Evidence Of The Book Of Mormon

[Traveler]

About 7 years ago I was invited to spend a week at a home in the Persian Gulf area of a devout Moslem and a very good friend. The event was his sister’s wedding. A Moslem wedding lasts for a week and I was honored by the invitation.

I learned a most interesting thing from my friend. Something known throughout Arabia but completely lost and unknown in our western civilization. In the center of my friends home town is a giant statue devoted to “The Tree of Life” of Arabia. This statue is famous throughout Arabia and the Islamic people. The reason is because this tree is a powerful symbol of Allah’s love of the people that live in Arabia. The Tree of Life is the second of 3 great gifts from Allah to those that live in Arabia.

The First gift is water. This is the greatest treasure in Arabia. The third gift is the domestication of the camel.

The second gift is a special palm tree that grows in Arabia and some places of Northern Africa. This is the date palm tree. The reason this tree is so important is because the dates of this particular tree are rather good to eat and are one of the only foods that will last for weeks on end without spoiling in the heat of Arabia for anyone traveling. It is survival and life. Anciently there was no other food that would sustain someone traveling for any distance in Arabia. It has been called the “Tree of Life” for good reason for thousands of years. But there is not even of hint of this tree in western sources prior to Laurence of Arabia who was the first to note it from out side middle eastern society. Although the date palm is mentioned in the Bible its importance is lost to our place and time.

For the most part the date tree’s fruit ranges in color from brown to pale yellow when it is ripe and the lighter the color the sweeter the taste of the fruit. There is however, one variety of this date palm tree whose fruit is almost white. It is the tree with the white fruit that is the model for the statue in my friends home town. It is the most highly valued and believed to be the one most similar to the “Tree of Life” in the Garden of Eden”. This tree grows naturally only in Western Arabia and has been found as far north as the area where the Book of Mormon describes the “Valley of Lemuel”, which by the way there really is such a valley exactly where the Book of Mormon says there is. And there is a river of water flowing rear-round into the Red Sea. It is the only place where there is a river of water in Arabia that flows year-round into the Red Sea.

How many trees do you know that produce “white fruit”? And how many of them are called “The Tree of Life”? Where in 1830 could anyone in the Americas find a historically accurate document that mentions any of these facts and others about Arabia (for example the year-round river flowing into the Red Sea)? Once again this is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account. Our western accounts including computers internet and other access still lacks the depth of understanding given in the Book of Mormon almost 150 years ago. The poor critics of the Book of Mormon can’t find any documents (prior to 1900's) more detailed about the frankincense trail so they can pretend that Joseph Smith had a source to manufacture Lehi’s use of the frankincense trail.

It amazes me how some can stand in the light of noon day and say there is no evidence it is day time. Are we informed or misinformed or what? Shakespear said "Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems - only that thinking makes it so." If you want to pretend it is night time at noon day that is fine with me but it says something about your ability to be honest.

The Traveler

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

...if you ask me why am I still in the Lds church, well, after a WHILE studying and thinking concerning each belief and comparison to general Christianity, although a lot is circumstancial, and a lot is plainly not from God, there is something that lingers in my heart and mind, and that is the doctrine of the Deity. No other Christian church has our concept of God, so coherent, so philosophically well constructed, that, as it also makes sense with the Bible more than what christian themselves really believe, I think is worth the try.... I tell you, if it were not because of the doctrine we hold in respect of Christology I would not be here...

Interesting reason Serg. So you believe that most of Mormon dogma is baloney, but because you like the doctrine of the godhead, you will stay LDS?

So, let me ask you (sorry to derail this thread again Traveller) what about the Holy Ghost? You stated that the LDS godhead theory was "well constructed," but how does the requirement to be a god as outlined in D&C 131 & 132, which includes the necessity of taking on a body of flesh and being sealed for all eternity fit in with the idea that a spirit personage, who has never had a body nor been married, get to be a god equal with the Father and the Son?

I mean, if you just like the christology of the godhead doctrine, then why not be a Jehovah's Witness?

I condemn that people conform themselves in their quest for Truth to the mere "burning" in the bossom, such a thing is damnable.

I wouldn't say "damnable". Maybe dumb, but not damable. B)

No, maybe Im not being clear. I do not think that "most" lds dogma is "baloney", yes, a lot of it is, but "dogma" is the "human" manifestation of faith , so most of it I consider resultant of Joseph's and most prophets' attempts to introduce teir OWN points of view(very far from God's), at the very core of this, lies the most blatant and obvious, the priesthood ban That is th ebest proof for falliable prophets in this Church. Also is wrong for the Church to try hide things as it has, but I consider the many(most) things in respect of doctrine, pretty sound and true. The priesthood, th etemple ceremonies, the concept of a "Leader', the obvious event of christian apostasy(although I dont agree that it was a "complete" one), the Godhead, etc...

No, our doctrine of the Godhead has nothing in common with the Jehova Witnesses, they lessen Christ, and attribute no divinity at all to him. Ours in the contrary sustains that The Godhead is Eternal, and that Elohim , Jehova and the Holy Ghost have always been "God", of course , there's the clasic mormons who believe in a succesion of Gods from eternity and defend it, but is not completele true or even NEAR scriptural truth. Scriptures(Lds) teach of an Eternal Godhead(look: not eternal Elohim, but Godhead-the Three), who(three) deserve reverence, admiration and worship. The concept of the "necessary body" is a reflection based on the present requirement to US for exaltation. This is, We have been told, that Elohim as a Father, wants us to be like Him(thi sdoes not invlove that we will be more Supreme

than He is) and in that manner we should "get" a "body". Truth is, that the requirement for a body in order to achieve exaltation has been given to US alone. This (speaking of SCRIPTURE) does not apply to the Holy Ghost or Jesus, because they were already Gods before ever havingt a body(in Christ's case). The Holy Ghost is NOT going to have a "body" sometime, and it is not a "mistery" we should leave to doubt, the Spirit is an essential part of the Godhead, and is God by Himself, is a Creator and Preserver(more that a 'testator" -the usual work-name) and is who lives inside every being full of God's goodness(even inside Elohim and Christ-for hey are One), not that they do not have separate "bodies" but that even so, the power and presence of the Holy Ghost lies inside everything and every one. Just as Jesus said the Spirit was inside of Him too-"by the finger of God do i do these things" , etc... So we encounter that most of common lds theology among members is biased and based on non official statememts and conclusions of prophets who (indeed) are falliable. Scriptures show us a Mormon God and members give us another. Is just like the case for th epriesthood ban, while serious lds people accept it was a wrong desicion and a stupid act by those as Brigham Young who committed it, it is yet heard among people the same 100 years old excuses and explanations concerning "unworthiness" in the preexistance, etc...Things which the Scripture say are not true but people just repet them as they heard them. The same with our Godhead, who said that a "God"(reffering to any God) or to refrase it, that "Deity" required a body? Not scriptures, certainly they say :

" The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

Now this plainly says that clearly, Elohim is a God and has a Body , the Son is a God and has a Body and the Holy Ghost is a God and has no body at all, it does not say that it matters that the holy ghost has no body, in fact, it asserts that even so, is yet a God.

Also Scriptures say that :

IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage];

This is clear, within the highest order of God, Deity itself, a MAN must enter marriage(hence have a body), but it makes it not stressed the fact of having a body, is agiven fact if we are talking of MEN who must enter heaven. See, it doesnt say "any being" but "Man". It does not reffer to the Godheadm which is already Deity.

Scripture says:

"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world."

In this He says that such Ordenance is a requirement for everyone who is to have a blessing(deity) from His hands. Such law instituted by Him befor e the world was, concerning US. Certainly He didnt enter into marriage(in case He did) if the blessing he persued came from the hands of Himself, but of Another. In whicg case we would have to contend if Scriptures allow the possibility for Gods predating Elohim, Jehova and the Holy Ghost, which in fact, they dont.

Also:

For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

This states that there is no "greater concivable Being" besides the Godhead, hence even he was(or is) not subject to His laws in respect to punishment, but of nature.

The fact that th epresence of the Holy Ghost as a God without body is necessary is shown in section 76 where it says : These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;.

If the Holy Spirit were to obtain a Body at some point, then the Godhead would be incomplete, for there's the NEED for a noncorporeal Entity within the Godhead, who could ministrate to every corner of the Universe through the gods and angels, and yet live within them all.

So the "well constructed' theology of ours, is seen when we take off the mythic parts of our mormon heritage, and are critics, indeed, a work i am reading yet, is Blake Ostler's book "Exploring Mormon Thought; The attributes of God" an amazing attempt and success at harmonizing our true views if God(as Scriptures proclaim) and the also orthodox God of Christians, in fact, the book(515pages) does not try to make our God seem more orthodox but to compare it to the orthodox one and make a ponit concerning which aspects of the orthodoxy we do(or should) also attribute to OUR God, and which sadly are just nonsense. It also deals with the infinity process, the chain of "gods" mormons believe we should believe, and so on.

Buy it jason, you'll enjoy it.

[Jason]

Ok Serg. That what you believe, and that's cool.

:)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

...at the very core of this, lies the most blatant and obvious, the priesthood ban That is th ebest proof for falliable prophets in this Church.

Wow, you know more than prophets, huh? I personally believe the priesthood ban was necessary to keep the fledgling church afloat until it got to Utah. I think the reasoning about blacks' worthiness in the pre-existence is rubbish...that doesn't mean the policy was rubbish. Yeah, let's see what would've happened to a church in Missouri that had black clergy presiding over white members in the mid 1800's...

Anyone who does a little reading will find that Joseph Smith ordained two black men Elders (the melchizedek priesthood!) and sent them on missions. Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office. God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray. Cut 'em some slack Serg, remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they murmured against Moses. :)

So we encounter that most of common lds theology among members is biased and based on non official statememts and conclusions of prophets who (indeed) are falliable.

Heaven forfend that we take our lead from God's anointed! If I have to choose between a prophet called of God to be His mouthpiece to the world, and Serg, I'm sorry but I'm going with the prophet. :)

...serious lds people accept it was a wrong desicion and a stupid act by those as Brigham Young who committed it...[yet there's still] same 100 years old excuses and explanations concerning "unworthiness" in the preexistance, etc...

So when you say "serious lds people," you must mean people who think like you do. Because I'm a serious "lds person" and I find I disagree with you about many an issue. Step down off the pedestal Serg, the rest of us aren't covered in too much mud. One other suggestion...slow down when you type your messages...your meaning frequently eludes me due to typos, accidental truncations and sundry grammatical anomalies. Thanks. :)

[Jason]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight

God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray.

Actually, that was Wilford Woodruff who said that when he was trying to justify his "manifesto" in 1890.

Close guess though...

[prisonchaplain]

Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Jesus banned the gospel from being preached to the Gentiles??? He sometimes told the disciples "not yet," but never intimated a ban. Furthermore, to suggest that Jesus banned the gospel to the Gentiles, and then to say that "of course the prophets are fallible" may be read as "Jesus was a prophet who, of course, was fallible." Is this what you mean?

One subtle disagreement I might have, even if I were LDS--I do not believe all actions of prophets--even God's prophets--are "approved." God did not tell Abraham to lie about his wife, nor do I see approval.

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

...at the very core of this, lies the most blatant and obvious, the priesthood ban That is th ebest proof for falliable prophets in this Church.

Wow, you know more than prophets, huh? I personally believe the priesthood ban was necessary to keep the fledgling church afloat until it got to Utah. I think the reasoning about blacks' worthiness in the pre-existence is rubbish...that doesn't mean the policy was rubbish. Yeah, let's see what would've happened to a church in Missouri that had black clergy presiding over white members in the mid 1800's...

Anyone who does a little reading will find that Joseph Smith ordained two black men Elders (the melchizedek priesthood!) and sent them on missions. Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office. God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray. Cut 'em some slack Serg, remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they murmured against Moses. :)

So we encounter that most of common lds theology among members is biased and based on non official statememts and conclusions of prophets who (indeed) are falliable.

Heaven forfend that we take our lead from God's anointed! If I have to choose between a prophet called of God to be His mouthpiece to the world, and Serg, I'm sorry but I'm going with the prophet. :)

...serious lds people accept it was a wrong desicion and a stupid act by those as Brigham Young who committed it...[yet there's still] same 100 years old excuses and explanations concerning "unworthiness" in the preexistance, etc...

So when you say "serious lds people," you must mean people who think like you do. Because I'm a serious "lds person" and I find I disagree with you about many an issue. Step down off the pedestal Serg, the rest of us aren't covered in too much mud. One other suggestion...slow down when you type your messages...your meaning frequently eludes me due to typos, accidental truncations and sundry grammatical anomalies. Thanks. :)

The priesthood ban was not necessary, but a lateral desicion without consulting God. proof is, that Joseph ordained Elijah Abel, who was right, Smith or Young? Cause Young didnt let Elijah get sealed to his wife, whereas Smith gave him permission, oh, you cant get it right always while trying to justify wrong desicions.

"Serious lds" is people who read, who study and mostly apologists in this respect, it was just a figure of speech. No , I would never run for prophet.

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Jesus banned the gospel from being preached to the Gentiles??? He sometimes told the disciples "not yet," but never intimated a ban. Furthermore, to suggest that Jesus banned the gospel to the Gentiles, and then to say that "of course the prophets are fallible" may be read as "Jesus was a prophet who, of course, was fallible." Is this what you mean?

One subtle disagreement I might have, even if I were LDS--I do not believe all actions of prophets--even God's prophets--are "approved." God did not tell Abraham to lie about his wife, nor do I see approval.

Yes indeed. And what most of lds brethren dont get, is that we CAN NOT always justify prophets, they commit errors(a lot) just like us. In fact, Apostleknight or Ray might believe me an apostate(which thing I am sure they do not, but as supposing), but no one here dares to defend Brigham's assertion on poligamy while saying "I am above the law, and this people here also", obviously now with Hinckley we say "no, we respect the law", well, who was right? Hinckley or Young? Of course, Hinckley. But no, one cant dare to suggest the mistake leaders make in the Church, because they quickly believe we are falling away or being apostates.

Regards,

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

...at the very core of this, lies the most blatant and obvious, the priesthood ban That is th ebest proof for falliable prophets in this Church.

Wow, you know more than prophets, huh? I personally believe the priesthood ban was necessary to keep the fledgling church afloat until it got to Utah. I think the reasoning about blacks' worthiness in the pre-existence is rubbish...that doesn't mean the policy was rubbish. Yeah, let's see what would've happened to a church in Missouri that had black clergy presiding over white members in the mid 1800's...

Anyone who does a little reading will find that Joseph Smith ordained two black men Elders (the melchizedek priesthood!) and sent them on missions. Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office. God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray. Cut 'em some slack Serg, remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they murmured against Moses. :)

So we encounter that most of common lds theology among members is biased and based on non official statememts and conclusions of prophets who (indeed) are falliable.

Heaven forfend that we take our lead from God's anointed! If I have to choose between a prophet called of God to be His mouthpiece to the world, and Serg, I'm sorry but I'm going with the prophet. :)

...serious lds people accept it was a wrong desicion and a stupid act by those as Brigham Young who committed it...[yet there's still] same 100 years old excuses and explanations concerning "unworthiness" in the preexistance, etc...

So when you say "serious lds people," you must mean people who think like you do. Because I'm a serious "lds person" and I find I disagree with you about many an issue. Step down off the pedestal Serg, the rest of us aren't covered in too much mud. One other suggestion...slow down when you type your messages...your meaning frequently eludes me due to typos, accidental truncations and sundry grammatical anomalies. Thanks. :)

The priesthood ban was not necessary, but a lateral desicion without consulting God. proof is, that Joseph ordained Elijah Abel, who was right, Smith or Young? Cause Young didnt let Elijah get sealed to his wife, whereas Smith gave him permission, oh, you cant get it right always while trying to justify wrong desicions.

"Serious lds" is people who read, who study and mostly apologists in this respect, it was just a figure of speech. No , I would never run for prophet.

In fact, polygamy was a revelation directly adreessed to Emma, to persuade her to admit Smith's intention(or established practice) of polygamy, if for such an event(that NOW we consider as not essential to salvation-hence-present-meaningless) how much more did we need a revelation cocnerning the priesthood ban!? But guess what? There is none. But a fatal desicion made by Young, in constant opposition to Smith's.