Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_truth dancer]

Just one little thing to insert here...

Apologists (Brant Gardner for example) have admitted that Joseph Smith most likely copied the passages from the Bible using the actual Bible during the process.

But, as far as I know, there are no eye witnesses to this process.

In other words, if Joseph Smith used a Bible to copy material without anyone actually witnessing this, could he not have copied other material?

There is really no good argument (in my opinion) as to why the HG would produce words directly from the Bible Joseph Smith used ... seems clear Joseph Smith just copied it. If I recall correctly, apologists didn't have much of a problem with this and said something to the effect that it was just easier to copy the verses than it was to use the seer-stone-in-the-hat process.

Whatever.... ;-)

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Just one little thing to insert here...

Apologists (Brant Gardner for example) have admitted that Joseph Smith most likely copied the passages from the Bible using the actual Bible during the process.

But, as far as I know, there are no eye witnesses to this process.

In other words, if Joseph Smith used a Bible to copy material without anyone actually witnessing this, could he not have copied other material?

There is really no good argument (in my opinion) as to why the HG would produce words directly from the Bible Joseph Smith used ... seems clear Joseph Smith just copied it. If I recall correctly, apologists didn't have much of a problem with this and said something to the effect that it was just easier to copy the verses than it was to use the seer-stone-in-the-hat process.

Whatever.... ;-)

~dancer~

I tend to view the "translation process" as a classic misdirect. I very much doubt that much of the book was produced with the rock-in-hat method. As you said, at least part of the text could only have been copied (or it doesn't make sense), and at least one person has suggested that the manuscripts bear some hallmarks of being copied, not dictated.

[_mentalgymnast]

well, I've made it to page three on the Spalding thread so far. very interesting stuff. It's going to take a while to get through it. I find myself asking some of the same questions that WhyMe is asking on pgs. 1,2...but we'll see where it goes from there. I am really glad that this conversation is taking place. back to it...

Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

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.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG

[_Bond...James Bond]

Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

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.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG

You may wish to re-post your thoughts about the Spading thread in the Commentary thread. Here's the link:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1151

[_mentalgymnast]

Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

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.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG

You may wish to re-post your thoughts about the Spading thread in the Commentary thread. Here's the link:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1151

MG: done. I hadn't noticed that additional thread. Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[_grampa75]

From another thread:

If the Book of Mormon is true, so is the church.

Then we hear:

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

But then it's not true, so it really doesn't matter, does it? ;-)
Actually any teaching about the mound builders in the east was not known until the early 1900s, so it does more to proff the Book of Mormon then it does to contradict it. And the teaching of a river flowing into the Red Sea wasn't known in the United States until 1963 when the book of Josephus was published. So either Joseph Smith was inspired of God or he was a medium.
I would like to discuss what you don't believe that is written in the Book of Mormon rather than you just don't believe. And the Church most certainly could not do without the Book of Mormon. The members of the Church right now are not as well versed as they should be or they would also be inspired. There is no spirit birth. There is a new Savior for every earth. Man may become a God but that God would have to be a Savior too. I would like to discuss these teachings with a knowledable Mormon. I am a 7th generation Mormon.

grampa75

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?).

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!

Does everything point towards the Book of Mormon being bogus?

Without a doubt, yes.

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

Runtu: Sure.

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.

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.

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.

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

...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.

...the church would continue fairly unimpeded if it chucked the Book of Mormon.
The words of the living prophet Trump everything else.

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...

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

MG: I disagree. The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the Book of Mormon. That the Book of Mormon 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:

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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon pretty much sat on the shelf. Unopened except infrequently.

Is this the case for some of you?

I've gone back to the Book of Mormon. 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 Book of Mormon 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:

MG: The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the Book of Mormon. That the Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon has something to it besides crock.

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

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

If the Book of Mormon 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 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.

Regards,
MG

[_grampa75]

The Book of Mormon teaches fire, hell, and brimstone. Mormonism doesn’t.

MG: yep. Nowdays it's all in the mind...not a real place. Does scare the hell out of you though, huh? <g>

Regards,
MG

The fire and hell and brimstone taught in the Book of Mormon and any other scriptures, especially the Doctrine and Covenants, are true. Yet they way we interpret that fire and brimstone would only be correct IF and WHEN the Holy Spirit bears witness to what that actually means. There is most certainly a time when this earth is going to burn with fire and all those who will not believe the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ at that time shall be crispy critters. The sun is prophesied of changing into a Red Giant Sun, which of course is the natural change of any sun, and you would need a good shelter; Isaiah 26: 20 Come my people, enter into thy chambers and shut thy doors about thee. Hide thyself as it were for a little moment until the indignation be overpast when the Lord ariseth out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. Mormons have a shelter that was built in 1937 by the Church. However, you need to stay in that shelter for about a year before earth's science is able to make the earth liveable again, so you would need at least one year's supply of food and plenty of water. There is an artesian well inside the Mormon's shelter, and all Mormons are supposed to have one year's supply of food.
What I am saying, is that is going to be the HELL we have long awaited for.
grampa75

[_Who Knows]

What I am saying, is that is going to be the HELL we have long awaited for.

Sweet, sounds like a great show. I'll make sure and bring the popcorn.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Sweet, sounds like a great show. I'll make sure and bring the popcorn.

Do you think it'll be hot enough to cook Hot Pockets?

[_Bond...James Bond]

There is most certainly a time when this earth is going to burn with fire and all those who will not believe the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ at that time shall be crispy critters.

That's bad news. Just one question: will Pokatator become tater tots or curly fries?

Mormons have a shelter that was built in 1937 by the Church. However, you need to stay in that shelter for about a year before earth's science is able to make the earth liveable again, so you would need at least one year's supply of food and plenty of water. There is an artesian well inside the Mormon's shelter, and all Mormons are supposed to have one year's supply of food.

Where is this shelter? How big is it? Does it have wireless Internet capabilities?