Gobear, I think I may see your problem. You seem to feel that we have to either believe that Jesus is just like us (a spirit child of God) or completely different (the physical Son of God and member of the Trinity). But we believe both at the same time. As I said before, Jesus is our Elder Brother–the same ‘species’ as we are, and a spirit child of God. But he has always had a pre-eminent place. Before all this started, God presented a plan to all His children by which we could obtain bodies and continue to learn. This plan necessitated a voluntary sacrifice for sin, and Jesus volunteered for that job. He also stood at the side of the Father and organized our world under His direction (we don’t believe in creation ex nihilo, but in organization of chaotic matter). Then he came to earth as our Savior, the literal, sinless, begotten Son of God (unlike the rest of us), paid the price for our sins, and died on the cross. Then he was resurrected as a perfected being and ascended to the Father. He is part of the Godhead, which consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost–we just don’t believe that they are 3 manifestations of the same God, but seperate personages. Only by Christ’s help can we continue to progress and gain forgiveness and salvation–justice and mercy in one package.
That’s one of the big differences with us; we believe that God, Jesus Christ, the angels, the fallen spirits, and mortal people are all of the same family. Jesus isn’t “just another spirit child”–we are all, amazingly enough, sons and daughters of God.
I hope that helps clear that up–it’s not either/or with us, but both. More later…
For KellyM, This appears to be a pretty good summary of events in Missouri, from a non-LDS perspective. Essentially, The Mormons always banded together and created large, cohesive communities–for fellowship, mutual support, and in order to build a Zion community. Wherever they went, they were eventually thrown out. Wild rumors circulated about their practices (polygamy did not help!), and most importantly, they consituted a large political bloc. This was particularly maddening for the Missourians, who were pro-slavery, and did not want a bunch of abolitionist religious fanatics running things.
Mob violence was a constant feature of early Mormon life until the migration to Utah. Far West, Missouri, was particularly bad. Joseph Smith once actually went to Washington DC to place his case before the President. I believe it was Martin van Buren. The President told Smith that his cause was right (that persecution should cease and the Mormons be allowed to practice their faith in peace), but that if he supported the Mormons he would not be reelected. So that didn’t go anywhere.
Uh. People are talking to me in this thread like I posted something to it. I don’t remember posting anything in here, and in any case I can’t find the post. Could someone please tell me what I said?
You know, I seem to recall that we have hadthis conversation before (and last time, you pointed out the rivers in Arabia objection).
Archaeology has yet to do much in the Mesoamerican area. An awful lot has been lost, and we don’t even have a clear idea of where to look. But there are a couple of candidate ruins (though as I mentioned on I think page one, one is underwater).
Here is a long piece on plants and animals in general.
Here is an article on horses, though it appears to be incomplete on my browser. And another. Additionally, I personally find it entirely plausible that the BoM term ‘horse’ could refer to several different native American animals. It’s interesting to note that the BoM never shows people riding horses, though in Joseph Smith’s day, almost everyone did. Instead, everyone in the BoM walks everywhere, which no one did if they could help it in 1820. It’s very common for people in a new place to call new plants and animals by old names that are ‘close enough’–such as buffalo (whoops! bison) or corn (oh, you mean maize?). Perhaps these ‘horses’ were llamas or similar?
Barley has indeed been found in several archaelogical digs, the first in 1983 (your sources have not updated their complaints!). Here is a short summary article.
Scimitars? I don’t remember any scimitars. Perhaps you mean swords, which could be the closest term Joseph Smith had for a whacking-type weapon. This rather lengthy article has a bit on swords—go down and find “Swords in Mesoamerica?” Heck, read the whole thing.
As for the DNA question…Behold! All things DNA! Here you will find links to several articles from Nov. 2003’s FARMS issue, which appears to concentrate completely on genetics, as well as a very, very long discussion on the whys and wherefores of everything. Luckily for you, there is a short introduction, but I do expect you to read all of it carefully, especially the FARMS articles, which will be the latest research from LDS scholars. Be sure to click on the PDF versions, since you have to be registered to read the HTML. Enjoy!
I hope you will do me the courtesy of reading everything I linked to; some of it is fairly lengthy, I know, but you did ask, and while critics tend to use sound-bite questions, the answers aren’t so conveniently brief.
If “believers” continue to refuse to see the faults and weaknessess in our “man-made religion”, we will continue to amuse the “non-believers”. God doesn’t have a religious persuasion. We formed religions to honor him, describe him and reflect our perceptions of what his wishes are. Let’s trust Him with all the other details. Although I do enjoy making people laugh:), this probably isn’t the best way to achieve that end. Can’t we all just get along.
So…God, THE GOD, is just some schlump from another “world” that achieved a high level of salvation and then populated our world with his “children.”
I can see why the Church of Latter Day Saints is spreading so fast, who wouldn’t like to be God in the next life?
I just want to clarify, if you’re a 16 year old kid and you get hit by a bus before you can get married and have kids, you’re denied the highest level of heaven?
What if you’re a married couple who can’t have children due to infertility, are you denied the highest level of heaven? Considering God made your body (ergo your infertility) that would be really unfair to be denied the highest level of heaven for something which was obviously his plan all along.
What if you’re married and your spouse dies and you remarry, do you have more than one husband/wife in the next life?
genie has listed several facts about mesoamerican archaeology and Saudi geography. These are objective, testable facts last I checked. If you’re looking for a movie reel of Joseph Smith getting the plates, or (for that matter) of Moses and the burning bush, they don’t exist. Indeed, the closest you’re likely to get is the Book of Mormon itself.
Consider: the Bible can be postulated to be authored by people long after Christ had come, who made up stories to prove his divinity. Indeed, we see a few examples of people asserting this very thing on a regular basis on the boards.
However, the Book of Mormon stands as the keystone to the LDS church. It does not enjoy the continuous tradition the Bible did of being handed down from one generation of believers to the next, or have contemporaneous accounts about the primary participants (as say Josephus was for the some of the NT personalities). Either the Book of Mormon is precisely what Joseph Smith claimed it was, or it is a fraud. If it is a fraud, then the entire LDS church (and its offshoots) collapses like a house of cards. However, if the Book of Mormon is in fact truly an account of ancient Americans and was translated by the power of God by Joseph Smith the Prophet, then everything it teaches is true: Jesus is the Savior of the world, the testimony of the Bible is corroborated, and the LDS church is the only church on the face of the Earth which is founded by God.
The Book of Mormon also claims to be an authentic record of people on the American continent thousands of years ago. Hence to the degree that it makes testable statements, we can evaluate the book from a scientific perspective. To be clear, I don’t ever expect evidence of the Book of Mormon to convert someone to my faith by itself (and indeed, I wouldn’t want it to). However, the role I (and genie, and many other LDS) try to play in these discussions is to correct erroneous ideas about the LDS church and the Book of Mormon, to remove artificial impediments to pursuing spiritual truth. It is a side benefit that my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church has increased, and in some cases, people who would otherwise have ignored the Book of Mormon take an interest precisely because of the many criticisms of it (many of which criticisms have been proven incorrect as has been detailed in this thread so far).
Second question first: Of course God knows how to speak English. Joseph Smith wrote of several occasions in which heavenly visitors spoke to him in English. As to the motivation of the angel Moroni, I don’t believe we’ve been told why the plates were returned to him. I could speculate–one practical reason is that Joseph had to move the plates and hide them from people who were seeking them out for the value of the metal. Once the translation of the plates was done, there was no need for Joseph to have them any more, hence Moroni took them for safe keeping.
Of course, not every Mormon remains in the church (witness several examples in this very thread), and we currently are baptizing about 300,000 converts every year. I know from personal experience myself and from that of others that answers to prayer are not simply conditioning. Especially when I’m surprised by an answer to prayer.
I suggest you take a look at some of the links that genie has posted in the thread, and you may begin to get an answer. Or for a shortcut, just read this page. In the last 150+ years, archaeologists have acquired massive information about Mesoamerica compared to what people in Joseph Smith’s day knew. If the book were a hoax, you would expect more and more errors in the Book of Mormon to become apparent, wouldn’t you? Instead, we find more and more evidences that the culture, technology and language of the Book of Mormon peoples matches modern scholarship. Go to the page we’ve linked to and read how many points in the Book of Mormon were considered laughable by scholars of Joseph Smith’s day but know are commonly accepted fact.
Basically, if Joseph Smith were a fraud, he would have had to have been a prophet as well in order to get the Book of Mormon keep agreeing with new finds. So which is it? Was he a prophet, or a prophet?
Now, additionally you’re inquiring about the motivations of the angel again. Why didn’t Moroni leave the plates behind? Indeed, why doesn’t Jesus appear to us all right now in glory and grandeur and make his point once and for all?
Because he doesn’t work that way. The goal is not to prove himself, but rather to provide enough motivation for us to seek him out and then choose to be like him rather than unlike him. (More discussion of this principle would be best suited to another thread–I’d be happy to participate if you’d like to start it up.)
Indeed, we don’t know that it was real gold. It is described as “having the appearance of gold”. In my opinion, it was most likely an alloy and not pure gold.
As far as linguistic scholars go, please reread my post about Martin Harris’ visit to a scholar and the resulting outcome.
The eleven witnesses were not linguistic scholars, but they were witnesses of the book as an object, and in the case of the first three were witnesses of the angel and the voice of God as well.
The only thing we don’t talk about are the details about the temple ceremony. In all the writings and teachings of the church, the text of the temple ceremony make up a pathetically small portion. We consider it sacred and faithful members will not discuss it in detail.
Why would knowledge of the minutiae of the temple somehow decrease your skepticism? Are you that curious about my underwear? (And if you are, don’t you find that a bit odd?)
Do you yourself have experiences or information you don’t hand out freely to everyone? Surely you have good reasoning for doing so–why do think we’re any different?
Furthermore, it has been documented in this very thread that misinformation abounds even in the face of truth which proves that misinformation. Even on a forum which has the mantra: “fighting ignorance since 1973”. Why would you expect things to go any differently with respect to LDS temple ordinances. Those who choose to believe lies will continue to believe them irrespective of the truth. Those who will dismiss the evidences of the Book of Mormon out of hand while making archaeological/historical objections to the Book of Mormon won’t see truth if it bit them on the nose, unless they choose to change their lives.
And so it goes…(almost to page 5 now and we’re still following the same script)
As genie pointed out, we don’t know much about that at all. Any discussion about the point is pretty much rampant speculation. I believe that God was once a mortal as I am now. However, why do you see that as such a sticking point?
After understanding the doctrine of deification, I personally could never believe in a God who would not offer everything he has to his children.
And on a related note, was Jesus “just some schlump”?
The same people who don’t want to take God’s advice about how to be happy in this one.
No. Unlike some religions, we don’t believe that those who never had the opportunity to receive saving ordinances in mortality will be denied blessings solely because of that. See here for LDS scripture on the topic.
Who said anything about a requirement to have children?
Another topic that we don’t know much about. While the doctrine of plural marriages is accepted, it was only practiced with a husband with multiple wives (polygyny). There is nothing (AFAIK) revealed about poyandry (a woman with multiple husbands). So at least in the case where one man is sealed in the temple to a second wife after being widowed, we would expect both women to be sealed to him in the afterlife as well.
If I recall my Sunday school correctly, only two-thirds of the plates were translated, and the rest were sealed. We weren’t ready for them, or something.
So does the cornerstone (basis) of your church rest solely on the detailed account of Joseph Smith? Wouldn’t God still be part of it even if JS turned out to be a fraud? I was Mormon for three years and although the people were wonderful, it just wasn’t right for me. I fully respect everyone’s right to their beliefs. What puzzles me is the your certainty that LDS is the only church founded by God. Obviously yours isn’t the only religion that feels that way and they puzzle me too. Why are all these religions sure theirs is the only right one, as opposed to just accepting that God reveals himself and inspires people in different ways? Religions vary so much from culture to culture. Why would God pick Americans vs. Chinese, etc. It just doesn’t make sense to think that God picked only a few people. It makes more sense to think that he was the inspiration behind all religion and each is just interpreting it different. I always understood that we were God’s “church”. Not a building or a denomination. Would God offer everything he had to only part of his children?
Genie, thank you for the links, but Jeff Lindsay’s LDS apologetics site is not exactly authoritative in regard to scientific verification of the BoM. (and yes, I read the articles.)
Archeology
For one thing, a great deal is known about Central American cultures. Here is a timeline provided by the same Michael Coe quoted out of context in the Lindsay article. Note no mention of Jews arriving in the area. Moreover, the whole idea of the family of Lehi being just one group out of many in Central America seems to be contradicted by the BoM itself:
(Bolding mine)
Moreover, Lindsay is not strictly honest in his discussion. For example, he claims that the May 19, 2003 BBC News article presents evidence for a completely unknown ancient civilization. Yet when you read the article, you find that archeologists merely found a precursor to the Maya classic era. That’s like saying that Mount Vernon is a relic from a completely different civilization. Moreover, It seems Lindsay is one of those who has his conclusion and is determined to fit the evidence to support it, based on this quote:
I’d rather see if the science leads us to validate the BoM than say the BoM is validated by faith and evidence doesn’t really matter.
Scimitars
The scimitar question comes the use of the word “cimeter” (Mosiah 9:16, Enos 1:20) which seems to have been a misspelling of the word “scimitar” by Joseph Smith that continues to be propagated in subsequent editions of the BoM. In any event, there is no evidence for swords, “cimeters,” or any metal weapons used by Mesoamericans, who favored clubs made of stone or wood, studded with flakes of obsidian. Your article does nothing to contradict that.
Barley
The first explanation is laughable, and the second is doubtful. I mean, 3 articles between 1983-1985 and nothing else in 20 years? Is there any additional verification? Is Hordeum pusillum similar in appearance to Old word hordeum species?
In any event, that still does not explain the other anachronisms in the BoM, like quoting NT authors centuries before their works were written or the reference to “A Bible!” in II Nephi.
And the DNA link is so scattered in focus and so poorly argued that it would be a waste of bandwidth to discuss it. An example:
He is not arguing evidence but faith.
I already quoted the relevant verses that indicate that Lehi and his family were the only people on the continent. Despite the LDS’s disavowal of the plain meaning of these verses, Smith obviously meant his book to be a tale of all the inhabitants of the Americas, not just the record of a small family group.
You need to read more than Jeff Linday and FARMS because they only present pro-Mormon propaganda. Linday distorts his sources and FARMS is the ICR of Mesoamerican archeology. No reputable non-LDS archaeologist supports the BoM in any way.
Besides as the Mormon kid said on last week’sSouth Park, it doesn;t really mater if the BoM is true or if Joseph Smith was really a prophet, because the church teaches love of family, loyalty to country, and personal morality, and how can anyone really object to that?
Now that I’ve read your links, perhaps you’ll read mine.
Your response pretty much summed up my two “sticking” points with Mormonism.
God was once mortal. If God was once a fallible mortal, it explains why this world is so messed up.
Women get the shaft. I could never accept any religion where women were not exact equals with men in every way (holding leadership positions in the church, an equal chance to have multiple spouses in the afterlife, etc. etc).
There are a few accounts of the sealed portion’s size. The current consensus is that it was 2/3–hence the translated portion (including the missing 116 pages) was 1/3 of the plates. Yes, we expect to receive the sealed portion some time in the future, but the standard is set pretty high for that. This is likely an additional reason the plates were taken away for the time being, but we haven’t been told that.
I knew a kid who went door-to-door in the Mormon van. I don’t know who would be converted by a pudgy guy passing out on their stoop, but he was accepted. Or so he told us, the day he “quit” his job and also the day before he was going to get fired for dopey-ness (dopiness?). We called him Droopy Dog, but not to his face, because it usually had a pillow on it. Unless it was the lunch break.
I didn’t even know there was a mormon van that went door to door. I hope they got as sick of him as we did.
The dude was lying. Mormons on mission don;t drive, they walk or ride bikes, they are always in paisrs, and they have to be in good standing with the church, not some dude they picked up off the street.
One thing I will say about the LDS, they must select for good genetics because all the LDS boys (yes, I know they’re called “elders” but they’re boys to me) are hot.
gobear: Gee, nobody ever called me “hot” when I was on a mission…
For the record, some missionaries do indeed drive. I served in a rural part of the US teaching in Spanish to immigrant workers. Sometimes we had to drive 30-40 miles in a day just to visit 3 or 4 families. So yes, we were given use of a car. Zone Leaders and assistants to the Mission President also had cars. And then there was the big brown van that was used (in our mission, at least) to move the missionaries around when they got transferred from one area within the mission to another.
