Miracle of the Book of Mormon

[_SteelHead]

So my HT was sent over today with the sole purpose of exploring my status/disaffection with the church, doctrines, teachings, history etc.

We covered a gamut of topics, and he is very well read, willing to concede a variety of points but always falls back onto the witness of the spirit. A witness that I no longer view as reliable.

As we touched upon the Book of Mormon he asked me if it was not extraordinary that the Book of Mormon could have been authored by Joseph Smith, and Sidney Rigdon working from the Spaulding Manuscript, View of the Hebrews etc, without introducing any teachings that I found morally repugnant. I internally thought there are other books that do not claim to be scripture, of which I could make the same point, but he specifically asked me to provide a teaching from the Book of Mormon that I found repugnant.

Outside of members using the prosperity-pride-fall cycle to view god as a form of celestial ATM in the sky, the obedience to which will reward them with material blessings, I could not immediately come up with said teaching.

I'll have to do some research and thinking but I am interested in other views, any one have any teachings unique to the Book of Mormon that they find offensive?

[_just me]

That god would turn peoples skin a different color when he gets pissed off at them.

That having sex is akin to murder.

[_SteelHead]

Sheesh how did I forget those? Good answers.

[_aranyborju]

That the catholic church is the great and abominable whore of the earth.

That native Americans are dark, loathsome, and filthy.

That god doesn't have the ability to help someone obtain plates that will save an entire nation from dwindling in unbelief except through a graphic murder (beheading)...but then allows the nation to dwindle in unbelief anyway.

[_Fence Sitter]

More so than what is offensive in the Book of Mormon might be what is missing doctrinally. If it contains the fullness of the gospel why is it missing:

1. Potential exaltation coming through temple ordinances, especially since the Nephites had temples.
2. Baptism for the dead.
3. Temple marriage for eternity.
4. Multiple kingdoms in the hereafter.
5. plurality of Gods.
6. potential to become Gods.
7. a positive concept of human nature.
8.a limitation on human nature.

The above list is from Grant Hardy's book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins". It might be a book to recommend to him.

[_Morley]

That people who had not yet been born could still have their words quoted in the past tense.

That Egyptian writing, chariot driving, wheat growing, steel sword crafting, Hebrew Mayans existed in the Americas without leaving a trace of archaeological or DNA evidence. And that these same Jews would essentially become Christians before the advent of Christ.

Perhaps not morally repugnant, but intellectually so.

[_subgenius]

...the witness of the spirit. A witness that I no longer view as reliable....

this speaks volumes and i consider it to be the most revealing aspect of your post.
So, i wonder:

1. You consider the spirit to not be valid, therefore any "witness" you may have received was either hallucinatory or delusional, basically an illusion. At which case the illusion was actually generated by your "self". Deceived not by some external entity but rather deceived by your own self and its inability to properly discern what may, or may not, have been external conditions. Which concludes one to admit that it is the "self" which is "unreliable".....but ironically, the self is still deemed appropriate for discerning, now, the way things "really are".

2. You consider the spirit to be valid, but, contrary to its nature, it surely has been deceptive or confusing to your self. Kinda like the spirit speaking French when it full well knows that you only speak English. At which case, if the spirit is truly valid then it surely does not confound...which means it is the self that confounds, confuses, and deceives. Nevertheless ,the self is still deemed appropriate for discerning, now, the way things must "really be".

[Guest]

...the witness of the spirit. A witness that I no longer view as reliable....

this speaks volumes and i consider it to be the most revealing aspect of your post.
So, i wonder:

1. You consider the spirit to not be valid, therefore any "witness" you may have received was either hallucinatory or delusional, basically an illusion. At which case the illusion was actually generated by your "self". Deceived not by some external entity but rather deceived by your own self and its inability to properly discern what may, or may not, have been external conditions. Which concludes one to admit that it is the "self" which is "unreliable".....but ironically, the self is still deemed appropriate for discerning, now, the way things "really are".

2. You consider the spirit to be valid, but, contrary to its nature, it surely has been deceptive or confusing to your self. Kinda like the spirit speaking French when it full well knows that you only speak English. At which case, if the spirit is truly valid then it surely does not confound...which means it is the self that confounds, confuses, and deceives. Nevertheless ,the self is still deemed appropriate for discerning, now, the way things must "really be".

It's not really the self that's unreliable, but the idea of using your internal emotional state as a Magic 8 Ball but for yes/no questions that's unreliable.

[_Equality]

Morally repugnant doctrine? The Atonement.

[_subgenius]

More so than what is offensive in the Book of Mormon might be what is missing doctrinally. If it contains the fullness of the gospel why is it missing.....

offensive?...and it seems that you would impose a different meaning of the "fullness of the gospel" than is used by the church or its members. It speaks to the clarity and fundamental presence of the Gospel as was revealed by Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 27:13-19).
The Book of Mormon has never claimed to contain all truth, but rather "plain and precious" teachings, of which are the foundation for why it is the "fullness". Even Mormon points out that only the "lesser" teachings were recorded.

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/3-ne/26.8-9?lang=eng#8-9
8 And these things have I written, which are a alesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, bfrom the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the agreater things be made manifest unto them.

Harold B Lee
"What is the gospel as it is defined? Let me give you how the Lord defines the gospel, in these words: "And verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth my gospel receiveth me; and he that receiveth not my gospel receiveth not me. And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (DC 39:5-6.)
Wherever you have a restoration of the gospel, where those fundamental ordinances and the power of the Holy Ghost are among men, there you have the power by which the Lord can reveal all things that pertain to the kingdom in detail, don't you see, including baptism for the dead, which He has done in our day. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he was questioned, "How does your church differ from all the other churches?" and his answer was simple, "We are different from all the other churches because we have the Holy Ghost." (See History of the Church 4:42.) Therein we have the teachings of the fulness of those essentials in the Book of Mormon upon the foundations of which the kingdom of God is established."