tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5118976002991215694..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Great and Spacious Book of Mormon Arcade GameJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48528355125723520042016-05-31T17:38:22.915-05:002016-05-31T17:38:22.915-05:00Suord and Anon 823, when Oliver wrote Letter VII, ...Suord and Anon 823, when Oliver wrote Letter VII, he was Assistant President of the Church; i.e., a prophet, seer, and revelator, higher than authority that Joseph's two counselors. These letters contain the first published account of many of the early events, including Moroni's visit. They include many details Joseph did not otherwise relate, which makes sense, since he helped Oliver write the letters and endorsed them multiple times. Part of Letter I is in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith-History, which is canonized, is based on these letters.<br /><br />The text of the Book of Mormon--which Oliver and Joseph translated, btw--is fully consistent with Letter VII. <br /><br />It's fascinating to have people dismiss these letters, just to protect their favorite BoM geography theory. It is becoming impossible to distinguish between Mesoamerican arguments against the 3 Witnesses (the Meso scholars also disbelieve David Whitmer) and anti-Mormon arguments against the 3 Witnesses.<br /><br />It's even better to have modern scholars claim to know more about the BoM than Joseph and Oliver. I'm still waiting for one of the modern scholars to give us a more detailed description of Moroni than the one Oliver gave us.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8026113096870934022016-05-30T13:46:05.044-05:002016-05-30T13:46:05.044-05:00Anon 823, just read Letter VII and find it interes...Anon 823, just read Letter VII and find it interesting. Is there definitive evidence that such thoughts of OC and JFS were revelatory or canonical? If not, then the text supersedes their assertions. The more likely textual interpretation goes against what they have said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62504559934601897782016-05-30T11:17:34.843-05:002016-05-30T11:17:34.843-05:00Anon 8:29
You are being disingenuous. God does ta...Anon 8:29<br /><br />You are being disingenuous. God does talk to all his children. But some of his children are explicitly told Catholicism is true. Some are explicitly told Mormonism is true. Some are explicitly told Islam is true. Some are explicitly told the Watchtower Society is the true church.<br /><br />This stuff has been documented. These people all use basically the same language to describe their experiences. I'll try to find the source. It has been a while since I looked into this stuff, and have forgotten where to find these sources. <br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70304772076868951532016-05-30T09:40:13.933-05:002016-05-30T09:40:13.933-05:00Here's an update on the iron rod in my latest ...Here's an update on the iron rod in my latest post: "<a href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-iron-rod-inspired-by-aqueduct-in.html" rel="nofollow">The Iron Rod: Inspired by an Aqueduct in Rochester?</a>"<br /><br />There's so much more to the Book of Mormon than meets the eye. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37986382360510801402016-05-30T08:29:23.892-05:002016-05-30T08:29:23.892-05:00EBU, you make good points that people other than M...EBU, you make good points that people other than Mormons also have spiritual experiences. It's basic Mormon doctrine that God speaks to all his children.<br />That's why the Book of Mormon is so essential. It's tangible proof of God's involvement in human affairs, because the only way Joseph could have produced it was by divine means. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90931736580773246162016-05-30T08:23:32.243-05:002016-05-30T08:23:32.243-05:00Suord, yes, Jeff and many others have written abou...Suord, yes, Jeff and many others have written about that, but they either didn't know about or hadn't read Letter VII. Even now, they accept the 50-year-old compound hearsay about Sperry over Joseph Fielding Smith's detailed, explicit and repeated denunciation of the two-Cumorah theory.<br /><br />If we were having this discussion in 1842 Nauvoo, when Joseph wrote D&C 128, we all would have read Letter VII, since it was published multiple times, including in the Messenger and Advocate and the Times and Seasons. Back then, people accepted what Joseph and Oliver said. It wasn't until the 1920s that first RLDS scholars, then LDS scholars, came up with the two-Cumorah theory. JFS denounced it, but the scholars pursued it anyway. <br /><br />Anyone who hasn't read Letter VII needs to, just to be informed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80097952253867788772016-05-30T07:39:01.542-05:002016-05-30T07:39:01.542-05:00Here's what Jeff wrote on Cumorah in 2014, in ...Here's what Jeff wrote on Cumorah in 2014, in a Mormanity comment:<br /><br />"LDS scholars dealing with the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly place it in Mesoamerica, which is definitely in North America.<br /><br />Two Cumorahs - so some people assumed the tiny hill where the plates were found was Cumorah, but that's not what the BOM says and not required by anything definitive from Joseph. The text gives one and it has an outstanding, real, tangible candidate in Mesoamerica. This is not a serious objection to the Book of Mormon."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85336582204060133132016-05-29T20:22:45.199-05:002016-05-29T20:22:45.199-05:00Re EBU: I'm a little bit suspicious of my data...Re EBU: I'm a little bit suspicious of my data, but in a sense, I am the ultimate egotist because I consider my own personal data to be so much more trustworthy than anyone else's, that I'll always reject theirs before I reject my own. I have not yet been able to discover a way of 'getting to the bottom of things' without ultimately relying on my own observations. If I could unequivocally prove to myself that other people were truly independent (or 3rd party) observers I might change my opinion about that. Meanwhile, on a different level, I have some theories about why other people get different data than I do, but I don't want to go into those theories right now.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67325904054993356252016-05-29T20:09:32.228-05:002016-05-29T20:09:32.228-05:00I don't know why other people get different da...<i>I don't know why other people get different data from me. If I was God, or if I was in their heads, then I would know.</i><br /><br />In a way, you kind of are in their heads. From their point of view, you have received different data than they have. Your spiritual confirmation challenges their own just like their confirmation challenges yours. So they are to you what you are to them. If they could be in your head, then they would know why you received a different answer. And they still might not trust your answer compared to their own. <br /><br />If someone else can be deceived with a false spiritual confirmation, then you can never be sure that you are not deceived. <br /><br />This is why this is not really a trustworthy way of getting to the bottom of things. I know other Mormons who take the same approach of "I'll just trust what I have received and not worry too much about how other people are getting different answers."<br /><br />This is not sufficient. Aren't you at least a bit curious as to why others receive different confirmations? Doesn't that make you at least a little bit suspicious that you might still be wrong? <br /><br /> Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35544295486571139972016-05-29T19:28:34.873-05:002016-05-29T19:28:34.873-05:00Re James Anglin: I think I can agree with everythi...Re James Anglin: I think I can agree with everything you said in that last post addressed to me.<br />Re EBU: I don't know why other people get different data from me. If I was God, or if I was in their heads, then I would know. <br />You may be sure that this is not fantasy, but an appeal to the five senses does not reassure me. <br />Things I've received spiritual communications about from the same being: God loves me. Jesus Christ atoned for my sins. The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document. <br />Not being able to tell the difference between God and the devil is scarcely better than not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.<br />And I have been encouraged to seek out and receive spiritual confirmation that Jesus atoned for my sins. Not quite the same thing as you asked about, but pretty close.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73948363073069917052016-05-29T19:17:35.997-05:002016-05-29T19:17:35.997-05:00So I remembered the story wrong. No vision. But th...So I remembered the story wrong. No vision. But this is Oliver Cowdery, one of those trustworthy witnesses, remember. Secondhand account through Brigham Young, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. <br /><br />suord...it is astonishing to me just how much Mormons are willing to brush under the carpet, throw under the bus, in order to make it true. It almost seems like you'd be willing to admit it is not true, if somehow doing so would make it true. <br /><br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29972764218243356232016-05-29T19:14:24.208-05:002016-05-29T19:14:24.208-05:00"Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph ..."Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went there again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: ‘This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.’” (Journal of Discourses 19:38)Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59444287324525358272016-05-29T19:10:45.061-05:002016-05-29T19:10:45.061-05:00Sperry's points and the points of others make ...<i>Sperry's points and the points of others make more sense to me, that there were two Cumorahs. There are many specific geographical reasons not to take OC's view as plausible, and quite a bit published on this through the years. Moreover, JFS told Sperry to feel free to publish his opposing view since he didn't think his view stated earlier was a revealed view or that OC's view was a revealed view, which otherwise should be respected over a scholarly analysis.</i><br /><br />Brigham Young said that in vision the Hill Cumorah was opened up to him and in there he saw many records that had been deposited there once by Mormon/Moroni. Obviously, one man couldn't have carried all those records there across the North American continent, thus we have to believe that the Hill Cumorah is the site of the last battle. <br /><br />You wouldn't accuse Brigham Young of telling a lie about such serious spiritual matters just for effect, would you? I mean,...after all...we are talking about the Lord's anointed prophet, correct? Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47437225210478168992016-05-29T19:07:43.954-05:002016-05-29T19:07:43.954-05:00Suord, that 50-year-old hearsay anecdote about Spe...Suord, that 50-year-old hearsay anecdote about Sperry is a canard. Of course anyone can believe whatever they want; that's in the Articles of Faith. But Joseph Fielding Smith never said his view was invalid or subservient to whatever a scholar says. JFS was unequivocal about Letter VII and the New York setting. He denounced the two-Cumorah theory in 1938 and republished it in Doctrines of Salvation in 1956, when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve. We can accept or reject everything JFS wrote. It's up to us. But that's an affirmative choice on our part that should be made carefully.<br /><br />True, there has been "quite a bit published on this," but everything published about the Hill Cumorah archaeology boils down to quotes from John Clark and David Palmer, neither of whom seriously investigated the matter because they were determined to support their Mesoamerican theory. Check into it a little. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40692609254013154052016-05-29T18:46:33.492-05:002016-05-29T18:46:33.492-05:00Anon 756, Sperry's points and the points of ot...Anon 756, Sperry's points and the points of others make more sense to me, that there were two Cumorahs. There are many specific geographical reasons not to take OC's view as plausible, and quite a bit published on this through the years. Moreover, JFS told Sperry to feel free to publish his opposing view since he didn't think his view stated earlier was a revealed view or that OC's view was a revealed view, which otherwise should be respected over a scholarly analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90123529141718012112016-05-29T17:50:40.026-05:002016-05-29T17:50:40.026-05:00@Clinton:
Humans are all fallible. Sometimes we i...@Clinton:<br /><br />Humans are all fallible. Sometimes we indeed can't tell reality from illusion. Heck, just try seeing your own eyes moving in the mirror, sometime. You know they do move, if you glance back and forth a bit. A friend can watch your eyes and confirm that. But you really can't see your own eyes move. It's something about how the brain processes visual data. And all our perceptions of reality are filtered through fallible mechanisms like that.<br /><br />I also feel that God has spoken to me, though, once or twice in my life. Oddly complete sentences popped into my head that seemed to be succinct and surprising answers to questions about which I was very concerned. Of course those thoughts were simply produced in my own brain; but that doesn't mean that God didn't speak them, any more than the fact that you're reading little blips on a screen means that I didn't type them. God has root access to reality.<br /><br />I think that God wants us to find the truth as well as we can. I don't think God wants us to choose our beliefs just for comfort. I think that God wishes that everyone would be atheists if God didn't exist. Everyone has to decide for themselves what they think is true, though. If we meet our maker having wasted much of our lives in bowing to idols, I hope that God will be merciful; God made us fallible, after all. I don't think, though, that God will be pleased with the excuse that we simply accepted what we'd heard from other humans — whether in church or on the internet.<br /><br />One thing that I find encouraging: I don't think belief is a package deal. I used to know fundamentalist evangelical Christians who insisted that no-one could reject any one of their beliefs without rejecting all of them. So the only way to keep believing that <i>God so loved the world</i> was to keep believing in a literal tower of Babel and Balaam's talking donkey. It seemed to me that these people were so afraid of uncertainty that they were blackmailing themselves into not doubting anything, by holding the beliefs they really cared about as hostages. But there was a simple way to free the hostages: doubt the belief that all beliefs are connected. Faith doesn't have to be a house of cards.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15663573871908566482016-05-29T16:53:19.746-05:002016-05-29T16:53:19.746-05:00Clinton
There are many people from many different...Clinton<br /><br />There are many people from many different religions who receive spiritual confirmation from God that their religion is true. If you believe God didn't lie to you, then you have to believe that He lied to these other people. Or these other people made it up. Or these other people were receiving communication from deceptive spirits, which is another option which could also apply to you, for the Bible tells us that evil spirits can mimic angels of light, and that the servants of the Devil will come as ministers of righteousness.<br /><br />I don't think the problem is a big as you think. This conversation you are having here...it is real. Not a fantasy. You are participating in this conversation by employing many of your five senses. When God communicated with you, he was communicating beyond your five senses. You didn't see, taste, smell, hear, or physically feel God. It was spiritual communication. <br /><br />So, rest assured. I am a real person in a real room typing on a real keyboard. <br /><br />You need to verify if the spiritual communication you received came from God or from some other spiritual source. The Bible tells us that the role of the Holy Spirit is to reveal the Christ. The Holy Spirit doesn't reveal Joseph Smith. It is a lie that you have been taught by your Church that the Holy Spirit's role is to reveal the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith or any other man, for that matter. <br /><br />Have you received a spiritual confirmation that Jesus is the Christ in the same way that you received a confirmation of Joseph Smith? Be honest with yourself. I have never in my 37 years as a Mormon heard any Mormon leader or missionary encourage someone to get a spiritual confirmation of Jesus Christ. Only the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the modern-day prophet, or the Church. <br /><br />Why do you think that is? <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21966495655671493932016-05-29T15:52:00.851-05:002016-05-29T15:52:00.851-05:00Re: James Anglin,
If Joseph Smith was a con man, t...Re: James Anglin,<br />If Joseph Smith was a con man, then that introduces another problem: It means God lied to me when He told me Joseph was His prophet.<br />Of course, maybe God didn't really talk to me at all, maybe I just imagined it.<br />But then, that introduces another problem: It means that I can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy.<br />If I can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, that introduces a larger set of problems. For instance, this conversation I'm having right now on the comments section of this blog, is it reality or fantasy? If the conversations I've had with God were fantasy, then I'm not sure why this conversation shouldn't also be a fantasy. It's better for me to just believe that sometimes the truth doesn't make sense.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79130722252307494022016-05-29T10:16:05.425-05:002016-05-29T10:16:05.425-05:00Anon 8:00
I admit to not knowing the Moundbuilder...Anon 8:00<br /><br />I admit to not knowing the Moundbuilder story very well. I do think I understand the Book of Mormon very well. The fact that the Lamanites invent scalping, run around in loin clothes, and devolve into warring factions by the end of the book makes it rather obvious to me that Smith had the most popular stereotypes of the Eastern Woodland Indians in mind when he wrote it.<br /><br />The idea that the American Indians were Jewish was a very old one. In 1660, a book was published in London called <i>Jews in America, Or Probabilities that those Indians are Judiacal.</i> This is just one of many sources proposing this theory. <br /><br /><br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2938485955007967702016-05-29T08:00:31.738-05:002016-05-29T08:00:31.738-05:00And EBU, if you think the BoM relates the Moundbui...And EBU, if you think the BoM relates the Moundbuilder myth, you don't know either well enough. The BoM does relate the history of the Northeastern tribes, but it's much different from what people believed in Joseph Smith's day. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58118203849740831102016-05-29T07:56:18.484-05:002016-05-29T07:56:18.484-05:00Sword, I wouldn't dismiss EBU so easily or qui...Sword, I wouldn't dismiss EBU so easily or quickly. Have you read Letter VII? It's the number one item on the archives at Book of Mormon Central right now. Oliver Cowdery wrote these letters with Joseph Smith's assistance, and he unequivocally places the Book of Mormon Cumorah in New York. <br /><br />Read that and let us know what you think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86887835077081750552016-05-29T05:34:36.303-05:002016-05-29T05:34:36.303-05:00Quantum mechanics is weird, that's true. But q...Quantum mechanics is weird, that's true. But quantum mechanics isn't a message addressed to human beings. If God offers an explanation for something, I do expect the explanation to make sense.<br /><br />And of course the real problem is that the episode of the 116 pages, and the revelation about them in D&C, <i>do</i> make perfect sense — as a slip-up that frightened Smith into making a clumsy excuse.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70431549556948644912016-05-28T23:31:28.820-05:002016-05-28T23:31:28.820-05:00RE: James, about the 116 pages. I agree that the r...RE: James, about the 116 pages. I agree that the reasoning doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean it can't still be true. My study of quantum mechanics has taught me that the truth often doesn't make sense.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19283252302036298452016-05-28T19:05:34.566-05:002016-05-28T19:05:34.566-05:00EBU: "Besides...I think the most obvious read...EBU: "Besides...I think the most obvious reading of the Book of Mormon makes it clear that (assuming it is true) the Hill Cumorah at which the last battle was fought is the same Hill Cumorah out of which Smith uncovered the plates."<br /><br />This shows your disengagement and lack of knowledge on the subject. Not hard to find this directly refuted online several times over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74882619182772882682016-05-28T13:56:26.540-05:002016-05-28T13:56:26.540-05:00I'm sorry...I meant Western Hemisphere...not E...I'm sorry...I meant Western Hemisphere...not Eastern. Obviously.Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.com