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

[_honorentheos]

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.

Fair enough.

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

I personally don't take issue with your position as you choose to live it. It's when you bringing this into a discussion as evidence where we end up sideways. You are basically saying the Book of Mormon has value for you, then look around the world and see what you believe is evidence for God's hand, and this adds value to your life.

Ok, that's cool.

But you then seem to not be able to get out of your own way, and appear to feel obligated to demonstrate to everyone who takes issue with belief that it really does negatively impact a person's relationship to truth.

The truth appears to be that for you it doesn't matter if the Book of Mormon is fiction. It doesn't. The value you find in it may come from treating it as if it were fact. But that is a different thing that requiring it to be true. There is a simulated reality which Mormonism creates in which the Book of Mormon is "true", regardless of how well it corresponds to external evidence and this is where you reside. The world is distorted around this asserted axiomatic condition for someone to live inside the Mormon reality as if it had it's own gravitational field that only affects Mormons.

When you describe yourself as someone who understands the critical arguments, those of us who don't live in that reality expect this means you are aware of this condition, and possibly can even transition between being in and outside of it to have discussions with those who don't behave according to this field of influence.

But that's not the case. Not at all. In fact, you demonstrate the same attitude most Mormons do when this affect is observed. The warped Mormon gravitation influence is considered some form of superior affect, one a person is choosing for the best because it's the influence of God on the world and those on it who "hear His voice and give heed" if you will.

That's who you really appear to be, too. I think you should consider accepting that as a matter of principle and integrity.

[_honorentheos]

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

Lemmie: What "we" are you referring to? What potential problems are you referring to?

honor: Such a clean, clear point. If the critical position is left essentially looking to Jacob 5 as just one more piece of evidence the person who wrote it was pretending to being an ancient prophet of Israelite heritage, the problems are all on one side.

You are right, essentially. Except for the fact that unless hard evidence shows up that the potential problem you propose is actually a problem...then there isn't a problem for the "We". At least not at this point.

You never even acknowledged the quote from the talmud that suggested that olive trees may not have been grafted by the Israelites despite having knowledge of grafting and using it with other crops.

You never acknowledged the questions around olive use and production, such as why a parable about olives treats them as one would a fruit like an apple rather than one requiring significant processing and primarily used for oil.

You never acknowledged the question about olives as good=not bitter, or any of the other specifics brought up in the thread.

Do you mean to say that if you don't acknowledge problems they then don't exist?

[_mentalgymnast]

You never even acknowledged the quote from the talmud that suggested that olive trees may not have been grafted by the Israelites despite having knowledge of grafting and using it with other crops.

You never acknowledged the questions around olive use and production, such as why a parable about olives treats them as one would a fruit like an apple rather than one requiring significant processing and primarily used for oil.

You never acknowledged the question about olives as good=not bitter, or any of the other specifics brought up in the thread.

Do you mean to say that if you don't acknowledge problems they then don't exist?

No. And, truth be told, I didn't really have any expertise and/or anywhere to go with these questions. As I mentioned during the thread, this is not an area of study that I've spent time with. The same could probably/safely be said for others here. I had already said 'stuff' based upon the little reading I had done.

If the gas tank is half full you can only go so far. In this case, I'd admit that the tank is less than half full.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The truth appears to be that for you it doesn't matter if the Book of Mormon is fiction. It doesn't.

I wouldn't say that at all. My experience, however, has left me at neither one extreme or the other as far as being able to take a dogmatic position one way or the other in regards to certain things. I find myself more or less somewhere in the middle. So my intent is to simply provide a voice for that center place of 'balance'. At times I see the scale tip one way and at other times I see the scale tip the other way.

Living in that 'center' place results in a certain sense of ambiguity. And I subscribe, for various reasons, to the maxims, "Bloom where you're planted." And, "The World is a Stage." In other words's, we create our reality and live a narrative. Everyone does. So to live for others...to love...to work, to experience joy and sadness, etc.,...these things are what are important.

The stage you perform on and/or the soil you're planted in doesn't matter so much. In the end...if there is goodness, light, love, and happiness that we can experience after death...I think the way will be made for everyone to experience/be what they want to be. Mormon or not. That's my hope.

So I find it a bit disheartening to think that there might be some folks that come here looking for some kind of strength to continue in their faith and all they find is the, well, you know what the common rhetoric is around here. I think they should be able to hear a voice of balance with a smidgen of reason thrown in.

Everyone that is a person of faith should be able to live that life, if they choose to, without fear of having their faith torn down and/or destroyed. As long as they are not experiencing any personal harm/trauma associated with that faith. But they shouldn't be 'force fed' what others perceive and see as harmful/dangerous if it 'works for them.' That's my position.

So that's what I've been doing around here. It may well be that this 'sojourn' has run it's course though. It's kind of stressful being beat up all the time. And I've been at it for quite a while now off and on. I'm not complaining as much as just stating the facts.

Best wishes,
Adieu/adios,
MG

[_Lemmie]

And, truth be told, I didn't really have any expertise and/or anywhere to go with these questions. As I mentioned during the thread, this is not an area of study that I've spent time with. The same could probably/safely be said for others here. I had already said 'stuff' based upon the little reading I had done.

The same could NOT probably OR safely be said of others. Why do you continue to try to speak for others? It is inappropriate.

Beyond that, there was a great deal of information given, both in posts and in links. Personally, I read and learned much as the thread progressed. If you can't be bothered to even learn from the excellent posts and summaries honorentheos and others provided, then what was the point of your contrarian stance? If you didn't know anything about the subject and weren't willing to learn from what was right in front of you, then on what basis were you so pointedly disagreeing?

It's extremely difficult to read your admission above and consider you to be anything but a contrarian troll, with the intent only to disrupt.

[_honorentheos]

MG - when you say this:

...my intent is to simply provide a voice for that center place of 'balance'. At times I see the scale tip one way and at other times I see the scale tip the other way.

Living in that 'center' place results in a certain sense of ambiguity. And I subscribe, for various reasons, to the maxims, "Bloom where you're planted." And, "The World is a Stage." In other words's, we create our reality and live a narrative. Everyone does. So to live for others...to love...to work, to experience joy and sadness, etc.,...these things are what are important.

...you are saying that whether or not the Book of Mormon is fiction or fact doesn't actually matter to you. You were planted where you were planted. You know there is thread sticking far out of the sweater but aren't going to pull it because, "Hey, why ruin this otherwise perfectly good sweater?"

I've known what it feels like for it to really, really matter. To want to know and not have the answers provided from heaven. To need it like a person held under water needs oxygen. When it matters, you don't see issues and say, "Welp, that looks like a question for a different day."

I'm not knocking that this is how it is for you. I AM questioning your willingness to be honest with yourself about this.

How about not trying to accomplish something out of a motive on the board? Rather, just say what you honestly think and then full stop. People may or may not respect that, and I can say from experience that it's likely to include challenges from others who don't share one's view. But that's the give and take of dialog. To engage in it as a good faith participant really does matter.

If I could offer some advice, don't try to be or do anything because of some hypothetical reader who may or may not have come here with questions. I seriously doubt anyone with questions is benefited by someone playing a part in these debates. Certainly not if they are sincerely looking for answers. If they are to benefit from what you have to offer, it's more likely to come from something you say without guile than something you say in the spirit of trying to maintain what you personally believe to be balance.

[Guest]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. No, if the Book of Mormon has shades of 19th century influence it doesn't destroy that claim. The expansionist theory does not disrupt the Book of Mormon's claim of being an ancient record or of being inspired. In fact, it adds to the 'inspired' component.

Show me a chapter heading in the Book of Mormon that doesn't claim it's contents were written earlier than 421AD....you won't, because there aren't any.

https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/int ... n?lang=eng

If the Book of Mormon contains 19th Century content, which wasn't written, quoted or abridged by either Mormon or his son Moroni in 421AD or earlier, then it isn't what it claims to be. Period. That you accept an expansion theory then by extentension you are automatically accepting the book isn't genuine. You can suppress that conclusion with all the indignation and denial you can muster. But that conclusion is logically inescapable.

-----------------------------------------------

I saw your questions, and answered the ones I felt were "worthy of a response" or which hadn't been answered by another poster. Feel free to list any you think I've missed, but I won't respond further. Just so you know.

[_Jersey Girl]

You don't know what you mean when you say that. You're just saying it. Let me demonstrate.

What, specifically, does the term "true" mean in the context of your statement?

It means that it is doctrinally true as well as historically true. It means that it is what it claims to be: a book of sacred history, written by prophets, contains the word of God, written on gold plates, revealed by an angel, and translated into English by miraculous means, by the gift and power of God.

IHAQ is exactly right that you don't know what you mean when you say that. It's like you're parroting words that hold no specific or contextual meaning.

A normal person might say, I know (or I have faith) that the Book of Mormon is authentic and historically accurate.

Not "true".

[_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.

Says the person who will find a post of mine just above the one in which she said this.

Sure. Thread interest dwindles over time. If I reach a point at which there is a lot of 'cat fighting' going on, I usually try and find a way out. I've mentioned repeatedly that I believe that kind of stuff is an absolute waste of time. The psycho-babble stuff especially. Once I can see the 'dependables' come in and start doing that stuff, I'm thinking, "OK, this isn't going anywhere at this point, it's going to get in the way of the conversation," and I start to shut things down with my participation in that thread and/or exit from board participation for a while.

This is a 'come and go' activity for me. I will not be held down to always 'having the lights on." My interest waxes and wanes.

Regards,
MG

Ingredients
Tomato Puree (Water, Tomato Paste), High Fructose Corn Syrup, Wheat Flour, Water, Contains Less Than 2% Of: Salt, Potassium Chloride, Flavoring, Citric Acid, Lower Sodium Natural Sea Salt, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Monopotassium Phosphate.

[_I have a question]

Okay, so on what basis do you get round the problem of having KJV Bible content (including 17th century translation errors) in the Book of Mormon, portrayed as having been written by Book of Mormon era Prophets?

That is an issue of translation method—how the translation was made. How the translation was made does not affect the truth claims of the book. The KJV content is approximately 7% of the book. Why God decided to do 7% of it that way, compared to the 93% which wasn’t, is a non-issue.

It's not a translation issue, it's a credibility issue.
The book is claimed to have been written by Mormon quoting and abridging ancient Prophets and adding some content, followed by his son adding some content. All of which was done 421AD or earlier. If it contains content that dates to later than that, then the book is t what it claims to be. Period.