tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post4060716705410837493..comments2023-10-18T10:32:30.713-05:00Comments on American Testament: The Book of Mormon: A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 4)AmericanTestament.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04127465919258708936noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-91171114833098838022009-01-01T19:33:00.000-06:002009-01-01T19:33:00.000-06:00Evangelical:Your reading of Alma 7:10 makes no sen...Evangelical:<BR/><BR/>Your reading of Alma 7:10 makes no sense. This sort of misreading of the text has been promoted by Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry, so I think you are getting it from there. The land is clearly identified as Jerusalem in that verse. "Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers." How on earth do you get any reading of that verse to conclude that Alma was speaking about Israel proper? Israel, the land, is not mentioned ever in that verse. It is clearly talking about Jerusalem, the "land of our forefathers".<BR/><BR/> You are simply offering an ad hoc reading of the text in light of the overwhelming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts that supports the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Further, do you really think that Joseph Smith was so dumb that he didn't know where Jesus was born but was smart enough to include lengthy and complex Hebraisms in the text? This just doesn't make any sense. <BR/><BR/>You comments about Honey bees in the text are also gravely mistaken. Both the Old and New World had pre-Columbian domesticated bees. Period. It is not an anachronism. The newest FARMS Review (18/1) has a treatment of this subject that you should read. <BR/><BR/>You seem to be simply parroting the same non-Mormon Evangelical views on LDS theology, including the relationship of grace vs. works and theosis. Don't take this personally, but it is really tiring to keep having to respond to these allegations when they have long been refuted. Daniel C. Peterson in his essay "Shall they not both Fall into a Ditch?" in a previous issue of the FARMS Review has extensively refuted Evangelical allegations about LDS theology.<BR/><BR/>Other than have, have a great New Year!Steve Smoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785226026604586090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-85860536870989633452008-12-21T19:09:00.000-06:002008-12-21T19:09:00.000-06:00I thought just the opposite of what Nibley's openi...I thought just the opposite of what Nibley's opening quote holds was the case with the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Apperently by "men" you mean sexually reproduce offspring. I see nothing in the Bible to suppose sex was forbidden prior to the Fall. Sex between a husband and wife is a good thing (and not a sin) so I would be very surprised to hear of God forbidding it. That is a view of the LDS but not one that I accept. So then, as best as we can tell, Adam and Eve were able to have children before they fell, to answer your question Steve. I do not see the relevance of quoting I Cor 15:22 here.<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that when Slick alludes to a verse from the Book of Mormon you quote it out so the full context is plain but do NOT hold yourself to the same standard. Are you using a double standard here? Alma 7:10 reads as follows:<BR/>"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..."<BR/>The 'land' is not of Jerusalem but, instead, of the forefathers. The forefathers were Israelites. The land of the Israelites was Israel and Jerusalem was part of THAT 'land'. And you think Slick doesn't handle the Book of Mormon responsibly?<BR/><BR/>With respect to the misc. items commonly said to not be in America at the right time, together with the common LDS responses, I have a few comments. First, it seems to me that a part of the defense sometimes made, is to say that some other item similar (i.e. not identicle) to the said item is found in America at the right time so we ought to accept the Book of Mormon account. It would be like speaking of oranges in an area only producing grapefruit. Grapefruit are Not oranges and oranges are NOT grapefruit. Second, to say that Smith would not put horses in the Book of Mormon because everybody 'knows' there were no horses so he would not make such a grievous error is to contradict a very important fact, apparently, of Mormon apologetics. Namely, Joseph Smith was just an ignorant farm boy. How could we expect him to know what most everyone 'knows'? Finally, while the honeybees are mentioned in an old world context, that is not the whole story. It seems you want to apply a double standard to yourself and Slick on this score. The people with the honeybees had collected them to bring them to the new world with them. In other words, if we presume they did not die on the voyage, there is an implied new world context for the said bees.<BR/><BR/>Next, it is well known that Mormonism teaches salvation by works. This is not a misinterpretation on Slick's part of that verse either. There may well be many Scriptural passages that teach salvation by works in uniquely Mormon Scripture but there are none in the Bible. As I've pointed out before, to say otherwise is to misinterprate the Bible. You want Evangelicals to read the Book of Mormon in context? This is as it should be. Just make sure that you, in turn, read the Bible in context as well. To remind you, the entire Bible teaches salvation by grace alone but Galatians is a good place to start when exploring this teaching. Now, all of this is not to say that good works are not important. If we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, then He expects us to live holy lives. No question about that. Grace alone is in total agreement with that obvious biblical truth. But the good works are not in any way shape or form what saves us (or keeps us saved). The works gospel of Mormonism is the other gospel Paul warned us about in Galatians. I understand that LDS theology does not deny grace (what you deny is grace alone-'not grace alone' is all I mean by 'works gospel').<BR/><BR/>It is not clear to me what your concern is with Alma 5:27 as construed by Slick. I would say, however, that the idea that one will become a god or goddess is the epitomy of pride. That is what happened to the devil you know. He was so prideful he thought he could become a god. That was his downfall. And he told Adam and Eve they could become gods. That is what precipitated the Fall of man. I do not see how 'eternal progression' is any different from that. So then, it is ironic to be reading about how good sufficient humility is, in Mormon literature. What is more, it is hard to remain humble WITH the atonement of Christ as misunderstood by Mormon theology. For the Mormon atonement is a gospel of works but, in Romans, we read that if it be of works then we have whereof to boast. Boasting is what prideful people do.<BR/><BR/>Slick's final question is an important one. It is one I have often asked myself. When I talk to LDS missionaries, or Mormons in general, one of the first noteworthy things I notice, is that they shall go to any length (even lying, apparently) to convince me that Mormons believe exactly the same way that I do. And Mormons are clearly very concerned that others shall refer to them as Christians. I was always told I should read the Book of Mormon for myself instead of listening to anti-Mormon propaganda. One of the first things I read is that I belong to the church of Satan. I asked some missionaries if I understood the passage in I Ne 14 correctly. They admitted I had. So one wonders, if the church of Satan is so apostate and abominable, why do Mormons insist they are just like us? I believe that is what Slick is getting at. My own suspicion is that that is a way, together with playing the denomination card, to trick people into becoming Mormons. After they are baptized, they re-learn the truth. But they are already roped in via friendshipping. Perhaps more importantly, they are already paying their mandatory tithe. There are, I suspect, many Mormons who sincerely believe all the right things and are not merely staying for sociological reasons. Even the majority are probably so. And, if anyone really wants to leave, they can-it is sometimes difficult, I have heard, but they can do it.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, dear Steve, I hope I have given you some food for thought. I look forward to reading anything and everything you have to say by way of response to these comments of mine.evangelicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15601612681687950025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-73456664452692912022008-10-06T17:58:00.000-05:002008-10-06T17:58:00.000-05:00Hey bid daddy:Interesting observations, thanks for...Hey bid daddy:<BR/><BR/>Interesting observations, thanks for the contribution.<BR/><BR/>You are, of course, strictly correct when you say that this "land of Jerusalem" actually bolsters the Book of Mormon instead of damning it.Steve Smoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785226026604586090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-37863322368794085712008-10-05T12:43:00.000-05:002008-10-05T12:43:00.000-05:00Another item on the Jerusalem "controversy" which ...Another item on the Jerusalem "controversy" which is generally ignored in such discussions: According to the Book of Mormon timeline, Chapter 7 of Alma was given circa 83 B.C., approximately 517 years after Lehi's family had fled into the wilderness. Given the antiquity of the world at that time, there was absolutely no communication between the Old World and the New, and no one in the Nephite civilization would have had any knowledge of the particulars of the geography of the land of their forefathers. All they knew was that their ancestors came from a land called "Jerusalem" several centuries prior.<BR/><BR/>Given these circumstances, would it have made more sense for the Lord, through Alma, to tell the people of Gideon that Christ would be born "in Bethlehem" (both accurate and precise, but contextually incomprehensible) or "at Jerusalem" (accurate and easily understood by every person in attendance, though slightly imprecise)? Far from damning the Book of Mormon, this episode bolsters the credibility of the work by demonstrating that the Lord speaks to the understanding of each of His children rather than giving an impersonal one-size-fits-all message.Big Daddy Mattyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18054527766559041685noreply@blogger.com