Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_mentalgymnast]

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? ;-)

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

[_Runtu]

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

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.

[_Who Knows]

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?

[_moksha]

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.

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?

[_The Dude]

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.

[Schreech]

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?

[_truth dancer]

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 in my opinion.

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~

[_cacheman]

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

[_Fortigurn]

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

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