- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
My extended family has an experience that mirrors Lehi’s family situation.One of the older brothers regularly took care of the family homestead and his parents when they became too old, largely because the youngest brother had promised to do so, in exchange for some of the family land on which he built his house, but failed to do so. Upon the father’s death, the youngest brother, who already had a well-paying job, inherited all of the family land. He sold it, eventually, at a major profit. He didn’t share any of that profit with his siblings, most of whom were not as well off to begin with. I am certain the youngest brother didn’t see the injustice, especially to his brother who had spent so much of his free time away from his own family in order to help their parents, but the resentment among the siblings was real and powerful.
On the other hand, my extended family also has an experience where the oldest brother was given the family land when the father passed away. He ended up selling it when a population explosion hit the area – for a mind-boggling profit. The rest of the siblings were relatively poorer, and the oldest brother split his profits only among his own children – who now are much better off financially than their cousins.
The resentment hasn’t destroyed either family, completely, but it caused major issues at the time among the siblings that have continued in some way to this day.
The story of Nephi and his brothers is a common one, right down to the individual dynamics and self-justifications.
I see it at work in my own family. My sister is a doctor married to a doctor, so they are well off. But the favortism of our younger brother bothers her a lot. It bothers me too. Parents should be impartial to their children unless there is a good reason for favoring one over the other for practical reasons. For example, my son is a Type 1 Diabetic and can probably except his disability to grow as he gets older. If pressed into making a will, I’d be inclined to give him a bigger share so he can live more comfortably than my daughter, who is healthy as a horse and has a strong household income.
Now I have a follow-up question. How should parents react when CHILDREN behave in ways that are not favorable to the parent? For example, my daughter has shut me out of her life. Doesn’t call, doesn’t respond to texts and emails, said she doesn’t want a relationship with me “because our relationship isn’t healthy”. Should a parent who is so shut-out be expected to be fair in their distribution of assets to children who behave this way?
Just my opinion: “Fair” is a loaded word that can justify pretty much anything. I would hope distribution of inheritance would be fair for everyone, although I know that isn’t the case, but what seems fair to one person often seems unfair to someone else.
Personally, I am committed to splitting my assets equally, which isn’t all that noble, given how little I will end up splitting.
My opinion is that I would do as OT says (equal unless exigent circumstances). I also feel that talking to children about those sorts of things while still living is important. It does nobody any favors by dropping a surprise post-mortem. SilentDawning wrote:
What do you think of the literary quality of the Book of Mormon? I started reading it again recently, and at first was impressed that someone with Joseph Smith’s education could write something of such quality. But then I remembered reading the JS History which is actually quite well written, meaning somewhere along the line he learned to write decent English. So, he would have been capable given his native language ability to write the Book of Mormon rather than translate it, as he claimed.It also occurred to me that many writers have written very long novels requiring great imagination, such as John Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, which can be construed as as religious text. So it’s reasonable to assume that if JS was a genius with the English language he could have conceived the whole panorama of events in the Book of Mormon.
What do you think of the overall literary/writing quality of the Book of Mormon?
It is my personal opinion, based on my own research, that the Book of Mormon is stunningly accurate both historically and literally. I admit that I am not an expert in ancient literature but I have studied from expert publications to draw my own conclusions. The Book of Mormon tells us that it’s writing is heavily dependent on ancient Egyptian literary styles that are associated within the 600 B.C. timeframe. I will give a few from among many examples that were unknown in modern America at the time of Joseph Smith:
First is an excellent (best I have found outside of Egypt) example of a 600 BC. Egyptian opening literary colophon that was not even known since ancient times 75 years ago. The opening verses in 1Nephi where Nephi gives his name, the nobility of this parents and their merits (with special attention to the learning of his father) and then that the themed message of his “book” is divinely appointed by G-d. Nephi’s, “I make it with mine own hand” parallels the Egyptian “written with my own fingers” which is typical of Egyptian colophons written during the same time period.
For those that would argue that this is just a coincidence – I would challenge the example of a similar coincidence in all of the history of human ligature. I can provide many additional literary parallels specific to Egyptian literary terms consistent with the time period in the Book of Mormon.
The second excellent literary connection that I will give is associated with the Egyptian G-ds Khepri, Atum and Re. In Egyptian literature this connection is represented symbolically with a scrab or dung beetle. It is symbolism of new life (new way to perceive things) or resurrection. A direct translation given in English would be “it came to pass.” In essence it would be proper to say – “And it came to pass that Joe rose from the grave”. The term “It came to pass” was not a common phrase in the society of Joseph Smith. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) criticized the Book of Mormon for the often use of that phrase and said that if it was removed that the Book of Mormon would be but a pamphlet.
Another interesting historically accurate reference come from when I gave a Book of Mormon to a devout Islamic friend in the Middle East that in return gave me a Qur’an (English translation). He read the Book of Mormon and was convinced that it is a divine translation of a society connected to Middle Eastern civilizations that he is very educated and familiar with. Two things that especially impressed him was the white fruit of the Tree of Life. He told me that he has never seen such an accurate description of a sacred Arabic date palm tree anywhere else in Western civilization.
The second was that G-d commanded Nephi to kill Laban by cutting off his head. What is interesting to me about this is; that this event troubles almost everybody in our western Christian culture. There seems to be no logical reason for Joseph to include this in the Book of Mormon if it is fantasy. And yet much in the Book of Mormon strongly speaks to Muslims (a large section of the world’s religions) as a significant part of the Gentile nations of the earth.
I would make one other comment. In my youth I received a binary malevolent and divine manifestation (somewhat similar to young Joseph) associated directly with the Book of Mormon. I was given to understand that the Book of Mormon contains light and truth given by G-d. But I was not given understanding of what light and truth was provided. I had to discover that for myself by my own efforts. The best description concerning this light and truth from G-d, I believe, is provided in Moroni chapter 10 that this light and truth comes by way of many different spiritual gifts. Testifying that not all receive this light and truth in the same manner nor by the same way. My experience of necessity is different that that of others but all that receive this light and truth receive it through the same source. Therefor I cannot speak for anyone else and what they have or have come to expect as a mortal being learning of divine things.
As someone trained and having work as an engineer and scientist – I make efforts to be open to all available empirical evidence. I also feel that opinions (including my own) of necessity must be challenged and am open to discovery of whatever has brought someone to their opinions – more than I am interested in opinions alone.
Those are some fascinating tidbits watcher. On the question of if the BoM is a translation of an ancient record or if it might be a more modern work – I think that there is enough “evidence” to be able to build a case either way.
Honestly, for me, this becomes a space where there is some room for choice and faith. I can work to build a testimony in the direction that I want to maintain.
I do not believe that there is any objective proof that would satisfy a court of law and it would seem that God must be fine with that.
Roy wrote:
Those are some fascinating tidbits watcher.On the question of if the BoM is a translation of an ancient record or if it might be a more modern work – I think that there is enough “evidence” to be able to build a case either way.
Honestly, for me, this becomes a space where there is some room for choice and faith. I can work to build a testimony in the direction that I want to maintain.
I do not believe that there is any objective proof that would satisfy a court of law and it would seem that God must be fine with that.
Very good point. I do not think that in a court of law that one could conclusively prove neutrinos, black holes or even electrons exist. I believe the problem is that we are not dealing with reality as much as we are perceptions of reality. When it comes to religious things it seems to me that religious faith is much like theoretical physics – we assume such is valid if what we conclude as possible shows up in ever increasing experimentations. Along the line that if a black hole exists then if certain expected (or not expected) evidence is found that seems to support the theists then the logical conclusion is that they exists. Even if we discovered a city in the Americas with the name Zarahemla and artifacts carbon dated to Book of Mormon times could be argued as insufficient in a court of law.
I have a son that is on the cutting edge of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. He makes a very good point that our universe (physical reality) could be much better explained as a form of virtual reality – especially dealing with the problems of the Big Bang theory and the religious creation model. In short, “proving” anything is likely impossible beyond our perceptions of such things. For such reasons – I find myself much more curious about the methods of discovery than I am what it is that someone thinks they have discovered. I am not presenting proof but rather reason I find the Book of Mormon to be historically and literally accurate. I expect those that think the Book of Mormon is not historically and literally accurate ought to provide (though not 100% necessary) something other than suspicious opinions.
As a side note – most of the arguments I have encountered in opposition to the Book of Mormon are based in unfound evidence (or from missing expectations of evidence) than from evidence that has been discovered. This would seem to making disproof of the Book of Mormon somewhat more difficult than proving it. Sort of like proving that you have never made a secret trip to the moon. But if your DNA was discovered on the moon then there must be some reasonable explanation of how it got there without you making the trip. Even if Joseph was a genius of his generation – that cannot explain how come there are many Egyptian literary forms showing up that were unknown 200 years ago.
Watcher wrote:
This would seem to making disproof of the Book of Mormon somewhat more difficult than proving it. Sort of like proving that you have never made a secret trip to the moon. But if your DNA was discovered on the moon then there must be some reasonable explanation of how it got there without you making the trip. Even if Joseph was a genius of his generation – that cannot explain how come there are many Egyptian literary forms showing up that were unknown 200 years ago.
Yes, it is impossible to prove a negative as you point out. However, it is possible, and there is a fair amount of evidence to make a case for the BoM being a 19th century work.
I don’t want to have a debate on the merits of each competing piece of evidence. My point is just that those that believe in an ancient origin for the BoM and those that believe it to be written in the early 1800s are stating pretty reasonable and defensible positions. It is natural for the advocates of certain positions to discount the merits of other positions. However, they both have merit and recognizing the merits of each seems important if we want to be fair to everyone.
SilentDawning wrote:
Roy — and everyone else — what do you believe about the Bible — is it the Word of God, given by inspiration?
The Bible, from my research is an enigma. There are no original autograph or autogram Biblical manuscripts. There is one possible exception of a letter claimed to be written by Jesus that has been carbon dated and DNA tested for possible validity. But this manuscript comes from what are called the Nestorian Christians that are not associated with “Western” Christianity. The ancient texts available to us are catalogued into family versions. Because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures the veracity of any family versions has changed drastically. The one scripture with the least variations is the Book of Isaiah that is mostly ancient Hebrew symbolic poetry.
The most quoted ancient texts in the New Testament (Book of Enoch) is not included in any modern version of the Bible. There are no divine revelations indicating what should be included in any Bible version currently available. The more the Bible has become available the more divisions have resulted in the religions that rely on the Bible. There are many obvious mistakes in the Bible that cause a lot of confusion. One such example comes from the Book of Genesis concerning days 3 and 4 of the creation – that are obviously backwards. The flora of earth is dependent on the sun and could not have existed before the sun was created. This error has been corrected in LDS temple instruction.
It is impossible to ascertain if Biblical manuscripts were accurate in their original format because we have none. LDS doctrine is that the Bible is accurate as far as it is translated correctly. The problem is we have no Bible in our modern era that is translated correctly. Bibles are called versions, as per example of the King James Version because there are no direct translations of any manuscripts with the possible exception of the Book of Isaiah of which I have in my personal library.
The first English Bible (Tyndale) created such controversy that Tyndale was burned at the stake for heresy. There were a number of terms that had no translation so Tyndale made up such words. Two such examples are “Atonement” and “Passover”. Though these words are common to English Christians today they were used as proof worthy of Tyndale’s execution.
Hardly ever has reference to Biblical scripture ever settled religious arguments and this goes back to the days of Jesus debating doctrine with the Scribes and Pharisees of his day. I do not believe any religion to be validated with the Bible. Despite all this I believe that there is a need and place for the Bible – just not on its own merits. I believe that any inspiration that is in the Bible can only be obtained by someone themself inspired. I have come to realize how inspiration comes to me but I also realize that I am almost unique in the method I usually am given. For me it is very clear and logical thoughts that are reinforced by multiple clear and logical witness. I find no reason to debate the validity of my method because I believe most other use an alternate method which can be valed for them.
I keep notes on my thoughts as I study scripture. I have found that my understanding evolves over time, kind of like the Isaiah model of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept. The Bible has been a great help for me understanding divine things but not much help in winning any arguments.
Roy wrote:….. it is possible, and there is a fair amount of evidence to make a case for the BoM being a 19th century work.
…..
I find it very logical that there is a great deal of evidence that the BoM is a 19th century work. That is the era in which it was translated. What would puzzle me as a problem is if there was an era represented with no logical connection.
Watcher wrote:
I find it very logical that there is a great deal of evidence that the BoM is a 19th century work. That is the era in which it was translated. What would puzzle me as a problem is if there was an era represented with no logical connection.
Sure. Individuals can wrestle with that and draw their own conclusions. We can offer them grace to do so without belittling them or making them feel that there is something wrong with them or their thought processes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.