The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_bcuzbcuz]

I haven’t said that, so I don't know how you came to that​ conclusion. The Book of Mormon narrative affirms only those three migrations, and leaves open the possibility of other Israelite migrations not specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon; but it rules out any accidental or unplanned migrations outside of the providence of God.

Would it be correct to interpret your last comment to mean that any or all of the native populations in North, Central and South America are all Lamanites? That the native populations throughout the Americas are all descendants of Israel heritage? Please tell more.

[_zerinus]

Would it be correct to interpret your last comment to mean that any or all of the native populations in North, Central and South America are all Lamanites? That the native populations throughout the Americas are all descendants of Israel heritage? Please tell more.

That would appear to be the case.

[_I have a question]

Would it be correct to interpret your last comment to mean that any or all of the native populations in North, Central and South America are all Lamanites? That the native populations throughout the Americas are all descendants of Israel heritage? Please tell more.

That would appear to be the case.

In what objective way does it "appear" that the Native Americans have Israeli heritage?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It'd be nice if Mormons would stop using the word 'translate' when describing the Book of Mormon narrative. The Oakland temple is showing new films with Joseph Smith literally divining the words from a stack of plates. He's not even looking at the plates. They're covered. He's just sitting there with a furrowed brow. And diving a story.

- Doc

[Guest]

So when it was changed in 1837 to read, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!", who made that decision to depart from the words of Nephi in such a way that completely revises the theological implications of the verse?

Firstly, that change was made by Joseph Smith himself, who was the inspired translator of the book; and therefore it was within his legitimate authority to make such a change.

If he was the creator of the work, sure. And that is what he was, regardless of whether or not a person believes the gold plates were real. How you treat the Book of Mormon with your comment above is exactly right but it shows that regardless of what you say somewhere in your mind is a recognition that the Book of Mormon itself was written in 1829. You can believe that it was the result of a translation effort by Joseph Smith if you wish but you can't pretend that Joseph Smith lacked authorship of the Book of Mormon as we have it in a meaningful way.

Secondly, you are mistaken in your assertion that the change “completely revises the theological implications of the verse”. There are several passages in the Book of Mormon where Jesus is identified as both the Father and the Son, so that this particular change does not signify a radical change, or a departure from the underlying theology of the Book of Mormon, or of the meaning of the verse itself.

It's true the Book of Mormon contains many descriptions of the godhead that more closely reflect a particular trinitarian-like belief than modern Mormonism's claims which didn't arise until around a decade later. When the Book of Mormon was written Joseph Smith did not have an understanding of the godhead that included a seperation of identity between the Father and Son. His views on this appear to have been influenced by Sidney Rigdon which also explains the language of the Lectures on Faith (the doctrine part of the D&C since removed) where the godhead consisted of two persons and the holy spirit represented their shared mind:

There are two personages who constitute the great,
matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by
whom all things were created and made, that are created and
made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth,
or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of
space. They are the Father and the Son — the Father being a
personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection
and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a
personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or
being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed
after his likeness and in his image f he is also the express image
and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the
fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father;
being begotten of him, and ordained from before the foundation
of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who
should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the
flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer ;
or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed
to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But,
notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained
without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to
keep the law and remain also without sin f and also, that by him
a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who
walk not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the
law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the Only-
Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having over-
come, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing
the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit,
that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are
one .

So when you asked me about what other cultures where around you do at least imagine there were other cultures around? That the three migrations described in the Book of Mormon do not account for the primary inhabitants of the Americas at the time?

I haven’t said that, so I don't know how you came to that​ conclusion. The Book of Mormon narrative affirms only those three migrations, and leaves open the possibility of other Israelite migrations not specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon; but it rules out any accidental or unplanned migrations outside of the providence of God.

I appreciate the lack of sophistry that apologists typically employ to try and stretch the Book of Mormon's words to make it fit the archeological record. But there is a reason they do so. If someone were to present evidence dating human habitation of the Americas to a period prior to the Jaredite migration how would you treat it? Like this find reported on recently in the news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 73726.html

14,000 years ago predates the stories of the Bible. Your thoughts?

[_Chap]

Would it be correct to interpret your last comment to mean that any or all of the native populations in North, Central and South America are all Lamanites? That the native populations throughout the Americas are all descendants of Israel heritage? Please tell more.

That would appear to be the case.

In what objective way does it "appear" that the Native Americans have Israeli heritage?

Because the Book of Mormon says so. Do pay attention, or zerinus will lose patience with you.

[_zerinus]

If he was the creator of the work, sure. And that is what he was, regardless of whether or not a person believes the gold plates were real. How you treat the Book of Mormon with your comment above is exactly right but it shows that regardless of what you say somewhere in your mind is a recognition that the Book of Mormon itself was written in 1829. You can believe that it was the result of a translation effort by Joseph Smith if you wish but you can't pretend that Joseph Smith lacked authorship of the Book of Mormon as we have it in a meaningful way.

A translator has as much right to edit, revise, amend, and improve his translation as an author has to do the same with his composition.

It's true the Book of Mormon contains many discriptions of the godhead that more closely reflect a particular trinitarian-like belief than modern Mormonism's claims which didn't arise until around a decade later. When the Book of Mormon was written Joseph Smith did not have an understanding of the godhead that included a seperation of identity between the Father and Son. His views on this appear to have been influenced by Sidney Rigdon which also explains the language of the Lectures on Faith (the doctrine part of the D&C since removed) where the godhead consisted of two persons and the holy spirit represented their shared mind:

Imagining things. If you want to run wild with your imagination, why is that my problem?

I appreciate the lack of sophistry that apologists typically employ to try and stretch the Book of Mormon's words to make it fit the archeological record. But there is a reason they do so. If someone were to present evidence dating human habitation of the Americas to a period prior to the Jaredite migration how would you treat it? Like this find reported on recently in the news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 73726.html

14,000 years ago predates the stories of the Bible. Your thoughts?

Two answers to that. Firstly, the Jaredites were not the first people to occupy that particular land. The Jaredite story begins after the Flood. That land had been inhabited by people before the Flood long before the Jaredites.

Secondly, in religion there are certain things that have to be accepted on faith. Take the resurrection of Jesus Christ for example. If anything is inexplicable and goes against normal human experience, it is somebody who was dead coming back to life again. The normal human experience is that when you are dead, you are dead, and that is the end of it. You don't come back to life again. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in the Christian faith, without which there would be no Christianity. So how do we explain that? The answer is that we don't. We accept it on faith. That is the nature of religion. How do we square Adam and Eve with Evolution? We don't. We accept it on faith. We adopt the approach that where the teachings of man and the revelations of God are in conflict, it is man who is more likely to be wrong than God. That is how religion works. If you need empirical "evidence" before you believe anything, then religion is not for you. But there is also a down side to it. If religion turns out to be true, you are going to come out the loser in the end.

[_honorentheos]

This last paragraph is really the most honest description of your theory of truth. We need to recognize that when you say - If you need empirical "evidence" before you believe anything, then religion is not for you - you are saying you don't accept the definition of truth that is proposed in D&C 93. You don't. You operate under a definition of truth that allows for things hoped for that you not only define as true but argue is a superior catagory of truth.

You don't seem interested in exploring your theory of truth as we'd need to explore how you determine the truth-value of non-Mormon related subject.

So, let's keep that in mind when we move on back to our opposed camps where you claim the Book of Mormon is untouchable by evidence while someone like myself looks at the evidence and considers it so overwhelmingly against the Book of Mormon being an accurate reflection of history it's baffling that someone could be aware and still make the claims you make.

[_Maksutov]

If religion turns out to be true, you are going to come out the loser in the end.[/color]

You don't even grasp the massive fail in Pascal's wager. There is no "religion", there are many religions with contradicting assumptions and predictions.

You believe because you want to. That's it. And that's fine. But we get to call it what it is, which is a pretense at a philosophy, at a presentation of facts or truths. It's actually a dishonest set of claims attended by arrogance and evasion and denial, for the purpose apparently of selling a vanity publication. It's a more benign use of time and resources than the example of LDSFAQS, but only in degree.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Two answers to that. Firstly, the Jaredites were not the first people to occupy that particular land. The Jaredite story begins after the Flood. That land had been inhabited by people before the Flood long before the Jaredites.

Secondly, in religion there are certain things that have to be accepted on faith. Take the resurrection of Jesus Christ for example. If anything is inexplicable and goes against normal human experience, it is somebody who was dead coming back to life again. The normal human experience is that when you are dead, you are dead, and that is the end of it. You don't come back to life again. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in the Christian faith, without which there would be no Christianity. So how do we explain that? The answer is that we don't. We accept it on faith. That is the nature of religion. How do we square Adam and Eve with Evolution? We don't. We accept it on faith. We adopt the approach that where the teachings of man and the revelations of God are in conflict, it is man who is more likely to be wrong than God. That is how religion works. If you need empirical "evidence" before you believe anything, then religion is not for you. But there is also a down side to it. If religion turns out to be true, you are going to come out the loser in the end.

The site on Triquet island, outside of Bella Bella, BC, Canada reveals the evidence of food, tools, fire and settlement of people who lived there for generations from 14,000 years ago and people who still live there in modern times. The site was found very deep beneath the current surface and gives ample evidence of more than twenty food sources, from oyster and clam shells to bones from fish, deer and an assortment of animals.

Are you saying that the people who live there now, people of the Heiltsuk First Nation, (Lamanites by Book of Mormon definition) are not related to the people who left the remains found at the site, from at least 9,000 years prior to Noah's flood?

The Heiltsuk people believe without a doubt that they live on the lands first occupied by their ancient ancestors from 14,000 years ago. They have filed such claims with the Canadian government regarding heritage land claims.

But if they are Lamanites, then they can only have occupied the lands since 600 B.C.E. It would mean that somehow they chose to live on a very remote cove and island that just happened to have been occupied thousands years earlier by a completely different people.

These two opposite explanations are mutually contradictory. Or do you have a different explanation?