Posted By AZ Dreaming on 10/20/2007 11:20 AM
I agree that there is no way of knowing today whether Joseph Smith was bipolar.
However, bipolar disease is one of not only severe depression, but manic highs. When I say manic highs, you have no idea. It is very possible that when someone is in a manic state they could believe in the impossible. In fact, they usually do. Their grandiose ideas usually get them into trouble because they cannot distinguish between what is realistic and what are impossible schemes/dreams.
Although we will never know if Mr. Smith was bipolar my personal thought is that he was not exactly the most "normal" of people. He definitely had a VERY exhalted image of himself and unlike Christ, was not humble in his teachings or behavior.

Posted By cg on 10/20/2007 1:58 PM
You guys Crack me up!!! Have you read the Book Of Mormon? Have you attended LDS meetings? Have you had a subjective conversation with someone knowledgeable in the Mormon religion, where you actually listened and asked honest questions, not questions so you can contend or be able to twist what was said? Where is the evidence in the Old Testament? Yet we all believe it. What it comes down to is recieving truth to your heart. God works in mysterious ways, we see it over and over through history. Not all things are made known to us now. If you know it all, I've got questions for you.

Posted By Veritas on 10/20/2007 2:09 PM

Where's the evidence for the Old Testament? If you are not aware of the fact that many secular and even atheist archaeologists and paleontologists use the OT as a historical reference to help them pinpoint a great number of things, then you must live in a salt mine. This is "old news". The Bible is a reliable historical document and no one in the field doubts that. Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, now that's what gets people fired up. Did God create the universe? etc... these are the things in question, NOT the historicity of the OT or NT.

The Book of Mormon claimes to be "a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible." Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon declare themselves to be ancient, historical, and reliable rules of faith--the very word of God.

These claims have historically been taken on faith. But is there any evidence to support them one way or the other? Is it even possible to "test" a rule of faith? More to the point, is there any basis for placing one's faith in the Bible or the Book of Mormon?

It's an important question. It's an eternal question. This presentation puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon to the same tests. History, archaeology, textual criticism, and other disciplines combine to shed light on what is true...and what is false.

Truth never fears investigation. Faith need not--and should not--be blind. Discover for yourself which of these books is worthy of being called "scripture" and which is worth of your trust.

Posted By EEE on 10/20/2007 6:21 PM
Here is a great video which compares the History of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

Posted By qwerty on 10/20/2007 6:37 PM

Just so there are two sources one from each side. :-). I still stand by my previous statement that the non-existence of concrete archaeological evidence does not automatically make the BOM not true.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

Summary

Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect--we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties. To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies.

Posted By EEE on 10/20/2007 7:02 PM


I enjoyed the summary, which adds reliability to the video:

I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.

Posted By qwerty on 10/20/2007 5:13 PM



I completely understand what you are saying Veritas. But why does something from God have to be proved as a historical document for it to be a legitimate source. God very rarely makes things that easy for us. Just because the BOM can't be "proven" as a historical document doesn't make it's teachings automatically false. It requires faith and prayer to determine it's truth. Just like we have faith that Christ is our Saviour. There's no human "proof" of that. I guess my point is that it's not right to simply cast the BOM (or the Koran or whatever) aside simply because there's no concrete historical evidence.

Posted By cg on 10/21/2007 7:42 AM
Just a question, (and I know this will get a bunch of people uptight, but) we all know God is all knowing, right? If he has not experienced being man, that means we know more than him, are having experience he hasn't had. Does that still make Him all knowing? Just a thought I had.

Posted By cg on 10/21/2007 7:42 AM
Why is this concept such a Leap?

Posted By cg on 10/21/2007 7:42 AM
The bible in Romans, teaches us that since we are children of God, then we are his heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. If we don't inherit salvation and exaltation, what do we inherit? This really all goes back to the basic belief that God speaks to his children now as he did then, he is an unchangeable being. But, evidence will not prove that. I like verse 16 of Romans 8, too. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Some things cannot be "proven" but have to be born witness of by the Spirit. Can you "prove" we are his children as the bible says? Are we really just things running around to gain nothing from life, learn nothing, produce nothing from our experience and die? Since God is eternal, doesn't it make sense that since we are his children, we are too?

Posted By cg on 10/21/2007 5:44 PM
Sorry, I was responding to EEE's comments quoting Joseph Smith. There were a few different thoughts in there. It was a thought that I had...EEE seemed to question the concept that God was once a man. And YES, I am subject to him, we all are if we will.