Question about the beggining of man


StudMuff
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, and even Mr. Magoo on ecstasy can see that. Yet, I still consider it a modern revelation.

As a non-member investigating the church, I would have to say I agree with your logic and your arguments echo many of the concerns I have discovered when trying to research the historical aspect of the Book of Mormon.

So I have to ask you, if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, why do you still consider it modern revelation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a non-member investigating the church, I would have to say I agree with your logic and your arguments echo many of the concerns I have discovered when trying to research the historical aspect of the Book of Mormon.

So I have to ask you, if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, why do you still consider it modern revelation?

My answer to this is found here:

(1 Cor 2)

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So I have to ask you, if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, why do you still consider it modern revelation?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

"if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text"

for they are foolishness unto him:

"why do you still consider it modern revelation?"

neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You keep asking: WHY WHY WHY :)

To which I answer:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.

DS, until you receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, many of these things will not make sense to you.

I don't make the rules. This is the path God has placed in front of each of us.

You will continue to "not get" things like the Book of Mormon, etc., until you become willing to follow the path the Lord has outlined for "getting it."

I know from other discussions, you are TRYING to understand. I am just trying to explain WHY you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Adam did assist in the creation of parts of this earth and that this occurred prior to the placing of Adam in the Garden with his human body. I think that the texts try to explain these events and depending on the author and the translation, there are sure to be different descriptions. These tiny details are interesting, and as you know, don't relate much to our eternal salvation. I think that it does make clear that Adam was the first of father's Spirit children to dwell upon this planet.

I think the BofM gets referred to as "modern" revelation because its presence was revealed to Joseph in modern times. It was also written, not for the Nephites and Lamanites, but for the people of today to try the faith of the people and to bring people to Christ.

EDIT: One more thought. For me, the Book of Mormon does make sense as an ancient text. I just think archeology has yet to fully catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to this is found here:

(1 Cor 2)

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

"if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text"

for they are foolishness unto him:

"why do you still consider it modern revelation?"

neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You keep asking: WHY WHY WHY :)

To which I answer:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.

DS, until you receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, many of these things will not make sense to you.

I don't make the rules. This is the path God has placed in front of each of us.

You will continue to "not get" things like the Book of Mormon, etc., until you become willing to follow the path the Lord has outlined for "getting it."

I know from other discussions, you are TRYING to understand. I am just trying to explain WHY you don't.

I do appreciate your efforts to explain this concept to me, but I think I understand your answer now, which is why I am no longer pestering you about it. However, not everyone has the same answer to this question and I thought that since Ray seems to have a line of logic similar to my own, he might have his own insight toward the merging of logic and "spirituality" since he seems to have no problem with these logical issues with the Book of Mormon but also seems to have faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do appreciate your efforts to explain this concept to me, but I think I understand your answer now, which is why I am no longer pestering you about it. However, not everyone has the same answer to this question and I thought that since Ray seems to have a line of logic similar to my own, he might have his own insight toward the merging of logic and "spirituality" since he seems to have no problem with these logical issues with the Book of Mormon but also seems to have faith.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Noah leave them out of the Ark, especially when God said to gather "two of every kind"? Two dinosaurs would take up all the space, I suppose, and feeding them would be impossible. Simple solution: Let them die in the flood. "Sorry guys, but you're too big, no room in the ArkInn for you". "Nothing personal." Sorry, but my sarcasm is merited.

Why only the Mulekites and Jaredites? Both would have Jewish/Middle Eastern DNA, and Asiatic DNA dominates American prehistory. If they were the "principal ancestors", then Middle-Eastern DNA would predominate the population. It doesn't. It's only found in specks and traces, barely identifiable. 99% of New World population can be traced backed to Asiatic origins. To give a practical example: If you migrated to a Caribbean Island in 1700, and populated a large portion of that island, your genes and DNA record would be firmly established. Easily traced, even with future intermingling scientists can trace this, because the biology is like a computer record.

All of the cures in history, for all of diseases in history, have been revealed by "men". Maybe God inspired some, no doubt. The Black Death is a prime example of what God didn't inspire. Millions died in this Death, and you know how the source of it was made known? After millions died, three-quarters of the population of Europe died, they discovered that it was caused by fleas biting infected rats, then biting humans. It was a rodent disease transferred to humans via fleas. One might ask, where was God at the start? It took scientific investigation to understand this, after a few thousand miles of graves lined the cities. Preachers capitalised on this - we need to repent! God has sent this plague! "It's the end of the world!" The answer came through science, not the scriptures.

Your speculation is worthless if you reject science, which is not run by devils in disguise, but by humans trying their best to understand the human condition.

Did Noah have access to every bacteria, every plant, every type of rodent and so on.. I would venture a guess as no. Because of your argument about the Nephites and such. They were located in "one" geographical location. Therefore they would not have been able to get all the animals and plants. All the "evil" was wiped off the face of the Earth. How can man grow and expand if they are being eaten by dinosaaurs?

In regards to the Mulekites and Jaredites, I wasn't saying they were the only ones that came over. I was implying that since other groups came over and we have a little record of them, there is entirely the possibility that others came over but we don't have a record. Those are probably the people that conquered the Lamanites(had to dwindle in unbelief) after the Nephites were destroyed. Mixing the DNA , "polluting the blood." 1500 years of pollution, what does that get you?

Why didn't God inspire the plague? Also what was the time that the plague's origin was discovered. They learned how it spread while it was happening, but they didn't know the origin. You used this example, but it has no relevance(when you really think about it). Elder Nelson went into an operation room not knowing how to perform a procedure, but relied on the Lord to show him what to do. You don't have the source or process shown to me, for the manner in which they discovered the origin of the plague. How did they come up with the hypothesis? Wasn't it by thinking first? Then they pursue an idea based on how they were possibly enlightened. First seek to obtain the word, then seek to declare it. To do something, or to use an idea or hypothesis. It takes obtaining the word. Which comes by thinking, reading and analyisis. Then the answer comes as we pursue and exercise faith. After enough work, we have the answer.

My speculation is by no means worthless. Speculation is opinion. Opinion doesn't always need to be backed up. Ever heard of a "gut feeling?" It often is backed up though, because it gives validity in "human eyes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you forgetting about Jared's barges? No need for them if the earth was just one land mass.

What you say, is to suppose that the Earth wasn't reformed during the flood? Why could God not do what He wants to fulfill His own purposes?

My opinion.

The Earth was created with one land mass. Flood came. While under the water, God altered the face of the land. So they were seperated into two lands like we see today. They didn't start "moving" until the death of Christ. Then we have tectonic plates emerge and we get the current altering and earthquakes that we have. To my knowledge there is no mention of the Earth shaking(earthquakes) prior to His death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a non-member investigating the church, I would have to say I agree with your logic and your arguments echo many of the concerns I have discovered when trying to research the historical aspect of the Book of Mormon.

So I have to ask you, if the Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, why do you still consider it modern revelation?

I consider it modern revelation because what it teaches is revelant to today, not 2,600 years ago. It's a Christian book, with Christian teachings, applicable now, not 600 years before Christ even lived on earth. It makes no sense to have people living the Law of Moses and Christian teachings which weren't even given in its fulness until Christ was alive. Even Mormon scholar Blake Ostler admits that there are clear post-Christian teachings in the book that could not fit into a pre-Christian setting. It even expands, sometimes at great length, biblical teachings. Therefore it's a modern revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Noah have access to every bacteria, every plant, every type of rodent and so on.. I would venture a guess as no. Because of your argument about the Nephites and such. They were located in "one" geographical location. Therefore they would not have been able to get all the animals and plants. All the "evil" was wiped off the face of the Earth. How can man grow and expand if they are being eaten by dinosaaurs?

They certainly didn't get kangaroos or wallabies or koalas. The Aborigines have been in Australia for at least 40,000 years, and we know they continuously inhabited it because archaeologists unearthed remains in Sydney which have neat layers of evidence right up to European colonisation in 1788. Contrary to some speculation about flood legends, no evidence has been found indicating a massive watery upheaval around 4,000 BC, anywhere in Australia. According to the Bible the highest mountains were underwater. This isn't possible, and it has never happened in earth's history, and if it did there would be overwhelming evidence of it.

In regards to the Mulekites and Jaredites, I wasn't saying they were the only ones that came over. I was implying that since other groups came over and we have a little record of them, there is entirely the possibility that others came over but we don't have a record. Those are probably the people that conquered the Lamanites(had to dwindle in unbelief) after the Nephites were destroyed. Mixing the DNA , "polluting the blood." 1500 years of pollution, what does that get you?

We have lots of evidence, and archaeologists have studied this for many years. The Americas have been inhabited since around 13,000 BC. The evidence is there in the ground. If there was a Book of Mormon population it was very small. Certainly not the major players, and certainly not the "principal ancestors".

Why didn't God inspire the plague? Also what was the time that the plague's origin was discovered. They learned how it spread while it was happening, but they didn't know the origin. You used this example, but it has no relevance(when you really think about it). Elder Nelson went into an operation room not knowing how to perform a procedure, but relied on the Lord to show him what to do. You don't have the source or process shown to me, for the manner in which they discovered the origin of the plague. How did they come up with the hypothesis? Wasn't it by thinking first? Then they pursue an idea based on how they were possibly enlightened. First seek to obtain the word, then seek to declare it. To do something, or to use an idea or hypothesis. It takes obtaining the word. Which comes by thinking, reading and analyisis. Then the answer comes as we pursue and exercise faith. After enough work, we have the answer.

You can study it in detail at this site - to your hearts content: http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/ Read especially how the Church reacted. It killed an estimated 75 million people worldwide, and some 25-50 million in Europe alone. A further reference from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

My speculation is by no means worthless. Speculation is opinion. Opinion doesn't always need to be backed up. Ever heard of a "gut feeling?" It often is backed up though, because it gives validity in "human eyes."

That's fair enough, but if people build their beliefs on the foundation that the Book of Mormon is literal history, they might be in for later disappointment. Joseph Smith emphasised the books teachings and principles, that is what he said would "bring a man nearer to God". The books stories illustrate how to do this, but then you have long sermons like King Benjamin's, and Alma's teachings. Whether or not they actually lived isn't important to me. I consider the teachings to be inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly didn't get kangaroos or wallabies or koalas. The Aborigines have been in Australia for at least 40,000 years, and we know they continuously inhabited it because archaeologists unearthed remains in Sydney which have neat layers of evidence right up to European colonisation in 1788. Contrary to some speculation about flood legends, no evidence has been found indicating a massive watery upheaval around 4,000 BC, anywhere in Australia. According to the Bible the highest mountains were underwater. This isn't possible, and it has never happened in earth's history, and if it did there would be overwhelming evidence of it.

We have lots of evidence, and archaeologists have studied this for many years. The Americas have been inhabited since around 13,000 BC. The evidence is there in the ground. If there was a Book of Mormon population it was very small. Certainly not the major players, and certainly not the "principal ancestors".

You can study it in detail at this site - to your hearts content: http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/ Read especially how the Church reacted. It killed an estimated 75 million people worldwide, and some 25-50 million in Europe alone. A further reference from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

That's fair enough, but if people build their beliefs on the foundation that the Book of Mormon is literal history, they might be in for later disappointment. Joseph Smith emphasised the books teachings and principles, that is what he said would "bring a man nearer to God". The books stories illustrate how to do this, but then you have long sermons like King Benjamin's, and Alma's teachings. Whether or not they actually lived isn't important to me. I consider the teachings to be inspired.

It goes back to you making your case with science, which I don't agree with. It goes back to, well man says this happened. Well it doesn't match up with God's so I will believe man. That is what arises from Science, at least what I see. If it is used to make small proofs, that is fine. But when we start using it to replace God. Then you have committed heresy. You claim that the works of men are greater than God's. Maybe not outrightly or intentionally, but it is still done nonetheless. When Science and God conflict, I believe in God.

How do you know that Aborigines were in Australia 40,000 years ago? By some process of science, that has developed some sort of logical proof. Then we throw out God because what makes "sense" doesn't match up 100% with what God has said. To think that our judgment and analysis is greater than God's and say that He is wrong based on our own works is a prideful argument and judgment.

The last statement about the Book of Mormon, I see it as historically accurate as well as doctrinally pure. The historical accuracy comes as a by-product of the rest of the truth in it. My understanding and knowledge and experience is different from yours so I view it differently. I can totally see it happening, it meshes with the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fair enough, but if people build their beliefs on the foundation that the Book of Mormon is literal history, they might be in for later disappointment. Joseph Smith emphasised the books teachings and principles, that is what he said would "bring a man nearer to God". The books stories illustrate how to do this, but then you have long sermons like King Benjamin's, and Alma's teachings. Whether or not they actually lived isn't important to me. I consider the teachings to be inspired.

For the record, any man who builds beliefs on anything other than the rock of God will be subject to doubt and to fear. They will be washed away in the storms. They will have no guide from God because they cannot fully trust Him. Our foundation is placed on the doctrine. Which is found in perfection in the Book of Mormon. The foundation is God and His laws. If we do not adhere to His law, then we do not receive the full possible blessings. We don't believe in a Church or a Book, but in God, or rather His Son Jesus Christ, because that is who He has ordained the Law upon which we Believe(3Nephi 11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes back to you making your case with science, which I don't agree with. It goes back to, well man says this happened. Well it doesn't match up with God's so I will believe man. That is what arises from Science, at least what I see. If it is used to make small proofs, that is fine. But when we start using it to replace God. Then you have committed heresy. You claim that the works of men are greater than God's. Maybe not outrightly or intentionally, but it is still done nonetheless. When Science and God conflict, I believe in God.

If it wasn't for science you wouldn't be on the computer you're on now. Rockets aren't designed by prayer. Space travel doesn't happen on hope. God expects us to use our intelligence. The reason I quoted Bruno was because there's a salient lesson to be learned from that. His Copernician worldview was so "heretical", so against what everyone one thought was scripture, and so blasphemous, that he was burnt at the stake.

How do you know that Aborigines were in Australia 40,000 years ago? By some process of science, that has developed some sort of logical proof. Then we throw out God because what makes "sense" doesn't match up 100% with what God has said. To think that our judgment and analysis is greater than God's and say that He is wrong based on our own works is a prideful argument and judgment.

This "process" of discovery is as accurate as science can get in this field. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in 6,000 years, but there are those who insist that it was. Why? Because the Bible says so. Which would you choose in this regard? The Bible, or what the scientists say?

I've been thinking about, and reading up on these subjects which relate to Mormonism, for 33 years now. My conclusions are not the same as those who have studied these issues for a similar time, I grant that. I don't believe in things like lost tribes in polar ice caps, and great highways being opened up for them to come out of. If you want to believe such things, then all power to you if it makes you a better person. I don't think the modern Brunos are in any danger death by fire, and excommunication is a lot less painful, and for that I'm grateful, so think and believe as you please.

I have little time left this day, and I also feel I ought not to any further disturb the true believers. I won't be posting here any more. I said from the start I probably would not be here long, and I think this prediction is proving to be true. It also explains why for 20 years now I've never been able to fit into the Church. There are some things just too impossible for me to believe, yet I still think Mormonism is a good thing in that it can change lives for the better. There was a time I was prepared to endure some of the fantasies for Church involvement, but I'm afraid those days are long gone. I am quite certain there are no Three Nephites roaming the earth, but I won't any further disturb the party. I don't think that's the purpose of this forum anyway. Doubters never make good bedfellows in places like this, even when they still have residual beliefs.

Good luck in converting the world,

And All the best to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

If it wasn't for science you wouldn't be on the computer you're on now. Rockets aren't designed by prayer. Space travel doesn't happen on hope. God expects us to use our intelligence. The reason I quoted Bruno was because there's a salient lesson to be learned from that. His Copernician worldview was so "heretical", so against what everyone one thought was scripture, and so blasphemous, that he was burnt at the stake.

This "process" of discovery is as accurate as science can get in this field. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in 6,000 years, but there are those who insist that it was. Why? Because the Bible says so. Which would you choose in this regard? The Bible, or what the scientists say?

I've been thinking about, and reading up on these subjects which relate to Mormonism, for 33 years now. My conclusions are not the same as those who have studied these issues for a similar time, I grant that. I don't believe in things like lost tribes in polar ice caps, and great highways being opened up for them to come out of. If you want to believe such things, then all power to you if it makes you a better person. I don't think the modern Brunos are in any danger death by fire, and excommunication is a lot less painful, and for that I'm grateful, so think and believe as you please.

I have little time left this day, and I also feel I ought not to any further disturb the true believers. I won't be posting here any more. I said from the start I probably would not be here long, and I think this prediction is proving to be true. It also explains why for 20 years now I've never been able to fit into the Church. There are some things just too impossible for me to believe, yet I still think Mormonism is a good thing in that it can change lives for the better. There was a time I was prepared to endure some of the fantasies for Church involvement, but I'm afraid those days are long gone. I am quite certain there are no Three Nephites roaming the earth, but I won't any further disturb the party. I don't think that's the purpose of this forum anyway. Doubters never make good bedfellows in places like this, even when they still have residual beliefs.

Good luck in converting the world,

And All the best to you.

I by no means meant to offend. If I did, then I am very, truly and SINCERELY SORRY! But if you notice, it is only my opinion. I rarely state my opinion because it often(very) offends. All I was trying to do was present another idea and opinion, which I feel is very valid. It isn't necessarily right, meaning it could be but it could be wrong.

We are all entitled to an opinion. You have yours. I have mine. I also don't want to convert the world. I think I told you this.(Real Book of Mormon thread) I'll tell those who want to hear. The ones that want to hear are the ones who express some effort to know what is meant. Like you did. I tried to answer your questions but it was hard because we believe in some different things. I don't believe in Science that much anymore, you do. That kills a lot of possibility for talking. I just wanted to express what I feel is possible.

I agree that there were some "fantasies." I was born into the Church but I didn't really believe until recently. I thought some things were absurd. I got proud and eventually I fell into bad habits. I could never pull away from the Church because I felt it was right. I kept myself going. Then I started studying more. Then eventually it all clicked. All those doubts I had with the "fantasies," I feel like I have answers(not to all of them, of course). A little of it is speculation, but mostly it is founded on the scriptures. I know the truth. I know it now because I didn't want to believe in fantasies anymore. They became real in my mind. They became truth, from the Holy Ghost, in my mind. I made an effort and the Lord blessed me. It took more than I was planning, I think, but I see where I am now compared to a year ago. I thirst after knowledge, after truth. I want to learn more, and science doesn't give it to me(gives some but not all). It may to others like you, but for me I can't believe in science to give me evidence and truth. I am a physics major. I still like it, but I love the scriptures more. It is just the change and the person I have become.

This is a place where come together and discuss principles that may need clarification. We try to help each other, we edify all. I have noticed posts where it gets really heated, and they lose the purpose of what is trying to be done. I don't think ours got heated, but it was a little edgy. I think we got frustrated with each other. We didn't get angry, but we stuck to our beliefs(very important). I was still trying to prove my point to maybe give you something to think about. However, you were trying to understand what I meant, and when my reasoning conflicted with yours you gave me something that I didn't want to think about because I didn't really believe in it anymore. We were sticking to our own beliefs and not willing to venture out because we came to conclusions from prior experiences that allowed for the receptiveness of our minds to dwindle. I wanted nothing to do with science, and you wanted nothing to do with my opinion or speculation.

Again I apologize.

I do hope all goes well with you in your endeavors.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share