Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[Archaea]

Without tooting too many horns, how many other sites could have the quality of discussion which some of our contributors just posted?

Good luck in reading tonight! You guys are already behind.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Without tooting too many horns, how many other sites could have the quality of discussion which some of our contributors just posted?

Good luck in reading tonight! You guys are already behind.

That;s where you're killing me; Tonight is the pinewood Derby and our polished axles have some serious butt-kicking to do. Tomorrow is some YW activity and so I will not start until Friday at the earliest.

[BlueHair]

SIEQ,

I enjoy reading your posts. It's obvious that I'm not even in your intelligence ballpark. Would you mind clearing up a few things for me?

#1-You stated you believe your ordinances are valid. Do you believe that other faith's ordinances are or could be valid?

#2 - Do you believe the BOM is purely faith promoting stories, meaning the Nephites, Lamanites, and other BOM people never existed? Do you believe those people existed, but the stories aren't historically accurate regarding dates and timelines?

#3 - Is it possible in your view, that the BOMs sole purpose was to bring people to Christ? I've wondered for some time if the church lost it's way in regards to the BOM. Maybe it was never intended to be taken literally.

What do you think?

[SoonerCoug]

For me, questions about whether the Book of Mormon was literal or historical have exactly zero bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is an inspired document. I think they're really interesting issues to think about, but I think that Chapel Hill Coug is right in saying that there is little evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

We all know that the Book has flaws, and also lots of remarkable, beautiful, and meaningful theological insights. Also, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Joseph Smith himself sincerely believed that his work was inspired by God.

For me, the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is the Church and the exceptionally good people that the Book of Mormon helped to spawn.

As far as Chapel Hill Coug's posts, I think he's right in that there is some pretty convincing evidence that the BOM is not a historical document. But how do you explain things such as chiasmus in Alma 36 and other locations? Like I was saying, I believe in the BOM regardless of whether it's a historical document or not, but I'm curious about evidence for and against historical authenticity.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

For me, questions about whether the Book of Mormon was literal or historical have exactly zero bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is an inspired document. I think they're really interesting issues to think about, but I think that Chapel Hill Coug is right in saying that there is little evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

We all know that the Book has flaws, and also lots of remarkable, beautiful, and meaningful theological insights. Also, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Joseph Smith himself sincerely believed that his work was inspired by God.

For me, the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is the Church and the exceptionally good people that the Book of Mormon helped to spawn.

As far as Chapel Hill Coug's posts, I think he's right in that there is some pretty convincing evidence that the BOM is not a historical document. But how do you explain things such as chiasmus in Alma 36 and other locations? Like I was saying, I believe in the BOM regardless of whether it's a historical document or not, but I'm curious about evidence for and against historical authenticity.

I can accept that the BOM could be helpful or even inspired and not be historical. My hope is that someday, we will ease up on the only true church doctrine and welcome knowledge and insight from other sources. I realize the individual is free to seek those things, but I don't think I'm out of line saying that many members feel like we are discouraged to do so (whether that is the intent or not).

As far as the proof being in the pudding...I don't think that is exclusive to the LDS church. I'm not sure that people wouldn't benefit just as much by joining another church or non-religious organization. It feels good to be part of something.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I can accept that the BOM could be helpful or even inspired and not be historical. My hope is that someday, we will ease up on the only true church doctrine and welcome knowledge and insight from other sources. I realize the individual is free to seek those things, but I don't think I'm out of line saying that many members feel like we are discouraged to do so (whether that is the intent or not).

As far as the proof being in the pudding...I don't think that is exclusive to the LDS church. I'm not sure that people wouldn't benefit just as much by joining another church or non-religious organization. It feels good to be part of something.

I'm not certain how you make the leap from one true church authorized to perform certain rituals to knowledge and light being exclusive to our organization. That's a huge, impossible leap.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

As far as the proof being in the pudding...I don't think that is exclusive to the LDS church. I'm not sure that people wouldn't benefit just as much by joining another church or non-religious organization. It feels good to be part of something.

I was thinking more in terms of "proof of genuine goodness and Godliness" rather than proof of exclusive truth.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not certain how you make the leap from one true church authorized to perform certain rituals to knowledge and light being exclusive to our organization. That's a huge, impossible leap.

Did I misunderstand something? I thought he was offering the fact that the church and BOM turn out good people as proof it is good or true. I wasn't thinking anything about authority or anything along those lines. My point was that I agree with him, but many other things (books, organizations, etc.) could do the same thing and not be affiliated with the church. Sorry if I took it out of context or my comments were somehow offensive. I didn't intend it that way.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Did I misunderstand something? I thought he was offering the fact that the church and BOM turn out good people as proof it is good or true. I wasn't thinking anything about authority or anything along those lines. My point was that I agree with him, but many other things (books, organizations, etc.) could do the same thing and not be affiliated with the church. Sorry if I took it out of context or my comments were somehow offensive. I didn't intend it that way.

I agree that other things could do the same thing. I just happen to think that our Church is superbly efficient at it. While I don't believe in absolute exclusivity, it's still enough for me to feel OK about accepting the statement that it's the "one true Church" for me personally (without advertising it or shoving it in anyone's face). Also, the idea that we embrace truth no matter where it comes from makes me feel like the "one true Church" statement could be valid, in this context of us also embracing truth from elsewhere.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What is the mainstream date for 2nd Isaiah that you are rigorously defending?

Your argument seems to be

1. You claim that Nephi was responsible for all the Isaiah chapters in 2nd Nephi.
2. You seem to claim that 2nd Isaiah was written after either the death of Nephi or after they left Jerusalem (not sure which) and that there is no way that Nephi had access to that chapter.

Obviously, at least one of the two is false. Which one is it?

I assert number 1 for the sake of argument only. That is what the BOM claims: Nephi clearly states that he got this material from the brass plates. Coming back online, it seems that even the best informed among us are missing this. Nephi claims to have gotten a bunch of Isaiah passages from the brass plates, upon which HE, and nobody else (positing any redactor from a later time is silly here, it is Nephi all the way along...parsimony) gives commentary, from first Isaiah all the way through second Isaiah! To try to get out of this would require superhuman mental gymnastics.

As for 2nd Isaiah, chapters 40-54, they were written no earlier than the 530s BC. For a good discussion of all the pertinent data and evidence, see the best intro I know of to the Hebrew Bible by John J. Collins, or any good scholarly commentary on Isaiah. There's too much to discuss here.