- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
curt, fwiw, I think the fact that Joseph appears not to have understood the book much is a decent testimony that he wasn’t the author. I have NO problem with him being mistaken about the geography.
Very good point, Old-Timer, and i think leads into a little more of the discussion on the thread about “Making sense of Joseph Smith”.Curt, I think it is natural to wonder if men are really called of God and are prophets, or if they are just speaking crazy talk, or somewhere in between. There seems to be a pattern throughout history:
1. People need to be taught truth
2. God calls a prophet
3. Individuals must gain a testimony of what the “prophet” said, or reject them as false
I think it is also important to see the pattern that prophets use. They are not given ALL knowledge and become perfected with no mistakes or misunderstandings that qualify them as prophets. They are given a message from God to deliver to God’s children, then other prophets get other messages line upon line for increased learning and needs of the times.
It would seem to me more appropriate to compare JS to other prophets that brought forth teachings, like Moses or others, not comparing them to Jesus that was perfect. Why would Moses have Israelites wander for 40 years if he was a prophet? Because he didn’t know where the promised land was, God never told him. Likewise, Joseph may not know where the Nephite promised land was, if God never told him directly. That isn’t grasping at straws in my mind.
Heber13 wrote:Likewise, Joseph may not know where the Nephite promised land was, if God never told him directly.
Ah, but God did tell JS exactly where the Nephite nation was. While hiking in Illinois with Zion’s Camp, JS and the company came across some remains and God revealed to JS that these remains were from a a white lamanite.
History of the Church wrote:His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.
This clearly shows that God revealed to JS that the lamanites, at least, were in North America, from “the Rocky Mountains to the eastern sea”.
The account of this encounter can be found here: History of the Church, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1932-51), 2:79-80
Quote:Ah, but God did tell JS exactly where the Nephite nation was. While hiking in Illinois with Zion’s Camp, JS and the company came across some remains and God revealed to JS that these remains were from a a white lamanite.
Not buying this story as legit. IMO, JS said that due to wishful thinking and to bolster the troops. I just don’t buy that it was revealed to him or that Zelph was an actual Lamanite.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Not buying this story as legit. IMO, JS said that due to wishful thinking and to bolster the troops. I just don’t buy that it was revealed to him or that Zelph was an actual Lamanite.(Honestly, neither do I). Unfortunately, dismissing this story simply raises my concerns with what other things JS said due to wishful thinking, or to bolster the troops, or to satisfy his own desires. This includes raising concerns with the Book of Mormon itself. It puts me in a catch-22 of sorts. It is hard for me to accept that I must have the discernment to determine which of JS “revelations” were truly from God, if any.
Quote:It is hard for me to accept that I must have the discernment to determine which of JS “revelations” were truly from God, if any.
Ah yes, the essense of buffet Mormonism. But we have to have that kind of discernment anyway, in or out of the church, with regard to the church and everything else. Otherwise, we have no spiritual growth and resilience. That’s the Gospel According to Hawk anyway.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:It is hard for me to accept that I must have the discernment to determine which of JS “revelations” were truly from God, if any.
Ah yes, the essense of buffet Mormonism. But we have to have that kind of discernment anyway, in or out of the church, with regard to the church and everything else. Otherwise, we have no spiritual growth and resilience. That’s the Gospel According to Hawk anyway.
Very good point. I guess I was feeling a little black and white in my views when I posted that. I’m still struggling into Stage 4.
While I don’t have a testimony Hawk is a prophetess…I sure think her words are wise and I would agree with them. 
The other factor is the material is important to me deciding what NEEDS to be revelation from God and what doesn’t matter. Zelph doesn’t impact my eternal salvation, so I can disagree with the prophet or accept it (grudgingly) and it makes little difference to me. Infant baptism is more important on a scale of eternal ramifications, and teachings of Christ resurrected and appearing to Nepthites is even more important.
I think there is a quote from Joseph Smith saying something to the effect of “a prophet is a prophet only when he is speaking as a prophet.” I think Joseph was aware that he didn’t know everything. Yet people expected that he did, and on occasion he probably speculated too much as well. I came across the following story today, randomly, and I thought of this post (Yeah, I know it’s almost two years old. I can remember this kind of stuff, but I can’t remember people’s names I met last week. 🙄 ) – so I figured I’d provide the link. The story was in multiple publications, so I am copying the one that was the most extensive.http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0602/Woolly-mammoth-may-have-interbred-with-elephants There’s nothing that proves the use of “elephants” in the Book of Mormon is legitimate, but it certainly places “elephants” throughout the Americas in a time frame that would fit the actual wording in the Book of Mormon. [The only reference in the Book of Mormon comes from Ether, so it might have been as early as 5,000-6,000BC (assuming accurate Biblical chronology, which is suspect to begin with] – and the remains that were found date to about 11,000BC. Given all the variables, that’s close enough to be a reasonable fit.] Also, the reference to “cureloms and cumoms” might fit this article as various types of mammoths and inter-bred animals.
Again, not definitive proof by any stretch, but it points to how some arguments that have been considered proof of fiction and assumed by all critics for a long time can fade away as we learn more and more.
Infant baptism is a topic of concern, but isn’t baptism at an age when one is highly influenced by their parents and/or may not be making the choice based on true faith of concern as well? Is there a separate discussion on this topic? Also, if the prophets were not acting as prophets when they were in the position of prophet and were simply acting as human, without direction from high, would this not weaken their credibility as spoken of in the OT (of course, assuming the OT discussions surrounding prophets’ words were accurate)?
Quote:(of course, assuming the OT discussions surrounding prophets’ words were accurate)?
There is that.
Yeah, that’s the rub. I really believe in “as far as it is translated correctly” – but I apply it to ALL scripture, since I include “received” and “transmitted” in that principle.
We had a topic concerning Baptism for the dead. One Irish writer felt that was better than infant baptism. See http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2500&p=31017&hilit=infant+baptism#p31017 annieka wrote:Also, if the prophets were not acting as prophets when they were in the position of prophet and were simply acting as human, without direction from high, would this not weaken their credibility as spoken of in the OT (of course, assuming the OT discussions surrounding prophets’ words were accurate)?
Credibility is a function of expectations…that is something relative to each of us. I think we far too often expect perfection from the prophets, and place unrealistic expectations on who they are in order to follow them. Surely Moses dealt with this same thing, and all other prophets. They were mortal, and imperfect, and were followed even when they had credibility issues with some groups. We are less comfortable with putting faith in someone that could be wrong, but I don’t see any other way for it to be, logically.I found this little leadership snippet from my work, that I think applies to all organizations (churches too…although we sometimes like to place church leaders on a higher pedestal).
Quote:“What we call failure is not the falling down but the staying down.”Mary Pickford Success buffers failure1. You’re done if you don’t frequently get the job done.
2. Keep successes in the spotlight by highlighting the contributions others make.
3. Focus on progress while addressing problems. “Are we making progress?”
4. Build and fuel momentum. Momentum makes failures seem smaller.
Failures are inevitable and seldom final.
However, nothing sustains your credibility if you consistently fail. Therefore, you’ll go farther if you adopt a “failure philosophy” that keeps you and your organization
leaning into the future rather than stuck in the past.
This is how I view Mormonism. I can’t get away from looking at the past and how that impacts my views of the present, however, I can’t get stuck in the past. More important is moving forward and recognizing what the momentum forward does to support me in my life, despite historical issues I just can’t reconcile. If there were no present or future successes to balance out or outweigh the issues of the past, Mormonism couldn’t sustain me. But I do not walk away from it because there is still so much good in the church and gospel, that it is worthwhile to keep my faith in its own imperfectness.mormonheretic wrote:We had a topic concerning Baptism for the dead. One Irish writer felt that was better than infant baptism. See
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2500&p=31017&hilit=infant+baptism#p31017 Thanks for bringing that up again.
Ireland – or specifically the Republic of Ireland (not the North) has been traditionally ultra-Catholic, and Jansenist at that (a kind of RC Calvinism!) The souls of unbaptized babies are supposed to wander around limbo in RCism. I think Mormonism is right about this.
I have a number of “relatives” (like most of you) who died in the womb, or soon after. Why should they go to Hell?
One more LONG thread about the Book of Mormon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.