Results of the Flood

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Let's just say I am not buying. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Looks like we are in the same boat then.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

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

The importance of the message of the Book of Mormon is only important based on the belief the story itself is real and part of ancient history.

I love truth. I love science, when of course, it's applied correctly without the bias of man. That's where it ends though. I am not going to believe the science of ancient American history as is recognized by scholars going back several thousand years. Their opinions are not science but mere conjecture.

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The importance of the message of the Book of Mormon is only important based on the belief the story itself is real and part of ancient history.

Do you believe that Satan knows the story itself is real and part of ancient history?  If so, why do you think that knowledge makes an importance difference?

Quote

I love truth. I love science, when of course, it's applied correctly without the bias of man. That's where it ends though. I am not going to believe the science of ancient American history as is recognized by scholars going back several thousand years. Their opinions are not science but mere conjecture.

Do you believe that Jesus taught truth?  How about what is called the golden rule.  Why should anyone esteem your opinion or consider your bias when up front you already indicate that you will have nothing to do with their opinion or bias.  I believe Jesus clearly taught that we should never expect anyone to treat us with respect when we will not respect them or consider it possible.  I can understand an answer in kind but I have a problem with writing off the opinion of others because it does not suit our biased narrative.   

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Do you believe that Satan knows the story itself is real and part of ancient history?  If so, why do you think that knowledge makes an importance difference?

Do you believe that Jesus taught truth?  How about what is called the golden rule.  Why should anyone esteem your opinion or consider your bias when up front you already indicate that you will have nothing to do with their opinion or bias.  I believe Jesus clearly taught that we should never expect anyone to treat us with respect when we will not respect them or consider it possible.  I can understand an answer in kind but I have a problem with writing off the opinion of others because it does not suit our biased narrative.   

 

The Traveler

Of course Satan knows the Book of Mormon is real. His number one goal is to get people to disbelieve the account is real. If he does that then its easy to get people to discount the message. 

I discount others opinions and ideas when it conflicts with my beliefs. Doesnt everyone do that?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Looks like we are in the same boat then.

You could be right:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You could be right:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Kind of ironic that whenever I have discussions with you that you resort to condescending sidetracks. The above picture is basically a depiction of where you take all meaningful discussion.

[wenglund]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Kind of ironic that whenever I have discussions with you that you resort to condescending sidetracks. The above picture is basically a depiction of where you take all meaningful discussion.

You were the one who said we were in the same boat. Ironic, indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You were the one who said we were in the same boat. Ironic, indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I salute you on your high horse.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I salute you on your high horse.

You are too kind, Sancho

Thanks, -Wade Englund-, 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Of course Satan knows the Book of Mormon is real. His number one goal is to get people to disbelieve the account is real. If he does that then its easy to get people to discount the message. 

I do not believe Satan's #1 goal is to convince people that the Book of Mormon account is not real.  I am quite sure that there are several goals much more important to him - for example I believe the goal of preventing the agency of man is much more important to him.  From our past discussions - I thought this principle of agency would be held in greater esteem.  In addition, I am also quit sure that it is not that big of a deal to him if people believe the references to the Nephites have historical accuracy - As I have stated, I believe he would build on that idea to his advantage and tempt such thinking to be the end goal of their testimony or that it is the single most thing to believe concerning the Book of Mormon.  I believe he prides himself in convincing believers to never think beyond surface literal interpretation of scripture - and should any question to arise - I think he discourages that anyone consider new ideas (revelation) and most certainly to never ask understanding from G-d - rather try people to rely more on their own understanding and opinion.  I believe that every time someone reads the Book of Mormon that they can be inspired and understand many things beyond the literal history aspect - In fact - I believe this to be so important that I keep trying and exhorting that the Book of Mormon be viewed more for it's symbolic prophetic content than for historical purpose.

Quote

I discount others opinions and ideas when it conflicts with my beliefs. Doesnt everyone do that?

What everyone does will not make it right.  It is something I often fight with myself - so much so that I have come to believe this notion of basic hostility toward conflicting ideas is an element of "the Natural Man" and something we need to guard against rather than to esteem and pride ourselves in.  But there is another dimension to such thinking.  If someone is unwilling to consider ideas that conflict with their beliefs - how can they possibly ever learn anything.  I believe the official terminology for such thinking is a closed minded narcissist.  There is a reason such terminology carries such a bad connotation.  As an engineer - I have learned that pier design reviews are more valuable when there is disagreement - even when the disagreement does not initially seem to have value.  Sometimes just the process of considering a bad idea can make some aspects of the good idea better.  Granted there are obvious views that are not well thought out - but these are best exposed not by the conclusion but the method or process by which the conclusion was drawn -  This is why I am always more interested in how someone came to a conclusion than the conclusion itself.

Thank you for your expressions and questions.

 

The Traveler

[Jersey Boy]

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not believe Satan's #1 goal is to convince people that the Book of Mormon account is not real.  I am quite sure that there are several goals much more important to him - for example I believe the goal of preventing the agency of man is much more important to him.  From our past discussions - I thought this principle of agency would be held in greater esteem.  In addition, I am also quit sure that it is not that big of a deal to him if people believe the references to the Nephites have historical accuracy - As I have stated, I believe he would build on that idea to his advantage and tempt such thinking to be the end goal of their testimony or that it is the single most thing to believe concerning the Book of Mormon.  I believe he prides himself in convincing believers to never think beyond surface literal interpretation of scripture - and should any question to arise - I think he discourages that anyone consider new ideas (revelation) and most certainly to never ask understanding from G-d - rather try people to rely more on their own understanding and opinion.  I believe that every time someone reads the Book of Mormon that they can be inspired and understand many things beyond the literal history aspect - In fact - I believe this to be so important that I keep trying and exhorting that the Book of Mormon be viewed more for it's symbolic prophetic content than for historical purpose.

What everyone does will not make it right.  It is something I often fight with myself - so much so that I have come to believe this notion of basic hostility toward conflicting ideas is an element of "the Natural Man" and something we need to guard against rather than to esteem and pride ourselves in.  But there is another dimension to such thinking.  If someone is unwilling to consider ideas that conflict with their beliefs - how can they possibly ever learn anything.  I believe the official terminology for such thinking is a closed minded narcissist.  There is a reason such terminology carries such a bad connotation.  As an engineer - I have learned that pier design reviews are more valuable when there is disagreement - even when the disagreement does not initially seem to have value.  Sometimes just the process of considering a bad idea can make some aspects of the good idea better.  Granted there are obvious views that are not well thought out - but these are best exposed not by the conclusion but the method or process by which the conclusion was drawn -  This is why I am always more interested in how someone came to a conclusion than the conclusion itself.

Thank you for your expressions and questions.

 

The Traveler

Throughout the years, I’ve often heard leaders of the Church say that the Church’s claims to divine authority and authenticity swim or sink depending on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. and whether or not it came forth in the way its inspired authors and the prophet Joseph Smith say it did. This is what Rob is saying. And in my opinion, there are precious few things the devil would want more than to have the ranks of the Church filled with people who believe that, though interesting and uplifting, the Book of Mormon is in actuality a myth or a fairy tale. When the going gets tough, such people will find it quite easy to desert a Church they believe is based on books of fiction. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not believe Satan's #1 goal is to convince people that the Book of Mormon account is not real.  I am quite sure that there are several goals much more important to him - for example I believe the goal of preventing the agency of man is much more important to him.  From our past discussions - I thought this principle of agency would be held in greater esteem.  In addition, I am also quit sure that it is not that big of a deal to him if people believe the references to the Nephites have historical accuracy - As I have stated, I believe he would build on that idea to his advantage and tempt such thinking to be the end goal of their testimony or that it is the single most thing to believe concerning the Book of Mormon.  I believe he prides himself in convincing believers to never think beyond surface literal interpretation of scripture - and should any question to arise - I think he discourages that anyone consider new ideas (revelation) and most certainly to never ask understanding from G-d - rather try people to rely more on their own understanding and opinion.  I believe that every time someone reads the Book of Mormon that they can be inspired and understand many things beyond the literal history aspect - In fact - I believe this to be so important that I keep trying and exhorting that the Book of Mormon be viewed more for it's symbolic prophetic content than for historical purpose.

What everyone does will not make it right.  It is something I often fight with myself - so much so that I have come to believe this notion of basic hostility toward conflicting ideas is an element of "the Natural Man" and something we need to guard against rather than to esteem and pride ourselves in.  But there is another dimension to such thinking.  If someone is unwilling to consider ideas that conflict with their beliefs - how can they possibly ever learn anything.  I believe the official terminology for such thinking is a closed minded narcissist.  There is a reason such terminology carries such a bad connotation.  As an engineer - I have learned that pier design reviews are more valuable when there is disagreement - even when the disagreement does not initially seem to have value.  Sometimes just the process of considering a bad idea can make some aspects of the good idea better.  Granted there are obvious views that are not well thought out - but these are best exposed not by the conclusion but the method or process by which the conclusion was drawn -  This is why I am always more interested in how someone came to a conclusion than the conclusion itself.

Thank you for your expressions and questions.

 

The Traveler

I should clarify in stating its Satans number one goal with the Book of Mormon to convince people its not a real history, Joseph Smith made it up, its inspired fiction, etc. He knows the message within is powerful but he also knows that the message itself is so powerful because it tells the story of real events. My analogy before to the pioneer handcart companies and WW2 is to show that powerful stories and messages are born and persevere when they are based on actual events and not fiction. The international laws we have in place to ensure peace are because of real historical events not what took place in Star Wars movies. Thus, the stories in the Book of Mormon have weight and meaning because its based off the belief that the events were real and not mere fables.

When I look into something I look at all sides and come to my own conclusions that best match the evidence. For instance- when I look at evidence in the Grand Canyon, and have looked at all sides and arguments it makes the most logical sense that the deposits now exposed were laid relatively fast in a catastrophic environment. Its not something I really care to debate anymore because there isnt any real evidence to state otherwise than the obvious. So why dwell on something listening to endless commentary that uses the same story everytime? So too it is with the Book of Mormon- while LDS scholars endlessly debate a meso-american model for the BoM I have gone on to look at all the evidence in a much larger area, vastly larger, and make my own conclusions. You cant dismiss truth when it blatantly stares you in the face, once you find it.

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Throughout the years, I’ve often heard leaders of the Church say that the Church’s claims to divine authority and authenticity swim or sink depending on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. and whether or not it came forth in the way its inspired authors and the prophet Joseph Smith say it did. This is what Rob is saying. And in my opinion, there are precious few things the devil would want more than to have the ranks of the Church filled with people who believe that, though interesting and uplifting, the Book of Mormon is in actuality a myth or a fairy tale. When the going gets tough, such people will find it quite easy to desert a Church they believe is based on books of fiction. 

 

Thank you for responding and providing your words.   I do agree that every book in the Book of Mormon was written or abridged specifically by an ancient prophet of G-d.  I do agree that the landscapes of civilization of both the Nephites and Jaredites existed; as well as the Mulekites.  I agree it is important for one to believe that they all were real peoples that did exist.  I agree their "history" is interesting - But what I do not agree with is that what little we have of the literal history of these peoples is of such great importance that any reference to metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" are to be criticized and called fantasies and fables and the road to apostasy.  My witness is that what we can and should learn spiritually, from the metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" is perhaps even infinitely more important - especially to our eternal salvation, than any literal history we may discover. 

 

The Traveler

I thought I would add something else - There is an important reference in the Book of Mormon to a tree called the Tree of Life.  Interestingly this is the exact same title given to a tree spoken of in the scripture Eden epoch.  If one is to study the detailed and scholastic history of the Arabian peninsula they will discovered that there is a literal tree called "The Tree of Life".  They will also discover an amazing similarity of the literal Tree of Life to the Tree of Life spoken of my Lehi and Nephi - right down to the sweet white fruit.  I have never heard any prophet of G-d recognize that we must connect to the literal tree before we can appreciate the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Thank you for responding and providing your words.   I do agree that every book in the Book of Mormon was written or abridged specifically by an ancient prophet of G-d.  I do agree that the landscapes of civilization of both the Nephites and Jaredites existed; as well as the Mulekites.  I agree it is important for one to believe that they all were real peoples that did exist.  I agree their "history" is interesting - But what I do not agree with is that what little we have of the literal history of these peoples is of such great importance that any reference to metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" are to be criticized and called fantasies and fables and the road to apostasy.  My witness is that what we can and should learn spiritually, from the metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" is perhaps even infinitely more important - especially to our eternal salvation, than any literal history we may discover. 

 

The Traveler

 

The value indeed is the message of the Book of Mormon. Without the history and literalness of the people and culture though it loses all it's context and isn't of much worth. The Book of Mormon is written in such a manner that the content is powerful based upon their culture and history of a real people and real events. Without the history the Book of Mormon loses it's power.

[Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The value indeed is the message of the Book of Mormon. Without the history and literalness of the people and culture though it loses all it's context and isn't of much worth. The Book of Mormon is written in such a manner that the content is powerful based upon their culture and history of a real people and real events. Without the history the Book of Mormon loses it's power.

My friend - I do not understand why you insist on bringing up a point that is not  in any contention.  So I wonder - how much to you respect the metaphors, symbolism and the "types and shadows" in scripture?  How do you feel about the parables of Christ - must they have a literal historical connection before they have value?  Do you agree that understanding metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" is at least as important is the literal history?  

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

My friend - I do not understand why you insist on bringing up a point that is not  in any contention.  So I wonder - how much to you respect the metaphors, symbolism and the "types and shadows" in scripture?  How do you feel about the parables of Christ - must they have a literal historical connection before they have value?  Do you agree that understanding metaphors, symbolism and "types and shadows" is at least as important is the literal history?  

 

The Traveler

The messages and stories of Christ have value only because of his actual ministry as part of the historical past.

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The messages and stories of Christ have value only because of his actual ministry as part of the historical past.

You do realize that every story every fantasy every myth and every legend was created by someone that actually existed in the historical past.  And this also goes for every lie, deception, apostasy and sin.  Come - do you actually believe the ONLY reason anything has value is because someone thunked it up?  The Doctrine & Covenants tells us that "Truth is independent".  What is good, right, honest, true and correct is independent of time and place.  Likewise so is evil - I do not believe for a minute that the difference between truth and a lie is only because someone that actually lived said it?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

You do realize that every story every fantasy every myth and every legend was created by someone that actually existed in the historical past.  And this also goes for every lie, deception, apostasy and sin.  Come - do you actually believe the ONLY reason anything has value is because someone thunked it up?  The Doctrine & Covenants tells us that "Truth is independent".  What is good, right, honest, true and correct is independent of time and place.  Likewise so is evil - I do not believe for a minute that the difference between truth and a lie is only because someone that actually lived said it?

 

The Traveler

Aye. Could you imagine if the Book of Mormon was inspired fiction? The great Nephi was just a myth, a legend and fantasy? Yeah, if that was the case I would walk away in a second and throw the Book of Mormon in the trash. Instead I treasure the book because I believe it is real, the stories are accurate.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. Could you imagine if the Book of Mormon was inspired fiction? The great Nephi was just a myth, a legend and fantasy? Yeah, if that was the case I would walk away in a second and throw the Book of Mormon in the trash. Instead I treasure the book because I believe it is real, the stories are accurate.

For the record - I am a student of history.  I also appreciate  symbolism and metaphor.  I am not hate full no do I disrespect  classical legend and classical fantasy - rather I search for nuggets of truth and love wherever they can be found.  Very often there are layers of symbolism and metaphor within symbolism and metaphor.  Even as your read my test there is symbolism and metaphor as individual characters symbolize sounds which form words that symbolize thoughts.  Language itself is symbolic and metaphoric.   In reality our eyes sense wavelengths of light then transmit symbolic and metaphoric impulses to our brain that attempts to interpret the information and create colors and images that fit our own symbolic and metaphoric paradigm.  You cannot think, speak or navigate from your bed to the bathroom each morning without depending on the use of symbolism and metaphor.  And yet throughout all of our discussions - I am concerned that you do not understand the relationship of metaphor and symbolism to reality and any individual trying to makes sense reality and what they think is real.

Last year I visited Israel.  I discovered that the paradigm I created for Jesus was flawed - as is most everyone's.  As I stood on a hill overlooking the little village of Nazareth I realized this could not be a place for a carpenter skilled in the ancient form or woodwork to make any living.  For miles the rocky terrain is not conducive  to producing wood suitable for anything other than trinkets and firewood.  There would not be supply and demand in Nazareth for a carpenter working wood products.  The notion that Jesus worked in the profession of wood as a carpenter is myth, legend and pure made up fantasy.   I get the impression that such information is devastating and unacceptable to you.  That if anything in the classical paradigm is not accurate - then nothing is valid and usable in constructing "truth".  And so - because of a misunderstanding you reject nuggets of truth leaving me to wonder what it is that you believe and what you do not believe.

I will ask some questions in an attempt to understand.  I hope you do not take offence and answer the questions as simply and directly are your are capable.  Thank you

1. Do you think that symbolism and metaphor is synonymous with legend, myth and fantasy?

2. Do you believe that without exception - myth, legend and fantasy are lies to the very core intended to deceive and distract from any possible reference to truth.

3. Do you believe a parable to be a truth or a lie.

4. If you were told that the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a dove - would you think that is a metaphor or do you think that what appeared is indistinguishable from a bird of a particular species?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

For the record - I am a student of history.  I also appreciate  symbolism and metaphor.  I am not hate full no do I disrespect  classical legend and classical fantasy - rather I search for nuggets of truth and love wherever they can be found.  Very often there are layers of symbolism and metaphor within symbolism and metaphor.  Even as your read my test there is symbolism and metaphor as individual characters symbolize sounds which form words that symbolize thoughts.  Language itself is symbolic and metaphoric.   In reality our eyes sense wavelengths of light then transmit symbolic and metaphoric impulses to our brain that attempts to interpret the information and create colors and images that fit our own symbolic and metaphoric paradigm.  You cannot think, speak or navigate from your bed to the bathroom each morning without depending on the use of symbolism and metaphor.  And yet throughout all of our discussions - I am concerned that you do not understand the relationship of metaphor and symbolism to reality and any individual trying to makes sense reality and what they think is real.

Last year I visited Israel.  I discovered that the paradigm I created for Jesus was flawed - as is most everyone's.  As I stood on a hill overlooking the little village of Nazareth I realized this could not be a place for a carpenter skilled in the ancient form or woodwork to make any living.  For miles the rocky terrain is not conducive  to producing wood suitable for anything other than trinkets and firewood.  There would not be supply and demand in Nazareth for a carpenter working wood products.  The notion that Jesus worked in the profession of wood as a carpenter is myth, legend and pure made up fantasy.   I get the impression that such information is devastating and unacceptable to you.  That if anything in the classical paradigm is not accurate - then nothing is valid and usable in constructing "truth".  And so - because of a misunderstanding you reject nuggets of truth leaving me to wonder what it is that you believe and what you do not believe.

I will ask some questions in an attempt to understand.  I hope you do not take offence and answer the questions as simply and directly are your are capable.  Thank you

1. Do you think that symbolism and metaphor is synonymous with legend, myth and fantasy?

2. Do you believe that without exception - myth, legend and fantasy are lies to the very core intended to deceive and distract from any possible reference to truth.

3. Do you believe a parable to be a truth or a lie.

4. If you were told that the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a dove - would you think that is a metaphor or do you think that what appeared is indistinguishable from a bird of a particular species?

 

The Traveler

I think sometimes we get too caught up in symbolism and metaphor and try to make simple things complex and mysterious. God is not a God of mystery neither does he glory in mysteriousness. Nevertheless God does use symbolism and metaphors for us to more easily understand things. I am not concerned with any of those things in this discussion- it doesn't really apply. What I am concerned with is getting the point across that the characters and events spoken of in scripture are real. Lehi was real. He really left Jerusalem with his family under the circumstances Nephi described. It's so important to the validity of the Book of Mormon that those events and all other like it really happened. Forget the symbolism or metaphors here, that isn't the message that God wants conveyed when discussing the literal historical events. It's missing the mark completely. Parables are different and we know that they aren't literal history but a story to help us learn or relate- to make us ponder and look at things differently.

I will answer your questions-

#1. Symbolism and metaphors are to help us think deeper and learn. They can be applied to anything. Myths and legends are associated with fictional stories. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

#2. There's a definite difference between myths, legends, and literal history. I shouldn't have to explain more unless we want to philosophize semantics.

#3. A parable is a fictional story that relates to real life that helps us understand a viewpoint or principle. History, or real events aren't parables.

#4. The Holy Ghost appearing in the form of a dove isn't a metaphor for something else or foreign to the story. The visual part is an actual dove.

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think sometimes we get too caught up in symbolism and metaphor and try to make simple things complex and mysterious. God is not a God of mystery neither does he glory in mysteriousness. Nevertheless God does use symbolism and metaphors for us to more easily understand things. I am not concerned with any of those things in this discussion- it doesn't really apply. What I am concerned with is getting the point across that the characters and events spoken of in scripture are real. Lehi was real. He really left Jerusalem with his family under the circumstances Nephi described. It's so important to the validity of the Book of Mormon that those events and all other like it really happened. Forget the symbolism or metaphors here, that isn't the message that God wants conveyed when discussing the literal historical events. It's missing the mark completely. Parables are different and we know that they aren't literal history but a story to help us learn or relate- to make us ponder and look at things differently.

I will answer your questions-

#1. Symbolism and metaphors are to help us think deeper and learn. They can be applied to anything. Myths and legends are associated with fictional stories. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

#2. There's a definite difference between myths, legends, and literal history. I shouldn't have to explain more unless we want to philosophize semantics.

#3. A parable is a fictional story that relates to real life that helps us understand a viewpoint or principle. History, or real events aren't parables.

#4. The Holy Ghost appearing in the form of a dove isn't a metaphor for something else or foreign to the story. The visual part is an actual dove.

 

I am not sure how to respond because your paradigm is so different than mine - but thank you.  Perhaps one addition question - The Holy Ghost being a spirit entity - you believe to be in the image and likeness of an actual dove and not at all human like?

Sorry I have one additional question that is a little bit of a tangent.  What do you think is the purpose of 12 oxen supporting a baptismal fount in the temple?  Is it because of myth, metaphor or reality?

 

The Traveler

Edited September 10, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I am not sure how to respond because your paradigm is so different than mine - but thank you.  Perhaps one addition question - The Holy Ghost being a spirit entity - you believe to be in the image and likeness of an actual dove and not at all human like?

Sorry I have one additional question that is a little bit of a tangent.  What do you think is the purpose of 12 oxen supporting a baptismal fount in the temple?  Is it because of myth, metaphor or reality?

 

The Traveler

I have my own views on the Holy Ghost. I have never quite understood how the Holy Ghost is a single personage of spirit. Nevertheless, the sign of the dove, which at times in scripture was a literal physical visual, was the sign given of the presence of the Holy Ghost.

The twelve oxen today represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the power of God.

Don't get me wrong, I think we in fact share many of the same views in regards to symbolism, metaphors, etc. Not really sure what this had to do with literal physical historicity of the scriptures???

[Traveler]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have my own views on the Holy Ghost. I have never quite understood how the Holy Ghost is a single personage of spirit. Nevertheless, the sign of the dove, which at times in scripture was a literal physical visual, was the sign given of the presence of the Holy Ghost.

The twelve oxen today represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the power of God.

Don't get me wrong, I think we in fact share many of the same views in regards to symbolism, metaphors, etc. Not really sure what this had to do with literal physical historicity of the scriptures???

I believe there is a difference between a "history" and a prophesy - See Ecc 1:9-10.  I am of the mind that prophesy is given in symbolism and metaphor.  In essence that pearls are not cast before swine (a very symbolic metaphor) as a means to convey knowledge upon covenant Saints from G-d without bringing more than necessary condemnation upon the uninitiated (or un-anointed).   

I am also of the mind that what we know of Moses though what is revealed in scripture is not meant so much to give an accurate historic picture of a man but as a type and shadow (another phrase for symbolic metaphor) of Christ.  I find the gospels in the New Testament to be very poor as a historical document of Jesus.  Why - because Jesus lived for about 33 years and we have no more than (in reality less than) one month of actual history of Christ recorded in scripture - much of which is sporadic.  If we view scripture as an accurate history of Jesus - the only possible conclusion is that as history, scripture is incomplete - flawed by omissions and hardly adequate or accurate account of 33 years of the life of Jesus.   For example, from the literal accounts of scripture we do not know if Jesus was married or if he fathered any children.  What history do we know of any person - if we do not even know if they married and procreated and reared children?

If I were to say - where did Jesus perform a certain miracle?  Few that read scripture would realize that 80% of all his miracles were performed at a small village of less than 2,000 inhabitants (most scholars think about 1500).  In other words if one is taking a Bible test and when asked where (a list of all miracles) took place - if one answered all the questions with Capernaum they would get a "B" on that part of the test.  If one is interested in history I personally would not recommend scripture.

But I do recommend that one study history very carefully to understand specific context of scripture as a possible help in understanding better now to shape the metaphors and symbols with their own life and time.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe there is a difference between a "history" and a prophesy - See Ecc 1:9-10.  I am of the mind that prophesy is given in symbolism and metaphor.  In essence that pearls are not cast before swine (a very symbolic metaphor) as a means to convey knowledge upon covenant Saints from G-d without bringing more than necessary condemnation upon the uninitiated (or un-anointed).   

I am also of the mind that what we know of Moses though what is revealed in scripture is not meant so much to give an accurate historic picture of a man but as a type and shadow (another phrase for symbolic metaphor) of Christ.  I find the gospels in the New Testament to be very poor as a historical document of Jesus.  Why - because Jesus lived for about 33 years and we have no more than (in reality less than) one month of actual history of Christ recorded in scripture - much of which is sporadic.  If we view scripture as an accurate history of Jesus - the only possible conclusion is that as history, scripture is incomplete - flawed by omissions and hardly adequate or accurate account of 33 years of the life of Jesus.   For example, from the literal accounts of scripture we do not know if Jesus was married or if he fathered any children.  What history do we know of any person - if we do not even know if they married and procreated and reared children?

If I were to say - where did Jesus perform a certain miracle?  Few that read scripture would realize that 80% of all his miracles were performed at a small village of less than 2,000 inhabitants (most scholars think about 1500).  In other words if one is taking a Bible test and when asked where (a list of all miracles) took place - if one answered all the questions with Capernaum they would get a "B" on that part of the test.  If one is interested in history I personally would not recommend scripture.

But I do recommend that one study history very carefully to understand specific context of scripture as a possible help in understanding better now to shape the metaphors and symbols with their own life and time.

 

The Traveler

I don't think anyone is stating that the scriptures is "the" history of a people but rather stories within "the" history of a people. In that light, the stories make up parts of the history of a people. The Book of Mormon is unique in that it tells quite a lot about the history of it's people, moreso than other scriptures.

You keep speaking of metaphors and symbolism. That's fine and all, we both agree there is metaphor and symbolism. To try to put my point within your paradigm- the stories and events that took place along with their accompanying symbolism and metaphors have no meaning if they aren't part of the historical literalness of man's journies in this fallen world since the creation.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't think anyone is stating that the scriptures is "the" history of a people but rather stories within "the" history of a people. In that light, the stories make up parts of the history of a people. The Book of Mormon is unique in that it tells quite a lot about the history of it's people, moreso than other scriptures.

You keep speaking of metaphors and symbolism. That's fine and all, we both agree there is metaphor and symbolism. To try to put my point within your paradigm- the stories and events that took place along with their accompanying symbolism and metaphors have no meaning if they aren't part of the historical literalness of man's journies in this fallen world since the creation.

It is not that I completely disagree but there is an element that I do not quite understand - I am trying to drill down and comprehend how you came to the conclusion that "the stories and events that took place along with their accompanying symbolism and metaphors have no meaning if they aren't part of the historical literalness".  If you were to say "diminished meaning" - I could understand but would reserve even then; that and meaning would have to be considered within the context it is used - but more so - the conclusions that are made.  To use another metaphor - that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Even if in the entire literal history of man - no one has ever thrown a baby out with the bathwater.

One of the problem I have with how many view the infallibility of scripture - is that I have studied (as best as I can not being able to read ancient text) to realize that there are problems in understanding scripture.  Let me give an example that is symbolic.  In ancient Hebrew the text is written without spaces between the words so we may see text like "godisnowhere".  There would be two literal ways to represent that text. #1. is "G-d is now here".  The second is "G-d is no where".

One reason that the Book of Mormon is so important is because of the hand of prophets, ordained and specifically called to provide what G-d intended to be preserved in the scripture and not what man would demand in literalness.  And for me this is the process and reason that I come to the conclusion that I have.  Which is that I am much more concerned with what G-d wants me to understand (mostly for me and my place in time and space).  Therefore I look to Christ and not to literal history for understanding.  I would like to say that when I study and then ask - I have always been right.  But I have come to realize that whenever I rely on my own conclusions - I error.  Sometimes I have fallen short even when I thought I was relying on G-d.  I have found that if I learn to listen and consider the input from others - or as Moroni says in chapter 10 the gifts of the spirit given to others - I come to better understanding - which most often causes me to rethink some detail - especially a detail I have not considered before.

 

The Traveler