When it comes to evidences for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon text, the most exciting finds come from the Old World, where we have the significant advantage of knowing the precise starting point of Nephi’s account and where we have far more archaeological work to draw upon than we do in the New World. As Latter-day Saints in upcoming Sunday School lessons review the stories of Nephi’s journey out of Jerusalem and across the Arabian Peninsula to Bountiful, I hope some of them will learn that trek as described in First Nephi 16 and 17 is remarkably “interesting” in terms of its plausibility as an ancient record. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how some of the fine details in Nephi’s account could have been written by anybody who didn’t actually make the journey and experience the places he mentions.
These places include the Valley of Lemuel and River of Laman, places that until recently were mocked as impossibilities for “everyone knows” that there is no river that flows into the Red Sea as Nephi described. This Book of Mormon weakness has become a strength, a granite-walled stronghold, in fact, with the field work that discovered actual candidates for the valley.
That was early in the long journey of Lehi’s group, a journey that, though described in brevity, is given numerous specific details such as the specific directions traveled: south-south east, followed by a sharp turn to nearly due east after Ishmael is buried in a place called Nahom. Following that eastward direction, the group eventually hits the coast and finds Bountiful–one of the biggest barriers to plausibility that the Book of Mormon suffers from. Or rather, suffered from, until people did field work and gave the Latter-day Saints at least one and perhaps two excellent candidates for that lush, green, abundant place that Nephi and his family found in that part of the world that “everyone knows” is nothing but barren sand dunes. If only Joseph had lived in the day of movies and had seen Lawrence of Arabia, he would have known what a ridiculous blunder his description of Bountiful was. Today, we have the luxury of knowing that it might be plausible after all. Now, of course, the argument of the critics must switch to arguing how obvious it was to come up with directions, descriptions, and even place names. Joseph the Blunderer who couldn’t even get the birthplace of Christ right (per the standard anti-Mormon attack on Alma 7:10, now handily refuted with the help of modern discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) has become Joseph the Erudite, apparently armed with his vast frontier library and an international network of scholars, carefully building detailed “evidences” of authenticity into the text that, uh, he and his fellow-conspirators didn’t seem to know about. Chiasmus and other Semitic literary tools, ancient covenant formulas, the details of the Arabian Peninsula, civilization and its Mesoamerican discontents, and other evidences were carefully woven in so that future generations might be impressed. If only Joseph had bothered to trot out some of these evidences in his lifetime, it might have helped. Highly-publicized reports of ancient American civilization in Mesoamerica did come in the 1840s and created a positive stir among the Saints, over a decade after the Book of Mormon came out, but we would have to wait for over a century before the real fun would even begin.
Yes, I mentioned not just directions and descriptions, but placenames. Foremost on the list is Nahom. The argument here is missed by many critics, who seem to think that we are arguing that there is exciting new evidence that Nahom as an ancient Semitic name. No, of course we know it’s a Semitic name since it is a book in the Bible. But as a place name, it is rare, exceedingly rare. More interestingly, it is a specific placename in the Book of Mormon associated with some very specific details: a) it is a specific place in the Arabian Peninsula where one can turn nearly due east after having traveled south-south east from Jerusalem; b) it is a place that was not named by Lehi but apparently was already called that name by others in the area; and c) it is a place where Ishmael was buried (he died somewhere, and then was buried at Nahom). Given those specific, how fascinating it is that we now know that these details are remarkably plausible. There is an ancient Arabic tribe in Yemen with the name Nihm, having the same Semitic root NHM as Nahom. We know that the location of that tribe fits extremely well with the one place where a survivable eastward turn to the sea can be made to depart from the ancient incense trails that were south-southeast from Jerusalem. And we now know, based on archaeological finds from Yemen, that the Nihm tribal name was in existence all the way back to the 7th century B.C. or so, making it possible that Lehi’s group did in fact bury Ishmael in an ancient burial location called Nehhm, Nihm, or, as it may have sounded to Nephi, Nahom–a name that in Hebrew nicely fits the concept of mourning as described in the text.
The Nahom story is an important and exciting part of the growing body of evidence for plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. A key part of this story comes from the discovery of several ancient altars bearing the tribal name Nihm. Here are some links for those interested in learning more:
“Newly Found Altars from Nahom,” Warren P. Aston, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, volume 10, no. 2, pp. 56-61, 2001. (PDF)
“In Search of Lehi’s Trail—30 Years Later,” Lynn M. Hilton.
“New Light: ‘The Place That Was Called Nahom’: New Light from Ancient Yemen,” S. Kent Brown.
Book of Mormon evidences (my page)
This is one of those topics where I have to hand it to you guys. I'm not sure what (if any) position the critics take against this is nearly as convincing as saying Smith just got it right on this one (for reasons we'll both disagree on, of course. But mine are limited to luck, really).
If this was all there was to the BoM, I'd find it convincing.
Openminded;
A farm boy from upstate New York wrote a story of a man across the world who left Jerusalem, provided the "directions and descriptions, but placenames" with bulls eye accuracy as to the travels of tha man and his family in the Arabian Penninsula, and you call this luck?
Are you sure you don't want to change your call name from "openminded" to something else. ;>)
Darren:
A farm boy from upstate New York wrote a story with some GLARING issues involved. There are reasons to dispute the claims to God-inspired origins of this book.
I gave you Nahom, how openminded do you want me to be ;>)
In all honesty with my name, though, since you brought it up: I am open to a good argument. but what if I was open to every argument? I could switch things around if your username was mine and say "Darren (ha, or openminded in this case), you should be more open to my arguments. they are very convincing, and your side just does not last in the face of a few of these fool-proof criticisms".
As much as the BoM got a great hit with this topic, there are too many other issues that just entirely ruin the God-revealed narrative that you aim for.
But to get back on topic (as if a few tangents we could go from here are ever truly off topic!), my side wouldn't stand much of a chance if all we had to criticize was this particular story. anyone in their right mind can concede this.
however, there are other issues that lead me to believe (and trust me, being atheistic does not lead me to be nearly as biased as your evangelical opponents!) that the BoM just could not have been divinely inspired.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
…and you call this luck?
Yes, luck. Just as one calls it luck if someone shoots a hundred arrows and leaves them strewn more or less at random all over the side of the barn, but does manage to hit the bull's-eye a few times.
If you isolate just the hits, it looks pretty impressive. If you view them in the context of the whole, it looks like the luck it is. No sensible person would praise this archer for his exceptional aim.
Just as my fictional archer shoots a lot of arrows, the Book of Mormon makes a lot of geographical claims. It's only natural that a few of those claims will cohere enough with geographical reality to look like bull's-eyes, especially for those theologically predisposed to see them as such.
Let me take my analogy a step further. Suppose my archer shoots his hundred arrows over the course of several years, at the rate, let's say, of one per month. As before, he leaves arrows strewn at random all over the side of the barn. But everyone once in awhile, just by luck, he gets off a pretty good shot.
And then, let's say a year or two into my thought-experiment, he get's a bull's-eye. Would it make sense to jump up and down at that point and say, "Look! A bull's-eye! What a great archer!"
Of course not.
And when, a few years later, the archer gets another bull's-eye, would it make sense to say, "See? I told you so! What a great archer! The evidence for his greatness has just doubled. That's what I call INCREASING EVIDENCE for the greatness of the archer! What do you say NOW, skeptic?"
Like I said, luck.
— Eveningsun
Hi Eveningsun,
While I have not done a statistical analysis of the chances of a random bull's eye not have I done the statistical analysis of a random place name at a random location set at the correct spot in a journey, I would tend to believe the chances are better for the archer than the would-be imposter. But, since there are always outliers, one can choose to accept the outlier as the acceptable answer in every scenario which is what you have done. Personally, I would love to see the odds of this random guess.
Steve
I gave you Nahom, how openminded do you want me to be
That's good enough…for now. ;>)
Eveningsun;
Yes, luck. Just as one calls it luck if someone shoots a hundred arrows and leaves them strewn more or less at random all over the side of the barn, but does manage to hit the bull's-eye a few times.
Whom else can you cite shot out a bunch of unsupported declarations but yet got the direction, place, and placename exactly right across the world and did so during a time and place where "everybody knew" he was wrong?
An implied argument on Jeff's post here is that it's not "just luck". Scienfifically-speaking, things are looking better and better for the Book of Mormon.
If you isolate just the hits, it looks pretty impressive.
That's because it is impressive. And as time went on, and science developed better, more hits were found. With this asa rubric to measure, Joseph Smith's impressiveness looks better and better. But, as I said before, your approach will never provide you with an "iron-clad" conclusion that Joseph smith wasa true prophet of God. Even with this/these bullys eye hit/hits you rationalize it away. What do you expect to achieve from that?
Openminded;
(and trust me, being atheistic does not lead me to be nearly as biased as your evangelical opponents!)
From what I've seen from you and from certain arguments from certain Evangelicals I would have to agree with you. And dont worry, I do not hold any bias against you because you're Atheist; but that's not to say that I will never see atheistic bais in any of your arguments, just that I tend to approach arguments on their own merits.
It's not exactly like an archer spewing arrows across the side of a barn with a few hitting the bull's eye. In the case of the Arabian Peninsula journey, it's more like hitting the bull's eye with one arrow, then the next arrow splitting the previous arrow, and the next arrow splitting that one, and the next arrow splitting that one, and so on. It's a chain of low probabilities producing an infinitesimal probability of a work of fiction getting them all right in the right order.
Does that "prove" the Book of Mormon is true? Of course not. God wouldn't allow it. He requires us to exercise faith. Now having faith doesn't mean we just accept the claim that it's true; it means we examine it with a willingness to believe. If the Book of Mormon teaches us to behave in a particular way in order to receive blessings from God, we're willing to actually try it to see if it works.
Pops;
it's more like hitting the bull's eye with one arrow, then the next arrow splitting the previous arrow, and the next arrow splitting that one, and the next arrow splitting that one, and so on.
And:
Does that "prove" the Book of Mormon is true? Of course not. God wouldn't allow it. He requires us to exercise faith
Thou art very wise. :>)
pops,
I'll let eveningsun reply to your response.
but this: "[God] requires us to exercise faith"
could justify any religious belief that's out there.
It's not like we haven't seen it before, either.
An archer shooting a bunch of arrows at the side of a barn at a given target and totaling up the hits and misses is not a very accurate analogy to what we have here.
Each aspect of the story is in of itself a target on the side of the barn that is either hit or missed. So if you were take a barn, and put a bunch of targets on the side, each target being a separate part of the story. For example one target would be the path that the family took their journey on. The next would be the turning point on the path, and so on. And Joseph only gets one arrow to shoot at each target, then that would be a more reasonable analogy.
Some targets would be rather large, other rather small. The target of the name of the community where they buried Ishmael, that would be like hitting an ant on the side of the barn from 100 paces. Often times we don’t even know what the target is until we look real close and examine all the information.
It reminds me of a movie I watched a long time ago. Don’t recall the name of it, but this guy took 5 shots with a rifle at a rock that was a long way off. The other guys watching saw that the shots never hit the rock, but when they went up to check it out, there were 5 very well placed holes in a small cactus standing a little further off from the rock.
So it is often times with the Book of Mormon. Critics are claiming large rock targets they believed to be missed, but as we learn more over time we realize that it was a much smaller cactus that was the real target and we find that Joseph put a hole right in the middle of it. The real challenge here is not just in hitting the target, but knowing the real targets from the fake ones.
So the problem with trying to figure out how well Joseph did statically at hitting each of these targets with one shot, is first knowing and agreeing on which targets are real ones and which ones were the fakes. We are still learning that part of it all the time. What is amazing is that as we discern more and more of the real targets from the fakes, his stats improve, that to me is what makes his hits, and misses, most impressive.
…but this: "[God] requires us to exercise faith"
could justify any religious belief that's out there.
It doesn't justify anything. It is the method by which truth is found.
re: the birthplace of Christ and Alma 7:10, Jeff writes: "…standard anti-Mormon attack on Alma 7:10, now handily refuted with the help of modern discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls". I'm curious how Alma 7:10 is explained, "…he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem…". Christ was clearly born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel…" and Matthew 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea". Jerusalem is not Bethlehem. Alma 7:10 doesn't say "in the land of Jerusalem", it says "at Jerusalem". Other "land of Jerusalem" quotes come from the BOM. When one questionable source supports itself, that is not very convincing.
You cannot claim that you believe the BOM AND the Bible. There are many significant conflicts.
You cannot claim that you believe the BOM AND the Bible. There are many significant conflicts.
Actually, there's probably no two book more complimentary of each other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve;
I've decided that the following would be the more relevant and poignant quotation from one of Jeff's previous posts on his own website (different from this one) and a quotation that fits well with the software format of this blog:
Two non-LDS scholars, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in a passage discussing the time of the prophet Jeremiah. They write that the use of this term "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1992, p. 57, referring to a passage translated on p. 58). Jeremiah's time overlapped with Lehi's time, and in that time, what was latter called Judah or the land of Judah could appropriately be called "the land of Jerusalem," a term that "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole" when used in a document linked to Jeremiah's time. Should not the same be said of the Book of Mormon?
Lehi and his people left "the land of Jerusalem" in Jeremiah's day. With the Dead Sea Scrolls before us, we now know it would be perfectly logical for them to refer to the place where Christ would be born as "the land of Jerusalem." Use of that term was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered.
Bethlehem vs. the Land of Jerusalem: Is Alma 7:10 a Blunder?
Jeff's main source for this info is cited as from FARMS. An excellent research site in and of itself.
Alma 7:10 doesn't say "in the land of Jerusalem", it says "at Jerusalem".
You're being sarcastic, right, Steve?
In case you're not, the complete phrase reads, "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers" – not even a comma there. You have to really stretch to get "at [the city] of Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers".
So, how far from the city of Jerusalem is the city (town) of Bethlehem? Well, they practically touch today. City centers are about 4 1/2 miles apart. They're clearly part of the same land, which can appropriately be called after the name of the chief city in the region.
Just a minor quibble, but perhaps important as an example of how easily people can misread each other:
Openminded said "'[God] requires us to exercise faith' could justify any religious belief that's out there."
Pops responded, It doesn't justify anything. It is the method by which truth is found.
Pops seems to have misunderstood Openminded's sentence. He seems to be confusing a statement about faith with faith itself.
Openminded didn't say that faith justifies anything. He was clearly referring not to faith itself but to a particular statement about faith, namely, the statement "God requires us to exercise faith." And Openminded is correct to point out that this statement "could justify any religious belief that's out there." I think even Pops would agree that all kinds of believers, with vastly different beliefs, justify their beliefs by saying their God requires them to exercise faith, as in: "Hey, maybe it seems strange to you that I believe in the Koran, and you're right that I don't have any real evidence to justify my Islamic beliefs, but Allah requires me to exercise faith." Rightly or wrongly, religious folk try to justify their beliefs with such statements all the time.
Pops is right that faith is a "method by which truth is found." (Not a very good one, if you ask me, but set that aside.) But the statement "God requires us to exercise faith" is not a method; it's, you know, a statement.
— Eveningsun
Isn't that where you can open stone doors by saying open sesame?
Isn't that where you can open stone doors by saying open sesame?
Or pursue a theory. Bu, yeah, Pops was talking about Alibaba.
/Rrrrrriiiiiiggggghhhhhht
Hi Darren and Pops,
Thanks for the Dead Sea scrolls/Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise reference. I see your point, but I don’t see that they say this supports Alma 7:10 explicitly. Is the “Should not the same be said of the Book of Mormon?” quote yours or theirs? I think some extrapolation is needed to come to that conclusion, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Pops, even if they are 4-5 miles apart, they are not the same city.
I’ll even agree that there are similarities between the BOM and the Bible. But my point is, there are very substantial differences, such as the Gospel. Wouldn’t you agree that the Gospel (salvation) is quite an important concept? I know y’all have a different concept of salvation, but rather than go down that rabbit hole, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s say that “going to heaven” and “exaltation” are synonymous.
The Gospel of Mormonism (and the BOM) is quite different than that of the Bible. For example:
2 Nephi 25:23, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." If the verse would have stopped after "…it is by grace we are saved", I would be fine with that. But adding "after all we can do", changes the Gospel of Christ into a works-based salvation. The third Article of Faith confirms 2 Nephi in that… “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel”. I don't see this as semantics. It's a very different concept of salvation.
Contrast the above with some of the apostle Paul’s writings:
Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Romans 3:23, 28: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; …Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
When James says in chapter 2 verse 26: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”, it does not conflict with Paul’s writings. Good works do not earn us anything. If we have faith that is alive and active, if we study God’s word and endeavor to follow his commandments, even though we know we cannot fully do so, good works follow that faith. Good works are a by-product of faith, not a requirement for salvation.
I believe that Christ’s church is not limited to certain denominations. True, there are disagreements between denominations, some minor, some not so minor, but I have to consider Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”.
There is not salvation only in the Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, Methodist, or any other organized church body- the authority to save comes from Christ alone. To say that (active) membership in one organized church body gives someone salvation is not Biblical.
Consider what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” The body of Christ is the true church. It consists of people who acknowledge that they sin and need forgiveness, for “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). The body of Christ believes that Christ fully paid for our sins.
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, …Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Steve;
Pops, even if they are 4-5 miles apart, they are not the same city.
I dont see why that really matters inthe context you seem to be placing your argument in. What as been advocated to you here is that it is perfectly legitimate to refer to Christ's birthplace as the "Land of Jerusalem" knowing full well that He was really born in Bethlehem. I tell people here in Houston that i grew up in Chicago. But that's not explicitly true, I grew up in ta town which borders Chicago and about a 10 minute drive south on I-290 to actually get to Chicago. You could also take about 25 minutes and go east on the local road to get to Chicago proper. I am not lying, nor deceiving people by saying I grew up in Chicago. Even those who actually grew up in Chicago which I am aquainted with here take no offense.
If the verse would have stopped after "…it is by grace we are saved", I would be fine with that
From what I see you are advocating an evangelical/protestant viewpoint of salvation. The notion that you do not need to work at all to get into heaven that sola fide in Christ is all which is necessary for salvation did not enter into the Christian dogma until the 16th century with the Reformation. Before that Christians pretty much believed that yes, you need to be good if you want to get to heaven. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has restored the teachings of salvation (exaltation included). The most similar teachings of salvation in Christianity in terms of faith + works would be found in Catholicism where Catholics very much believe that no one merits his salvation but salvation is bestowed by the grace of God and by God alone. But to obtain that grace, works are needed.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Exactly. No man merits his salvation but by God's grace salvation is obtained. Likewise King Benjamin in the Book of mormon taught, "21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2). Even mormons do not believe, at least not from my understanding of its official doctrines, that anyone can merit his or her salvation. It is by God's mercy which we are saved.
(con't)
(con't)
.When James says in chapter 2 verse 26: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”, it does not conflict with Paul’s writings.
I agree, they are two parts ofthe same coin: salvation. But I do say that James 2:26 conflicts with your interpretation of what is needed for salvation to the extent that you seem to believe that works are not needed at all. If so the savior would not say, "come, follow me". From my understanding of James is that works are esential for your faith. Faith does save but works are needed to keep your faith alive. That without working according t oyour faith, your faith is dead and dead faith is nothing to place hope in.
Good works do not earn us anything.
As I noted, we have no conflict here.
If we have faith that is alive and active, if we study God’s word and endeavor to follow his commandments, even though we know we cannot fully do so, good works follow that faith.
Again, I do not see a conflict between your statement and the LDS concept of salvation.
Good works are a by-product of faith, not a requirement for salvation.
I don't know. I can provide you a list of things I know God wants me to do but I don't. Does that mean I don't have faith or does that mean I'm simply choosing not to do God's will despite my faith?
To say that (active) membership in one organized church body gives someone salvation is not Biblical.
Agreed but God is a God of covenant and of authority. The LDs believe that God's authority to preach, teach, and administer the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored to Joseph Smith and said authority has been passed along to all subsequent prophets and that is very biblical.
No arguments regarding the body of Christ.
Faith vs Grace.
the long-standing debate over two doctrines that both have solid biblical support.
knock yourselves out, it's a tie. I like to consider it a contradiction, but modern biblical scholarship goes more along the lines of a sort of debate being carried out among the authors who, don't forget, were part of an era where Christian orthodoxy and the bible as we have it today didn't even exist yet.
Also, thanks for pointing out Pops' reply to my statement, Eveningsun
“Good works are a by-product of faith, not a requirement for salvation”.
A by-product generally refers to a secondary product when other primary or main products are being made, most often used in chemical reactions. Generally these are the useless portions of the out come side of the process, but sometimes they can be very useful and have value.
Substance 1 + Substance 2 —> product + By-product
So to use the term by-product when it comes to faith and good works, it would seem that faith would be the desired product and good works is just that which happens as a part of that process, and not necessarily what we are looking for. It has no value at least when it comes to salvation.
If that is correct then once a person accepts Christ and exercises faith in him, then his works change automatically without any additional effort on his part, it just naturally happens.
I would suggest that the scriptures teach not that good works is just a by-product of faith, but that good works is also an important substance that goes into the equation which produces faith and more goods works as a useful by-product to go back into the equation again and again.
Read the following and tell me if good works does not fit on the left side of the equation as a substance used to get a product.
Matt 5:16
Rom 13:3
Eph. 4:28
1 Peter 2
Faith can only die if good works is removed from the substance side of the equation. And I fear we are seeing that more and more every day.
So I suggest we come up with something better than "by-product" to discribe good works.
but modern biblical scholarship goes more along the lines of a sort of debate being carried out among the authors who, don't forget, were part of an era where Christian orthodoxy and the bible as we have it today didn't even exist yet.
I don't know. My understanding is that Christian thought on faith and works were pretty much cut and dry that both were needed until the Reformation of the 16th century. It was during the the 16th century that faith alone (sole fide) became part of the Christian theological dogma. Even then, not all Christians believed it; nor do tha vast majority of Christians today; but all Christians believe that coming unto Christ is an absolute necessity for salvation.
Openminded, it’s not faith vs grace, it’s grace vs. works. I understand that you are an atheist. I encourage you to take up Pascal’s Wager, and make the rational choice.
I had no idea Jesus was contributing to these comments, but, you know that man was born sinful and cannot fully keep all of your commandments, despite our best efforts. Your apostle Paul wrote to the Romans in chapter 7:14: “I am carnal, sold under sin”. None of us humans are capable of being sinless.
John the Revelator, Revelation 20:12 is not saying that works are a DIRECT requirement at judgment time. Good works are the result of one’s faith. Christians have faith because, by the grace of God, Christ came down to earth and made the ultimate sacrifice for us. Then He proclaimed his victory over death on the third day. The context of the New Testament is that we are saved by grace. This conflicts with 2 Nephi "after all we can do".
haha, oh gah. Faith vs *works, i'm sorry. I just responded to a post in another topic; i think my brain was done after that. But Steven, you're still using Pascal's wager. Pretty scary, the thought of going to Hell. imagine how hard I must have thought through my choices, how much research into the bible and my own beliefs I must have gone through, before I considered it safe to leave Christianity.
Darren,
"I don't know. My understanding is that Christian thought on faith and works were pretty much cut and dry that both were needed until the Reformation of the 16th century…"
True, but the bible wasn't nearly as prominent as was the pope. the bible essentially took the pope's place to some of the new followers.
However, these days bring Catholic scholars trying to reconcile beliefs with the bible (and by try, I don't mean they failed). Catholic interpretation of Paul's verses try to differentiate between two different types of "works".
Meanwhile, my previous statement can be found in some form in one of the Oxford commentaries on the bible (or their NRSV study bible).
Steve;
I had no idea Jesus was contributing to these comments, but, you know that man was born sinful and cannot fully keep all of your commandments, despite our best efforts.
Huh? I understand the Jesus posting here remark but after that is "that man' the man who posted using "Jesus" as a username? And whose commandments are "your commandments"? Is it some sort of "LDS commandments"? God's commandments? And who are "our" in "our best efforts?
The context of the New Testament is that we are saved by grace. This conflicts with 2 Nephi "after all we can do".
We are absolutely saved by grace. This does not conflict with 2 Nephi, the Book of Mormon, or any other official LDS doctrine.