Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_beastie]

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the Book of Mormon, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the Book of Mormon came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

In addition to what I, and many others including BH Roberts, perceive to be the simplistic, almost childish, cartoonish stories in the Book of Mormon that contain none of the complexities of comparable Biblical stories, did you read any of Uncle Dale's postings about the many inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon? He posted them last month or so at MAD. I'd do a search for you and link them but disabled my account so I can't log in.

in my opinion, many of these arguments you find persuasive remind me of chiasmus: much must be ignored in order to find it impressive. These are the type of arguments that sound good on the surface but scratch very easily.

[_grampa75]

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.

I can most certainly testify of the validity of the Book of Mormon. I discovered years ago that if you first read the Book of Mormon there is a spirit that goes with it that will enable us to understand ALL SCRIPTURE. My education only goes as far as a little college before I was called into the Military during the Korean War.

1 John 2: 27 the anoiting which you have received of him abideth in you, and ye NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU, but the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

St. John 8: 31 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. 32. And you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you free.

Doctrine and Covenants 93: 24 And TRUTH is the knowlege of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.
I have discovered the future history of our world to the very last day of its existence, and I would like to hear from anyone of you who can make this same claim.
Because of some teachings of St. John, and Joseph Smith all Mormons should be able to tell you where life first began and where God, Himself came from and where we will be after this earth has reached its conclusion.
The LDS teaches of 3 degrees of glory. 1 The Telestial Kingdom of heaven, which is this earth right now in the condition it is. 2. The Terestrial Kingdom of Heaven, which is this earth as it shall be when Christ comes back to the earth. 3. The Celestial Kingdom of heaven is also this earth in its most glorified state which is after the great city is brought down out of heaven and completely covers the entire earth.
It doesn't matter if you believe what I said, but how many of you that is Mormon or non-Mormon that can come to the entire truth of these teachings?

They are ever learning and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
And why is that? Because you have to believe in the Book of Mormon and receive that Holy Spirit to teach you all truth, and as the Bible informs us, we do not need any MAN to teach us.
grampa75

[_mentalgymnast]

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the Book of Mormon, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the Book of Mormon came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

In addition to what I, and many others including BH Roberts, perceive to be the simplistic, almost childish, cartoonish stories in the Book of Mormon that contain none of the complexities of comparable Biblical stories, did you read any of Uncle Dale's postings about the many inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon?

MG: they're in the Bible too.

I haven't seen Unc's postings, but a few years ago I remember coming across some of them on an internet site somewhere. King Benjamin getting time warped with Mosiah, and some others that were interesting. The thing is, wouldn't you expect this to be the case if you have multiple personalities/minds working together to produce the Book of Mormon? They're not all going to get their story straight and on the same page...literally and figuratively. Whether you take the approach that those multiple personalities are Spalding and Co. or Moroni and Co. the effect would be much the same...no?

Similar to what we have going on in the Bible too?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the Book of Mormon, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the Book of Mormon came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

in my opinion, many of these arguments you find persuasive remind me of chiasmus: much must be ignored in order to find it impressive. These are the type of arguments that sound good on the surface but scratch very easily.

MG: I don't think anything has to be ignored. It's just there. You find pearls inside a clam in the middle of a bunch of other filler and stuff. Read Isaiah. Pearls hidden in the midst of a bunch of filler (it seems) and stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to us. Most scriptural texts seem to be that way don't they? Especially the older they get. Hey, more proof for the Book of Mormon!

Word print stylometry analysis, for one example, hasn't scratched up too much. It's no worse for the wear and it's fairly resilient in providing some interesting textual evidence of multiple authors. Moroni and Co. or Spalding and Co. You decide. <g>

Regards,
MG