Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: iwtdr!wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 04:01:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 118 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >I think that cms was referring to the _steel_ mentioned above. The >Nephites (to whom this _steel_ is attibuted) are alleged to have come >to the Americas ~600 B.C. and were wiped out by the Lamanites ~428 A.D. >so this _steel_ was a tremendous advance for their culture, since the >best the Europeans could do was wrought iron until, what, the 17th cent. Granted, the mention of steel and iron in the BoM is *surprising*, moreover, archeological evidence of iron and steel in Ancient America is presently lacking. I am not too bothered by that for several reasons: the Mesoamerican climate is not too condusive for the preservation of iron and steel implements (ie., they rust) and the archeological record for Mesoamerica is still incomplete. Frankly, I would feel rather uneasy if my faith depended on the placement of an archeologist's trench. Still, Mormons have had to play this archeological waiting game several times before: ie., the wheel, elephants, silk-like material, etc. and our patience has paid off thus far. Iron tools and implements discovered thus far in Mesoamerica seem to be meteoric iron which had been hammered into various shapes rather than smelted. Presently, I am holding out for evidence of smelted iron work, but I am not expecting it's discovery in the near future. There are other considerations: any good reference book on the history of steel production will testify to its antiquity, it should also be noted that the production of steel was usually a "family secret" that could be handed down or lost. Iron production, anciently, was in the same situation, the necessary knowledge could also be easily lost. In the case of the BoM, one could make a good argument that the knowledge iron smelting was lost. There are several passages throughout the BoM that describe the crafts being practiced at that particular point in time. The last time steel making is included in those lists (Jarom 1:8) can be dated around 400 BC, and the last time ironworking is mentioned (Mosiah 11:8) would be around 160 BC. >I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >century British English? I have heard so many variations on this charge and in every case it leaves me rather confused. In the first place, it seems to be based on some simplistic view of the translation process, sort of, God just gave the translation to Joseph Smith verbatum. From the beginning, it has been clear to Mormons that the translation process was not so simplistic and that it involved mental exertation on the part of JS. The nineth section of the _Doctrine and Covenants_ (which deals directly with the translation of the BoM) refutes that idea: the eighth and nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." As for using the style of the Authorized Version, what is wrong with that? In 1829 the Authorized Version was also the "authorized style." >A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can >go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" >from which the BoM was taken. I think that this "advantage" is a bit ficticious. The earliest existing manuscripts of the NT are copies of copies of copies. Even further, you have no idea what influences were exerted on the existing written records. For instance, there is a great deal of debate on whether an oral tradition existed among the earliest Christians and whether that oral tradition was considered even more important than the written tradition. For example, there are portions of the NT that are missing from the earliest existing copies, but are included in the later copies. Some of the debate suggests that the inclusion of the material in later copies is from the oral tradition, which was considered even more important than the written tradition. >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a >Christian religion. Well, your sarcasm is duely noted (I promise to count to ten before I press on: 1, 2, 3, ...). I can't claim to read your mind, but I suspect that you meant to say polytheistic instead of pantheistic. I thought that pantheism suggests that God and the laws and forces of nature are one, while polytheism states a belief in a multple number of Gods. The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. Worship is reserved to the Father, whereas polytheism usually distributes one's worship among the several dieties. While a person might hurtle the term "polythestic" at Mormons, just as they also seem to enjoy taunting us with the term "cult," I usually shrug it off as the actions of one more intent on creating barriers rather than bridges. It would be interesting sometime to talk about oneness, as Mormonism sees it, for it touches not just the character of God, but includes the relationship of man and God, man and man, and man and his environment. As we see it the entire foundation of the atonement of Jesus Christ is based on re-estabilishing oneness. To simply scream "Polytheism" is so utterly *shallow* that I can hardly contain myself. For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers (a sort of damned by association argument), what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! I would think, that apart from whether Mormonism can be called Christianity, a more troublesome point would be whether a person who is so quick to misrepresent (and in such a sarcastic manner) can be called a Christian. -- Willard C. Smith (708) 979-0024 att!iwsgw!wcsa "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."