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

[_Moniker]

I get what Pirate is saying.... 'cause well, in this book I found plenty of lessons on life, individuality, community, tolerance, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Orange_Splot

When we look for inspiration we can usually find it. :)

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I get what Pirate is saying.... 'cause well, in this book I found plenty of lessons on life, individuality, community, tolerance, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Orange_Splot

When we look for inspiration we can usually find it. :)

Meheh, I bought this book for 5p. LOL. How sad am I?

And The Happiness Purpose by Edward De Bono, for 60p hehehe... OMgosh, I have tooooo many books.

[_Mercury]

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.

The Book of Mormon has no utility, to speak in economic terms.

[_Yoda]

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" ?

Actually, audio books are the wave of the future, so yes, I would say this is an attribute of a good book. ;)

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 think you're mischaracterizing the attributes that Pirate found appealing. She gave specific examples regarding Nephi and Alma, and, while she did speak of their choice to be passive and obedient to authority in given situations, the focus was on who they were obedient to, which, in addition to being obedient to God, involved honoring their parents. "Honor thy father and thy mother" is an attribute also found in the Ten Commandments which is, I believe, valuable. If parents are rearing their children in a manner that is going to make them better citizens in society, which, in both of the examples Nicky listed, they were, then, by all means, honoring and respecting parents is a valuable attribute and example. As a mother, I'm assuming that you expect respect from your children.

Also, there is a difference between giving to charity and being truly charitable. The Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible, focuses on what it is to truly have a charitable heart, which is also something that Pirate touched on.

My view of the Book of Mormon is actually similar to Nicky's. Whether it is historical fiction or fact, the book touched me in a similar way that the New Testament touched me. My favorite portion of the Book of Mormon is 3rd Nephi, where Christ appears to the Lamanites. For me, the Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible, and a second book reaffirming Christ's teachings. As a believer of Christ and his mission, that is why the book holds value to me.

[_Trevor]

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

There is virtually no reason one would begin to consider the Book of Mormon ancient, barring the possession of a spiritual witness. That a few people claimed to have seen the plates says nothing about their antiquity or the reality of the existence of Nephites, Lamanites, etc. Who cares whether they recanted their testimony or not? For all we know the witnesses remained hoodwinked to their dying day, Joseph Smith having fooled them successfully. If a fool comes to believe that he has been abducted by aliens, what need have I to impeach his witness? It is up to those who make extraordinary claims to prove them to others. It is not up to the rest of the world to prove that leprechauns, aliens, or Nephites do/did not exist. We have no reason to believe in them in the first place.

[_ludwigm]

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" ?

Actually, audio books are the wave of the future, so yes, I would say this is an attribute of a good book. ;)

1. I would say this is an attribute of an efficient religious campaign.
2. Actually, audio books are the wave of increasing of the illiterate masses.
3. (a little longer) I think Isaac Asimov has an essay about books. (I have read it in hungarian, so can't seek it for You by the english title.)
He writes in it and I agree:
- Reading is an active thing; we should imagine the persons, the background, the action, the whole environment. The gain is that we have a personal story.
- Gazing to the TV screen for any 283-part south-american serie is not demand for thinking. The more blood, the more fire, the more sex makes the story more interesting. If You try to think about, it turns out nothing important happened. One leave out two weeks for vacation and nothing has changed. Audio books are a little better: they are cheaper and they involve our imagination..
- Reading is not an ability everybody have. Reading is not the understanding the street name or the opening hours of the McNobody. It is using books. There was time when nurturing the mishies was a repeated event for my wife. That guests always commented our 4000+ book on the walls. They (mostly university students after first year) had 20-50 books. Some have said their father were more, maybe 100 or 200. Certainly, there were exceptions.
- Audio books are desperately slow. Readers (real readers) can read more faster than one can speak. I think, You can confirm it.

[_GlennThigpen]

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

There is virtually no reason one would begin to consider the Book of Mormon ancient, barring the possession of a spiritual witness. That a few people claimed to have seen the plates says nothing about their antiquity or the reality of the existence of Nephites, Lamanites, etc. Who cares whether they recanted their testimony or not? For all we know the witnesses remained hoodwinked to their dying day, Joseph Smith having fooled them successfully. If a fool comes to believe that he has been abducted by aliens, what need have I to impeach his witness? It is up to those who make extraordinary claims to prove them to others. It is not up to the rest of the world to prove that leprechauns, aliens, or Nephites do/did not exist. We have no reason to believe in them in the first place.

Trevor, you seem not to be aware of the work that has been done on the Book of Mormon pointing to it being an ancient text. Either that or you dismiss anything that FARMS puts out on the subject.
As I said in my post, I agree that what the witnesses swore to have nothing to do with the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. They only state that Joseph had the plates and that they saw them. The lack of recantations is important to their witness because if the whole thing was a hoax, what better time to reveal it than when you are no longer a part of it. Especially when some of those who parted did not leave on good terms with Joseph.
Some of the witnesses were also scribes for Joseph Smith in the translation process. There were others also, such as Emma and visitors to Joseph or Emma while the translation was taking place. Their descriptions of the recording process rule out any sort of reference material, i.e no books, no maps, no notes, not even a Bible. Just the plates and the seer stones and a hat. Your "Joseph fooled them" theory does not account for that.
Actually, Joseph Smith did not have to prove anything. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not have to prove anything. Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. The Book of Mormon invites all who would like to know of its veracity to ask the author, God if it be true or not. That is all the proof that is needed, a spiritual witness.
It is the Book of Mormon critics who have to prove that it is not what it claims for itself. They are the ones who got/get all hot and bothered about it. They have done a poor job dealing with Book of Mormon scholarship.
I take it you have no belief in God. There is no way that I or anyone else can prove that God does exist, else all be believers. And likewise, there is no way that you or any other man can prove that there is no God, else we would all be atheists.
But if you wish for me or anyone else here to accept what you say then you need to do more than just say something. If you or anyone else wishes to seriously undermine the Book of Mormon, they have to impeach the witnesses. You can ignore them if you want to, but there can be no valid argument that the Book of Mormon did not come forth exactly as Joseph claimed if the testimonies of those witnesses and the scribes is not effectively impeached. All of the myriad theories, Spaulding Manuscript, View of the Hebrews, etc. cannot get off the ground
Joseph did not just walk out of his room one day with the Book of Mormon under his arm and proclaim that he had translated it from some gold plates that he had been given by angel. He showed the plates to at least eleven people. The translation was done openly, i.e. there was a witness, a scribe who was with him as he dictated. That process has been recorded and corroborated. It was done over over a period of time, not just presto and done. Heck, even unauthorized excerpts were printed during the process.
The choice of whether you believe those men or not is up to you. I have laid out the reasons I feel the testimonies of those men are important. Feel free to prove me wrong or at least show me some evidence that I am wrong. Right now all I have is eleven men telling me something and you telling me "they must have been fools, hoodwinked" without giving me anything to back your opinion up.

Thanks,
Glenn

[_Blixa]

I'm with Ludwig and Trevor all the way on this one. A books being recorded on tape is not evidence of its "value" (however construed) but only its popularity or the merits and financial backing of the marketing campaign that has popularized it. The wave of the future is probably an increasing variety in the media that transmit texts, not the replacement of reading with listening.

I'll find the assertion that the Book of Mormon is ancient more credible when nonLDS archaeologists and anthropologists come to this conclusion or when anything in mesoamerican culture looks remotely like anything in the Book of Mormon. I've not only read the LDS apologetic arguments, but I'm also familiar with 19th century american literature and culture and literary analysis is my profession. The Book of Mormon reads like a peripatetically constructed bit of 19thC american fiction, expressive of contemporary beliefs about native americans and other topics fully within the ken of Joseph Smith.

That said, readers find ways to make all kind of texts personally meaningful, and in so doing can creatively transform even the basest lump of metal into something "golden." Contemporary literary study is full of imaginative counter or resistance readings, wherein strong critical pressure reveals the repressed or unspoken liberatory potentional of reactionary texts. I have yet to see this done with the Book of Mormon (and truly if Terryl Givens' work on the Book of Mormon had been a "cultural studies" approach like it claims, then something like this would have been its focus). Nevertheless, its clear from pirate and liz's remarks that readers can mine texts for useful nuggets and in this way the Book of Mormon is no exception.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Blixa, what is it about the Book of Mormon that makes it come across as 19thC Fiction?

[_Blixa]

Blixa, what is it about the Book of Mormon that makes it come across as 19thC Fiction?

Style, sentence structure, comparison to other things written at the same time about the same topics (the way the subjects were handled, the extent of knowledge, etc.). It always seemed to me (and not only to me) like a book which started as historical fiction and then had religious doctrine grafted on to it. This does jive with some theories of its production, but I've never cared that much about looking at its putative creation. The finished product is enough for me.

I have recently become a bit more interested in looking at the question of its production because of what I know about some forthcoming work on that topic. As I've been doing research (archival and otherwise) on early Mormon history, I've been talking to and corresponding with people working in this area of hstorical research; there is a lot of interesting and quite credible historical evidence yet to be published.

The book never resonated with me like it has for you. I find your response interesting, though, because you haven't attempted to "apologize" for its existence but instead focused on the extant text itself. If indeed I did find "gems" within it, like you I might say that it mattered less how it came to be than what it is. The fact remains, however, that I don't find anything inspiring within it and I do find the How and What of any text to be inextricably linked.

The children's story "The Velveteen Rabbit," and Thomas Hardy's novel, Jude the Obscure, to name two texts randomly, have revealed far more useful knowledge and insight on human life to me than the Book of Mormon (oh, and the complete works of Philip Larkin, as you already know!). I do, though, find your approach to the book more interesting than that of those who still try to make it fit as some kind of actual mesoamerican text.