The Book of Mormon is a GOOD book marg!!!

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Having thought somewhat about our previous discussion regarding the Book of Mormon being a "good book", I have decided to bring it back having more hindsight and more understanding of english.

[...] must have deleted a lot of my posts, I cannot seem to find the posts I really wanted to discuss, but found some of relevence.

Marg, I appreciate you have greater knowledge regarding the Book of Mormon than myself and do not intend on pretending otherwise, I intend on backing my previous claim. If you would be so kind as to PM me where I might find the original posts, I would much apreciate that.

I started a new thread seperate of the Fawn Brodie thread, this thread I had found. The original Fawn Brodie thread by [.....] has gone. This thread I did not answer you because to be quite frank, I gave up completely by this time. On the original thread, I gave some reasons as to why I thought the book was a good book.

To take you back,

I stated that [paraphrased] it does not matter the origins of the book, or who wrote it. I think the words I used were "I don't care". This is true, I do not care who wrote it or why they wrote it. You asked me for examples of how it is a good book. I gave something along the lines of guidance and learning from example as well as my own personal experiences.

Why does this not suffice? If the book has helped me in my life then it is a good book, because it brings about goodness. The end justifies the means. It gave me knowledge of things that changed the way I reacted to things. This result is good. Therefore the Book of Mormon brings about goodness, thus it is a good book.

Therefore the whole Spaulding/Rigdon business has no effect. If the Bible is a replica of the Old Testiment as [T....] suggest, then it matters not if it is the same. I would much rather read the same thing in less pages which I find easier to understand.

I can now see why my post regarding the Book of Mormon might not have been all that relevent. I wrote about it as the topic was about Fawn Brodie dismissing the Spaulding Rigdon Theory in her biography of Joseph Smith. Wich suggests Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and thus my reason for saying I don't care who wrote it.

You wrote a post saying you didn't care who wrote the Book of Mormon because it was a good book which gave good advice. So I questioned you on why it was a good book and asked for concrete examples. If you are unable to give examples, I'm left with either accepting or rejecting your opinion. I did want to challenge you because I don't believe the Book of Mormon gives good advice. Since I have no reason to believe you, you've not convinced me with your responses, in fact you seem to go off on tangents with long posts but don't address the main questions I have an interest in.

(as scratch would say: "emphaisis added")

I remember these "long" posts.

I was repeating the same post, but bringing out the parts that you didn't seem to pick up the first time. I did give examples. Ok, I didn't quote many words from the Book of Mormon, but I believe my responses were answering your questions.

You can believe as you wish, that is entirely your choice, but if I don't care who, wrote it that is my choice.

Nicky I don't have the impression that the Book of Mormon is a useful book as far as offering advice. I've asked you to back this up and so far I haven't seen anything from you which does. You might find the book comforting in some way but that doesn't mean it offers beneficial advice.

So can you give some examples in which the book offers useful general advice to any reader?

I did, if the book comforts me then it is giving good advice, if it teaches me how to go about life through how the charactors did, then it is giving good advice. If good things come out of what I have read, then it is a good book.



I will now proceed to quote from the Book of Mormon and tell you how I believe it gives good advice. I will stand by what I said about me answering the question previously.

Mosiah 24:14-15

"... they could bear up their burdens, and the did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord."

2nd Nephi 31:20

"Wherefore, yea must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope..."

To me these teach me to be positive, patient, cheerful and steadfast having a pefect brightess of hope. This is good guidance because when one is positive, they will have better outcomes. Life will be better. This might not mean much to you but it does me. Trying to be positive in hard times can sometimes be all that keeps you going. This does not need to apply to God or religion and it does not matter who wrote it. What matters is how it help one in their life.

The Book of Mormon speaks of charity. Charity is good advice, it helps others and gives one a sense of compassion and achievement. That they made a difference. I do not need to quote for this.

2nd Nephi 3:13

"And out of weekness he shall be made strong..."

I have been given this advice by people often. This must be good advice to everyone. From this I feel that things will be ok and that it is worthwhile.

I could go on and on, but I will look at a different angle now. I will show good advice from the story and not just the words.

Nephi, Lehi's son, was very obedient to his father. He did as his father asked without murmering. Is this not good advice? Should we take it that as the Book of Mormon doesn't give good advice, we should be disobedient to our parents. It teaches people to be obedient and do as they are asked. This is good advice. Young children in the church are taught to be obedient and they are, they are far more obedient than non LDS children, far more respectful and more likely to achieve greater things in life.

Nephi didn't have a good time with his older brothers and he didn't do anything about it even though he was a man "large in stature". Most people would get into a fight. It is good advice to be patient and not fight back. Fighting with your family causes wedges to be formed and family is important.

Alma converted, his conversion is good advice. He need not have joined a church, but he changed that which he was doing wrong to good. He changed his charactor. This is good advice. If one looks at children who break into houses and damage property, if they were introduced to the idea of good that can come out of change, then change, this is good. How many Mormon youth do you know do things chavs do? Not all LDS youth are brainwashed.

Again I could go on, but I am sure this will suffice.

Nicky.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

It has never been proven to be anything more than a book of fiction, written by men in the 1820s.

There is more evidence that the Book of Mormon was written in the 1820s by men. As a matter of fact, that is the only evidence as there is none to support the claim that it is a historical record of a bunch of waring white and brown Hebrew tribes.

As to whether it is a "good book" to read, in my opinion, Mark Twain had it right when he called it "chloroform in print."

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Whether the book was written in Prophetic times, or the 19th centuary, it doesn't matter. That was my point. If one takes it as a book that can give good advice as does any other advising book, then they need not worry about where it dates and when the truth finally comes out if it does, they will have no problem.

Chloroform in print? That's quite funny. Again, it depends on how you read it. What is in your mind when you read it? I know that if I visualise it being a book by ancient prophets, I will feel different to how I would feel reading it as a novel and so forth. It is how your mind is set that makes the difference. Thus it doesn't matter who wrote the book or where or when, but how you think when you read it. Try it.

Pirate.

[_GlennThigpen]

It has never been proven to be anything more than a book of fiction, written by men in the 1820s.

There is more evidence that the Book of Mormon was written in the 1820s by men. As a matter of fact, that is the only evidence as there is none to support the claim that it is a historical record of a bunch of waring white and brown Hebrew tribes.

As to whether it is a "good book" to read, in my opinion, Mark Twain had it right when he called it "chloroform in print."

Actually there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is a book of fiction auttored by men in the 1820's. There are several theories, mutually exclusive that attempt to explain the Book of Mormon as fiction plagarized from the Viw of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, or the Solomon Spaulding manuscript, or from the feverish imagination of Joseph Smith, but they all suffer from a lack of evidence.
There have been scientific word print studies, using methods that have been tested on other subjects, that have shown that Joseph Smith nor Sidney Rigdon could be the authors of the Book of Mormon.
The only evidence of how the Book of Mormon came forth is from the unrebutted eye witness accounts of David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery. None of them ever recanted their stories, even after leaving the church.

Glenn

[_Trevor]

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. The Book of Mormon liberally quotes from the Bible and has no literary congener in American antiquity. The testimony of people who have no expertise in American antiquities does nothing to forward the case that it is an ancient text. Therefore, the Book of Mormon witnesses are of little or no value on the matter of whether the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the artifact of the plates was ancient. They simply were not qualified to judge the matter. Modern apologists who favor the antiquity of the text must explain away or avoid the obvious evidence that it is not ancient. They are motivated to do so primarily by their spiritual conviction that it is true, something that has little or no value in determining facts.

[_ludwigm]

Is it a good book? Really?

It was 2005, when GBH made the campaign to read Book of Mormon in that year, for every member. Near the end of the year, many people have purchased tapes and CDs for listen it, instead of read it. Is this an attribute of a "good book" ?
Should a religion/church/cult/sect force its members to read the most correct book of the world if it were a good book?

as far as I know, in Hungary the half of the membership didn't read it cover to cover. I knew ward leader (OK, it was 5-6 years before) who didn't read more than a few verse. Is this an attribute of a "good book" ?

I am a readaholic or please create a word for me to describe a maniac reader. When I became an investigator ( a real one ) I have read the Mormon scriptures in the first two weeks. Since then, I read them 20+ times. Not for entertainment, but for try to understand. You should not believe me, You shouldn't believe Mark Twain ( = Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) who was a writer and whose books are read by millions without extortion or advertisement because their books are really good. The Book of Mormon is not a good book. Far from it.

Do You like it? Then read it, You are an adult. But be aware of this type of chloroform! It is a perilous material. It has infected 13 million people, fortunately more than half of them temporarily only.

[_marg]

As you know Nicky the discussion you refer to was on 2think.org not here.

I've looked at your examples of why you think it is a good book despite the fact that it may be passed off as a fraud, may not be historically true as it is claimed, and may be a complete pack of fabricated lies.

So I look at all the attributes you say you've learned from it, and it seems to pretty much reduce down to it teaching you to be passive, obedient to authority, giving to charity, patient, non-complaining.

I'm not sure these are high on my list of character traits one should strive for. I think it is good for the church to have members with these character traits, that's for sure.

But where are these important traits in there Nicky..honesty, integrity, taking on self responsibility including for one's own thinking? Isn't the Book of Mormon failing something critical if you don't appreciate how important honesty is, how important it is to not use fraud on others for gain? I just don't understand how you can say, you don't care whether or not it is a fraud. I mean you don't care, that people are devoting time, money, energy to something which may be a complete fraud, because you think it is good that it teaches passivity and compliance with authority?

If God gave man brains Nicky, he gave them to be used. It is not using them if essentially all you learn is to accept authority uncritically. You can do better than that.

For an easy to read book which teaches critical thinking as well as good moral character traits try The Happiness Purpose by Edward Debono. You should be able to pick up a second hand copy in England at a reasonable price. You'll also be able to read the book in less than a day. One thing is will teach you is the importance of honesty, to self, to others.

[_Moniker]

Pirate, I think critical thinking skills are not necessary to deem a book "good" or not. The book can be fantastical fiction and something positive can be pulled from it.

I don't consider the Book of Mormon as something I consider "good", particularly compelling, or written well -- yet, if you do, I can accept that.

Marg mentions patience and charity as things as not deemed especially important to her. Well, if it's something that you strive for, Pirate, and the Book of Mormon helps you reach that goal then it is again, a "good" book for you. Take what you will from it.

[_GlennThigpen]

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. The Book of Mormon liberally quotes from the Bible and has no literary congener in American antiquity. The testimony of people who have no expertise in American antiquities does nothing to forward the case that it is an ancient text. Therefore, the Book of Mormon witnesses are of little or no value on the matter of whether the Book of Mormon is ancient, or the artifact of the plates was ancient. They simply were not qualified to judge the matter. Modern apologists who favor the antiquity of the text must explain away or avoid the obvious evidence that it is not ancient. They are motivated to do so primarily by their spiritual conviction that it is true, something that has little or no value in determining facts.

The testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses have nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon is ancient or the plates themselves are/were ancient. The witnesses only averred to the existence of the plates, that Joseph actually had them and to the translation process. None of that testimony has ever been recanted or impeached.
There is no "obvious" evidence that it is not ancient. There is no evidence that it is a 19th century book of fiction.

Glenn

[_moksha]

Whether the book was written in Prophetic times, or the 19th century, it doesn't matter. That was my point. If one takes it as a book that can give good advice as does any other advising book, then they need not worry about where it dates and when the truth finally comes out if it does, they will have no problem.

Pirate

The point you are making cannot be understood by those who have an abundance of anger toward the Mormon Church or else are too deep in their belief of the veracity of the Mormon scriptures. That leaves a mere handful here who can get what you are saying, without their filters creating an impenetrable barrier of denial.