of Mormon can be tossed so lightly aside as mere "inspired fiction." And these "high up in the Church?" I won't as for names, but could you give me their "high up" positions please? This is a call for references. A foggy statement isn't enugh to buttress your claim.

I think it may even help the Church. The mission of the Church has always been about gathering. Those who will hear the Voice of the Shepherd will become members of His flock. Those who do not have that inclination won't. It was never expected, nor probalby even desired, that every person, regardless of their willingness to be obedient to God, would join the church willy nilly.

My observation is that the LDS church leaders are more concerned than you.

There is a mandate to take the Gospel to all the world. That doesn't mean that every person will accept it.

[_Runtu]

Absolutely. But you really make a mistake if you think that the Book of Mormon can be tossed so lightly aside as mere "inspired fiction."

I know several people who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, but you are mistaken in saying that they did so lightly. Realizing that the "keystone of our religion" is not what it claims to be is not something that you shrug off, like a chip in the windshield. Time and again apologists accuse us "critics" as having taken the easy way out and treated the important things of life casually. If there's one thing most of us did not do, it is taking the Book of Mormon "lightly."

[_charity]

Absolutely. But you really make a mistake if you think that the Book of Mormon can be tossed so lightly aside as mere "inspired fiction."

I know several people who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, but you are mistaken in saying that they did so lightly. Realizing that the "keystone of our religion" is not what it claims to be is not something that you shrug off, like a chip in the windshield. Time and again apologists accuse us "critics" as having taken the easy way out and treated the important things of life casually. If there's one thing most of us did not do, it is taking the Book of Mormon "lightly."

We really see things differently. From an ancient document kept by propehts, preserved by the hand of God, given to a young prophet by an angel, and subsequently translated by him through the power of God to some 19th fiction with some nice teachings in it is a terrible descent into ignorminy. Lots of books have "nice teachings." To put the Book of Mormon on a par with something by Dr. Phil or Steven Covey, as "nice" as they may be, is an insult. It doesn't matter if your decision maing process that so downgraded it was a long and thoughtful process. I don't know how or why you came to this conclusion. And I am sure it was only one of many factors which lead you away from the faith.

But your own story shows that TD's claim that you can be a faithful member of the Church and so regard the Book of Mormon in that way is a fallacy.

[_Runtu]

We really see things differently. From an ancient document kept by propehts, preserved by the hand of God, given to a young prophet by an angel, and subsequently translated by him through the power of God to some 19th fiction with some nice teachings in it is a terrible descent into ignorminy. Lots of books have "nice teachings." To put the Book of Mormon on a par with something by Dr. Phil or Steven Covey, as "nice" as they may be, is an insult. It doesn't matter if your decision maing process that so downgraded it was a long and thoughtful process. I don't know how or why you came to this conclusion. And I am sure it was only one of many factors which lead you away from the faith.

Excuse me, but where do you get off saying that the faithful friends I have consider the Book of Mormon on a par with Dr. Phil? Your contempt is palpable and certainly unbecoming a follower of Christ. My friends tell me they revere the Book of Mormon as revealed scripture, not as something akin to the latest from Dr. Laura.

But your own story shows that TD's claim that you can be a faithful member of the Church and so regard the Book of Mormon in that way is a fallacy.

Don't use me as an example. I didn't lose my faith because it wasn't literally true, and neither have they. As I said, I know plenty of faithful church members who do not believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. So, obviously you can maintain faith in the gospel without accepting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. They do everyday.