The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: Did Joseph use the word grafting? Does that matter when looked along side the highlighted material I posted? Why wouldn't/didn't Joseph use the language that may have been familiar to him?
honor: I seriously wonder about how you think sometimes. No offense but the statement above is not showing you are following the line of discussion well.

I'll take the hit on that one. I didn't take the time to think this through. Joseph had the Bible.

So we're left with some potential problems with Jacob 5. Maybe.

Here's where I stand from an apologetic point of view. Earlier in the thread I posted a link to a chart:

https://www.LDS.org/bc/content/shared/c ... vetree.pdf

...that showed a chronological overview of the earth's history and God's intervention here and there along the way and with different groups of people, attempting to make a place for 'greater light and knowledge' to be accessible/lived/loved. The chart is based on a Judeo-Christian view of the world. If one takes Jacob 5 and the outline/chart accompanying it there seems to be a nice, tidy correlation/dovetailing going on between Biblical history and Book of Mormon prophecy/latter-day prophecy, etc.

To better show this to be the case, this article pretty much lays it out:

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/content/expl ... olive-tree

As I've mentioned at other times, I tend to look at the 'big picture' and the global breadth and depth of things when I'm looking around at various religious ideas. The Judeo-Christian narrative and Hoskisson's well done 'outline' of that narrative fits onto a 'large world' picture with God at the helm directing things as history moves along. Jacob 5 fits in nicely within this narrative. Now does that prove it's true? Of course not. But it does fit nicely within an over arching 'plan'.

I like that, personally.

Why?

Way back I served a mission back in Washington D.C. While there and doing my scripture study one day I had a simple/direct experience that resulted in my transcription of a short list. Here is the list the best I remember it. It's stuck with me all these years.

1. Is there a God?

2. If so, does God have a plan for the world/mankind?

3. Would/can He reveal that plan...or plans (as the case might be)...to His creations/children on the earth?

Over the years as I've seen this and seen that and read about this church/that religion/that belief system and rolled things around in my head...I've settled at looking at the Judeo-Christian 'religion'/history...Bible/Jesus/prophets... as coming closest to what I would expect to see if a creator/God (in whose image we are created) was going to reveal that 'plan' over the long haul to mankind. Have there been problems along the way? Sure. Political/cultural/religious intertwines that 'make God look bad"? Sure.

But with all the 'stuff' I see Christianity as the 'product' to go with. And Jacob 5 fits in very nicely with that schema. As does the Book of Mormon with the story of "other sheep which are not of this fold", etc.

So I'll stick with Jacob 5 as being scripture in the sense that it teaches us what we need to know, in detail, about God's dealings with mankind. I haven't seen anything else like it along the way.

Regards,
MG

[_zerinus]

See? More running.

No running. The Book of Mormon is scripture. It is the word of God. It is the sacred history of ancient civilization, abridged by Mormon, written on gold plates, and translated into English by the gift and power of God. It is true. Nothing matters after that, and nothing can alter the truth of that statement—even if it were true that Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright. You would be far more benefited by taking the book seriously as scripture, and trying to study and learn from it, than by trying to discover if Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright or not, or why.

[_Jersey Girl]

Not to put too fine a point on it, zerinus, but to a large degree your behavior pattern closely resembles that of mentalgymnastics. You dance around until you can't dance any more and then you run. His method of running is to actually depart the thread where yours can be seen in your dismissive comments to others in an attempt to stay on the thread while simultaneously shutting down communication with any given poster.

It's not up to me to judge how anyone else spends their time on this board, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who always has one foot in the ring and one out of it to the point where he'll do nothing but continuously deflect.

Don Bradley, David Bokovoy, Nevo, for example, can participate in topical discussion and defend without becoming defensive and contribute to stimulating and thought provoking discussion, and never once do they need to reduce themselves to playing games. Kishkumen, in certain situations, will choose to defend in his own way with confidence when he sees a reason to do so.

You, on the other hand, have defensive written all over you. You're like faqs who resurrects the us vs. them mentality and sees himself as a warrior against evil. As in the way you just framed your self image when you said you had "survived worse".

When really, it's just a message board where people here saying what they think and trying to uncover truth.

[_zerinus]

Not to put too fine a point on it, zerinus, but to a large degree your behavior pattern closely resembles that of mentalgymnastics. You dance around until you can't dance any more and then you run. His method of running is to actually depart the thread where yours can be seen in your dismissive comments to others in an attempt to stay on the thread while simultaneously shutting down communication with any given poster.

It's not up to me to judge how anyone else spends their time on this board, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who always has one foot in the ring and one out of it to the point where he'll do nothing but continuously deflect.

Don Bradley, David Bokovoy, Nevo, for example, can participate in topical discussion and defend without becoming defensive and contribute to stimulating and thought provoking discussion, and never once do they need to reduce themselves to playing games. Kishkumen, in certain situations, will choose to defend in his own way with confidence when he sees a reason to do so.

You, on the other hand, have defensive written all over you. You're like faqs who resurrects the us vs. them mentality and sees himself as a warrior against evil. As in the way you just framed your self image when you said you had "survived worse".

When really, it's just a message board where people here saying what they think and trying to uncover truth.

I have said what I needed to say, there is nothing more to add. And I am not so sure that everyone here is "trying to uncover truth". Good luck with your search for the truth, if that is what you are after.

[_Jersey Girl]

See? More running.

No running. The Book of Mormon is scripture. It is the word of God. It is the sacred history of ancient civilization, abridged by Mormon, written on gold plates, and translated into English by the gift and power of God. It is true. Nothing matters after that, and nothing can alter the truth of that statement—even if it were true that Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright. You would be far more benefited by taking the book seriously as scripture, and trying to study and learn from it, than by trying to discover if Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright or not, or why.

You are once again deflecting from the challenging question that was posed to you. In spite of posters supplying you with accounts and the Prophet's own written words, you're giving me advice instead of engaging the material that has been put before you.

Thanks, but I don't need it.

[Guest]

See? More running.

No running. The Book of Mormon is scripture. It is the word of God. It is the sacred history of ancient civilization, abridged by Mormon, written on gold plates, and translated into English by the gift and power of God. It is true. Nothing matters after that, and nothing can alter the truth of that statement—even if it were true that Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright. You would be far more benefited by taking the book seriously as scripture, and trying to study and learn from it, than by trying to discover if Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright or not, or why.

If? There is no if.

Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _copyright

[_Jersey Girl]

Not to put too fine a point on it, zerinus, but to a large degree your behavior pattern closely resembles that of mentalgymnastics. You dance around until you can't dance any more and then you run. His method of running is to actually depart the thread where yours can be seen in your dismissive comments to others in an attempt to stay on the thread while simultaneously shutting down communication with any given poster.

It's not up to me to judge how anyone else spends their time on this board, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who always has one foot in the ring and one out of it to the point where he'll do nothing but continuously deflect.

Don Bradley, David Bokovoy, Nevo, for example, can participate in topical discussion and defend without becoming defensive and contribute to stimulating and thought provoking discussion, and never once do they need to reduce themselves to playing games. Kishkumen, in certain situations, will choose to defend in his own way with confidence when he sees a reason to do so.

You, on the other hand, have defensive written all over you. You're like faqs who resurrects the us vs. them mentality and sees himself as a warrior against evil. As in the way you just framed your self image when you said you had "survived worse".

When really, it's just a message board where people here saying what they think and trying to uncover truth.

I have said what I needed to say, there is nothing more to add. And I am not so sure that everyone here is "trying to uncover truth". Good luck with your search for the truth, if that is what you are after.

Running.

[_I have a question]

Either the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century or it is of ancient origin.

Or both.

Regards,
MG

Now this^ is where you throw Callister, the Church, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon under a bus.

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/int ... n?lang=eng

The book throughout portrays itself as an ancient record. 100%.
If it contains any 19th century content, any at all, it destroys that claim.
To believe an expansionist theory is to accept that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.
Nor what Joseph and the Church claim about it.
You've just allowed for the Church to not be true.

Little bump for MG.

[_zerinus]

You are once again deflecting from the challenging question that was posed to you. In spite of posters supplying you with accounts and the Prophet's own written words, you're giving me advice instead of engaging the material that has been put before you.

Thanks, but I don't need it.

I find the information inconclusive. There is nothing more to add to that. All I can say is that I know the Book of Mormon is true. None of the information presented leads me to question my conviction that the book is true, and is what it claims to be. That is all that matters for me.

If Joseph Smith had apostatized and left the Church, and denied his testimony, the book would still be true. And that is all that matters as far as I am concerned.

Of what interest is it to me whether Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon or not (or even if he had), when I already have a spiritual witness that the book is true anyway, irrespective of anything else?

Whether Joseph Smith had tried to sell the copyright or not (or even did), is purely of academic interest. It does not alter for me the assurance of the truthfulness of the book. So why should I engage in a purely academic discussion about something which is not of special interest for me, and does not affect my conviction of the truthfulness of the book either way?

[_zerinus]

Running.

No running!