Results of the Flood

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The purpose of the Book of Mormon means nothing if it isn't a true historical account.

Is something true - if necessary elements are left out?  There is a difference between a historical account and an account in history.  The Book of Mormon is a witness of Christ that took place in history - it is not intended to be a historical account and you insistence makes me wonder if you are trying to discourage a witness of Christ by making it nothing more than a historical account - no different than any other account of history and nothing else.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The problem is that you do not know what constitutes history - Mormon explicitly tells us that the History of the Nephite people was kept in other records.  This is not their history records.  You are obviously stuck in the notion that if something is not history it is fiction.  You also seem to be confused with the notion that any history record made is without errors or mistakes.  Your argument is a straw man that has little to do with historical accuracy or divine revelation from G-d.  For example just because Jesus was not a shepherd does not mean that the New Testament teachings are of no worth and there is no point sticking around notions that Jesus was the Christ.  Such arguments are absurd and mislead those that are confused.

 

The Traveler

Maybe you miss the point Im making. Let me relate it a different way. Take the handcart companies such as the Willie and Martin companies- in LDS teachings they are valid to us because they were real historical events. They are of great worth to us because they really happened.  If they were just made up they wouldnt hold much weight and certainly for the early saints a lot of their faith came because of real historical events and trials. The Book of Mormon is written first and foremost for the convincing of tge Lamanite descendants to turn back to God. Its has validity only in its ability to convince tgem that it is a true history.

Take WW2 for another example- freeedom and the sustaining of freedom from tyranny come from the belief that the events of WW2 really happened, that the Holocaust was real. We dont continue in striving to preserve freedom without the knowledge of real historic catastrophes and its effect upon us. We dont look to Star Wars as the means of preserving freedon. Why? Because it caries no real weight being a work of fiction. This is why real history matters and also why the Book of Mormon is powerful- it contains the actual historical record of a destroyed people.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Is something true - if necessary elements are left out?  There is a difference between a historical account and an account in history.  The Book of Mormon is a witness of Christ that took place in history - it is not intended to be a historical account and you insistence makes me wonder if you are trying to discourage a witness of Christ by making it nothing more than a historical account - no different than any other account of history and nothing else.

 

The Traveler

It is valid as a witness of Christ only on the basis in the belief that it really happened as written in the past. Otherwise, its just fake and holds no weight.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks Wade.   

i guess i took from your post that you were saying that religion (any sect) is a means to the end.  And that concept is, at least in my opinion, the arch-enemy of any organized sect - because it calls into question the importance of the differences they use as reasons why everyone needs to redirect their money, effort, and time, towards that particular organization.

But i think i must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

By "a means to the end" I was referring specifically to the Book of Mormon as only one of many parts that make up the whole that is the restored gospel of Christ, as authoritatively provided by TCOJCOLDS--not unlike the different parts that make up the body, as analogized by Paul in 1Cor. 12.

However, this comment was stated in the context of acknowledging the marketplace of ideas, where there is admittedly a broad spectrum of "means" to various "ends," or "objectives," religious and otherwise, by organized and non-organized alike.

This acknowledgement speaks to what is offered in the marketplace, and not necessarily what may optimally work or is ordained of God. I leave the latter open to testing and selection by each individual using the methods they deem best.

My intended point was that all parties are served best when, instead of engaging in verbal rock fights to carry the day, peacefully offer our respective wares to those meandering through the ideational mall. 

This point came on the heals of making another point, that is: the kind of analysis employed ought logically to match the purpose and nature of the thing being tested.  Intellectual things ought to be tested intellectually, whereas products and services ought to be tested through use.   A philosophical thesis paper ought to be tested differently than an automobile  for sale. A history book should rightly be tested using proven modes of  historical analysis, whereas the gospel of Christ (including its standard works) should be tested by implementing it in our lives (Alma 32)

In other words, while the Book of Mormon has historical elements to it, its intent is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. As such, it ought to be analyzed in terms of whether it meets its objective, rather than whether it survives the rigors of historiography.

Does this make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

 

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I will just state that the whole credibility of the teachings of the Book of Mormon stand or fall on if the book is an actual history or work of fiction. If it was fiction then the teachings are of no worth, our religion is of no worth and there would be no point in sticking around.

Logically, this would mean that, at a bear minimum, if the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot as yet be adequately ascertained, it is devoid of credibility.

Since the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot adequately be ascertained through established historiographic means,  then you are logically ascerting that the Book of Mormon is devoid of credibility.

Your assertion, regardless of how well intended, also flies in the face of other authoritative means for establishing credibility, including two contained in the very book, itself--i.e. Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

Quote

The purpose of the Book of Mormon means nothing if it isn't a true historical account.

The same logic applies. Whether intended or not, you are here asserting that the Book of Mormon is meaningless until it can be demonstrated that it is a true historical account. Yikes!

As loath as you may be to adjusting your oft hyper-rigid positions we all may be better served by you walking these emphatic and extreme assertions way way back--though I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 4, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Logically, this would mean that, at a bear minimum, if the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot as yet be adequately ascertained, it is devoid of credibility.

Since the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot adequately be ascertained through established historiographic means,  then you are logically ascerting that the Book of Mormon is devoid of credibility.

Your assertion, regardless of how well intended, also flies in the face of other authoritative means for establishing credibility, including two contained in the very book, itself--i.e. Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

The same logic applies. Whether intended or not, you are here asserting that the Book of Mormon is meaningless until it can be demonstrated that it is a true historical account. Yikes!

As loath as you may be to adjusting your oft hyper-rigid positions we all may be better served by you walking these emphatic and extreme assertions way way back--though I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nonsense. It's in the belief that we hold it to be true, not that it must first be proven to be true. That's like saying Christ's miracles must be proven true before Christ is believable. 

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Nonsense. It's in the belief that we hold it to be true, not that it must first be proven to be true. That's like saying Christ's miracles must be proven true before Christ is believable. 

 I will take this clarification as a roundabout way of walking your previous statement way back. Much appreciated.

So, what you actually meant to say was, unless one believes, sans proof, that the Book of Mormon is actual history,  it and our religion have no credibility, are of no worth, and meaningless. Correct?

While that may be how you view things, there are not a few members who believe otherwise. They either are agnostic about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or they consider it a divinely inspired work of fiction, which yet gives them each cause to have strong faith in our religion, or at the very least it doesn't diminish their faith in our religion.

Even still, I wonder if your view of the Book of Mormon holds consistent with other books in our canon, or even portions of those books. For example, would you say that unless the parables of Christ, themselves, were believed to be actual history, they would have no credibility, no worth, and no meaningfulness?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinwater]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

By "a means to the end" I was referring specifically to the Book of Mormon as only one of many parts that make up the whole that is the restored gospel of Christ, as authoritatively provided by TCOJCOLDS--not unlike the different parts that make up the body, as analogized by Paul in 1Cor. 12.

 However, this comment was stated in the context of acknowledging the marketplace of ideas, where there is admittedly a broad spectrum of "means" to various "ends," or "objectives," religious and otherwise, by organized and non-organized alike.

 This acknowledgement speaks to what is offered in the marketplace, and not necessarily what may optimally work or is ordained of God. I leave the latter open to testing and selection by each individual using the methods they deem best.

 My intended point was that all parties are served best when, instead of engaging in verbal rock fights to carry the day, peacefully offer our respective wares to those meandering through the ideational mall. 

 This point came on the heals of making another point, that is: the kind of analysis employed ought logically to match the purpose and nature of the thing being tested.  Intellectual things ought to be tested intellectually, whereas products and services ought to be tested through use.   A philosophical thesis paper ought to be tested differently than an automobile  for sale. A history book should rightly be tested using proven modes of  historical analysis, whereas the gospel of Christ (including its standard works) should be tested by implementing it in our lives (Alma 32)

In other words, while the Book of Mormon has historical elements to it, its intent is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. As such, it ought to be analyzed in terms of whether it meets its objective, rather than whether it survives the rigors of historiography.

 Does this make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Thanks Wade.

Yes, unfortunately, i understand (but respect) what you meant to convey now.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

 I will take this clarification as a roundabout way of walking your previous statement way back. Much appreciated.

So, what you actually meant to say was, unless one believes, sans proof, that the Book of Mormon is actual history,  it and our religion have no credibility, are of no worth, and meaningless. Correct?

While that may be how you view things, there are not a few members who believe otherwise. They either are agnostic about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or they consider it a divinely inspired work of fiction, which yet gives them each cause to have strong faith in our religion, or at the very least it doesn't diminish their faith in our religion.

Even still, I wonder if your view of the Book of Mormon holds consistent with other books in our canon, or even portions of those books. For example, would you say that unless the parables of Christ, themselves, were believed to be actual history, they would have no credibility, no worth, and no meaningfulness?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A person who believes the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction can't possibly have strong faith in our religion. When pressed their weak testimony, if they have one at all, will fail.

Our entire religions validity stands or falls on whether the Book of Mormon is a true account or is a fictional story. There is no such thing as "inspirational" if the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be. Our church is strong in the belief though it is true. We have great faith that it is true. It's the very same faith that we believe in the actual Jesus Christ and his resurrection, his mighty miracles, and promises and good works. We don't believe Jesus Christ is inspired fiction and neither do we believe the story of the Book of Mormon, of which Jesus Christ makes an appearance in, to be inspired fiction either.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

A person who believes the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction can't possibly have strong faith in our religion. When pressed their weak testimony, if they have one at all, will fail.

Our entire religions validity stands or falls on whether the Book of Mormon is a true account or is a fictional story. There is no such thing as "inspirational" if the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be. Our church is strong in the belief though it is true. We have great faith that it is true. It's the very same faith that we believe in the actual Jesus Christ and his resurrection, his mighty miracles, and promises and good works. We don't believe Jesus Christ is inspired fiction and neither do we believe the story of the Book of Mormon, of which Jesus Christ makes an appearance in, to be inspired fiction either.

I disagree - and we have gone around this several times.  There are terms used and misused.  For example - a true account or a historical account - they are not of necessity the same thing.  A historical account is an opinion and not necessarily what is true.  Hugh Nibley once announced that a fact is a truth altered by opinion.  It is not that important that anyone realizes that there was or was not a Nephite civilization in North America or perhaps Central America or again perhaps in South America.  The real question is - did the Book of Mormon come forth in our time and our generation by the intervention and power of G-d.

I actually agree with you that Nephi did exist as an individual and that his father was a man named Lehi.  What I disagree is that this notion is - as you say - the basis of our religion - what I have said before and I say again, is Nephi and if he was a real person in history is not what is important.  I do not doubt for one second that Satan can use history as well as anything else to mislead.   What is critical is not a testimony of Nephi or anyone else in the Book of Mormon being an actual person as much as - what is critical and what is important - is a belief and testimony in Jesus Christ.  All else pales - if one does not believe in Jesus Christ and that the Book of Mormon came forth by the power of G-d to testify of Christ - they do not understand the Book of Mormon.  Reference to anything else is a distraction and not as important - even if it is true and historic - it is not what the Book of Mormon is about or what any Saint need to be concerned about or prove to anyone.

We see all kinds of historical claims from historical origins concerning Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that are false - It simply is not wise to build your eternal home on the shifting sands of history and the many varied accounts and opinions of history.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I disagree - and we have gone around this several times.  There are terms used and misused.  For example - a true account or a historical account - they are not of necessity the same thing.  A historical account is an opinion and not necessarily what is true.  Hugh Nibley once announced that a fact is a truth altered by opinion.  It is not that important that anyone realizes that there was or was not a Nephite civilization in North America or perhaps Central America or again perhaps in South America.  The real question is - did the Book of Mormon come forth in our time and our generation by the intervention and power of G-d.

I actually agree with you that Nephi did exist as an individual and that his father was a man named Lehi.  What I disagree is that this notion is - as you say - the basis of our religion - what I have said before and I say again, is Nephi and if he was a real person in history is not what is important.  I do not doubt for one second that Satan can use history as well as anything else to mislead.   What is critical is not a testimony of Nephi or anyone else in the Book of Mormon being an actual person as much as - what is critical and what is important - is a belief and testimony in Jesus Christ.  All else pales - if one does not believe in Jesus Christ and that the Book of Mormon came forth by the power of G-d to testify of Christ - they do not understand the Book of Mormon.  Reference to anything else is a distraction and not as important - even if it is true and historic - it is not what the Book of Mormon is about or what any Saint need to be concerned about or prove to anyone.

We see all kinds of historical claims from historical origins concerning Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that are false - It simply is not wise to build your eternal home on the shifting sands of history and the many varied accounts and opinions of history.

 

The Traveler

If the Book of Mormon is false or turned out to be false I would walk away from it in a heartbeat! And so should every other LDS. The Book of Mormon can only be valid if it is truly a record of real fallen nations over thousands of years span. Paramount to the story of tge Book of Mormon is the appearance of Jesus Christ. If a person believes the book to be inspired fiction so too must they believe Christ is also inspired fiction.

Whereas many lean upon secularist history to look for evidences I do not. I do not put my faith in the arm of man. I have my own evidences of the Book of Mormon and it matters not what secularism says about my evidences I believe in. 

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If the Book of Mormon is false or turned out to be false I would walk away from it in a heartbeat! And so should every other LDS. The Book of Mormon can only be valid if it is truly a record of real fallen nations over thousands of years span. Paramount to the story of tge Book of Mormon is the appearance of Jesus Christ. If a person believes the book to be inspired fiction so too must they believe Christ is also inspired fiction.

Whereas many lean upon secularist history to look for evidences I do not. I do not put my faith in the arm of man. I have my own evidences of the Book of Mormon and it matters not what secularism says about my evidences I believe in. 

In principle, I agree with this. In practice, if my son or daughter were having doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I believe I would want them to persevere and remain in the fold of the kingdom of God, anyway. Of course, I am comparing the idea that the Book of Mormon is truly false with the idea that someone loses belief in it, so I realize that's a bit of an apples-to-Buicks comparison.

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

In principle, I agree with this. In practice, if my son or daughter were having doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I believe I would want them to persevere and remain in the fold of the kingdom of God, anyway. Of course, I am comparing the idea that the Book of Mormon is truly false with the idea that someone loses belief in it, so I realize that's a bit of an apples-to-Buicks comparison.

Having doubts and believing it is false are two separate things. Its impossible to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon if one thinks its inspired fiction.

[Traveler]

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If the Book of Mormon is false or turned out to be false I would walk away from it in a heartbeat! And so should every other LDS. The Book of Mormon can only be valid if it is truly a record of real fallen nations over thousands of years span. Paramount to the story of tge Book of Mormon is the appearance of Jesus Christ. If a person believes the book to be inspired fiction so too must they believe Christ is also inspired fiction.

Whereas many lean upon secularist history to look for evidences I do not. I do not put my faith in the arm of man. I have my own evidences of the Book of Mormon and it matters not what secularism says about my evidences I believe in. 

Your logic is missing on a few if not many cylinders.   There are many fictitious (false) accounts of Christ - in many "historical" records (Satan has falsely claimed to be the Christ, the Son of G-d) - none of the false claims have anything at all to do with the divinity, mission and atonement of Jesus.  Lies told of any truth do not make that truth false.

Nephi uses a ancient Egyptian literary form to prove he was a historical character - But I would wager you have no idea what I am referencing.   But then a historical character named Mark Hoffman did similar things and we have yet to discover all the false impressions he may have created.  Giving something a historical title does not mean it cannot be counterfeit.

I do not fault your personal witness - what I fault is your use of terms for which you have your own (secret?) meaning - that few grasp as a adequate understanding of science and what those terms mean in scientific terms.  

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

I posted this on another thread at one point.  The movie is pretty terrible (from a moral point of view) but I DO love this quote.  It is perhaps the greatest accomplishment that this series of movies has come out with!!!

You could also apply that same logic

If you are after FACTS/EVIDENCE (as the world puts it...turn to modern scholarship in science [or history with me..if you attend the educational institute I'm with] and other worldly things) but if you want TRUTH, and desire to find the truth...turn to religion.

Edited September 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Your logic is missing on a few if not many cylinders.   There are many fictitious (false) accounts of Christ - in many "historical" records (Satan has falsely claimed to be the Christ, the Son of G-d) - none of the false claims have anything at all to do with the divinity, mission and atonement of Jesus.  Lies told of any truth do not make that truth false.

Nephi uses a ancient Egyptian literary form to prove he was a historical character - But I would wager you have no idea what I am referencing.   But then a historical character named Mark Hoffman did similar things and we have yet to discover all the false impressions he may have created.  Giving something a historical title does not mean it cannot be counterfeit.

I do not fault your personal witness - what I fault is your use of terms for which you have your own (secret?) meaning - that few grasp as a adequate understanding of science and what those terms mean in scientific terms.  

 

The Traveler

We believe in Christ because he is real. We believe in the Book of Mormon because it too is real- it really happened. Its that simple. Thats what LDS believe.

It doesnt matter what science says in regards to Book of Mormon evidences, I do not believe the secular opinions of man.

[Rob Osborn]

47 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I posted this on another thread at one point.  The movie is pretty terrible (from a moral point of view) but I DO love this quote.  It is perhaps the greatest accomplishment that this series of movies has come out with!!!

You could also apply that same logic

If you are after FACTS/EVIDENCE (as the world puts it...turn to modern scholarship in science [or history with me..if you attend the educational institute I'm with] and other worldly things) but if you want TRUTH, and desire to find the truth...turn to religion.

Funny how the intitutions of secularism has created the need to redefine "facts" because they have lied so much about it. Its like admitting that their "facts" are in fact lies. Funny stuff indeed! By true definition, "facts" are truths. Only in science "facts" arent true. Silly indeed.

[wenglund]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

A person who believes the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction can't possibly have strong faith in our religion. When pressed their weak testimony, if they have one at all, will fail.

Our entire religions validity stands or falls on whether the Book of Mormon is a true account or is a fictional story. There is no such thing as "inspirational" if the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be. Our church is strong in the belief though it is true. We have great faith that it is true. It's the very same faith that we believe in the actual Jesus Christ and his resurrection, his mighty miracles, and promises and good works. We don't believe Jesus Christ is inspired fiction and neither do we believe the story of the Book of Mormon, of which Jesus Christ makes an appearance in, to be inspired fiction either.

Nice dodge

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[askandanswer]

On 9/5/2018 at 3:38 PM, lostinwater said:

Thanks Wade.

Yes, unfortunately, i understand (but respect) what you meant to convey now.

Lost in water is participating in a discussion on the results of the flood.  hmmmm. 

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

Nice dodge

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You selling?

[lostinwater]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Lost in water is participating in a discussion on the results of the flood.  hmmmm. 

My horse could swim at the time (you know - evolution, and all that).

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We believe in Christ because he is real. We believe in the Book of Mormon because it too is real- it really happened. Its that simple. Thats what LDS believe.

It doesnt matter what science says in regards to Book of Mormon evidences, I do not believe the secular opinions of man.

This remind me of a discussion I had some time ago with a person claiming to believe in Jesus.  They were adamant that they knew all that should be know about Jesus and  claimed to have a "personal" relationship with Christ.  That they knew him as a personal friend.  So I asked them - what color was Jesus' eyes?  and how tall is he?  In truth my discussion friend did not know but then claimed that such "things" were not necessary.  Perhaps, however, sometimes like politicians we like to use "talking points" without much idea of what the talking points mean or imply.  

Satan and his fallen angles know Christ is real - they also know the Book of Mormon is real - that it all really happened but it does them no "Good".  Knowing the really of such things is not that simple as you imply.  I am suggesting the possibility that there is something much more important.   I am astonished you will not even consider or inquire such.  And on another note - if science says something - anything that is true - you do yourself a great disservice - thinking that such truth does not matter but more than that - you leave the impression with others when you make such statements as you have, that you really are not interested in truth.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You selling?

Let's just say I am not buying. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

[theplains]

On 9/3/2018 at 2:10 PM, Traveler said:

False history?  What are you talking about? 

Before we start with all your other questions, you still did not answer if you believe all the Book of Mormon is a
history of actual events.  If all of it is not true history , what do you believe are false historical accounts therein?

Jim

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

Before we start with all your other questions, you still did not answer if you believe all the Book of Mormon is a
history of actual events.  If all of it is not true history , what do you believe are false historical accounts therein?

Jim

Let my try and be as clear as possible.  The Book of Mormon has some but very little of history or actual events recorded preciously as they happened for the purpose of documenting traceable history.  I believe it is possible to color the actual events and to present them with a divinely prophetic bias and manner to be a type and shadow of things to come more than an accurate history of the past.  I believe every commentary has a bias - the bias in the Book of Mormon is a divine bias of events to make understanding for future generations of things in their time.  If you want to twist that bias into a false narrative of history - It is my opinion that your bias is clouding you from being able to see and understand far greater truths.   In short you seem to be to be so concerned about the possible detail of certain trees that your are not comprehending that there is a forest. 

 

The Traveler