Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_consiglieri]

what about the conflict of the kings men and free men -

I think there is no doubt that one can see echoes of early American military conflict in the Book of Mormon.

But at the same time one can also see the age old monarchical conflict of ancient Israel revived and relived.

In this regard, it may be of significance that the two kingships of Israel and Judah were held by descendants of Ephraim and Judah respectively . . . and that we hear nothing in the Book of Mormon of any trouble with "kingmen" until after the Nephite population encounters the Mulekite population, which the text informs us originated with the last known descendant of the Zedekiah, King of Judah.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_karl61]

what about the conflict of the kings men and free men -

I think there is no doubt that one can see echoes of early American military conflict in the Book of Mormon.

But at the same time one can also see the age old monarchical conflict of ancient Israel revived and relived.

In this regard, it may be of significance that the two kingships of Israel and Judah were held by descendants of Ephraim and Judah respectively . . . and that we hear nothing in the Book of Mormon of any trouble with "kingmen" until after the Nephite population encounters the Mulekite population, which the text informs us originated with the last known descendant of the Zedekiah, King of Judah.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Did the decedents of the Mulekite population have Lehi as an ancestor?

[_marg]

She and I have conversed on this topic several times over the past several years. On not merely one, but two message boards. She has proudly declared that she didn't need to read the Book of Mormon in order to pontificate on it. I've always thought that ridiculous, and have always said so. You're coming to the conversation quite late.

No Daniel, we have not been discussing this topic for years. I partipated for a few months on the old MAD board. I remember one discussion in which you brought up Polkinghorne who had made an argument with regards to religion and science...and I commented something to the effect that his argument was an attempt to piggy-back science onto religion. We rarely had any discussions Daniel, just as we don't have discussions here. I also don't consider responding to your sarcastic put downs worthy of being considered a discussion of Mormonism:

Most of my discussions here and elsewhere have not been focusse on the contents of the Book of Mormon. They have to do with science, logic, critical thinking and their relationship to the faith based religious approaches. I've taken an interest in the Out of Africa theory presented by Spencer Wells in his book, which is relevant to American Indians and where their ancestors originated from. When first introduced to Mormonism I think about 10 years ago I immediately became aware of the Spalding Rigdon theory and have taken a little bit of an interest. My knowledge whatever it is has slowly evolved, but I've not deliberately put much energy and time into it. If I had I would have taken notes, as I went along.

Invariably those who wish to criticize me in this thread, E.A., Mikwut and yourself DCP, have taken little interest if any, in the S/R theory. I'd have more respect for your opinions in this thread if I thought you were offering them from a little bit of an objective viewpoint but you each have your motives. DCP & Mikwut's are religiously based..the S/R theory being a threat to their beliefs. And E.A. seems to have a grudge which began at the beginning of this board and he/she appears to ave kept it ever since. E.A. jumps into the thread to immediately attack me...criticizing me for not reading the entire Book of Mormon in order to evaluate the S/R theory. Meanwhile, oddly enough has E.A. ever commented in threads on the S/R theory. Has E.A. ever read anything about it, I don't know. However he/she wishes to not only take pot shots at me, but to as well put the theory down, without having ever giving any indication he or she knows anything about it. How ironic. At least what I'm commenting on is evidence I have evaluated, whereas E.A. is dismissing the S/R theory which has been around since the inception of Mormonism (but of course pressure by the Church has been to squash it))..and without doing any investigation and evaluation of evidence..E.A. feels confident to dismiss it.

So while all 3 are critical of me for discussing the S/R theory, I don't think any one of them have objectively evaluated the evidence. Certainly the vast majority of evidence for 'who and how the Book of Mormon was written' is not determined by the contents of the storyline. As I explained in my previous post, I'm not dismissing that the Book of Mormon is necessary to read to evaluate of some evidence..i.e. such as shifts in voice of author, or appreciation of themes which Tom Donofrio points out can be found in other contemporary texts and is important if plagiarized from.

But to get back the reason I started this post in the first place...no Daniel we have not discussed it the Book of Mormon and just as your participation in this thread has not been for discussion purposes ..the same applies to the meager interactions we've had at other times. I rarely read your posts now, I rarely will even respond to you..because for one thing, I realize you are not interested in discussion, you are interested mainly in writing put downs and that has not changed from my few interactions with you on the old MAD board.

[_karl61]

has anyone from BYU researched this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh

[_consiglieri]

Did the decedents of the Mulekite population have Lehi as an ancestor?[/quote]



The Book of Mormon has Lehi descending from Joseph (2 Nephi 3) and the Mulekites being named for Mulek, who was alleged to have been a son of Zedekiah, whom we read about in the Bible as being the king of Judah at the time of the Babylonian conquest circa 587 B.C.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Morrissey]

Which applies to probably over 90% of the US population.

I doubt this this true. It's generally standard to force students to read both documents at an early grade level.

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. I've not seen anything to indicate that a significant share of the US population has read the founding documents, least of all the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a probable exception, and Declaration of Independence may be another. But the entire Constitution--no way.

I'm guessing that affects more than 10% of living Americans. But it is true that lots of people have no substantial memory of the contents of either document beyond the opening lines. I find this situation regrettable and source of serious political problems.

I'd agree that one doesn't need to have read either document to have informed opinions on some aspects of the founding of the American Republic or its government. But someone who "ceaselessly opines" - perhaps spending years on a message board arguing America was founded as a Christian nation - ought to have read both documents. Heck, they should have read the Federalist Papers and much more. I think the adverb is key here.

Not sure I agree that it should be requirement to read the Federalist Papers. It would be nice, to be sure.

It's one thing to offer an opinion on America's government's founding that isn't uniquely dependent on knowledge of the Constitution. It's another be deeply involved in commentary on it over a period of years that does depend on knowledge of its contents. The latter is comparable to what marg has been doing.

For what it is worth, I do think lots of people do offer opinions on our basic government set up that depend on knowledge of the Constitution without appearing to be familiar with its contents. That is a problem. But imagine a situation like when Ron "Dr. Constitution" Paul said the Constitution was replete with references to God when making a Christian Nation argument (it isn't.) That seemed especially ridiculous precisely because of his constant commentary on fidelity to the document. Not that he hasn't read the thing, but imagine in the aftermath he revealed he hadn't read the thing. People would go nuts, and rightly so.

My point is that I find objectionable the elitist view that if one does not possess the same advanced knowledge of topics as the elitist, then one should not opine on the topics. Or, that if they do opine, then their opinions are automatically subordinate to those of the elitist expert. While I can agree to this in certain contexts (e.g., talking about nuclear physics), I wholeheartedly disagree in other contexts (e.g., religion or politics). Relatively unread novices often have opinions that are every bit as valid and insightful as the experts, and the experts frequently disagree among themselves.

A criterion for participating in public debate ought not be a certified expertise on the subject matter. People are entitled to opinions, and to express them, even if they are quite wrong headed. Dan appears to want to cut off debate, or to belittle his debating opponents, by appealing to 'expert authority' (his presumably), but I see this as a rhetorical device (an an inappropriate one) rather than as a legitimate argument.

[_Roger]

marg:

The reason I would like to read the Book of Mormon is to appreciate more fully Tom Donofrio's conclusion..that the Book of Mormon models in storytelling the same issues that were present for colonial Americans in the Am. Revolutionary War and the author/authors borrowed from various texts written in the previous generation, not just words and unique phrases but the same concepts and themes.

Have you ever taken a look at Vernal Holly's pamphlet?

http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/2001vern.htm

Dale B. showed this to me. There are a couple things in there that Holly is probably mistaken about, but overall it's really very good and concise.

What REALLY makes an impression (on me) are the maps starting on pg 60

http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/vernP3.htm#pg6061

You have to have an understanding and appreciation of Spalding and the S/R theory before you can truly appreciate all this (and I know you do), but the most striking thing to me is the similarity of actual place names in the great lakes region.

For example, on page 61, Vernal writes:

Figure 2. shows several of the Book of Mormon place names fit to the landscape of the Great Lakes Region. Several of the sites have the same names, or similar names, of sites at the same locations as in Figure 1

Just check out the list of names:

(NOTE: I tried to get the names to separate as they are in the pamphlet but the program just eliminated the spaces.... so this is a little difficult to get, but if you follow the link you can see it better)

Modern Maps Book of Mormon

Agathe, Saint * Ogath
Alma Alma
Angola Angola
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Boaz Boaz
Conner * Comner
Ephrem, Saint * Ephraim, Hill
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Jordan Jordan
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Lehigh Lehi
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown * Morianton
Morin * Moron
Noah Lake Noah, Land of
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Onidah, Hill
Omer Omner
Rama * Ramah
Ripple Lake * Ripliancum, Waters of
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
lands of the Minonion Land of Minon
Tenecum (Tecumsah) * Teancum

http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/vernP3.htm#pg6061

So here we have yet another one of those amazing coincidences that Ben--were he here--no doubt would scoff at as being no big deal. But it is a big deal. I can't for the life of me fathom how critics don't get it. Apologists like Ben and Dan are understandible because their faith and their way of life are at stake, but why would critics not pay attention? How many coincidences does one need before one begins to connect the dots? If one is simply willing to consider the S/R theory, evidence begins to fall into place.

Holly also lists the parallels between the Roman story and the Book of Mormon... parallels that allegedly don't exist.

[_Inconceivable]

Generally threads this long loose their value and significance.

Nevertheless, I'll inject this:

If you spend enough time and effort on any language (including the God-awful language of the Book of Mormon) you can learn it and understand it without resorting to crap like the Dramatized Scriptures etc.

My personal opinion is that most 2nd+ generation Mormons never got past the latter and remain under the allusions of its many stereotypes.

I learned the language of the Book of Mormon. It took several years. Even after that, I read it through 20 more times. And yes, I learned good things each time.

Although I believe it to be a fiction and flawed, the book is far better than the church will ever be. A book that reveals the church and it's founders for what they are.

[_marg]

And yes, I learned good things each time.

What do you consider to be "good things"? I'm nearly finished Book of Jacob and haven't noticed anything "good". Where abouts in the book are you referring to?

[_Brackite]

And yes, I learned good things each time.

What do you consider to be "good things"? I'm nearly finished Book of Jacob and haven't noticed anything "good". Where abouts in the book are you referring to?

The Book of Jacob is my favorite book in the Book of Mormon.

What I find Good within the Book of Jacob is the full blanket condemnation of the Practice of Polygamy from the Lord God through the Prophet Jacob at the time. This is found in Jacob Chapter Two.

Here is Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23 through 34:

Jacob 2:23-24:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[29] Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

Kings David and Solomon having many wives was indeed truly an abomination before the Lord God. (Jacob 2:23-24.)


The Lord God through the Prophet Jacob explains in Jacob Chapter Two, within Verse 28, Why He commanded the Men of his People to have just one wife each within Verse 27. The reason that the Lord God commanded the Men of his People to have just one wife each is that He explains within Verse 28, that whoredoms are an abomination to Him. The Lord God equates the Practice of Plural Marriages with whoredoms within Verse 28. And whoredoms are an abomination before the Lord God.
A lot of LDS Apologists will argue that Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30, is a loophole for the Lord God to Command Plural Marriage. These LDS Apologists state the Lord God will command some men to Practice Polygamy, in order to 'raise up a seed' unto the Lord God. However, There is absolutely NO Evidence whatsoever, that the Phrase, 'raise up seed unto me', within Jacob 2:30, refers to that the Lord God will command some of the Men of His People to enter into the Practice of Polygamy. The Lord God intends to command His People to marry Monogamously, in order to be able to 'raise up a righteous seed' unto Him. This is really meaning raising up Righteous children, righteous sons and righteous daughters, unto the Lord God. It can and will be done through the Practice of Monogamy. The Lord God intends to raise up a righteous seed unto Him, through Monogamy, (NOT Polygamy), as can be clearly seen when correctly comparing Jacob 2:30 to 1 Nephi 7:1, and then correctly comparing 1 Nephi 7:1 to 1 Nephi 16:7-8.

Here is Jacob 2:30, Compared to 1 Nephi 7:1:

Jacob 2:30:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.


1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.

Now, Here is 1 Nephi 7:1, Compared to 1 Nephi 16:7-8:

1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.


1 Nephi 16:7-8:

[7] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

[8] And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

Nephi and his brethren took just one wife each, in order to be able to raise up seed unto the Lord God.
Nephi and his brethren did fulfill the Commandment of the Lord God, with them just taking one wife each, in order to be able to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord God.
A Righteous Man is able to raise up a righteous seed unto the Lord God, with having just one righteous wife.



Here is how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is Correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

There will Not be any Polygamous Marriages with the Kingdom of the Lord God.