The Nahom Follies

[_Lemmie]

Here's the thing, Fence Sitter. What is it about the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey doesn't make sense? The possibility that God would relocated a group from the Old World to the New World isn't that far fetched...is it? Put God into the equation, just for kicks....

Within the realm of 'God belief', doesn't that make sense? I realize that if you pull God out of the picture then this is all just a bunch of hooey. I would look at it that way too...if I didn't keep my options open in 'God belief'...and that now and then He directs the course of world history/religious history.

MG

within the realm of fairy dust, it makes sense also. I keep my Tinkerbell options open!

but seriously, would you consider keeping your options open in 'humanism belief'.... of course you would, because that is what you are asking of others- to keep an open mind and make logical assessments. In keeping with that mindset, very little of the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey can reasonably be true. Can we discuss that?

[Guest]

I am not sure if you saw or read the Life of Pi...

Read the book and saw the movie. One of the most enjoyable books I've read.

You know if we just exchanged book we liked we would probably never disagree.

[Here's the thing, Fence Sitter. What is it about the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey doesn't make sense? The possibility that God would relocated a group from the Old World to the New World isn't that far fetched...is it? Put God into the equation, just for kicks. Jerusalem is going to heck in a handbasket. God reaches in to take a group of people, and some records for them to have as a resource, and then sets them in a different part of His vineyard to see how things go...with hopes that they might create a Zion like society. Well, there were ups and downs on that score. But isn't that the track record almost no matter where you look? But God gave them a chance, and for many it turned out to be a good thing. Maybe better than if they'd hung around in the land of Jerusalem.

That is all fine and dandy but there is no physical evidence that it ever happened along with evidence that it didn't when we actually start look at anachronism in the Book of Mormon like deutero Isaiah and the Book of Mormon version of the Sermon on the mount that didn't even get written untillong after Christ died. This defense of "what ifs" is just as applicable to Scientology claims as it is Mormonism. How does one who is not already vested in Mormonism begin to take such claims seriously? From either Scientology or Mormonism?

Within the realm of 'God belief', doesn't that make sense?

Not for me. If God operates in this way, he shows little evidence of being a God who cares equally for all. This is a God of confusion.

I realize that if you pull God out of the picture then this is all just a bunch of hooey. I would look at it that way too...if I didn't keep my options open in 'God belief'...and that now and then He directs the course of world history/religious history.

But this is just Pascal's wager all over again and has been repeatedly pointed out, you are betting on the Mormon God over all others with no reasons that would convince anyone besides another Mormon. People all over the world are making the same wager but on completely different Gods/religions. How are they wrong and you are right and what kind of God devised such a system of mass confusion?

Don't ask me to tell you how to know when He is and when He isn't doing his thing in this regard though. I don't know the answer to that...and I don't think anyone does.

Regards,
MG

I know you can't, but what should bother you is the same evidence that he is doing stuff that you use to support your beliefs in your particular brand of Mormonism is used by others to reject it. That should tell you something, as in one of you is wrong and likely both.

More on the above.


Your reliance on pleading that God could accomplish anything is tantamount to saying, "Yeah I can't explain it but somehow God made it happen" which is just special pleading. I don't believe there was a God helping Nephi to build a ship, and the more I point out the inconsistencies in the story the greater role invoked for God. Frankly in my opinion the story becomes such nonsense, that even if God were involved, it would never happen that way. There are a lot easier ways for God to accomplish the event than the silly story presented.

This silly story stuff, by the way, is a common theme in stories we find in Mormonism, from the gold plates to Urim & Thummin to the lack of believable narratives within the Book of Mormon (like we are seeing with the Lehi story - there are many stories in the Book of Mormon that are down right silly), to actual Book of Mormon lands in the Americas to the lost 116 pages to Book of Abraham to an angel with a drawn sword and so on and so on. On a consistent basis a believer has to do what you are doing with the Lehi story, that is make up a whole lot of "possibilities" in order to make all of these things remotely possible. In isolation one might consider the remote possibility that one of these things might have happened, but, in Mormonism at least, there are so many lynchpin narratives that are so unbelievable that if you could step back for a minute and look at the whole picture, you might just agree they are best explained by some guy doing a poor job of making up stuff in the 19th century. As Sethbag has pointed out else where, it's not the Mormonism is wrong, it is clearly wrong and takes very little effort to actually see that. The problematic narratives within Mormonism are pervasive from the start.

The reality is that the second someone allows for the possibility that Joseph Smith just made it up, all those issues just go away. I tell you, as a non believer, it is a whole lot easier just accepting the few cases where it is difficult to explain how Joseph Smith could have known than it was as a believer to explain the myriad of cases that clearly show he did not.

[_Quasimodo]

Here's the thing, Fence Sitter. What is it about the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey doesn't make sense? The possibility that God would relocated a group from the Old World to the New World isn't that far fetched...is it? Put God into the equation, just for kicks....

Within the realm of 'God belief', doesn't that make sense? I realize that if you pull God out of the picture then this is all just a bunch of hooey. I would look at it that way too...if I didn't keep my options open in 'God belief'...and that now and then He directs the course of world history/religious history.

MG

within the realm of fairy dust, it makes sense also. I keep my Tinkerbell options open!

but seriously, would you consider keeping your options open in 'humanism belief'.... of course you would, because that is what you are asking of others- to keep an open mind and make logical assessments. In keeping with that mindset, very little of the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey can reasonably be true. Can we discuss that?

MG (who I hold in high esteem as a person), is not holding open his options in God belief. Only in Joseph Smith's version of God belief. It's a shame that he puts his faith in such an unworthy messenger.

[_Lemmie]

MG (who I hold in high esteem as a person), is not holding open his options in God belief. Only in Joseph Smith's version of God belief. It's a shame that he puts his faith in such an unworthy messenger.

Ah, interesting distinction, thank you for the information. In that sense, it is extremely disingenuous for MG to argue simply for 'God belief.' I adjust my literary Tinkerbell example then, to a more historically accurate Dousing Rod and Seer Stone (ie 8-ball of the 1800's) example.

[_canpakes]

Using the same methodology with the Book of Mormon - what would our next target be?

Do we know that we are comparing apples with apples? As we look at Old World culture vs. New World Culture and their patterns of record keeping, in all of its varied forms, would we expect the same 'basis in fact' to come out of both systems?

Yes, in two ways, for the most part.

1. Insamuch as the story speaks to people coming from a particular known- and well-studied archaeology of the Old World, we can expect that once these inhabitants reached the New World that they did not completely substitute every cultural and historical recording norm that they knew for something completely different and that shows absolutely no reflection of what they stated they believed. Such a thing would be impractical from a day-to-day living standpoint of a newly transplanted society, regardless of size - and from the view of preserving these people's history and culture - which is arguably one of the given main purposes of the plates... a record of who they were, what they did and why.

2. Conversely, if we accept that the only main change, as noted from the Book of Mormon narrative itself, is that they decided to create a new language to record their otherwise unchanging traditions (again, as compared to the culture that they exited from), then we should expect to find record of this language elsewhere. We do not, in fact, find any existing example of 'reformed Egyptian' anywhere. But what we do find is records and use of languages worlds apart in style from what the 'caractors' of the Book are claimed to be... or from Old World history.

A number of folks have attempted to do so in a theoretical fashion and we can look at their work, in regards to either Meso-American archaeology or the Meldrum theories, but we don't have anything that marks out Zarahemla, as a matter of fact, or anywhere else mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The million dollar question is should we expect this to be the case?

I would argue, 'yes'. I can't think of another example of a detailed claimed record of a people's existence - a population of very significant size and influence, of specific technology and theology - leaving simply no trace whatsoever on anyone or anything within the areas that it supposedly inhabited.

We do have an archaeological treasure trove of artifacts from the claimed regions of Book of Mormon peoples habitation - but none of it matches the Book of Mormon's story. Nor does any of it show any cultural influence, in even minor ways, imparted to it by Book of Mormon civilizations, according to Book of Mormon descriptions, anyway.

And there's an additional point to consider. Even assuming that other inhabitants overran and exterminated the Book of Mormon peoples, then why is there no mention at all of such victories within the records of the surviving cultures? Why wouldn't the victors have documented, in some or any way, their conflict and extermination of the defeated Book of Mormon peoples?

But, if or no - If the idea is to live by faith in God, then why does a believer need a quorum of mortals to tell him what to believe about God?

They wouldn't...unless that quorum of 'old men', as you describe them, have unique access to the Holy Ghost as special witnesses to keep us up to speed in areas that are of special import in our own day and time.

Again, this is contradictory. If we are to believe via faith, what is the point of having a committee of 15 guys sitting around waiting to succeed each other by death to occasionally dispense new claimed salvific minutia to the entire earth via a minor religion shared by a quarter of one percent of its inhabitants?

On that note, and given a belief in the Book of Mormon narrative, one might ask why none of the 'latter day' requirements for salvation introduced by the modern CoJCoLDS were deemed significant enough to mention during two personal visits by Christ on two different continents.

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't believe there was a God helping Nephi to build a ship, and the more I point out the inconsistencies in the story the greater role invoked for God. Frankly in my opinion the story becomes such nonsense, that even if God were involved, it would never happen that way. There are a lot easier ways for God to accomplish the event than the silly story presented.

Thanks for you post, Fence Sitter. You along with a number of other folks have been very civil during this discussion. I applaud you for that. Not that I would necessarily expect anything less...unless certain individuals were participating...but anyway...question:

Why would you expect that God would accomplish a certain operation/task/scenario of events in the easiest way possible? There are so many examples of 'simpler' ways to accomplish what to us would seem to be the more positive outcome. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Laman and Lemuel (if you want to believe they existed), and many others. The easy way out would have been to see to it that these guys were pushed out with the one third (if you believe in that) or to cause a stroke, or an accident, or a terminal disease. But no, God took the more difficult path, which as a sidenote, included the deaths of many folks that didn't have to die. At least I would assume God didn't need to take large numbers of people back 'home' all in one fell swoop.

Some options. 1. No God 2. A God that enjoys and gets his kicks from killing people and watching people cry and little babies die. 3. A God that for some reason allows bad dudes to do bad things for some long range purpose.

Number three doesn't seem...to us...like the "easier way" for God to accomplish something good. But it's the only option that I am comfortable with...but not really...

I agree that there may have been easier ways to get Lehi and Co. over to the New World.

Why would God choose to do, and let others do, things the hard way? The fact seems to be, that if there is a God...he operates in this fashion...number three. I suppose we could come back to number two...

Yuck.

A lot of us really don't want to go to number 1...so what would you suggest?

Regards,
MG

[_canpakes]

That out of the thousands of things that should have been found if the book were rooted in reality, and we don't find them, we can still just keep waiting and some day the magic piece or artifact will show up? Archaeologists develop their information piece by piece. Inscriptions, burials, garbage piles, writings if available, and many other factors. The absence of animals, plants, language etc. has already told a story they are not wrong about. Rather than some unitary artifact, all the excavations would now need to start turning up all the pieces that show the Book of Mormon to have described the civilization it came from.

I know this sound rather quaint or over simplified and even naïve...but I think about what Pres. Hinckley said one time. That is, that the truth of the Book of Mormon will more than likely not be found external to its covers. But that it will be found within. I think that many folks are spending most, if not all (Professor Jenkins and many others) their time outside of the covers of the Book of Mormon to the exclusion of what might be found within. Then when someone says what I just said the unbeliever will say, well, tell me what's in between the covers that makes the Book of Mormon divine/unique. The think is, it really can't be shared. It can only be experienced. Although, granted, once one is familiar with all of the external...and some of the internal...issues of the Book of Mormon Pres. Hinckley's admonition is a bit more difficult to swallow. But, nonetheless, if a person is going to have a 'testimony' of sorts in regards to the Book of Mormon, I'm thinking that Pres. HInckley's formula is the only one that will have the potential of bringing a seed/degree of faith into a person's mind/heart.

MG, my apologies for jumping in on this one.

It would be that there are two kinds of 'truth' that you are intermixing - one is a historical truth of existence that establishes a source for the modern-day CoJCoLDS. This type of truth is indifferent to morality. The other is the 'truth' of a given moral message regardless of the physical/historical source or setting.

It's fine to argue that the Book of Mormon contains 'truths' of the second kind, but there is simply no automatic confirmation of the first kind of truth even if the second exists to some extent.

The problem with the modern Church is that it wants to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants push something that - ironically - may be a falsehood, a historical fabrication... in order to frame and proclaim that it is the only source for moral truth. This contradiction effectively nullifies its claim, and tarnishes what it delivers, even if there exists some moral truths within the story.

[_mentalgymnast]

Again, this is contradictory. If we are to believe via faith, what is the point of having a committee of 15 guys sitting around waiting to succeed each other by death to occasionally dispense new claimed salvific minutia to the entire earth via a minor religion shared by a quarter of one percent of its inhabitants?

With most of the posts you've made on this thread, canpakes, I don't have any major quibbles on the surface of most of what you've presented. I can readily see why you've taken the position that you have and I can see you've given it a lot of thought/consideration.

Question: Why would we assume that the "salvific minutia" as taught by the CofJCofLDS is information that the whole world is destined to have? In a recent post you mentioned that the purpose for mankind may simply be to be born, live well , and learn how to get along and to love. I agree with that. If that is indeed the case, it may not matter that 50% or 65%, or 80% of the world's population hear the salvific message of the CofJCofLDS. Those fifteen guys may do what they can to get the message out...but they know that their chances of converting the world are nil. And back to what the real reason is that people are here on earth for (assuming that there is a meaningful reason), if that (getting along, loving, etc.) IS the reason...I don't know that I would get too worked up over most folks not 'getting the message'. LDS doctrine teaches that they will be able to hear the rest of the story down the road. But in essence/reality they've already had a chance to participate in the actual 'reason' for which people are having this earthly experience.

On that note, and given a belief in the Book of Mormon narrative, one might ask why none of the 'latter day' requirements for salvation introduced by the modern CoJCoLDS were deemed significant enough to mention during two personal visits by Christ on two different continents.

I would say there are a few possibilities. One, the Book of Mormon and the restoration is made up and that's why. Two, the 'significant stuff' was not mentioned or pulled out of the narrative for some reason (by man or God), but it was still practiced/given to the ancients. Or three, the salvific/exaltative doctrines taught today were not taught to the larger group of the church (Gnostics were the 'chosen'(?)...Peter, James and John on the Mount)...or not taught at all...to the ancients. Of course Nibley would beg to differ. There are probably some other possibilities...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG (who I hold in high esteem as a person), is not holding open his options in God belief. Only in Joseph Smith's version of God belief. It's a shame that he puts his faith in such an unworthy messenger.

Hey thanks, Quasimodo. Here's the thing...it's not like I haven't thought about this. It's just that, for me, if God isn't behind or a part of what's going on with the restoration of the CofJCofLDS, I'm one of those folks that would either push God out the window, or I would have to believe that God doesn't give a tinker's damn about what's going on here. That He would let such a scam...that proclaims to bring people to a state by which they can become like God...that people can receive certain ordinances and, if worthy, return to God...that He would let an organization exist that has the gall to proclaim the message that it does...is ludicrous. The message of the CofJCofLDS is just TOO big and authoritatively top heavy compared to say, Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses, to give it a pass...from God. I don't look to Joseph Smith, primarily, as the focus for why I give the benefit of the doubt to the LDS Church. It has more to do with the message and that the alternatives just don't seem to be too attractive or make any more...actually less...sense that the doctrines/theology of the LDS Church.

Granted, I fully realize that the doctrines/theology of the church can be found in bits and pieces, here and there, all over the place. But in the church there's just a lot stuff that is part of 'one great whole'.

Regards,
MG

[_canpakes]

Question: Why would we assume that the "salvific minutia" as taught by the CofJCofLDS is information that the whole world is destined to have?

I state that from the perspective of Church leadership, coupled with their insistence on how failure to believe it guarantees that the individual who does not believe spends an eternity separated from Christ and family, or in the clutches of Satan, etc.

Mind you, this is not a conflict for me because I don't buy into it. But what I do see - and experience - is the angst induced into other family members. Years of programing by Church doctrine and rhetoric have warped the mindset of close family that are absolutely convinced that my spouse and child are willfully separating ourselves from them in the afterlife. They would not all uniformly exhibit the same desperation if not programmed since their earliest days by the Church's constantly-repeated teachings about such things.

It is basically impossible to accept a historical truth to Church claims about the Book of Mormon. That's fine; to each his own. And that lack of historical truth could be overlooked if the Church had an effective message of moral truth. But it chooses instead to deploy manipulative coercive behaviors and messages, starting with Primary children, in order to keep membership intact and paying their tithes. And it combines that with a forced acceptance of a literal Book of Mormon that the Church knows it cannot support with any factual anecdote, but is asserted anyway in order to preserve the reputation of its founder. What becomes of any moral message after that?

On that note, and given a belief in the Book of Mormon narrative, one might ask why none of the 'latter day' requirements for salvation introduced by the modern CoJCoLDS were deemed significant enough to mention during two personal visits by Christ on two different continents.

I would say there are a few possibilities. One, the Book of Mormon and the restoration is made up and that's why. Two, the 'significant stuff' was not mentioned or pulled out of the narrative for some reason (by man or God), but it was still practiced/given to the ancients. Or three, the salvific/exaltative doctrines taught today were not taught to the larger group of the church (Gnostics were the 'chosen'(?)...Peter, James and John on the Mount)...or not taught at all...to the ancients. Of course Nibley would beg to differ. There are probably some other possibilities...

To rephrase, the possibilities are:

1. Smith needed to give his followers a bit of religion to practice (busywork keeps the crew toeing the line).

2. A conspiratorial deletion that has no basis except to give credence that Smith needed to 'restore' something, and that in the case of historical texts is easily refuted by other document records.

3. Simple deception or indifference in never bothering to mention these, but now they're requirements that make mortals responsible for the salvation of their deceased relatives.

I have to go with option #1.