I have a question wrote:Now this^ is where you throw Callister, the Church, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon under a bus.
"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/int ... n?lang=eng
The book throughout portrays itself as an ancient record. 100%. If it contains any 19th century content, any at all, it destroys that claim. To believe an expansionist theory is to accept that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. Nor what Joseph and the Church claim about it. You've just allowed for the Church to not be true.
Little bump for MG.
I saw this earlier but didn't think it worth the response.
Yes, the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. No, if the Book of Mormon has shades of 19th century influence it doesn't destroy that claim. The expansionist theory does not disrupt the Book of Mormon's claim of being an ancient record or of being inspired. In fact, it adds to the 'inspired' component.
I did not say anything that doesn't allow for the church to be true.
Now, can you see why I didn't think your post worth the response?
If you ever get around to it, I'd appreciate it if now and then instead of asking questions you answer those posed to you. It's kind of disheartening to come in here and be subject to a one way question answer session. I'm interested in your thoughts...if you have any.
zerinus wrote:All I can say is that I know the Book of Mormon is true.
You don't know what you mean when you say that. You're just saying it. Let me demonstrate.
What, specifically, does the term "true" mean in the context of your statement?
Quasimodo wrote:Maybe more importantly, what does the word "know" mean.
If he were to say that he believes the Book of Mormon is true or hopes the Book of Mormon is true, I wouldn't have a problem with it. To say he knows it is true is just trying to BS us or himself. I'm guessing that he is trying very hard to push back his own, secret doubts. We see a lot of that around here.
So it comes to the point, again, where a believer's spiritual witness/testimony is either mocked and/or considered to be a thing of naught. And then the psycho-babble begins.
I have a question wrote: Okay, so on what basis do you get round the problem of having KJV Bible content (including 17th century translation errors) in the Book of Mormon, portrayed as having been written by Book of Mormon era Prophets?
For one possibility, the expansionist theory along with collaborative effort with beings beyond the veil would allow for that. Italicized words and all.
I do agree, however, that the italicized words and quotes that seemingly come from the Bible were not on the plates. Except for Isaiah/Malachi and other old world Bible prophets before the time of Lehi. Before you go all "Deutero Isaiah" on me...please don't. There has been plenty published on that...
I do love seeing you deconstruct MG's nonsense. Just a quick question I guess. You do know MG doesn't actually read anything, right? He'll skim a bit picking up keywords or a phrase or two. But that's it. That pretty much explains why his messages tend to be all over the place, he mixes up quotes, and literally provides sources that contradict his points. The best he can offer is some superficial musings mingled with mordoctrine.
Anyway. I love how you hold him to his posts. It's awesome.
- Doc
Doc, I'm posting this response to let you know that I did read through your post. I realize that our views are going to collide. Some folks will resort to comments such as, "You do know MG doesn't actually read anything, right?"
I can see those comments for what they are. I read them rather stoically.
mentalgymnast wrote: I haven't seen anything else like it along the way.
I daresay that you haven't done much real looking. I'd venture that there hasn't been much of a chance for you to find "anything else like it along the way."
Before you protest, tell me this. How many months have you spent studying Judaism? How many times have you prayed in a mosque? When you studied Eastern religions, what school of meditation did you follow, and for how many years did you meditate? How many times, as a Catholic, did you go to confession?
mentalgymnast wrote: I haven't seen anything else like it along the way.
I daresay that you haven't done much real looking. I'd venture that there hasn't been much of a chance for you to find "anything else like it along the way."
Before you protest, tell me this. How many months have you spent studying Judaism? How many times have you prayed in a mosque? When you studied Eastern religions, what school of meditation did you follow, and for how many years did you meditate? How many times, as a Catholic, did you go to confession?
This makes me wonder- Why don't we compare the Book of Mormon to the Pseudepigrapha? How come it has to be Man-made or God-given, black or white?
mentalgymnast wrote:So we're left with some potential problems with Jacob 5. Maybe.
What "we" are you referring to? What potential problems are you referring to?
Such a clean, clear point. If the critical position is left essentially looking to Jacob 5 as just one more piece of evidence the person who wrote it was pretending to being an ancient prophet of Israelite heritage, the problems are all on one side.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote: MG: So we're left with some potential problems with Jacob 5. Maybe.
Lemmie: What "we" are you referring to? What potential problems are you referring to?
honor: Such a clean, clear point. If the critical position is left essentially looking to Jacob 5 as just one more piece of evidence the person who wrote it was pretending to being an ancient prophet of Israelite heritage, the problems are all on one side.
You are right, essentially. Except for the fact that unless hard evidence shows up that the potential problem you propose is actually a problem...then there isn't a problem for the "We". At least not at this point.
You ought to publish in the Interpreter.
But, yes, potentially...there could be a problem.
At the same time we probably have to account for, and we really didn't explore this, that the translation process itself may have in one way or another influenced what we read in Jacob 5.
