Results of the Flood

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

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

Like I have always stated, been stating- the stories from the scriptures, their meanings, their importance, etc, mean absolutely nothing-nothing at all, of no worth whatsoever, if they are not based off of literal historical events that really happened.

[Traveler]

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Like I have always stated, been stating- the stories from the scriptures, their meanings, their importance, etc, mean absolutely nothing-nothing at all, of no worth whatsoever, if they are not based off of literal historical events that really happened.

 why?  Why put this limitation or requirement on G-d and what he tells us?  Is there a scripture or commandment or specific doctrine or example that demands or states this?  Why do you think it so?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 why?  Why put this limitation or requirement on G-d and what he tells us?  Is there a scripture or commandment or specific doctrine or example that demands or states this?  Why do you think it so?

 

The Traveler

This isnt a limitation on God. Gods house is a house of order, not one of confusion. Gods house is also a house of literalness not fiction or fairytales. Let me ask you this- what serious religion out there is based off of fiction or ficticious characters? None! Why?

Edited September 10, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

This isnt a limitation on God. Gods house is a house of order, not one of confusion. Gods house is also a house of literalness not fiction or fairytales. Let me ask you this- what serious religion out there is based off of fiction or ficticious characters? None! Why?

But we do know that the order within the house of G-d includes the use of "fictitious" parables that could be classified as fairy tales - like the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the 10 Virgins, the Parable of the Labors of the Vineyard and others.  You specifically make reference to fairy tales - many of which reference actual historical events - like the Black Plague and various famines and droughts in Europe.   Also the myth of King Author and the knights of the round table - they may have existed but  the legend likely was not accurate or historic.

But I will give you another myth - that of Robin Hood.  This comes from a Druid myth that was originally  about a title "Robin" given to a "High Priest" (not 1 individual but several over many generations) that presided over a counsel of 12 priests or priestHood.  I think you do a disservice assuming that any religious reference to mythical counsels of 12 priests is completely worthless and of no value.  Especially that G-d never had any possible input to provide needed wisdom that was helpful and gives witness to Jesus Christ and his mission and proper religious structure built upon a counsel of 12 priests.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

But we do know that the order within the house of G-d includes the use of "fictitious" parables that could be classified as fairy tales - like the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the 10 Virgins, the Parable of the Labors of the Vineyard and others.  You specifically make reference to fairy tales - many of which reference actual historical events - like the Black Plague and various famines and droughts in Europe.   Also the myth of King Author and the knights of the round table - they may have existed but  the legend likely was not accurate or historic.

But I will give you another myth - that of Robin Hood.  This comes from a Druid myth that was originally  about a title "Robin" given to a "High Priest" (not 1 individual but several over many generations) that presided over a counsel of 12 priests or priestHood.  I think you do a disservice assuming that any religious reference to mythical counsels of 12 priests is completely worthless and of no value.  Especially that G-d never had any possible input to provide needed wisdom that was helpful and gives witness to Jesus Christ and his mission and proper religious structure built upon a counsel of 12 priests.

 

The Traveler

But we know the parables are used as a story to relate something. We keep going over this moot point. The person telling the story is real and his experiences are real. Those he are speaking to are real. Thats the point. Why arent you comprehending that?

BTW, there isnt a serious religion of Robin Hood.

[Traveler]

58 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But we know the parables are used as a story to relate something. We keep going over this moot point. The person telling the story is real and his experiences are real. Those he are speaking to are real. Thats the point. Why arent you comprehending that?

BTW, there isnt a serious religion of Robin Hood.

Every story relates to something - you are right we keep going over this point.  And every story comes form a person that tells the story that has real experiences.  Everything written in history paints a picture that tells us something about a real society, real people and real thinking by someone living in a particular place and time in history.  If and where the particular story is popular also tells us something about the people that actually live and what they are thinking.

You may think there is no serious religion of Robin Hood - but that story keeps being told and people of many religions know many of the principles of that ancient religion that remain today - that these people may know the principle better from the epoch of Robin Hood than the principles of the serious religion that they think to follow now.  The main principle is to take from the rich to give to the poor.  And that exact same principle seems to be to be taught by Jesus to one rich young man that wanted to know what he needed to do to get into heaven.  The same principle cannot be both divinely inspired and completely worthless at the same time.  I would suggest what is worthless  is not in how a principle is taught or if the epoch of the principle is actual history but in how the principle is received.  I believe Jesus taught us this principle of receiving good fruit in the metaphor of eyes that see and ears that hear rather than eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear.

 

The Traveler

Perhaps if I quoted an Article of Faith - We believe if ANYTHING is vitreous lovely and of good report - we seek after these things.  Note the word ANYTHING 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Every story relates to something - you are right we keep going over this point.  And every story comes form a person that tells the story that has real experiences.  Everything written in history paints a picture that tells us something about a real society, real people and real thinking by someone living in a particular place and time in history.  If and where the particular story is popular also tells us something about the people that actually live and what they are thinking.

You may think there is no serious religion of Robin Hood - but that story keeps being told and people of many religions know many of the principles of that ancient religion that remain today - that these people may know the principle better from the epoch of Robin Hood than the principles of the serious religion that they think to follow now.  The main principle is to take from the rich to give to the poor.  And that exact same principle seems to be to be taught by Jesus to one rich young man that wanted to know what he needed to do to get into heaven.  The same principle cannot be both divinely inspired and completely worthless at the same time.  I would suggest what is worthless  is not in how a principle is taught or if the epoch of the principle is actual history but in how the principle is received.  I believe Jesus taught us this principle of receiving good fruit in the metaphor of eyes that see and ears that hear rather than eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear.

 

The Traveler

Perhaps if I quoted an Article of Faith - We believe if ANYTHING is vitreous lovely and of good report - we seek after these things.  Note the word ANYTHING 

And the point I keep making is why are the stories Jesus told of such value? Because he is real and part of reality. That's the whole point.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

But we do know that the order within the house of G-d includes the use of "fictitious" parables that could be classified as fairy tales - like the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the 10 Virgins, the Parable of the Labors of the Vineyard and others.  You specifically make reference to fairy tales - many of which reference actual historical events - like the Black Plague and various famines and droughts in Europe.   

The above are good examples, but it must also be mentioned that Jesus himself rebuked those who would take all stories literally.   He said that such people had hard hearts; have eyes, but see not; and ears and hear not. (This isn't directed to any one person on this thread).

Mark 8:14-17, 21 is straight form Jesus' own mouth:

14 ¶ Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

And the point I keep making is why are the stories Jesus told of such value? Because he is real and part of reality. That's the whole point.

Every story told is from someone that was real and part of reality.  His stories are important but near as important as the incredibly good things he did and the love that drove him to do such things.  One thing that bothers me about stories - that we have not discussed is the important things that are missing that we do not know that much about.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Every story told is from someone that was real and part of reality.  His stories are important but near as important as the incredibly good things he did and the love that drove him to do such things.  One thing that bothers me about stories - that we have not discussed is the important things that are missing that we do not know that much about.

 

The Traveler

The greatest story is the Book of Mormon in my opinion. Stories can have both fictional characters and settings like Star Wars or be real like the Book of Mormon. Whereas both have good stories only one will have the true lasting power. Where the rubber meets the road, people who want real depth and understanding do not turn to fiction, they turn to what's real- the real history of peopke and their experiences in the real world.

[Traveler]

35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The greatest story is the Book of Mormon in my opinion. Stories can have both fictional characters and settings like Star Wars or be real like the Book of Mormon. Whereas both have good stories only one will have the true lasting power. Where the rubber meets the road, people who want real depth and understanding do not turn to fiction, they turn to what's real- the real history of peopke and their experiences in the real world.

I have never felt that the stories one reads or indulges in; is of much importance compared to how they treat others.  My personal greatest failing is listening with compassion to others trying to tell me their own story - especially if I think their version is somewhat of a fantasy.  It is perhaps of this weakness that I try to overcompensate - and learn to listen more and criticize less - especially when I tend to think the one telling their story is a little disconnected from reality. 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have never felt that the stories one reads or indulges in; is of much importance compared to how they treat others.  My personal greatest failing is listening with compassion to others trying to tell me their own story - especially if I think their version is somewhat of a fantasy.  It is perhaps of this weakness that I try to overcompensate - and learn to listen more and criticize less - especially when I tend to think the one telling their story is a little disconnected from reality. 

 

The Traveler

I'm curious- do you believe those who wrote the Book of Mormon were disconnected from reality, or their version was somewhat of a fantasy? Or, do you believe it was written as basically a true reality of how things really were?

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm curious- do you believe those who wrote the Book of Mormon were disconnected from reality, or their version was somewhat of a fantasy? Or, do you believe it was written as basically a true reality of how things really were?

I believe that those who wrote in the Book of Mormon were Prophets uniquely inspired to both see and understanding things that needed to be written according to the wisdom of G-d - not as man would define as historic but according to the wisdom of G-d and what G-d would have preserved for our day.  I do not believe that expert historians (even a thousand expert historians) could have produced a similar document.  I believe this to be different than to say that such prophets actually existed in history - I am impressed that to think of or reference the Book of Mormon as merely "historic" diminishes its truly divine purpose.  It has been my impression that throughout our discussion - that I see and have attempted to convince you that the Book of Mormon is so much more than you are willing to admit or consider.  I am also not convinced that my inability to communicate is your fault - and so I attempt over and over again - sometimes trying different methods or metaphors and symbols. 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe that those who wrote in the Book of Mormon were Prophets uniquely inspired to both see and understanding things that needed to be written according to the wisdom of G-d - not as man would define as historic but according to the wisdom of G-d and what G-d would have preserved for our day.  I do not believe that expert historians (even a thousand expert historians) could have produced a similar document.  I believe this to be different than to say that such prophets actually existed in history - I am impressed that to think of or reference the Book of Mormon as merely "historic" diminishes its truly divine purpose.  It has been my impression that throughout our discussion - that I see and have attempted to convince you that the Book of Mormon is so much more than you are willing to admit or consider.  I am also not convinced that my inability to communicate is your fault - and so I attempt over and over again - sometimes trying different methods or metaphors and symbols. 

 

The Traveler

Its interesting how our views of each others point of view can be what it is. You think my understanding and view of the Book of Mormon is diminished because of how you think I think. I genuiniely believe that you have no idea how the formulation of the Book of Mormon works in my mind and how I treasure it. You see, I understand the absolute importance of reality in history and how that reality of the past weighs on the minds of the reader. We dont turn to Harry Potter for inspiration, neither do we pray to Han Solo. We look for answers by looking at reality, understanding history and its consequences. You dont see the United Nations looking to Star Trek for answers for international peace. Presidents of countries dont quote Superman to inspire people. Our own lives are forged in historic reality as time rolls on- its what we know is real. Its no wonder then that we look to the reality of history for answers to deep thought. We are shaping the reality of the future out of events that become historic reality. This is paramount to the deep understanding of the Book of Mormon and the convincing of nations to the truth of its message. Im not hung up on the historical value of the book like you may believe me to be but the reality of it is that without its underlying historic context the Book of Mormon would mean very little.

[theplains]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:53 PM, Traveler said:

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. 

What's events in the Book of Mormon do you believe are not historical?

Thanks,
Jim

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, theplains said:

What's events in the Book of Mormon do you believe are not historical?

Thanks,
Jim

@Traveler can correct me if I've misread him, but I don't believe he's ever made the claim that The Book of Mormon isn't historical, merely that its primary purpose isn't history. Assuming the every event happened exactly as described in the book, I believe it would still be characterized as a devotional work rather than a history (by academics anyway) because of how it was compiled and edited by 3 authors who openly state that they are only selecting vignettes from their history with the intent to invite souls to Christ. 

Note that Traveler is using a narrow definition of history, relying on primary intent. In contrast, we describe Mormon's writings as "a continuation of the history by Mormon and additions by his son Moroni." The authors on the plates of Nephi, on the other hand, made it very clear that they were "whitewashing" the account. (They are not "a full account of the history" of the Nephites, and history "should not [be] touch[ed], save it were lightly" so that they could properly focus on things that were "most precious").
 

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

@Traveler can correct me if I've misread him, but I don't believe he's ever made the claim that The Book of Mormon isn't historical, merely that its primary purpose isn't history. Assuming the every event happened exactly as described in the book, I believe it would still be characterized as a devotional work rather than a history (by academics anyway) because of how it was compiled and edited by 3 authors who openly state that they are only selecting vignettes from their history with the intent to invite souls to Christ. 

Note that Traveler is using a narrow definition of history, relying on primary intent. In contrast, we describe Mormon's writings as "a continuation of the history by Mormon and additions by his son Moroni." The authors on the plates of Nephi, on the other hand, made it very clear that they were "whitewashing" the account. (They are not "a full account of the history" of the Nephites, and history "should not [be] touch[ed], save it were lightly" so that they could properly focus on things that were "most precious").
 

I dont think no one is arguing the Book of Mormon is "the" history of their stories. The question is if it is actual records within the history of mankind which contains an abbreviated history of their peoples. There is a slippery slope into the whole "inspired fiction" if one concludes or assumes/believes its not an actual history of a real people.

[Guest Scott]

Perhaps this explains it best:

Quote

There are some things that the Book of Mormon is not. It is not a text of history, although some history is found within its pages.

Source, Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, 25 June 1992:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

See also here from 2016:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/president-nelson-speaks-to-2016-mission-presidents-about-miraculous-miracle-of-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Edited September 13, 2018 by Scott

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont think no one is arguing the Book of Mormon is "the" history of their stories. The question is if it is actual records within the history of mankind which contains an abbreviated history of their peoples. There is a slippery slope into the whole "inspired fiction" if one concludes or assumes/believes its not an actual history of a real people.

Is there any more slippery slope that to claim the Book of Mormon is worthless or meaningless without a "historic context" - since there are no historical artifact or historical record or anything historic available to the public that defines a "historic context" of the Book of Mormon.  Thank you @Scottfor your reference - obviously Elder Nelson's inspired words should clear up any questions remaining.  This is exactly the point I have been trying to express.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Is there any more slippery slope that to claim the Book of Mormon is worthless or meaningless without a "historic context" - since there are no historical artifact or historical record or anything historic available to the public that defines a "historic context" of the Book of Mormon.  Thank you @Scottfor your reference - obviously Elder Nelson's inspired words should clear up any questions remaining.  This is exactly the point I have been trying to express.

 

The Traveler

I suppose you have historical evidence- proof of Christs resurrection? And yet we believe it must be so. How is that different than a belief the Book of Mormon to be true? So too would Christ be meaningless if he wasnt actually resurrected.

[Traveler]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I suppose you have historical evidence- proof of Christs resurrection? And yet we believe it must be so. How is that different than a belief the Book of Mormon to be true? So too would Christ be meaningless if he wasnt actually resurrected.

It is - at least for me a little different than that.  The point being that we have no "historical context" that we know about and can reference that applies to the resurrection of Christ.  In other words the only benefit or understanding must come by faith - without a historical context to reference beyond what we believe - but once again by faith.  So when someone (you in particular) say such things are meaningless without the historical context.  I do not know what context is available to be assessed beyond what we have faith to believe - which would be a very poor and improper use of "context".

Since I have stated many times - I believe such things to have occurred - What is your "historical context" that if missing means faith or belief in such things is worthless?  Also - Since I indicated that @Scottquote from President Nelson is exactly what I have tried to express for some time in this thread - what about presidents Nelson's statement do you feel is a "slippery slop"?  Pretend you are addressing him for his opinion - perhaps I can understand better what you are trying to say.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 13, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is - at least for me a little different than that.  The point being that we have no "historical context" that we know about and can reference that applies to the resurrection of Christ.  In other words the only benefit or understanding must come by faith - without a historical context to reference beyond what we believe - but once again by faith.  So when someone (you in particular) say such things are meaningless without the historical context.  I do not know what context is available to be assessed beyond what we have faith to believe - which would be a very poor and improper use of "context".

Since I have stated many times - I believe such things to have occurred - What is your "historical context" that if missing means faith or belief in such things is worthless?  Also - Since I indicated that @Scottquote from President Nelson is exactly what I have tried to express for some time in this thread - what about presidents Nelson's statement do you feel is a "slippery slop"?  Pretend you are addressing him for his opinion - perhaps I can understand better what you are trying to say.

 

The Traveler

If we do not first take the scriptures as literal real events in the history of mankind then none of it has any real lasting power. With the Book of Mormon we must ask- does it contain a historical background in its record? Absolutely. Whereas it isn't the main history it does include enough history and framework to understand other is a real story with certain events to write up a history, although brief in some regards, of them.

[Rob Osborn]

I would even go so far to state that the real and true general history of how the Americas got populated and the civilizations that started were in fact the Book of Mormon peoples. Ask yourself- if the history isn't at all important, and engraving metal plates was hard for the Nephites, why are certain historical aspects included in the record? Is it to better understand their story or is it to give it a historical basis, or both? And, does the inclusion of history in their record make the Book of Mormon more powerful?

 

 

 

[wenglund]

In @Rob Osborn 's defense, I heard an analogy today that might have some positive bearing on his point.

If we know that the pill we are taking is a placebo, will it have the same or as full an affect as were we to believe it is real 

This analogy came up during a discussion between Bret Weinstein and Ben Shapiro (see HERE). Shapiro went on to make the salient point that, at a bear minimum, believing in the importance of revelation is critical, whereas believing in the reality of revelation is optimal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 14, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

In @Rob Osborn 's defense, I heard an analogy today that might have some positive bearing on his point.

If we know that the pill we are taking is a placebo, will it have the same or as full an affect as were we to believe it is real 

This analogy came up during a discussion between Bret Weinstein and Ben Shapiro (see HERE). Shapiro went on to make the salient point that, at a bear minimum, believing in the importance of revelation is critical, whereas believing in the reality of revelation is optimal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The interesting problem about a placebo is that it is the belief that it is real that is important - not weather or not it actually is real.

 

The Traveler