serapha

9 And it came to pass that they did rejoice exceedingly, and did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord; and they gave thanks unto the God of Israel. Potter and Wellington included a text stating they felt they had located the altar built to offer sacrifices while in the Valley of Lemuel. Their reference was to a "high place" being it was an altar placed high above the canyon, whereas "high place" as a worship area was never relative to height, but to a place of high honor. Lehi and his family were integrated into corporate worship, and the only place where sacrifices could be made was at the temple in Jerusalem. There is no explanation why, when Lehi was aware of the law to sacrifice only in the temple in Jerusalem, that he would build an altar and make an individual sacrifice. Previously, the Jaredites had been indoctrinated with individual worship, yet there is no record of any altar being built for sacrifice or worship. 10 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. This could lead into a lengthy discussion on the evidences of inscriptions on metal. There are five instances cited, the oldest being the amulets at Ketef Hinnom of which a new article is about to be released in "Near Eastern Archaeology"... cite emails of Chris Rollston (ESR) and John Tvedtnes (BYU), March 27, 2004. The priestly benediction is the oldest known scripture, dating before the babylonian captivity. Of interest to mormonism in the tomb studies is that after the captivity, not all of the remaining people were of the poor class, citing this tomb as evidences of continued occupancy of Jerusalem after the captivity and for several generations. One can only speculate on the weight of the brass plates, but that has been discussed elsewhere. 16 And thus my father, Lehi, did discover the genealogy of his fathers. And Laban also was a descendant of Joseph, wherefore he and his fathers had kept the records. As is generally agreed, the brass plates originate in the Northern Kingdom (Sorenson) 21 And we had obtained the records which the Lord had commanded us, and searched them and found that they were desirable; yea, even of great worth unto us, insomuch that we could preserve the commandments of the Lord unto our children. "we"... "us"

And, going through the book of 1 Nephi is not just for my benefit, and your comments on the chapter are? ~serapha~

And, please, do let me define "literal"... "based upon their actual words in their ordinary meaning, not figurative or symbolic unless there is a reason that a passage may not be taken in that manner" For example, "fishers of men" obviously does not mean fishing for men as in casting a net and catching a crop of men, but instead, that the fishers of men would cast the Gospel before men in an effort to "catch" them as believers. ~serapha~

No, I haven't that list. And the benefit of "works" as the biblical text specifies is???? snow, If you have problems with passages, then cite one for discussion, but citing that people have difficulties with biblical passages does not bring any of those same difficulties to light. This is "apologetics". Defend your statement and provide a text. ~serapha~

And this, .... is your definition and interpretation of what an infallible Bible should be. I see the Bible as "clear" and "non-contradictory" on the matter of the doctrines concerning salvation. If you have a question on the "PROCESS" of salvation, then please ask, for salvation is a process. Many time, people lost at the different aspect included in salvation and they get confused. If it isn't "clear" to you, then, please, ask for an explanation. ~serapha~

Quote me, don't put words in my mouth... such as... Serapha's position: The Bible doesn't need to be clear and so it's lack of clarity is not a problem. I didn't say that. I belive the Bible has all the answers. ~serapha~

Now, let's pick it up here.... Hi Snow, But I do believe, and I feel that it was all reinforced when Christ walked on the earth as a man. He never changed the Torah. He didn't add to it, nor take away. I just read Deuteronomy 7 and 20, and Numbers 31, and no where did I read where God said to rape the virgin women. The fact of the matter is, it is stated in Numbers 31 why God made the determination that men, married woman, and male children should die. It was because their women had seduced the Israelite men and had introduced them to idoltry and that had brought a curse upon the Israelites. You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven. "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt." That passage? It should tell you that God is a jealous god and he does remember the sins of people that are not unforgiven. A just God would administer a punishment which was earned. Where does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent? Your "if" proposal is a personal comment. It is not "dangerous" thinking to believe that God is just with the righteous and with the unrighteous. And I believe that I do have the correct understanding of the Bible. okay... Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam. Where is the gain from Christ's death? Perhaps we need to discuss some of these persuasive cases where you say that you could argue both sides. There is only one true church, that being the body of believers. ~serapha~

Snow, The right side of my brain is connected to the left side. Re-read what you posted to me concerning the bom, and then compare it to what you posted to me concerning the Bible. Both instances involve doing as God commands and reaping the reward of obedience... but you condemn the one and exalt the other. And justify it by saying "didn't people suffer".... didn't Laban's family suffer? Didn't they have feelings. Do you see where I am coming from yet? ~serapha~

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel. Well, let's not get into the lengthy discussions on "steeling" at this time. That particularly "most precious" steel sword re-occurs in the bom, doesn't it? 14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise. My first thought was, Was Nephi obedient to the instructions of God because it was commanded, or for the "reward"..... "they shall prosper in the land of promise?" 3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians. and.... 17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause--that I might obtain the records according to his commandments. 18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. Now the first passage describes that they are to destroy Laban even as the Egyptians... which God destroyed the Egyptians, including the Pharoah, and it was no one' person's hand that was required to kill. Yet, with that example, Nephi takes the sword and kills Laban, not as the Egyptians were killed, but by his own hand. Where is the comparison there? 20 And after I had done this, I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury. And I commanded him in the voice of Laban, that he should go with me into the treasury. It would not be a mere "servant" who would hold the keys to the treasury, but the lead servant, or possibly even the heir to the master if there was no son born into the family. Yet, this lead servant who could possibly be the heir, gave up his rights to follow Nephi. okay. ~serapha~

hmmmmmmmmm Maybe Joseph Smith wasn't a pretty-boy floyd.... http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B199863.html anyone have the book? ~serapha`

Hey guys... Why don't we save the personal insults for personal messages and leave the open forum for discussion.... ~serapha~

Hi there! Well, primarily, from what I have read thus far, the "evidences" are canyon walls 2,000 feet high, and a stream flowing through the wadi. The majority of the referenced "evidences" are not man-made; therefore, they are not to be considered "put there before he got there".... though the collateral evidenes, many times, are correlated artifacts. ~thanks for the response~ We do have different beliefs with different foundational strengths. I have read the Introduction, the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, and the explanation. ~serapha~

Serapha,I think that any reasonable person can see the difference between taking that life of one evil, guilty person, in order to accomplish a greater good, and the wholesale slaughter of all men, all women who have had sex, kidnapping and enslaving the virgins and children and stealing the livestock – not based upon individual guilt, but based upon what nationality they were. And, I doubt any reasonable person would buy your theory that it is just and mercifull to kill all parents in a village and then kidnap and enslave the children so that they have someone to look after them and maybe release them after some period of enslavement. Think about it if the city of Peoria killed all the men and sexually active women in Bloomington and enslaved the virgins and children and stole all the property…. And then said that God commanded it. Sure. Not. Hello Snow, In ignorance, I am asking for a serious response... Why is Laban considered to be such an evil, guilty person. What was the evil and what was he guilty of? Is he considered evil simply because he defied the demand for the records? What is he guilty of? False witness--as in calling them robbers. It appears to be more of a vision, that in fact, he was killed and the plates were "robbed" from his home. Nephi was a robber. Is it okay to "rob" in the name of the Lord? Is it okay to kill and then take what the Lord has told you to take? Snow, the laws today are not the same as the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, Palestine, or Arabia. It is unrealistic to read into the text of ancient accounts with the mindset of today's society and laws. Today's law says one may not ship silver or gold into particular countries, but certainly that was a viable action in ancient times. Let's do be realistic and use examples which do identify the task at hand and not an interpretation of the task at hand only considering a modernistic mindset. ~serapha~

Posting just of interest, In continuing to read and research, the 'tents" of Lehi could be attributed to another reasoning. If Lehi and family actually lived within the city of Jerusalem, then the probability of their wealth is derived from herds and commodities outside the city (in ancient times, the people lived within the walled cities and worked the lands and herds outside the walled cites, aka "from afar") , and therefore, a need to hire servants or acquire slaves to perform the work. The herdsmen would possibly be nomadics with a need for tents and beasts of burden to transport their tents and supplies. But then, the terminology of "in Jerusalem" meaning to actually live within the walls of Jerusalem draws the terminology of "in Jerusalem" meaning in the area of Jerusalem as to include Bethlehem or in the area of inheritance into a new question. ~still reading~ ~serapha~

What is the time period this reference refers to. It is not stated in the text you provided. "Most of the Mishnayoth date from a very early period, and originated with the students of the Jewish academies which existed since the days of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah [iI Chron. xvii. 9]" .http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0106.htm ~serapha~

The law is referring to the Law of Moses. So the brass plates held all the geneologies, the Torah, letters, prophecies, and a history of the language. Anything else? ~serapha~

Hi! There are two meanings. The first meaning exaltation is eternal life. But when eternal life is understood, then exaltation is the secondary meaning of being as/like god? ~serapha~

Mercy, I do regret beginning this thread. I thought there might be a common source, but I see that there isn't, nor will there ever be. Just as in all Christian faiths, there is discord withing the ranks, without agreement on passage interpretations. ~thanks~

Were scribes rich enough to have their own caravans and tents... let alone servants? The discussion was that I was being told that they were all scribes, while the material I was reading said that their wealth was more likely from merchandising, being a caravaneer, which included traveling and a need for tents and beasts of burden. ~thanks for sharing~ ~serapha~

Hi there! That's N-i-b-l-e-y and I have cited him... "Nibley writes that in the ancient languages of Egyptian, arabic, and Hebrew, that the Hebrew word for "borders" is cognated into the other languages.--border meaning mountains..." And I just looked at the author listing for FARMS, and Brant Gardner is good enough to write for FARMS, one member of this forum said about Brant Gardner, one of the top apologetics people for the LDS's..... "I don't know who Brant Gardner is, but his site is full of nothing but supposition." Okay... everyone's entitled to an opinion. I have only used recognized persons in apologetics for the LDS's, else people they have quoted. As long as I am doing that, I think that those who don't have a clue should just read and learn. When I stray off LDS materials and writers, then post your criticisms. ~thanks~ ~serapha~

Sure,That’s a fair question. How do I reconcile it with the belief that I just posted? Here are some options: 1. Nephi made up the part about being commanded to kill Laban to cover himself. I don’t think that is a very good argument but it is the same argument that I believe the ancient Jews used – “Um, er, we killed all the married women, and took the virgins as our property and stole the cattle, because, because, God told us to, yeah that’s right, God told us to make the children our slaves see…” 2. We could accept Nephi’s version of it: "4:10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. 4:11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property. 4:12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; 4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. 1It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." Laban had tried to kill Nephi and was therefore an attempted murderer. Beyond that Laban was an evil man. Was Nephi justified? Would a just God have asked it of him? Yes, I think you can make the case that it was not outside the law of justice. Can the same be said of the actions of the Jews… killing all the men, killing all the non-virgins, regardless of their individual guilt, taking the virgins as property and enslaving the children and alternating between stealing and killing the livestock – sometimes for reasons as twisted as revenge for an offense 400 years earlier. If you can successfully reconcile that with justice, my hat is off to you. I suggest that the only way you can is to claim that man’s ways are not God’s ways and we cannot know what is just to God. In other words – an appeal to mystery. So regardless of what Nephi did and whether or not it was justified, I offer that wholesale slaughter and slavery is not. Hello Snow, So, it is okay for the spirit of God to tell a man to kill another man. but it is not okay for a nation to take another nation to war and kill the inhabitants? Why? Because it involves more people? You have to remember when you read the Old Testament, to read the entirity of the Old Testament. You have to read of the cities of refuge for the criminals, about the releasing of slaves to freedom at scheduled times, of the fact that there were no prisons to keep POW's, no means of central govenment yet at this point (in taking the 7 nations of Deut 7 and 20) After destroying towns and fortified cities, you want leave the women and children behind with no food or means of living? Where's the mercy in that? "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" okay?

Hi Snow, But I do believe, and I feel that it was all reinforced when Christ walked on the earth as a man. He never changed the Torah. He didn't add to it, nor take away. I just read Deuteronomy 7 and 20, and Numbers 31, and no where did I read where God said to rape the virgin women. The fact of the matter is, it is stated in Numbers 31 why God made the determination that men, married woman, and male children should die. It was because their women had seduced the Israelite men and had introduced them to idoltry and that had brought a curse upon the Israelites. You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven. "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt." That passage? It should tell you that God is a jealous god and he does remember the sins of people that are not unforgiven. A just God would administer a punishment which was earned. Where does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent? Your "if" proposal is a personal comment. It is not "dangerous" thinking to believe that God is just with the righteous and with the unrighteous. And I believe that I do have the correct understanding of the Bible. okay... Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam. Where is the gain from Christ's death? Perhaps we need to discuss some of these persuasive cases where you say that you could argue both sides. There is only one true church, that being the body of believers. ~serapha~

Besides 1 Nephi 3:3 "For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass." 1 Nephi 4:16 "And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass." <span style='color:red'>Another question please.... When it says "law" would that mean just the first five books of the Bible (the Torah) or the total of the canonized Hebrew "Scriptures" which were assembled about that time? Or as another member told me a few days ago, that the Torah was the totality of the Old Testament, and was not limited to the first five books of the Bible (I believe that was "Peace" that said that, though I may be mistaken. ) Eternal life is living forever, not everyone who receives eternal life will receive exaltation. Exaltation is the eternal progression after death in which we can become like our Father in Heaven. He is an exalted being, and we can become like him. When one says eternal life is exaltation, then one is making the statement that they will be in one of the higher heavens? And, not just the lowest level of heaven which is eternal life without exaltation? Just curious. ~serapha~

AFDaw, You are entitled to your testimony. My goal is to learn while I am here, not to convert anyone's thinking. So, we are back to... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi there! To preclude a deluge of criticism, could you, the members of the CoJCoLDS, provide me with a listing of reliable sources on the book of mormon. Names of people who are reliable authors or critics, or names of published works would be good. ~serapha~

AFDaw, My apologies that reading the bom in the light of historical evidences is offensive. I assume then, that the LDS's that I do quote don't have the testimony that you do; therefore your complaint is with their testimony and not that I am quoting them. ~serapha~