Results of the Flood

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

How so? I find this site incredibly inspiring actually. 

I guess I'm just not inspired by people arguing over whether scripture is figurative or literal.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Or perhaps it IS literal.  Does it really matter?  Why do we argue over these things, when the end result is the same.  It is so destructive.

 

What matters is that we are more open to the spirit to teach us things when we are able to see past literal to things that are symbolic.  For example; if all we care about is if  Moses was a literal person - we will never allow the spirit to testify to us (or anyone else if we can prevent it) from realizing that Moses was a "type and shadow" of Christ.  If we come apart at the seams when ever someone references a metaphor in scripture because all we want to see is literal and think any symbolism makes everything a myth and a fable - then we miss spiritual things that matter far more important than just literal interpretation of scripture.  In fact there is a scripture that warns about turning to myths and fables but that is another discussion which is more raveled in symbolism than the one already going on.

I would add one other piece of advice - Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught specifically in our temples that Adam is a metaphor - but with all the hostility over the Tree of Life and the Serpent - to speak of the specifics of such a metaphor would be casing pearls before swine. 

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

What matters is that we are more open to the spirit to teach us things when we are able to see past literal to things that are symbolic.  For example; if all we care about is if  Moses was a literal person - we will never allow the spirit to testify to us (or anyone else if we can prevent it) from realizing that Moses was a "type and shadow" of Christ.  If we come apart at the seams when ever someone references a metaphor in scripture because all we want to see is literal and think any symbolism makes everything a myth and a fable - then we miss spiritual things that matter far more important than just literal interpretation of scripture.  In fact there is a scripture that warns about turning to myths and fables but that is another discussion which is more raveled in symbolism than the one already going on.

I would add one other piece of advice - Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught specifically in our temples that Adam is a metaphor - but with all the hostility over the Tree of Life and the Serpent - to speak of the specifics of such a metaphor would be casing pearls before swine. 

 

The Traveler

I've never been in that part of the Temple, so I wouldn't know.  My point was strictly this:  for some, the thought that something might not be literal brings into question that NOTHING may be literal.  I often lean in that direction.  For others, they have no problem with things not being literal.  But why argue about it?  To win the argument means you shake the other's faith.  Is that the goal?

[zil]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I guess I'm just not inspired by people arguing over whether scripture is figurative or literal.

I tend to skim the threads which turn into "is too!" "is not!" nonsense.  If there's a post by someone from whose posts I almost always learn (a few people on that list), then I'll skim closer and maybe read, not as a response, but just to see if there's something interesting in it.

But I agree, we tend not to discuss the gospel in the kind of depth we could here - perhaps because we're all too mentally tired to put out the effort - or perhaps because we can't agree on the topic that is worth the effort.  Or maybe we're too busy with politics and personal soap opera drive-bys.

[SilentOne]

52 minutes ago, zil said:

But I agree, we tend not to discuss the gospel in the kind of depth we could here - perhaps because we're all too mentally tired to put out the effort - or perhaps because we can't agree on the topic that is worth the effort.  Or maybe we're too busy with politics and personal soap opera drive-bys.

Or we're worried the topic we're thinking of starting will turn into "is not!" "is too!" about some tangentially related controversy.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, zil said:

But I agree, we tend not to discuss the gospel in the kind of depth we could here - perhaps because we're all too mentally tired to put out the effort - or perhaps because we can't agree on the topic that is worth the effort.  Or maybe we're too busy with politics and personal soap opera drive-bys.

I find it so incredibly fascinating that when we get into the “is-to is-not” arguement, no one pulls out scripture. 

On my mission, I once had a huge mission wife training by the assistants to the presidents where they stressed heavily the importance of studying on Preach My Gospel every day. It lasted about 45 minutes. It really was a great training and I was definitely motivated to use PMG in all my studies. It was filled with great analogous, testimonies, miracle stories, and rebuking for those that disagreed. At the end of the training, an Elder approachednthe assistants and pointed out that they did not once open PMG or sharing anything from it... I find this as ironic as these fits we have on the forum page that seem so utterly vacant if scriptural text.

But granted... I shared a pretty authoritative quote by the Church itself that emphatically said the flood was literal... but all those believing it was figurative just brushed it aside and dived back into thevohilosophies of men... which we all know has no truth but just interesting ideas. So maybe the reason people don’t share scriptural references is cause we know we are just casting pearls to swine.

[SilentOne]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

I find it so incredibly fascinating that when we get into the “is-to is-not” arguement, no one pulls out scripture.

I am slowly making my way through a 30-page "is to" "is not" thread that I took a break from several months back. It's full of scriptural references on both sides, as well as numerous quotes from prophets.

Edited August 24, 2018 by SilentOne

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

no one pulls out scripture

Sometimes they do.  There's a thread recently where, I think, JerseyBoy was using scriptures for his point and Midwest? disagreed with the interpretation, or perhaps scope, or maybe thought they weren't really disagreeing but JerseyBoy did - I wasn't paying that close of attention.  So this actually does happen, but doesn't often change the results.

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I am slowly making my way through a 30-page "is to" "is not" thread that I took a break from several months back. It's full of scriptural references on both sides, as well as numerous quotes from prophets.

That is great! But page 1 and 2 of this thread are the only pages with scriptural references (and page two is almost all jokes and comics)

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

What matters is that we are more open to the spirit to teach us things when we are able to see past literal to things that are symbolic.  For example; if all we care about is if  Moses was a literal person - we will never allow the spirit to testify to us (or anyone else if we can prevent it) from realizing that Moses was a "type and shadow" of Christ.  If we come apart at the seams when ever someone references a metaphor in scripture because all we want to see is literal and think any symbolism makes everything a myth and a fable - then we miss spiritual things that matter far more important than just literal interpretation of scripture.  In fact there is a scripture that warns about turning to myths and fables but that is another discussion which is more raveled in symbolism than the one already going on.

I would add one other piece of advice - Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught specifically in our temples that Adam is a metaphor - but with all the hostility over the Tree of Life and the Serpent - to speak of the specifics of such a metaphor would be casing pearls before swine. 

 

The Traveler

I think we all agree that there is depth and spiritual meanings with the various elements of the garden. What seems kind of confusing, and I was just wanting to clarify, that the trees God planted not only had symbolic meanings but we're in fact real literal trees. A lot of confusion over this had lead many to believe that the entire garden events were not literal. That's false teachings.

[MrShorty]

@Grunt: agreed that we need to exercise some caution in this -- trying to make it about strengthening testimonies and "inoculating" against loss of testimony. I sometimes wonder if teaching scripture too literally has its own dangers. Ben Spackman has quoted Raymond Brown (Catholic Priest and Bible scholar) on his blog (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2018/08/raymond-brown-on-understanding-and-teaching-complicated-historical-issues/)

Quote

Sometimes, because [teachers] fear scandal, some would say that it is better to treat a nonhistorical narrative as history and thus cause no problem. That is a dangerous misconception. God’s truth should be served by nothing less than the best of human perception, and we endanger acceptance of divine truth when we teach anybody something that by our best scholarly standards is thought to be false. Sooner or later, those who hear the preacher treating Jonah as if it were history, or the first chapters of Genesis as if they were science, will come to realize the falsity of that presentation and, as a consequence, may reject the inspired divine truth contained in those chapters. [Spackman's emphasis]

A couple of years ago, I posted some musings on what parts of scripture must be historical, if you are interested. In short, without making a statement of what is history and what isn't, I decided that I could get along just fine if much of scripture was fictional, or historical fiction, or fictionalized history.

 

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Grunt said:

I've never been in that part of the Temple, so I wouldn't know.  My point was strictly this:  for some, the thought that something might not be literal brings into question that NOTHING may be literal.  I often lean in that direction.  For others, they have no problem with things not being literal.  But why argue about it?  To win the argument means you shake the other's faith.  Is that the goal?

It is not that goals are singular.  I can only speak for myself and propose the question - for what purpose is life?  If we cannot question - especially our own view - how can we learn?  Obviously arguments will not change anyone's understanding or faith - with the one exception of your own.  Again - speaking for myself - it is not so much what a person thinks and believes as it is why they believe a certain thing and what else have they considered and why?  But there is another much more important side to consider - the other is - how well do I understand what it is that I think and believe and why do I think so.  In short - it is a method to text, check and extend my own thoughts.  If I am only willing to discuss in detail with those that agree with me - what do I learn?  If I only scrutinize my thinking within myself and without some pier review - of what value are my thoughts and ideas - especially to me?  There is a saying that great sailors are not made on calm seas.  This is a metaphor - if someone cannot see past the literal words - it is useless to them.  Why would anyone refuse to consider that anything could have value as a metaphor.  If someone reading this thread can explain something I have missed - please do so - I would very much appreciate it.

But I also agree that often discussions become personal attacks rather than logical discussions about matters of importance with opportunity of discovery.  Some are so defensive in their thinking that any question or logic that seems to support any other kind of thinking is a personal attack on them - and so discussions that something else is possible become personal vendettas.  But anyone that searches for truth will encounter a lot of angry resistance.  If we look for and find some understandings from metaphors in scripture, we can apply scripture that were written about events thousands of years ago to our own life in our own day and time and the scriptures become a "living" source of great knowledge that we can actually use to navigate our own life's perils. 

But to think of scripture as only having literal value?  I do not understand why anyone would believe such a thing and argue it with passion?  Can anyone tell me why scripture is to be understood literally and never be considered to apply to us today?  To be honest - what is the value of reading anything just for the literal content - if there are no metaphors that apply to me or anyone else - why should anyone waist their time?  Why care? and above all why argue it?

 

The Traveler

 

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think we all agree that there is depth and spiritual meanings with the various elements of the garden. What seems kind of confusing, and I was just wanting to clarify, that the trees God planted not only had symbolic meanings but we're in fact real literal trees. A lot of confusion over this had lead many to believe that the entire garden events were not literal. That's false teachings.

Perhaps the question I would ask is - what is important and why has G-d told us this garden story?  Is the purpose to believe in literal trees in the garden?  Or is it possible that the primary reason and purpose is to go far beyond all possible literal things and then to search, ponder and pray about metaphors and how they apply to me and you?

But you have a very different point of view - than my own.  First - it seems to me that there are obvious symbolic references.  One is the serpent in the story - I believe we are to understand that the serpent is symbolic of Satan.  I really do not understand why in all the posts you are unwilling to accept that it was Satan beguiling Eve and not a talking snake.  Now, there may have been literal snakes in the garden but I do believe that has anything to do with doctrine that G-d is teaching us in this story.  In the Eden epoch there are two very important trees.  One is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - but in reality the tree is not as important as it fruit.  Likewise also there is another tree spoken of called the Tree of Life which also had fruit.  Now I will ask a question - are these two trees literal trees?  Is it doctrine that these trees are literal?  Or is it doctrine that these two trees are symbolic - metaphors of something else - For example is it doctrine that the "Tree of Life" is a metaphor and symbolic of the love of G-d?  And so I would ask - what is the greater doctrine - to believe in G-d's love or to believe that G-d literally planted some apple and peach trees in the Garden of Eden?  From time to time I ask you specific questions - because I am trying to understand your point of view and what you are trying to say and if I am really understanding you.  But you will not answer my questions and instead you seem to try to change to subject (or the discussion). I do not know what you believe and even if you understand - but many believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a literal apple tree.  The symbol of Apple Corp.  is an apple with a bite missing because they are hung up on a literal tree and literal fruit.  Because I believe that salvation comes because of the love of G-d and not some literal fruit of a literal Tree of Life - is that false doctrine?  And so I speculate that so also is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It seem a little ridiculous that the only way to gain knowledge of good and evil is to eat a certain fruit.  I have pondered and prayed and have learned that there is much more to the knowledge of good and evil than eating a specific fruit.  I would be very interested if you have pondered and prayed and have learned that knowledge and the true doctrine of good and evil can only be learned by eating of the literal fruit of the literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

The Traveler

[theplains]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

Or is it doctrine that these two trees are symbolic - metaphors of something else - For example is it doctrine that the "Tree of Life" is a metaphor and symbolic of the love of G-d?  And so I would ask - what is the greater doctrine - to believe in G-d's love or to believe that G-d literally planted some apple and peach trees in the Garden of Eden? 

Besides the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", what do you believe all the other trees in the
garden are symbolic of?    What is God's double-command to Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree (Genesis 2:17,
Moses 3:17) symbolic of?

Thanks,
Jim

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Besides the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", what do you believe all the other trees in the
garden are symbolic of?    What is God's double-command to Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree (Genesis 2:17,
Moses 3:17) symbolic of?

Thanks,
Jim

Anciently the fruit of trees represented deeds and the obtaining of knowledge or understanding.  I believe in the Eden epoch there is symbolism of humanities pre-mortal existence.  That we grew in knowledge and understanding.  In Alma we are told that before our birth some exercised "great faith".  I think the symbolism of freely eating fruit of the "other" trees is that we are free spirits and granted power and agency to pursue many great and noble things before we were born.

As to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  After much pondering I believe we were not ignorant of good and evil in our pre-existence but that there were things beyond our understanding and experience.  Thus I am of the opinion that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is much more important and central to the very purpose of man.  Death is the inevitable result of evil experience and without suffering death it is impossible to comprehend (knowledge of) evil.  The good that we had not experienced is the good that is the result of the love of G-d that is willing to descend below and to suffer all things in a great sacrifice of love to redeem and benefit others - with no personal benefit for the sufferer but to pay for and forgive the sins of others - in other words the atonement.  The complete opposite of revenge against evil.   G-d warned us that to exercise our agency to choose mortal experience would mean that we all would fall from the glory of heaven and suffer many things and most especially Death - both physical and also spiritual - meaning that we could no longer enjoy the presents of the Father.  And that to receive anything from the Father that we must rely on his mediator son - Jesus the Christ.

I believe this spiritual fall (death) is perhaps one of the most misunderstood of all the doctrines concerning G-d and the basis of confusion concerning the G-dhead and the traditional Trinity doctrine and that after the fall Jesus was the only G-d that could save us.  It was his sacrifice that is the good fruit of the Tree.  And so the fall was not just the man Adam and the woman Eve but all the spirit children of G-d that had remained in heaven following the great rebellion of Lucifer.  And death is the evil fruit of the Tree.

The beginning of divine instruction to man of G-d's plan of salvation and exaltation of man is the Eden epoch where we learn that to become like G-d we must have knowledge of good and evil by experiencing the fall that enables death.  This is the first great lesson of salvation.  I believe that the great spiritual lessons given to man are not literal but are given in metaphors and symbolism - so that only those that seek, ponder and pray for divine guidance will have the truth manifested through the spirit of truth.  It is not my explanation that will convince anyone but the truth of all things will be given through the Holy Ghost.  My opinions can and will confuse but the Holy Ghost will make understanding clear for those that are willing to see - not just by literal words and texts but by humble deeds and faith that there is greater truths than can be obtained by the literal text.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps the question I would ask is - what is important and why has G-d told us this garden story?  Is the purpose to believe in literal trees in the garden?  Or is it possible that the primary reason and purpose is to go far beyond all possible literal things and then to search, ponder and pray about metaphors and how they apply to me and you?

But you have a very different point of view - than my own.  First - it seems to me that there are obvious symbolic references.  One is the serpent in the story - I believe we are to understand that the serpent is symbolic of Satan.  I really do not understand why in all the posts you are unwilling to accept that it was Satan beguiling Eve and not a talking snake.  Now, there may have been literal snakes in the garden but I do believe that has anything to do with doctrine that G-d is teaching us in this story.  In the Eden epoch there are two very important trees.  One is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - but in reality the tree is not as important as it fruit.  Likewise also there is another tree spoken of called the Tree of Life which also had fruit.  Now I will ask a question - are these two trees literal trees?  Is it doctrine that these trees are literal?  Or is it doctrine that these two trees are symbolic - metaphors of something else - For example is it doctrine that the "Tree of Life" is a metaphor and symbolic of the love of G-d?  And so I would ask - what is the greater doctrine - to believe in G-d's love or to believe that G-d literally planted some apple and peach trees in the Garden of Eden?  From time to time I ask you specific questions - because I am trying to understand your point of view and what you are trying to say and if I am really understanding you.  But you will not answer my questions and instead you seem to try to change to subject (or the discussion). I do not know what you believe and even if you understand - but many believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a literal apple tree.  The symbol of Apple Corp.  is an apple with a bite missing because they are hung up on a literal tree and literal fruit.  Because I believe that salvation comes because of the love of G-d and not some literal fruit of a literal Tree of Life - is that false doctrine?  And so I speculate that so also is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It seem a little ridiculous that the only way to gain knowledge of good and evil is to eat a certain fruit.  I have pondered and prayed and have learned that there is much more to the knowledge of good and evil than eating a specific fruit.  I would be very interested if you have pondered and prayed and have learned that knowledge and the true doctrine of good and evil can only be learned by eating of the literal fruit of the literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

The Traveler

My whole point in bringing up the literalness of the trees is so that people don't get the idea the whole garden story was mythical. It's small steps that lead one away into false beliefs. You have people who think Genesis was fiction. Not only that but also people who think the Book of Mormon is a nonhistorical story containing otherwise good anecdotal stories that can apply to man. It's all a slippery slope into disbelief of God's holy scriptures.

There are many layers of symbolism in the garden story. I'm not discounting that at all. But, if we take away the literalness of the garden, of Adam and Eve, all we are left with is an unbelievable fable. God doesn't work like that. There were actual trees in an actual garden.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My whole point in bringing up the literalness of the trees is so that people don't get the idea the whole garden story was mythical. It's small steps that lead one away into false beliefs. You have people who think Genesis was fiction. Not only that but also people who think the Book of Mormon is a nonhistorical story containing otherwise good anecdotal stories that can apply to man. It's all a slippery slope into disbelief of God's holy scriptures.

There are many layers of symbolism in the garden story. I'm not discounting that at all. But, if we take away the literalness of the garden, of Adam and Eve, all we are left with is an unbelievable fable. God doesn't work like that. There were actual trees in an actual garden.

For those looking for an excuse to reject light and truth - any excuse will do.   One of the most popular excuses, especially among certain so-called religionists, is to claim the important message is the literal message.  This is the essence of the arguments posed by the Pharisees to discredit the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John.  Literally the scriptures tell of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and many others - but as Jesus taught - the purpose of scripture is not the literal message but the spiritual message that bears witness of G-d, his son Jesus the Christ and the Plan of Salvation.  What ever does not testify of Christ - his mission and work - be it a focus on literal interpretations of scripture or anything else - is not the divine message from G-d.  Sometimes people cannot even see the forest because of their concentration and concern on one, two or a few actual trees. 

 

The Traveler

[theplains]

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

The beginning of divine instruction to man of G-d's plan of salvation and exaltation of man is the Eden epoch where we learn that to become like G-d we must have knowledge of good and evil by experiencing the fall that enables death.  This is the first great lesson of salvation.

What is God's double-command to Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree (Genesis 2:17,
Moses 3:17) symbolic of?

Thanks,
Jim

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, theplains said:

What is God's double-command to Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree (Genesis 2:17,
Moses 3:17) symbolic of?

Thanks,
Jim

I will speak my opinion.  I believe that G-d always intended that we gain the necessary knowledge between Good and Evil represented by the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  However, he could not command us to do so because the choice to experience death would be a transgression of eternal law and deprive us of our agency - which was what Satan wanted to do in the first place.  Therefore, he instructed man (all of us and not just Adam and Eve) that the experience of sin would bring suffering and death.  Both physical death of our mortal bodies and spiritual death because we could no longer be with G-d in his kingdom of heaven.  Never the less - we could chose for ourselves.  

I believe part of the confusion comes from the temptation of Lucifer or Satan.  Why would he tempt Adam and Eve (mankind) to partake of the fruit if it was the plan of G-d the Father all along.  It is my opinion that Lucifer was planting a carefully crafted seed in his temptation that is symbolic of the separation between the man and the woman in making critical choices concerning our salvation - to prevent the choice being made together.  This is symbolic of all Satan's efforts to divide the man and the woman as a stumbling block against the divine covenant of marriage as the foundation of families.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

For those looking for an excuse to reject light and truth - any excuse will do.   One of the most popular excuses, especially among certain so-called religionists, is to claim the important message is the literal message.  This is the essence of the arguments posed by the Pharisees to discredit the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John.  Literally the scriptures tell of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and many others - but as Jesus taught - the purpose of scripture is not the literal message but the spiritual message that bears witness of G-d, his son Jesus the Christ and the Plan of Salvation.  What ever does not testify of Christ - his mission and work - be it a focus on literal interpretations of scripture or anything else - is not the divine message from G-d.  Sometimes people cannot even see the forest because of their concentration and concern on one, two or a few actual trees. 

 

The Traveler

Almost everyone I know who have left our religion did so in rejecting the Book of Mormon as a literal historical record.

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Almost everyone I know who have left our religion did so in rejecting the Book of Mormon as a literal historical record.

Interesting - it is my experience, but not always - just most that I have known (including immediate and extended family members) to leave the church did so because a "good" member (sometimes more than one) - told them that they did not belong in the church.  Sometimes it was because their hair (guys) was too long, sometimes it was because of facial hair, sometimes because of tattoos or too many piercings in their ears.  I was once told that scientists that believe in evolution do not belong at church.  It is my personal feelings but I believe that with very few exception it will be worse for some seemingly faithful and active member to have encouraged someone to leave because they did not belong than for someone that left because someone convinced them that if they did not believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal historical record - that they do not belong at church.

I do not agree with a lot of things I have encountered that many good people say are true and unquestionable - some religious - some political - some social and some economic - and when asked I will share my personal opinion about a lot of things.  But I would never insinuate that someone ever give up coming to church.  For all those that doubt if the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record - do leave church because of that!  If you have a science background and have a hard time with a 6000 year old earth, evolution rejected by a lot of religious people, a global flood or even Adam and the Eden epoch being literal.  Do not be discouraged from coming to church and mingling with the Latter-day Saints.  Do not give up on being kind to your neighbor, do not turn from helping those in need of assistance and even those that scoff at your personal beliefs - come and lets us "reason" together that we may learn but above all, come unto the household of G-d where we are all brothers and sisters and regardless of what you believe (even the really weird stuff) - I will welcome you and always listen and when we disagree - I will gladly explorer with you why - and never tell you or deliberately even hint that you do not belong - because you do belong.  I will never turn away my brothers or sisters - even if you will not have anything to do with the Church or any of its doctrine.  You will always be my brothers and sisters and I will always gladly discuss with you - what you believe and why you believe it to be so.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

I'm a historian and we use writing more than archaeological artifacts and dating.  From what I understand though, carbon dating normally is only used to date things around 2000 years or less.  Beyond that, they can still use carbon dating, but they also use other things to try to verify.  At most, we use it to things that are 5000 years or less.  We have other forms of dating for things that are older than that which use other materials which decay at a far slower rate.

For example, with a dinosaur fossil, they are normally found in materials which are very easily dated using other methods besides carbon dating, but are similar in that form but with a different material.

 

PS: I DO take the Bible and Book of Mormon literally.  No, I do not have a conciliation between the Scriptures and what the historical record says.  In that reasoning I normally leave my professional life separate from my own personal religious beliefs as they do not agree with each other in many facets.  They do occasionally intertwine when someone makes ignorant remarks about the historical record in an effort to say something in the scriptures could not be true, and those remarks really don't reflect accurately what I see in history (I'm not a MORMON historian though, mine deals with things much earlier in the past), but overall, with taking things like Genesis Literally, it does NOT mesh at all with what we see historically professionally).

Edited August 30, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[theplains]

On 8/26/2018 at 7:08 PM, Traveler said:

For all those that doubt if the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record - do leave church because of that!

If the Book of Mormon is not a historical record of the Nephites and Jaredites, would you consider LDS
leaders as deceitful teachers or spiritually blinded by the devil?

Jim

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

If the Book of Mormon is not a historical record of the Nephites and Jaredites, would you consider LDS
leaders as deceitful teachers or spiritually blinded by the devil?

Jim

Absolutely. 

[wenglund]

If interested: 

 

Here is the text version with references: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending-mountain-lord-temple-praise-and-worship-old-testament/tree-knowledge-veil

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-