- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Love the new quotes Ray and Ann, thanks. The article quoted below is worth reading in full as it an official church source that mentions seer stones and head in a hat translation (in case it comes up and you need a church published source). I include the following as it’s the first time I’ve ever seen a church source suggest parts of the Book of Mormon are copied straight out of the KJV of the bible.
I might start a new thread to discuss it rather than take us off on a tangent in our quotes thread.
Quote:
In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng Not an Ensign quote, but from the Neil A. Maxwell Institute (BYU). http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=16&num=1&id=526 Quite long, sorry. Have tried to cut to the meat.
Quote:
The Book of Mormon… presents itself as a literal history of multiple large civilizations and continues to be read that way by its ever-growing audience. This lends strong impulses toward an empirical and seemingly more scientific investigation of the archaeological record.Yet we must address the question of whether one should allow a book’s origin to totally set the agenda for how it is to be investigated, read, and understood. The strong tendency of the Book of Mormon to overwhelm all historically defined frameworks would seem to indicate that, yes, the best way to study it would be as history buried in the ground. Yet… the extant archaeological record is spotty and incomplete at the best of times.
Also challenging is how we are to understand the history we see related in the Book of Mormon. The Bible, too, purports to be a historical account of a historical people facing historical problems. All of this led scholars to read the Bible incorrectly for centuries… later scholarship… has shown that it is impossible to understand the Bible without seeing it as a document rich in very unhistorical mythology (and this applies not only to books like Genesis, but also to histories like 1 and 2 Kings).
Indeed, the very attempt to historicize that which could only exist and have meaning in another frame of reference is probably one of the greater mistakes that the field of Western humanities has made… Thus, one of the questions facing biblical archaeologists is how to study a people whose history is a part of their own myth complex…
It is not clear why these same issues should not be applicable to the Book of Mormon. After all, it claims to be a product of the same culture and historical theories that ultimately gave us the Bible. How the Jaredites actually fit into the Nephite myth complex and what evidence of them one can rationally expect to see are examples of issues that have yet to be addressed by the Latter-day Saint scholarly community.
Welch’s discovery of chiasmus and the subsequent exploration of other archaic poetic forms has generally been a very positive development in terms of internal evidences. Yet a subjective quality to the reading of any text cannot be avoided… Applying their rules, I have also been able to locate the Davidic Chiasmus in such presumably uninspired works as modern novels and the Manhattan telephone directory… All of this illustrates the need to set clearer ad hoc guidelines as to what sorts of parallels we are willing to accept as nonspurious.
In our zeal to find evidence of ancient poetic forms, we should not set the bar so low that it becomes meaningless in terms of serious apologetics, or even analysis.
The rest of the article presents some evidence that does still stand up more to scrutiny.
But it’s reassuring to see how BYU are moving away from the aggressive and sometimes irrational approach of the past and towards a more thorough study. Givens, Bushman and Hardy for example.
mackay11, that is one really fantastic quote. Yet, the article behind it still seeks and finds archaelogical evidence in the ancient near east for the BoM. The author seeks a pass on comparing the BoM to OT mythology, but still believes the BoM to be an ancient work: the mythmakers were still an ancient lehite migration, and not joseph smith. close, but no cigar.
Truly wonderful quote. Seriously, that is great to read, especially from that source. Thanks for these quotes. It’s a free Saturday, so I turned to looking at movie times. In trailer for “Now You See Me,” Morgan Freeman says: Quote:“The more you think you see, the easier it will be to fool you.”
Quote:“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and
the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly.A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves” (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595). Quote:“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel – said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church – that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls – applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall –
that they were depending on the prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five 1842-43, p. 237-38). Joseph could be blunt at times.
wayfarer wrote:mackay11, that is one really fantastic quote. Yet, the article behind it still seeks and finds archaelogical evidence in the ancient near east for the BoM. The author seeks a pass on comparing the BoM to OT mythology, but still believes the BoM to be an ancient work: the mythmakers were still an ancient lehite migration, and not joseph smith.
close, but no cigar.
Given I aim to avoid long discussions of the quotes on this thread I’ve opened one in the doctrine sub-forum.
I could quote from this man all day long: Quote:…we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.
When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.
Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives—from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics.
http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng Elder Uchtdorf – CES Fireside, January 2013. What I appreciate about this is that it is speaking directly to young church members, not to ‘the world.’
One more from the same source: Quote:
So how can we find truth?I believe that our Father in Heaven is pleased with His children when they use their talents and mental faculties to earnestly discover truth. Over the centuries many wise men and women—through logic, reason, scientific inquiry, and, yes, through inspiration—have discovered truth. These discoveries have enriched mankind, improved our lives, and inspired joy, wonder, and awe.
http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng Elder Uchtdorf – CES Fireside, January 2013.
Excellent (indeed the whole article is worth reading). For things like this to be on LDS.org is outstanding.
Quote:
“Nevertheless, it required time to wind down practices that were so deeply ingrained in family tradition and culture, especially when fermented beverages of all kinds were frequently used for medicinal purposes. The term “strong drink” certainly included distilled spirits like whiskey, which hereafter the Latter-day Saints generally shunned. They took a more moderate approach to milder alcoholic beverages like beer and “pure wine of the grape of the vine of your own make” (see D&C 89:6). For the next two generations, Latter-day Saint leaders taught the Word of Wisdom as a command from God, but they tolerated a variety of viewpoints on how strictly the commandment should be observed. This incubation period gave the Saints time to develop their own tradition of abstinence from habit-forming substances. By the early twentieth century, when scientific medicines were more widely available and temple attendance had become a more regular feature of Latter-day Saint worship, the Church was ready to accept a more exacting standard of observance that would eliminate problems like alcoholism from among the obedient. In 1921, the Lord inspired Church president Heber J. Grant to call on all Saints to live the Word of Wisdom to the letter by completely abstaining from all alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco. Today Church members are expected to live this higher standard.”
https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng My favorite section of that explanation is the following, since it talks openly of how God speaks to ALL who will listen, including, in the lead-up to the section below, multiple Protestant reformers – mentioned by name and denomination: Quote:In the end, some overlap between the Word of Wisdom and the health reform movement of the nineteenth century is to be expected. This was a time of “refreshing” (Acts 3:19), a moment in history where light and knowledge were pouring down from heaven. On the night Joseph Smith entertained the angel Moroni for the first time, in the fall of 1823, the angel quoted a line from the Book of Joel and said it was about to be fulfilled: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh,” the passage read (Joel 2:28; emphasis added). Insofar as temperance reform made people less dependent on addictive substances, prompting humility and righteous action, the movement surely was inspired by God. “That which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually,” the Book of Mormon stated (Moroni 7:13).27 Rather than concerning themselves with cultural overlap,
Latter-day Saints can joyously contemplate how God’s spirit touched so many, so widely, and with such force. Nice one Ray, I’d not noticed that line. From Elder B.H. Roberts (of the first quorum of the seventy): Quote:
“Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.” Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912), pg. v –
See more at:
http://www.withoutend.org/questioning-mormonism/#sthash.BdrV8xR1.ZgWYoDsm.dpuf The blog is excellent, well worth reading. I’m going to open a new thread on this.
I can’t find the full quote from an official source but the opening lines are quoted here:
BH Roberts full book that this is quoted from is here:
I don’t know if this fits the category, and it might be a simplification, but I liked it. From “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” by Greg Prince, p. 404 Quote:Perhaps most importantly, he (David O. McKay) adjusted the relationship between church and member. For a full century, since Brigham Young announced to the world that the rumored practice of plural marriage was more than rumor, church members had been asked to sacrifice themselves for the good of the institution. McKay reversed that, asserting that the church was made for the members, not the members for the church. He emphasized the paramount importance of free agency and individual expression, for he understood that improvement of the parts would inevitably improve the whole. “Let them conform” was replaced by “Let them grow.” He willingly discarded institutional uniformity for the higher goal of individual excellence. He pitched a wide tent and then told members of all stripes that he welcomed them to join him and build the church within it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.