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?
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.
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.
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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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.
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 Book of Mormon 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.
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 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...
There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon are something to push aside and ignore. Hebraisms/chiasmatic stuff that goes on with depth/breadth in the Book of Mormon (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 Book of Mormon says of itself. That's obvious.
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?
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.