posted
Well, Card doesn't believe that they had what we call horses. In one of his essays in Storyteller in Zion, he puts forth the idea that they had some animal that they called horses. It's interesting to note that while the Book of Mormon mentions horses, it never mentions anybody riding.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never got the impression that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization was that huge. And I keep hearing that archaeologists have discovered pre-Colombian horse remains in Mesoamerica, but I don't know where to find out for sure.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was the Nephite civilization in North or South America? Because South America has llamas, which might be described as a type of horse if you were telling a story to someone who had never seen one, and you had not seen one yourself either. Unless the horses were the point of the story, he (or whoever is considered to have "written" the Book of Mormon) might have just tried to save people some unnecessary confusion.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe me, Danzig, there's a whole line of thought -- mainly at BYU -- about what the "horses" could have been. I wonder how many dissertations have been written on the topic. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. Most Mormons who have studies the issue believe in the 'localized' view of the events of the Book of Mormon. There are those who still cling to the *all* indigenous Americans descend from Lehi's family, but that's not official doctrine, and you can disagree with it and be fine.
2. The planet and star thing: I've never heard any official pronouncements about this. The actual scripture says that God dwells near Kolob. Anti-Mormons have misread this and said that we say that that's where he lives. He doesn't. Now because we believe that God has a physical body, it's reasonable to suggest that he does live on a planet somewhere. I guess the real question is: is it feasible, in your mind, that God could have a body, albeit an immortal and glorified one, and still be God? Mormon say yes -- and that he can still be all-powerful and all-knowing (not in quite the same way other religions define it, but within the parameters of Mormonism's view of the powers of God which you are well aware of).
3. As others have stated, it all depends on what you mean by translation. There a variety of viewpoints on this. As far as I know the most liberals ones don't disqualify one from full participation in the LDS Church.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
we also have to consider the the Book of mormon was tranlated by a man. even with the urim and thumim(Sp). if i remember correctly this question was brought up in a mission Prep class in insitute. the answer that we where given was the teachers oppinion. was that it was an animal that did the equivulant of what a horse did in jospeh smiths time. i'd say put yourself in his shoes what would you do if you came across an animal that not a horse but used like a horse. but the name that was used wasn't tranlateable except for a horse.
ok i have to stop myself cause i think i repeated myself 4 or 5 time and not makeing any sense.
one question wasn't there only one mention of horses anyways ?
Posts: 513 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A quick search via scriptures.lds.org reveals 23 mentions of horses (though some of these are passages parallel to the Bible, like the Sermon on the Mount given to the Nephites when Christ comes).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i'd say put yourself in his shoes what would you do if you came across an animal that not a horse but used like a horse. but the name that was used wasn't tranlateable except for a horse."
I would say "the grummhimurram, which were much like horses...."
But that's probably why no one's asked ME to translate the word of God. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I don't buy the "it was a similar animal that was translated as horse" argument. If that's how translation works, then what's up with the cureloms and cumons here?
To clarify: if the Nephites called the animals horses and wrote the word for horse, I can believe that Joseph Smith would translate it as horse, even if they weren't horses. But I don't believe that Joseph Smith said to himself, "It seems that this animals was like a horse, so I'll translate it as horse."
[ March 17, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a couple of easy answers on the horse question.
1) There really were horses. Horses were present up until at least 12000BC, so why is it impossible that some persisted after that date? Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
2) It was the Nephites who called the new animals (tapirs, llamas or whatever) horses, not Joseph Smith. This one seems pretty likely. When you see an animal in a new place that reminds you of a familiar animals it is the most natural thing in the world to name them by resemblance. Hence seahorses, buffalo (when referring to american bison), mountain lion (referring to cougars) etc. If this was the case then Joseph merely translated what was written.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "cureloms and cumoms" is the result of double translation: that is, I think the Nephite prophet that "translated" the plates of Ether didn't know what those words meant any more than Joseph Smith knew what the animal was that ended up translated as "horse."
Well, I don't know if this is really my stand, but I think it's a plausible explanation.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I assumed it was the result of no translation. That is, the Jaredites had names for these animals, but the Nephites didn't know what they were, so they used the Jaredite names. Joseph Smith didn't know what they were either, so he used the same names, too.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's kind of what I meant. I mean, those words are two "steps" away from their original meaning, so "translation" is pretty pointless.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See? I'm totally thinking in terms of there being zillions of other universes, with all different sorts of laws of physics and stuff. If you're God you can move around between different ones however you like. So at one point in history people's idea of "very far away from here" is translated as "a whole different continent", then later as "another planet (in our solar system)", then "near a distant star", or "a galaxy far far away", or whatever. When maybe it's just someplace so far away we don't know it even exists yet. Kind of like the way the Valar bent the world so that the straight way, to Valdamar, was hidden.
To me the Book of Mormon was given to us to teach us spiritual truths. I believe that everything in it is true. But was it here or somewhere else, this people or those people, horses or some other species, those are questions that seem to me NOT to be part of the information that's being conveyed. And those questions don't strike me as being very important, either. Not when the real message is completely electrifying and revolutionizes everything about my life, reordering it in a new and drastically better and happier way.
But it is kind of interesting and amusing to speculate on things like that. I just can't see getting hung up on them, or angry about disagreements about them, or anything of that sort.
posted
While I think that aka's idea of where the Book of Mormon happened is pretty bizarre, I agree that it doesn't matter much. The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It's a book about God's dealings with a branch of Israel.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, uh, my point was going to be only slightly different.
Yes, I do think that outlook may be a little further out than how I see it, aka, I do think that science's new and startling discoveries show us time after time how silly it is to hold scientific evidence (or lack thereof) as as an absolute for believing something.
As we just recently saw, there is strong evidence for the idea that female mammals continue to produce eggs. Whodda thunk? Not me. I was totally convinced.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I really think about the difference between, say, what we know about the universe in our western technological society and what some nomadic tribesman several thousand years ago knew about the universe....
And then I realize that what God knows about the universe is likely to be AT LEAST as far ahead of what we know now as we are above the tribesman....
Then it doesn't surprise me that there are stories God might want to tell us that have in them some places, concepts, or events, that are a little difficult to explain. I think what we must get in that case is a sort of shorthand explanation that preserves the essential point of the story, but avoids getting bogged down in stuff that we really don't need to know about anyway, or if we do it would be best to just wait and let us find out on our own.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you didn't believe those things, you would probably feel more comfortable in any number of other Christian religions that don't require quite so much of their members.
I would recommend a phrasing here that did not suggest that other denominations demand less of their members in general. Even if you think that's true.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that "deep doctrine" is a misapplication of words. I think it stems more from how hard it is to grasp Mormon doctrine in general. There IS a high level of commitment to learning the word of God when you believe in an open cannon of scripture with living prophets. Truth be told, however, there hasn't been any new "doctrine" since the Prophet Joseph Smith. The rest has been defining, refining, and testifying what he taught.
There are those things I believe constitute "deep doctrine" rightly. I am constantly inspired by the meanings of doctrines that sometimes seem desperate opposites. There are nuances and unrealized connections even to those things that are not considered "deep" in the sense they are essentials. Aka mentions an example when describing the life changing teachings within the otherwise easy to read Book of Mormon. You can either read it, correctly, as a story of the rise and fall of civilizations. On the other hand, it is compact with new messages and meanings, or deeper understandings of ongoing thematics, in every (1980 edited) chapter.
However, usually and sadly, most "deep doctrine" discussions are nothing more than specualations on "mysteries" (i.e. those things that you will never find out without actual revelation from God). Worse are simply specuations that are Mormon equivalants to "do the pearly gates swing in or out when opening?"
How do you know the difference? I think partly it has to do with its practical illumination of other basic doctrines. Not only must you ask if it makes the basic doctrines more relavant, but if it changes who you are in a positive and profound way. Most important of all is that such insights are of personal importance. Learning them does not give you any more authority than before the discoveries. If anyone other than a person who is in authority and is known to have recieved authority claims that you must believe such and such to "be a good Mormon," than beware. Gospel hobbies have a habit of crippling rather than building faith as they are based on speculation rather than revelation.
*gets off soap box for the moment*
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Icarus, I honestly didn't think I would cause offense with that.
I am not sure how I could phrase it differently and still be making the same point. So is the phrasing offensive or is the point offensive? I think that if taken in the context it was intended, no offense need be taken. I was correlating the "deep doctrine" of the LDS church with "added requirements". If you don't believe in the doctrine and don't want to have to live up to it, it makes sense to join with an theology that doesn't include it. Is that better?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TS, what? (I know what string theory is, sort of, but don't understand the statement). Does it have something to do with aka's post?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you guys are saying you won't get excommunicated over believing that the Book of Mormon, PGP, etc, are metaphorical stories instead of the historical documents the Church has put them forth as? That doesn't qualify as a major rejection of one of the Church's claims about the restoration?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get excommunicated for disbelieving. You might get excommunicated if you pursue an active campaign of trying to get other members to disbelieve, or to get the Church to change its doctrine to suit you.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the church has ever said that the Bible, Book of Mormon, POGP, etc. are accurate sources of information about history.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
What happens if your outward behavior is not Mormon-like. Let's say, members in good standing have seen you smoking or drinking coffee or alcohol, or going to R-rated movies, or you mention that you're having a sexual relationship with someone you're not married to, or you don't tithe? Does the Church have any official remedies or actions they take against people who are known not to observe all of the Church's rules?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For certain "sinful" behaviors, a member might be "disfellowshipped," which places a few restrictions on the ways in which the person can participate in Church services. This is temporary. In addition, in order to be qualified to enter the Temples, one must periodically have an interview with one's bishop. If the interview reveals that the person is, e.g., not living the Word of Wisdom (smoking, drinking, etc.), then the person might not receive a temple recommend until the problem is resolved.
Serious sexual sins such as marital infidelity may result in excommunication.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any way to appeal a Bishop's decision on a Temple Recommend? I'm curious, because one of my friends is a Mormon who says he knew people who lied to their Bishops in order to maintain their Temple Recommends. I guess my question is how much of this is regarded as being between the member and God versus being between the member and the Church?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my understanding that unless you are actively working against the Church, preaching/teaching incorrect things, or request it, you are not excommunicated (which I think is what you're basically asking about). There are plenty of "non-active" members of the Church (who do all kinds of things that "Mormons aren't supposed to do"), but the Church does not ordinarily excommunicate those people. Excommunication is not seen as a way to forever sever your ties with the Church. Instead, it is seen as a way to "come back" into the Church (in the case of serious sins you are excommunicated so you can straighten things out and be re-baptized).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any way to appeal a Bishop's decision on a Temple Recommend? I'm curious, because one of my friends is a Mormon who says he knew people who lied to their Bishops in order to maintain their Temple Recommends. I guess my question is how much of this is regarded as being between the member and God versus being between the member and the Church?
Bishops (and Stake Presidents - there are 2 interviews) don't really "make decisions" about Temple Recommends. You are responsible for your own truthfulness. While the Bishop may or may not know if someone is lying, the person in question does, and so does God.
posted
A temple recommend interview is, practically speaking, really just between the person and the Lord. There is not much to stop a person from totally lying during the interview and getting their recommend, unless the Bishop somehow has outside information. However, I don't imagine that any bishop would appreciate members "tattling" on each other to try to prevent their neighbor from getting recommends undeservedly.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, that seems to make sense. In your experience, how do Mormon communities treat people who are inactive?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone has direct knowledge of serious infraction of a member, then they could go to the bishop about it, and then it would be up to him to decide whether to call the person in or not.
When people are given callings, it is passed through the congregation by asking "all those in favor, raise your right hand" This isn't democracy. If this person is about to be put in a calling and you know for a fact they aren't worthy, you may find yourself in the position of being someone with an objection. Then you privately tell the bishop why you think that person shouldn't recieve the office they are being called/ordained to.
It isn't so much as a repeal, but a temple recommend can be revoked at any time. Watching a rated R movie is not grounds to deny a temple recommend.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The goal, desire is to fellowship them, make them feel welcome. Home teachers and visiting teachers are sent to them just like everyone else unless they specifically request that no one be sent. If anything, more effort to help them is spent on less active than on active members.
Like all communities, some people are more judgemental than others.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:how do Mormon communities treat people who are inactive?
That's kind of a tough question to answer (simply because of the scope). Overall, members are encouraged to befriend (or retain contact with) those who are inactive. Certainly, we would prefer that everyone who is inactive become active again, but I don't think that is or should be the primary concern. We are (in my opinion) expected to be loving and tolerant and friendly to everyone, regardless of what their individual circumstances are.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just trying to get a feel for how the Church works. As an ex-Catholic, I come from a system where priests do try to police behavior of members to an extent. "Confession" is an interesting experience. Somehow I just don't feel like speaking to a collared priest in a dark box is the same as communicating to God. Especially since, at the end of the conversation, that priest is going to take it upon himself to hand down some act of "penance" that God wants you to undertake for forgiveness.
posted
How does the church treat those who are inactive? The church tries to include them as much as they are willing to be included.
For instance, the church assigns the callings of Visiting Teacher and Home Teacher to any member willing to accept (most do), and they visit monthly the other members assigned to them. Any inactive member would be assigned these unless they specifically requested not to have them.
posted
Sevumar:"how do Mormon communities treat people who are inactive?"
The answer to that question is as varied as humanity itself. Members of the Church are as human as anyone else. Some people are cliquish, some are self-righteous, some are overprotective, some are uncharitable. But many are also compassionate, friendly, and non-judgmental.
The policy of the Church is to encourage its members to be friendly to all, and to take special care to embrace the less active. In some wards this works well. In others, less well.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake• of my flesh and blood unworthily•, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily• eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister• unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know• my• sheep, and they are numbered.
32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues•, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal• them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.
posted
Another question... what about the thing about marriages? That getting married in the main Temple in Salt Lake get's you into a special kind of heaven... or something? Or was is that there are two types of Mormon marriage? Earthly and Heavenly?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a lot more friendly of an approach than what anyone in any religion I've been in taught.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Confessing to and being interviewed by an LDS church leader usually involves sitting across the desk from him in his office. Under these circumstances, you get to make eye contact. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the individual.
posted
We believe that under certain circumstances, a marriage can be "sealed". This means that, assuming the individuals in the marriage keep their covenants, they may receive "exaltation", becoming like God (eventually). So there are marriages that are sealed, and marriages that are not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All temples have the same ordinances. Many people have an attachment to one temple or another for aesthetic or historical reasons, but that's a personal thing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:what about the thing about marriages? That getting married in the main Temple in Salt Lake get's you into a special kind of heaven... or something? Or was is that there are two types of Mormon marriage? Earthly and Heavenly?
We belive that the family is not merely an earthly or social construct, but that it was designed by God. We believe that familial bonds can exist past death. When a couple is married in the Temple (there are many - more than 100 world-wide) they are "sealed". Their marriage can be eternal.
In terms of the afterlife, in order for people to return to God's presence (and receive the greatest possible glory), they must be sealed.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- its that sharp wit again
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
