Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_charity]

D&C: 2

To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

~truth dancer~

Continuing revelation, TD. That's why we have prophets today, and not just depend on Moses.

[_truth dancer]

Continuing revelation, TD. That's why we have prophets today, and not just depend on Moses.

Are you suggesting that a recent prophet had a revelation that replaced Christ's statement as contained in the official scripture of the LDS church?

I have not heard this.

I was under the impression (and thought even apologists believed), that the TRI WoW question was a "practice/guideline" not an official commandment revealed by God.

Hmmm...

~dancer~

[_charity]

Continuing revelation, TD. That's why we have prophets today, and not just depend on Moses.

Are you suggesting that a recent prophet had a revelation that replaced Christ's statement as contained in the official scripture of the LDS church?

I have not heard this.

I was under the impression (and thought even apologists believed), that the TRI WoW question was a "practice/guideline" not an official commandment revealed by God.

Hmmm...

~dancer~

My opinion, which you don't care for, is if something is important enough to determine temple worthiness, it isn't just somebody's good idea.

[_skippy the dead]

As an aside, note that for those of us baptized at age 8, however, such commitments could not be validly made, which may lead to another aspect of the issue.

According to God, you become accountable at age 8. You can understand the difference between right and wrong at that point. We aren't talking about the legal age to drive, or sign contracts.

I think we'll disagree on this one. Although the church has determined that a child is accountable at the age of 8 insofar as being ready to be baptized, I don't for a moment believe that an eight-year-old can knowingly:

1. Affirm belief in God, the Father, and in Jesus as the Redeemer of the World.
2. Affirm belief in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.
3. Affirm belief in the past and present prophets as the Lord's anointed servants.

Aside from that, I don't think we're actually too far apart on the substantive parts of the rest of our discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean by this:

They are given whatever fellowship they want, according to what they are willing to do.

[_charity]

I think we'll disagree on this one. Although the church has determined that a child is accountable at the age of 8 insofar as being ready to be baptized, I don't for a moment believe that an eight-year-old can knowingly:

1. Affirm belief in God, the Father, and in Jesus as the Redeemer of the World.
2. Affirm belief in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.
3. Affirm belief in the past and present prophets as the Lord's anointed servants.

I know children at that age who have a very good grasp of things. And if parents haven't taught them, it is a sin on the head of the parents. That is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Aside from that, I don't think we're actually too far apart on the substantive parts of the rest of our discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean by this:

They are given whatever fellowship they want, according to what they are willing to do.

It has been my experience that many people withdraw from fellowship because it becomes uncomfortable for them to hear of things which prick their consciences. It is easier to stay home than go to Church and hear talks about tithing, and becoming temple worthy, etc. When people begin to be less familiar with ward members, they don't attend the social events. That is what I meant. I don't know of anyone who was refused fellowship, but I know of those who willingly withdrew from the company of the Saints.

[_skippy the dead]

I think we'll disagree on this one. Although the church has determined that a child is accountable at the age of 8 insofar as being ready to be baptized, I don't for a moment believe that an eight-year-old can knowingly:

1. Affirm belief in God, the Father, and in Jesus as the Redeemer of the World.
2. Affirm belief in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.
3. Affirm belief in the past and present prophets as the Lord's anointed servants.

I know children at that age who have a very good grasp of things. And if parents haven't taught them, it is a sin on the head of the parents. That is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Yup, we do disagree on this.

Aside from that, I don't think we're actually too far apart on the substantive parts of the rest of our discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean by this:

They are given whatever fellowship they want, according to what they are willing to do.

It has been my experience that many people withdraw from fellowship because it becomes uncomfortable for them to hear of things which prick their consciences. It is easier to stay home than go to Church and hear talks about tithing, and becoming temple worthy, etc. When people begin to be less familiar with ward members, they don't attend the social events. That is what I meant. I don't know of anyone who was refused fellowship, but I know of those who willingly withdrew from the company of the Saints.

OK - I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the clarification.

[_ludwigm]

...

...
This double standard is frustrating. The sites of mor than 60% of Biblical events are at present not located, ...

The 60% of the biblical sites are not located. This means 40% of them are located.
Interestingly, in the case of Book of Mormon this is 100% (not located) and 0% (located).

Yes, we can call this double standard.

[_charity]

...

...
This double standard is frustrating. The sites of mor than 60% of Biblical events are at present not located, ...

The 60% of the biblical sites are not located. This means 40% of them are located.
Interestingly, in the case of Book of Mormon this is 100% (not located) and 0% (located).

Yes, we can call this double standard.

Ludwig, these are important questions. The events of the Bible took place in a fairly small area, which has been continuously inhabited. The current inhabitants could point to a hill or a pill of rubble and say, "My grandaddy told me that's where X happened." The archeologist can go and stick a shovel in the dirt and come up with something. It doesn't take as much effort to start looking for Jericho in an area where Jericho was reputed to have existed. Even so, barely more than half the sites have been identified. Why can't they find those other 40%? It would seem to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites. While not continuosly inhabited, because of the starting point (Jerusalem) and the directions given, the clues can be followed.

In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed. And it isn't a dry area as the Old World Holy Lands. The likely area of the Lehite colonies is hot, humid, jungles.

See how that makes a difference?

[_ludwigm]

....
This double standard is frustrating. The sites of mor than 60% of Biblical events are at present not located, ...

The 60% of the biblical sites are not located. This means 40% of them are located.
Interestingly, in the case of Book of Mormon this is 100% (not located) and 0% (located).
Yes, we can call this double standard.

Ludwig, these are important questions. The events of the Bible took place in a fairly small area, which has been continuously inhabited. The current inhabitants could point to a hill or a pill of rubble and say, "My grandaddy told me that's where X happened." The archeologist can go and stick a shovel in the dirt and come up with something. It doesn't take as much effort to start looking for Jericho in an area where Jericho was reputed to have existed. Even so, barely more than half the sites have been identified. Why can't they find those other 40%? It would seem to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites. While not continuosly inhabited, because of the starting point (Jerusalem) and the directions given, the clues can be followed.

In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed. And it isn't a dry area as the Old World Holy Lands. The likely area of the Lehite colonies is hot, humid, jungles.

See how that makes a difference?

- more than half the sites have been identified. Why can't they find those other 40%?
In fact, I am not a bible-defender. If more than 60% of the sites are at present not located - as You wrote it before -, or more than half the sites have been identified, is all the same for me. The essence is that many site, person and event was identified by extra-biblical source. This doesn't make the flood or the Noah-in-the-whale valid, but validates a lot of biblical story as historical. Civilisations, cultures don't exist in vacuum. They have partners, neighbours. If we read on a mesopotamian sherd about biblical kings of Israel, or in Egypt have ruled pharaohs mentioned in the Bible, then something became more clear.
OK, hitherto the nephites wasn't found. Where are their neighbours?

- The likely area of the Lehite colonies is hot, humid, jungles.
As Mohenjo-Daro in India or Great Zimbabwe in Africa. They have found and excavated.

- In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed.
The starting point is the scripture. Read it. Call the HG. Ask the prophets & seers.
Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann had a scripture, the Ilias written by Homeros. He has found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns.

- Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites.
If I may use singular, please name one.

[_charity]

- more than half the sites have been identified. Why can't they find those other 40%?
In fact, I am not a bible-defender. If more than 60% of the sites are at present not located - as You wrote it before -, or more than half the sites have been identified, is all the same for me. The essence is that many site, person and event was identified by extra-biblical source. This doesn't make the flood or the Noah-in-the-whale valid, but validates a lot of biblical story as historical. Civilisations, cultures don't exist in vacuum. They have partners, neighbours. If we read on a mesopotamian sherd about biblical kings of Israel, or in Egypt have ruled pharaohs mentioned in the Bible, then something became more clear.

And exactly where did the Children of Israel live in Egypt?

OK, hitherto the nephites wasn't found. Where are their neighbours?

I don't understand this question, unless you are meaning to say why don't we have Olmec or Mayan records that say, " and there was this bunch of funny people over there that called themselves Nephites."

- In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed.
The starting point is the scripture. Read it. Call the HG. Ask the prophets & seers.
Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann had a scripture, the Ilias written by Homeros. He has found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns.

Which is why when the scripture gives directions from a known starting place we can locate it. But the scripture says they landed in the New World somewhere. The Holy Ghost doesn't bother himself with ridiculous questions. The prophets and seers have other business to do than to provide longitude and lattitudes for the curious.

- Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites.
If I may use singular, please name one.

Nahom. Bountiful. That's two.