-cs
http://chrisschellenberg.com/

Replying to the questions: There was a council held in heaven before the creation of this earth. This council in heaven included a discussion of who would be the Savior. Both Christ and Lucifer offered, upon drastically different terms (Isa. 6:8; Isa. 14:12-14). That is when Lucifer fell and became Satan (Isa. 14:12). 1/3 of the spirits of God followed after Satan (Rev. 12:3-13). We don’t believe these 1/3 had their skin turned black as a curse.

*A REPLY TO THE RESPONSE: OK, NOW ISAIAH 6:8 IS REFERRING TO COMMISSIONING OF ISAIAH. GOD WAS IN COUNSEL WITH GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON (JESUS), AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT…ALL THREE BEINGS AS ONE GOD. ISAIAH HEARD THEM SPEAKING AND SAID “HERE AM I! SEND ME!”. THIS IS NOT A REFERENCE TO LUCIFER OR SATAN AT ALL. ISAIAH 14:12-14 IS DESCRIBING THE FALL OF LUCIFER OR SATAN FROM HEAVEN AND 1/3 OF THE HEAVENLY HOST. THE REASON FOR SATANS FALL WAS THAT HE WANTED TO BE ABOVE GOD AND RULE THE UNIVERSE WITH HIS THRONE ABOVE GOD’S. LUCIFER MENTIONS IN VERSE 14 THAT “I WILL ASCEND HIGH ABOVE THE TOPS OF THE CLOUDS.” REFER TO IS 19:1 & EXODUS 16:10. THERE WAS NO ACCOUNT IN THE BIBLE OF THE QUESTION OF WHO TO SEND TO EARTH BETWEEN JESUS AND LUCIFER…THIS WAS BEING DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE HOLY TRINITY AND FOR ISAIAH’S PURPOSE. IT WAS HIS TIME TO BE A WITNESS TO ISRAEL. THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS THOUGH. SCOTT

Further reply to the question: We are all children of God, and sons of the highest (Ps. 82:6; Rom. 8:17; Heb. 12:9; Acts 17:29). That includes every son and daughter of God, Jesus and Lucifer also. Albeit, Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. Lucifer has become Satan, the father of all lies, who attempts to overthrow God’s work and leads men carefully down to hell.

*FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE REPLY: I HAVE SOME TROUBLE WITH CALLING LUCIFER A SON OF GOD. HE WAS A CREATED ANGEL JUST LIKE MICHAEL, SERAPHIM, CHERUBS, AND OTHER ANGELS. HOWEVER, LUCIFER SINNED AS DESCRIBED IN ISAIAH 14:12-14. GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW LUCIFER THE CHANCE TO OVER-THROW HIM. AS I TRULY BELIEVE OUR GOD IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL THINGS. IF LUCIFER HAD BEEN HIS SON, HE WOULD NOT HAVE REBELLED AND BEEN THROWN OUT OF HEAVEN…MY GOD IS FAR BIGGER THAN THAT. GOD HAD NO DAUGHTERS EITHER THAT I AM AWARE OF…AT LEAST THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK OF IT…THE HOLY BIBLE IS MY AUTHORITY AND NONE OTHER. AGAIN THANKS FOR YOUR VIEW ON THIS…ALTHOUGH I DO NOT AGREE I DO APPRECIATE YOU MAKING YOUR POINT KNOWN.

*PSALM 82 IS REFERRING TO THE UNJUST JUDGES OF THE DAY. THEY WERE TO STAND BEFORE GOD’S JUDGEMENT SEAT FOR INJUSTICE IN THE LAND. VERSE 6-7 THESE JUDGES WHOM GOD PUT IN THEIR PLACES WERE HEARING THE DIVINE VERDICT OF DEATH. THIS IS NOT REFERRING IN ANY WAY TO LUCIFER, THE ACTUAL SON OF GOD OR ANYTHING AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED ABOVE.

*ROMANS 8:17 TO PUT BACK INTO CONTEXT IS REFERENCE TO HIGHER LIVING IN CHRIST. THIS IS SPEAKING OF THE TRUE BELIEVERS OBLIGATIONS TO LIVE NOT IN OUR SINFUL NATURE ANY FURTHER. BY ACCEPTING CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOR AND LORD WE ARE NOW ADOPTED BY GOD AS HIS SON OR DAUGHTER…THIS MAKES US A STEP SIBLING OF JESUS. WE CAN AT THAT MOMENT OF SALVATION CALL OUT TO GOD AS “ABBA WHICH MEANS FATHER”. THIS IS A TERRIFIC THING FOR US. WE ARE NOW HEIRS TO ALL THAT GOD HAS…NOT SELFISHLY BECAUSE AS CHRIST LIVES WITHIN US NOW, WE WANT WHAT GOD WANTS NOT WHAT WE WANT OR THAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE OUR LIFE. WE FAIL IN THIS AT TIMES. IN REFERENCE TO VERSE 17 IF WE ARE NOW CHILDREN OF GOD BY OUR ACCEPTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS LORD OF OUR LIFE, WE ARE CO-HEIRS WITH CHRIST…SO, FROM THAT POINT ON WE WILL ALSO SHARE IN CHRIST SUFFERINGS AS WELL AND ULTIMATELY SHARE IN HIS GLORY IN HEAVEN.

*HEBREW 12:9 IS CONCERNING OUR DISCIPLINED LIVES TO LIVE FOR GOD RIGHTLY. WE ARE AS BELIEVERS IN CHRIST TO SUBMIT OURSELVES TOTALLY TO HIM IN SPIRIT AND LIVE FOR HIM. TO TAKE IT FURTHER IN VERSE 10 GOD DISCIPLINES HIS CHILDREN FOR OUR GOOD SO THAT WE GLORIFY HIM AND SO THAT WE LEARN HOW TO SHARE IN HIS HOLINESS. GOD WANTS A HOLY REMNANT NOT A SIN-STAINED ONE.

*ACTS 17:29 THIS IN PARTICULAR IS PAUL REFERRING TO US AS GOD’S OFF-SPRING BECAUSE GOD IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS. I DO NOT SEE IN CONNECTION TO WHAT YOU HAVE REFERENCED ABOVE. THANKS, SCOTT

Check out the website link, it contains a wonderful artistic Book of Mormon reading tracker.

I appreciate you reading the blog and ask that you continue to read the blog. I would encourage all the other readers to work on reading the Holy Bible first..this is the real authority of God. Read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching (the truth), rebuking (convicting of sin), correcting (putting back on the right path), and training in righteousness (how to be right with God through Jesus). So that the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work.” We do not have need of any other book according to this. Thanks for commenting. By the way, I cannot leave your site here for people…sorry. Pressing on in Christ, Scott

There will most likely always be questions for both sides, but I want to keep good dialogue going on. It helps to either clarify things or muddy the water further, not sure some times.

Anyway, have a terrific week.

Pressing on in Christ,
Scott

I would ask if any of the other Christians out there have further questions or any other LDS members can shed further light on the subjects?. I am curious of a couple of other things.

1. Where did the planet Kolob come from in all this? Why? Is this were heaven is or what is Kolob for?

2. How did the Free Masonry rituals make its way into LDS? I understand from research on history of the times that Joseph and his father were heavily into the occult and Free Masonry before the golden plates and the Book of Mormon. So, one would assume this is where it came from, but that is merely an assumption. Can you clear this up or anyone?

Scott

Thanks for trying though. I am still researching the site.

Scott

One place where these five questions have been answered, along with commentary about Mr. Spencer’s misunderstanding and misuse of the historical record concerning B.H. Roberts, is in an article entitled Yet More Abuse of B.H. Roberts by Daniel Peterson. I would recommend reading it for more information; it has been available since 1997.

As to question 4, which you say still stands (”scimetar” vs. “cimetar”), recent scholarship has understood the scimitar, defined as a
curved blade, to greatly precede Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem and the later rise of Islam. If various scribes in the Book of Mormon had described an implement of war that used a curved blade, what word would you have had Joseph Smith use to translate that concept? Translators do use words understood by their audiences, after all.

One simple example that everyone is familiar with is that the translators of the King James version of the Bible used words such as “candle” and “latchet” (of a shoe), even though those were unheard of at the time of Christ. Does such a translational choice invalidate the Bible? Hardly. Yet, to dismiss the Book of Mormon because of probably translational choices by Joseph Smith would seem to be a double standard.

This is not to say that there are not anachronisms in the Book of Mormon; there are. There are also anachronisms in the Bible, but that does not mean that the books are not translations of actual ancient texts. The presence of anachronisms does not disprove a book any more than the absence of anachronisms validates a book.

My best in your studies,

-Allen

Thanks Allen, I will look at your comments closer later and see if any further questions come up. I appreciate you staying with this for me. Scott

I am still working on the Mayan Cliff’s, which was a question B.H. Roberts raised and was not answered before his death in 1933. I will seek to find out where he got it from.

Something or someone else I am still looking for within fairlds.com is Roberts conversations in his last two months on earth with Wesley Lloyd. I am sure it is there, but I have yet to find him anywhere. He was amoung the last to hear of anything from Roberts. I do know that although Roberts had pretty much denounced The Book of Mormon, he was hoping to find the LDS church to be true and that hopefully he could find proof of the truthfulness of the D and C. He did not live long enough to explore that, unfortunately.

Roberts quoted Joseph Smiths own mother to have said that a young Joseph would give “amusing recitals” in which he would describe “ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upo which they rode, their cities, their buildings, even their mode of warfare and their religious worship.” He did all of this long before he ever claimed to have received the golden plates of the Book of Mormon.

I will dig deeper into these questions and the questions you have raised. If you have any further areas I can look as in the Holy Bible that could address some of these would be most helpful, but I yet to find the answers to these questions there.

Scott

1) This refers to a statement made in the introduction to the Book of Mormon written by Bruce R. McConkie. The statement reads:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

While there was a majority consensus in this view at the time McConkie wrote this (around 1978), there were minority views going back to the early days of the LDS church which did not favor this idea and suggested that the Nephites were colonists in an already populated area. This view has since gained more support (particularly since the early 90s when several prominent views of a limited size of the Nephite lands were introduced on a wide basis), and the church has now changed that introduction (both with the authorized Doubleday publication of the Book of Mormon and an anticipated new edition with a new introduction and chapter headings and also presumably footnotes) to use the phrase “among the ancestors”.

To get to the actual question though, Hebrew is never mentioned as the primary language of the Nephites. Egyptian is described as the language of the written texts they took with them, and they quickly suggest that the characters and language had been modified by themselves - and probably did not resemble the original much. When the Nephites encountered the more numerous Mulekite peoples, they cannot even communicate with one another, and the Mulekites (who presumably had started with Hebrew) had no working knowledge of any language used by the Nephites. Additionally, the Lamenites did not use the Nephite language, and the Nephites, we are told, were wiped out in an ethnic cleansing. So, for us to expect to find significant traces of a Hebrew language 2600 years after Lehi lands in the New World doesn’t really seem all that reasonable - if we simply go by what the text of the Book of Mormon tells us about its language and the languages of the people described in it. The idea that we should expect it really comes from assumptions we make about the book.

2) When Marco Polo traveled to Java, he encountered a unicorn. We know this, because he tells us that he did. Of course, he tells us, its not quite what he expected in a unicorn. While it has four legs, and hair and a horn, the hair is more like that on an elephant, and it has a rough hide, and is not slender legged, and forget it being tamed by a young woman … and so we know that Polo encountered what we would now call a rhinoceros. When the Spaniards first brought horses to to the New World, the natives they encountered called them deer. It would be a considerable time before they called them by something that was a unique identifier. Whatever the Nephites are referring to as a “horse”, in my opinion it probably isn’t what we would think of as a horse. The Nephites never ride horses, never use them to transport food to armies, never use them to speed up travel from point A to point B. Unlike Polo’s text, we may not have enough information to determine what was meant, but we could speculate. Identifying animals would have been quite important to a group of Israelite exiles. If for no other reasons, the animals would have needed a classification just to be placed within the dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses. So, for example, on the basis of foot structure (the Law of Moses uses this as a defining feature) perhas a Tapir was meant (Tapirs and horses are both members of a very small group of odd-toed ungulates). It doesn’t really matter why, but we suspect based on the fact that fact that the horses in the Book of Mormon don’t resemble horses as we would expect to see them, that they probably weren’t actually what we would call horses. Just as we wouldn’t call a horse a “deer” or a rhinoceros a “unicorn”.

3) While we could get into a longer discussion on the question of metal anacrhonisms in the Book of Mormon, the idea of a steel bow is mentioned three times in the Old Testament: KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. These refer to Bronze bows - or copper that had been “steeled” through the use of tin or other alloys. We often mistake the notion of “steel” in earlier English texts for a technical usage of the term “steel” today that we have. But this kind of technical reference didn’t really exist a couple of hundred years ago. I should point out thogh that there have been found iron alloy weapons that can be called steel. In the November/December 2005 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, there is an article that mentions a short sword found at Ekron (dated to around 600 BC), which has a blade made of carbon infused iron (or steel). So while probably very rare, such things exist. I don’t think the “steel bow” is actually steel (and it would refer to the tips and not to the whole bow itself) but is probably bronze and more typical of the period.

4) Bernal Díaz del Castillo, in his book The Conquest of New Spain (a contemporary account of the Spanish conquest of the New World) reported that “their swords, which were as long as broadswords, were made of flint which cut worse than a knife, and the blades were so set that one could neither break them nor pull them out.”

The primary distinction between a scimitar and other swords is that the scimitar has a curved blade. Your claims about Muslims is curious, since a quick search yielded a lot of results like this one:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis3.htm

Where the claim is made that around 1500 BC, the Egyptians were importing scimitars from Syria. I don’t think that trying to establish a late 600 AD date is going to stand up very well ….

5) I think on the issue of silk, once more we talk about issues of language. While not “silk” in the sense of silk worms, there have been found and identified a number of fabrics that are quite similar. At least one comes from coccons (as does silk), but others come from plants like pods of the ceiba tree (the fabric is called Kapok). Similar kinds of material could be made from the wild pineapple plant - the time that it took to prepare the fibers and make the cloth was also an indicator of its cost and value. So, silk in the technical sense of coming from silkworms? Probably not. But again, I am not sure such a technical accuracy is necessary or its lack problematic.

6) It is a common mistake to attribute this view to B.H. Roberts as a personally held opinion. Accompanying the report you mention was this letter to then President of the LDS church, Heber J. Grant, in which he explains the report:

“My answer was, however, that it was my intention to go on with the consideration to the last analysis. Accordingly, since the matter was already so far under my hands, I continued my studies, and submit herewith the record of them. I do not say my conclusions, for they are undrawn. In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ’study of Book of Mormon origins’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth… I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon.”

In other words, to put it bluntly, what you reference isn’t the views of B.H. Roberts (even though he wrote it). His own autobiography (completed in early 1933) makes no suggestion of a loss of faith or the kind of struggle you suggest here.

Unlike the material which was copied down by B.H. Roberts, early LDS accounts are somewhat divided. There is a lot of statements which place the Book of Mormon events in Meso-america (and thus why that belief remains quite popular today) while suggestions for a Northeast American placement have become increasingly less significant in LDS thought over the past century.

I don’t think anyone knows exactly where the Book of Mormon events took place. There are three statements attributed to Joseph Smith though:

An 1836 statement asserts that “Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude” This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon.

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that “Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]” (T&S 3 [Sept. 15, 1842]:921–22). This would move the location of Lehi´s landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile.

Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that “it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens´ ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one” (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

So, its hard to say, but certainly the view of a north-east location in the US has never held a majority opinion in the church.

Really though, answering questions like this doesn’t add people to the church. Faith in God isn’t built on issues like this. Faith in God comes from putting your trust in Him, and being blessed by Him in return. It comes from the witness of the Holy Spirit. It comes from the change we experience when we do God’s will. These kinds of questions aren’t meant to be asked and answered to convert - merely to create controversy.

I appreciate you taking time to post these comments. I disagree that God cannot use answer to questions in order to draw some to Christ. My God is sovereign over all things and He can use whatever means He wishes in order to draw someone to himself. I will study on your comments at greater length later and if I have further questions I will post them here. Again, I appreciate you taking time out of your day to comment. Scott

focus

Hear me out that I am not yelling at you with my answer, but really concerned with your response. I am sorry, but these questions have not been answered or addressed! This is not a nitpick of any sort, but legitament questions that need answers and I could post hundreds of others. B.H. Roberts certainly did not think these were nitpicking either when he pretty much denounced The Book of Mormon over these questions that had no answers in the positive. Research this for yourself, do not take my word for it or that of anyone else within the Mormon faith. Do you not care if a book to which you proclaim to be true may be full of unanswered questions and possible written under false pretences by a possible false prophet? If I thought for a moment that any portion of the Holy Bible was written by a false prophet I would throw it away today if I could not find the answers myself, however, I have found nothing in the Holy scriptures to be false. Why don’t you indulge me here and everyone else reading by answering these questions in your own words rather than always sending everyone off to some book or website? This is what we always get when we ask an LDS member a question online or in person, “Go to such and such site for further clarification”. I want to hear what you have to say, not fairlds.com or farms.byu.edu. The questions are asked of you not a website. Can you answer these questions from the Holy Bible, historical facts, archeological finds, maps, etc? That is what we are looking for from the individual not a website. If you cannot answer this way I will understand, but do not send us off to some website.

Thanks, Scott