It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:57 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:35 pm 
From another thread:

mentalgymnast wrote:
If the BofM is true, so is the church.


Then we hear:

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
The church has gone through many changes, and it would survive losing the Book of Mormon.


Runtu wrote:
But then it's not true, so it really doesn't matter, does it? ;-)


VegasRefugee wrote:
The book of Mormon is a drastically bad document ripped from old folk tales of the mound builders, literal straight up copying from the KJV and boring drawn out gore fests of chopped hands severed by nonexistent Steel Swords (or is that obsidian clubs, Dannyboy?).


Fortigurn wrote:
Given that there is no evidence (even from eyewitnesses), that the Book of Mormon was translated from golden plates, we must necessarily look for an alternative source.


MG: That's it folks. The final word. Like he said, let's look elsewhere!

marg wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:

Does everything point towards the BofM being bogus?


Without a doubt, yes.


Runtu wrote:

MG: Are there any so called evidences [of the BofM] that you believe have some validity?

Runtu: Sure.


harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.


harmony wrote:
It's canonized, so it's scripture to LDS people, but even the canonization doesn't make it something it's not: God-breathed. But then, very little that is considered scripture is actually God-breathed. Man doesn't have a very high standard for his scriptures.


truth dancer wrote:
My loss of belief had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon.

Even if the Book of Mormon were true, (which I findly completely impossible at this point), it is no way means anything else is true.


Runtu wrote:
Yep, Book of Mormon issues were secondary to me as well. Rather, it's the totality of all the things one has to rationalize and make excuses for that makes the truth of Mormonism so unlikely for me.


SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Because the living prophet is more important than anything, even the Book of Mormon.


harmony wrote:
...the prophet could pitch it to the curb tomorrow, and the church would continue with hardly a blip. The words of the living prophet trump everything else.


Runtu wrote:
...the church would continue fairly unimpeded if it chucked the BofM.
The words of the living prophet trump everything else.


harmony wrote:
What do we use the Book of Mormon for? Not much. General Conference talks are the source of our teaching. So that's the living prophet, not the scriptures.


and finally...

Fortigurn wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.


MG: I disagree. The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the BofM. That the BofM is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have.


You're absolutely right there.


then we come back to this:

harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.



MG: anyone see a common thread intermingling amongst these comments? I am less than impressed with the rationalization and short shrifting going on here. Sorry guys, the BofM is a big deal, and there's more to it than you are apparently willing to give. Why in the world do you think Pres. Hinckley encouraged the whole church to read the BofM in a year? Is there power in that book that comes into the hearts of those that feast upon its pages? Is it an artifactual testimony that God lives and Jesus is Lord of all?

Well, these questions can only be answered on an individual level. But when one takes on the so called testimonies of died in the wool doubters without really giving the BofM a full and balanced chance over a long period of time one has limited himself/herself to a restricted and narrow point of view.

I remember years ago when I first read Metcalfe's "New Approaches" I was stunned. I was also reading Compton, Van Wagoner, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, B.H. Roberts, Sagan, www.lds-mormon.com, and on and on. I ended up pretty much just putting the BofM on the shelf. Left my HC calling and considered jumping the good ship Mormon. I was a NOM for a while. Hung in there. Went to Sunstone, then FAIR. Hung in there. Sent a son on a mission. Hung in there. Now...I see reasons, valid reasons, to hang in there today. There's a LOT that doesn't make total sense, but there is a lot that makes partial and even more than partial sense when one turns things around, looks underneath and at the sides, and also takes into account that it may well be true that "God's ways are not always man's ways".

Like I said, for a long time the BofM pretty much sat on the shelf. Unopened except infrequently.

Is this the case for some of you?

I've gone back to the BofM. Yes, the apparent anachronisms are there. KJ Bible is there. You can go to my wikipedia references and elsewhere to find the rest...But there's more to the BofM than it appears that those I've quoted in this post are willing to admit. The only way to prove that this is so, however, is to one's self by living inside its pages with more than a cursory read/look now and then.

I still stand by my comment made earlier:

mentalgymnast wrote:
MG: The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the BofM. That the BofM is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have. Some on this thread have condemned the BofM for not having any basis for belief behind it simply by throwing out a comment or two to disparage it. I can empathize with that. For example, if one goes to these to sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic ... _of_Mormon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

it is possible to find reasons to cast the BofM aside, but you can also find reasons to take a further look.

If you take that further look by visiting a site such as this one:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/book ... index.html

and take the time to investigate the material posted there, it is possible to come away thinking that it is possible that the BofM has something to it besides crock.

Those that have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production have done so prematurely in my opinion.

The church does rise or fall on the BofM. Many churches teach about Jesus Christ. Saying that the LDS church would be able to continue its three fold mission if the BofM was proven to be false is wishful thinking.

If the BofM is a fabrication/fraud there is no reason to continue bearing testimony of the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.


MG: If the Book of Mormon is true, as I said earlier, pretty much everything else discussed in these forums in regards to issues and controversies as to things "Mormon" takes a back seat.

There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production [and] have done so prematurely..."

I haven't come across anything that anyone on this forum has said to make me think otherwise.

Regards,
MG


Last edited by mentalgymnast on Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
mentalgymnast wrote:
There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production [and] have done so prematurely..."

I haven't come across anything that anyone on this forum has said to make me think otherwise.

Regards,
MG


I guess it depends on what you mean by "prematurely." I haven't completely closed the door on the possibility that it's true, but after many years of study and prayer, I've concluded that its truthfulness is highly unlikely. I certainly haven't tried to convince you or anyone else that it isn't true. I respect your belief in it and am a little disappointed that you can't respect my conclusions about it.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
1 way the LDS church doesn't 'rise' if the Book of Mormon is true: Even if the Book of Mormon is true - how does that say anything about the LDS church. There are plenty of other groups out there who use the Book of Mormon. How do you know they're not the real church?

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19525
Location: Koloburbia
Quote:
Harmony wrote: The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon. It's canonized, so it's scripture to LDS people, but even the canonization doesn't make it something it's not: God-breathed. But then, very little that is considered scripture is actually God-breathed. Man doesn't have a very high standard for his scriptures.

At its core, the LDS Church is a Christian Church and it still has these principles and ideas to draw upon. Many things come from Man but they can still have intrinsic value in our lives and provide us much comfort.

Quote:
Truth dancer wrote:
My loss of belief had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon. Even if the Book of Mormon were true, (which I findly completely impossible at this point), it is no way means anything else is true.

I like to think that truth is what we make of it. We can seek after abstact concepts of truth and beauty in so many things. Why not here?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2961
Location: Unassigned Lands
Who Knows wrote:
1 way the LDS church doesn't 'rise' if the Book of Mormon is true: Even if the Book of Mormon is true - how does that say anything about the LDS church. There are plenty of other groups out there who use the Book of Mormon. How do you know they're not the real church?


That's just what I was going to say. If we accept the Book of Mormon as "true" in a way that makes Joseph Smith a prophet, all that does is move the front line of battle one step beyond the Book of Mormon and into the next of Joseph Smith's bizzare-o claims: priesthood restoration. He could have become a fallen prophet any time after the Book of Mormon was written, so none of his other claims become true just because we accept the Book of Mormon as true. If we decide that he didn't fall away, it can certainly be argued that the modern LDS church has fallen away at some point, leaving the RLDS, the CoC, some FLDS sect -- or none of them -- as the so-called true church that can rightly claim 10% of your income and much of your free time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 1765
Mgm, please can you tell me, other than the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus was who the later orthodox church said he was and confirming that he works with the dispersed of Israel,....what is in it that is truly unique that we can't get elsewhere.

Give me one doctrine more profound and simple than love your neighbour and love god as yourself, that is found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm all ears?


Last edited by Mary on Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:38 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi MG... :-)

I truly do not see why, if the book of Mormon is true it means the church is true.

We know "prophets' have made literally tons of mistakes, completely got many teachings/ideas totally wrong, lied about all sorts of things. We know some were not such great men. We know horrible things were done in the name of God by leaders of the church.

So, even if the Book of Mormon were true, why does that mean anything else is true? Anyone could have made up the rest of the stuff. I do not see anything in the Book of Mormon that is necessary for the church to be what it is.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon about the temple ordinances, various rituals, most of the teachings, practices, doctrine, etc. etc. etc.

In fact, what is in the Book of Mormon that is even required by the church? Nothing IMO.

It really doesn't even matter if Jesus visited the Americas or not... what difference does it make in terms of doctrine?

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who have claimed to receive a revelation or divine direction from God.... it doesn't mean that (even if true) a church they started would be the one and only true one, nor does it mean they are honest about everything else they claim.

I just do not in any way see why the church MUST be true if the Book of Mormon is true.

~dancer~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:34 pm 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 221
Quote:
There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production [and] have done so prematurely..."

I haven't come across anything that anyone on this forum has said to make me think otherwise.

Hi MG,

I'm curious. What is something that someone could say to make you think otherwise?

cacheman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:59 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
mentalgymnast wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Given that there is no evidence (even from eyewitnesses), that the Book of Mormon was translated from golden plates, we must necessarily look for an alternative source.


MG: That's it folks. The final word. Like he said, let's look elsewhere!


Yep, that's right. If you could actually provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates, we could start a conversation, but until that happens Mormonism doesn't even get off the ground.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:10 pm 
Runtu wrote:
I respect your belief in it and am a little disappointed that you can't respect my conclusions about it.


MG: I do. I've been there. I still struggle. I haven't concluded anything for sure one way or the other in regards to the BofM as some here seem to have done. I take an apologetic/plausible belief stance partially to see if my Mormon meanderings can withstand scrutiny. And I've meandered all over <g>. Notice that I haven't said anywhere (that I can think of anyway) that I know the BofM is true. But neither have I come out and said that it's not true. I'm willing to come down on the side of it's possible that it's true.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:17 pm 
Fortigurn wrote:
Yep, that's right. If you could actually provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates, we could start a conversation, but until that happens Mormonism doesn't even get off the ground.


And, where is the same evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

Plutarch


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:20 pm 
Who Knows wrote:
1 way the LDS church doesn't 'rise' if the Book of Mormon is true: Even if the Book of Mormon is true - how does that say anything about the LDS church. There are plenty of other groups out there who use the Book of Mormon. How do you know they're not the real church?


MG: good question. That's where you have to do the research/investigation and find out for your self.

Hey, there are a bunch of people that ended up with Warren Jeffs. Maybe they're right. <g> My gut feeling says no. But to each his own.

You would have to decide which one of the restoration split offs/movements seems to show the greatest potential to "shine forth unto the nations" and to be a "light on the hill". To me, it's rather obvious that there is only one choice that would beat them all...heads down.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19525
Location: Koloburbia
The Book of Mormon is an allegory, a sacred story, whose meaning is not dependent on any connection to actual history. To the extent that the Book of Mormon allegory reflects the dynamics of life, it is as true is it needs to be.

Attacking the Book of Mormon for its lack of evidence is like questioning Aesop's Fables.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
mentalgymnast wrote:
Runtu wrote:
I respect your belief in it and am a little disappointed that you can't respect my conclusions about it.


MG: I do. I've been there. I still struggle. I haven't concluded anything for sure one way or the other in regards to the BofM as some here seem to have done. I take an apologetic/plausible belief stance partially to see if my Mormon meanderings can withstand scrutiny. And I've meandered all over <g>. Notice that I haven't said anywhere (that I can think of anyway) that I know the BofM is true. But neither have I come out and said that it's not true. I'm willing to come down on the side of it's possible that it's true.

Regards,
MG


I appreciate that. I'm still not sure why it's dogmatic to admit to myself that I have indeed reached some conclusions.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:41 pm 
The Dude wrote:
He could have become a fallen prophet any time after the Book of Mormon was written, so none of his other claims become true just because we accept the Book of Mormon as true.


MG: it's interesting that Joseph Smith's own revelations which are purported to be from God warn him repeatedly of this possibility...and yet he is told that if he'll give it his best shot, God would continue to restore the truth through him. Joseph Smith was apparently very much aware of his own failings and vulnerabilities.

One is obligated to find out whether...that is, if the BofM is true... whether God did or didn't continue to support Joseph Smith along the way and restore lost truths and authority through him that are necessary to salvation/exaltation.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:43 pm 
Miss Taken wrote:
Mgm, please can you tell me, other than the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus was who the later orthodox church said he was and confirming that he works with the dispersed of Israel,....what is in it that is truly unique that we can't get elsewhere.

Give me one doctrine more profound and simple than love your neighbour and love god as yourself, that is found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm all ears?


MG: why are you asking for this?

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:51 pm 
truth dancer wrote:
Hi MG... :-)

I truly do not see why, if the book of Mormon is true it means the church is true.

We know "prophets' have made literally tons of mistakes, completely got many teachings/ideas totally wrong, lied about all sorts of things. We know some were not such great men. We know horrible things were done in the name of God by leaders of the church.

So, even if the Book of Mormon were true, why does that mean anything else is true?


MG: because when all is said and done...God/Jesus may be behind the scenes directing/guiding what's going on.

Hey TD, we've already had the discussion a while back, I think over at ZLMB, about the fact that the world is a messy place. People making bad choices all over the place...would the church being a microcosm or subsection of the world, albeit an organization that claims divine approbation and authority, not be prone to having individuals lose their way and choose evil rather than good, darkness rather than light, pride over humility, etc.?

But that was another discussion. I'd rather not go there in this thread...

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:07 pm 
cacheman wrote:
Quote:
There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production [and] have done so prematurely..."

I haven't come across anything that anyone on this forum has said to make me think otherwise.

Hi MG,

I'm curious. What is something that someone could say to make you think otherwise?

cacheman


MG: hey cacheman! I think I read a while back that you left the church? Hope things are going well for you in your pursuits and that you are happy.

It's not what has been said, because there is much that has been said that appears to make sense.

It's what's left out or not discussed a whole lot.

I have not been persuaded that the evidences for the BofM are something to push aside and ignore. Hebraisms/chiasmatic stuff that goes on with depth/breadth in the BofM (more so by far than what I've seen in Joseph Smith's other writings/revelations), and stylometric analyses (contrary evidence notwithstanding from Tanners and others) that stand up to scrutiny, old world evidences (Nahom and such), Cumorah and Moroni from the Comoros Islands (oops, that's a tricky one <g>) etc.

There are reasons to believe or disbelieve what the BofM says of itself. That's obvious.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:15 pm 
Fortigurn wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Given that there is no evidence (even from eyewitnesses), that the Book of Mormon was translated from golden plates, we must necessarily look for an alternative source.


MG: That's it folks. The final word. Like he said, let's look elsewhere!


Yep, that's right. If you could actually provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates, we could start a conversation, but until that happens Mormonism doesn't even get off the ground.


MG: There were witnesses to the plates. Why is/was it necessary to have the plates "in house" or on site for the translation to be from the plates?

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:36 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
rcrocket wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Yep, that's right. If you could actually provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates, we could start a conversation, but until that happens Mormonism doesn't even get off the ground.


And, where is the same evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?


Here's the tu quoque fallacy, right on cue. To answer the question, we have records of forensic evidence, we have eye witness accounts, and we have records of hostile witnesses.

You don't have any of that for the translation of the Book of Mormon from the golden plates.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:37 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
moksha wrote:
The Book of Mormon is an allegory, a sacred story, whose meaning is not dependent on any connection to actual history. To the extent that the Book of Mormon allegory reflects the dynamics of life, it is as true is it needs to be.

Attacking the Book of Mormon for its lack of evidence is like questioning Aesop's Fables.


Unfortunately the Book of Mormon does not describe itself in this way, and neither does the LDS church describe it in this way.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], candygal, Fence Sitter, Nomomo and 54 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group