Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

I’m tempted to acquire the Annotated version so I can see for myself how he treats what he points out as anachronisms, racism etc.

You ought to. I read a lot of it at Barnes and Noble when it came out. I'm actually a fan, and I think it was a brilliant move on his part. Another way to look at it is to compare Glenn Larson's original Battlestar with the reimagined Battlestar of 2004. Or compare cop shows like "Chips" to "The Shield" or "The Wire". A Moroni who is more like Vic Mackey from the Shield is far more interesting than a goody two-shoes who polishes his shield every morning and never wavers keeping the commandments.

I don't recall how he deals with racial elements or anachronisms, he probably isn't super interested in anachronisms though. It's all about the story elements.

Hardy

Sometimes we’re embarrassed by the Book of Mormon. We’re embarrassed by the lack of evidence for its historicity, by the racism and the absence of women, and about how it uses the King James Bible, particularly the New Testament. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are problematic, and I don’t think we should skip over those. Nephi had attitudes that we would regard as racist today. Apparently even prophets do not always live up to their ideals or to their revelations.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/01 ... Mormon-is/

Stating these things publicly, writing about them so boldly, is borderline Tannerism. He’s promoting the idea that viewing the Book of Mormon as fictional is acceptable.

When asked during the question-and-answer session concerning believers who harbor questions about the Book of Mormon's historicity, he said, "Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith? And I think the answer is, absolutely."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Hardy

Is that a position the Brethren are comfortable with? I would guess that’s unlikely. Promoting the idea that it’s okay to disbelieve the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be is an apostate position. It opens the door to other questions about Joseph Smith and his claims about the restoration.

One of the temple recommend questions is:
Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Promoting the notion that the Book of Mormon can be viewed as inspired fiction is surely covered by that question.

[I Have Questions]

Let’s look then at the broader picture:

...
Does this sound like Joseph Smith was literally interacting with the Bible in the sense of stealing or regurgitating what he had read? This complex interaction would have to be taking place ‘on the fly’ along with what came before and after while his head is in a hat without any physical prop/crutch.

.......

If I offend either of you by my selection of quotes I plead an attempt to focus on what is confusing me trying to follow your discussion.

First, I am aware that extended quotes of Isaiah follow the particulars of King James translation . People seem willing to admit Joseph used that source for translation if one sees it as translating. I find it confusing to say King James is first conceived in 16th century. It is a translation of material over a thousand years earlier. This material in 2 Nephi contains ideas from the New testament over a thousand years before King James. But one can notice that 2 Nephi is suppose to be before the New Testament which suggest an anachronism. That is not clear because the Book of Mormon is a different series of historical events in a different place with separately developing tradition. If there is revelation Nephi could have knowledge of details well before such things became known in Jerusalem.

When I make that comment I’m referring to the formatting, the spelling, the fonts, the mistakes etc that are found in the KJV Bible and which are also found (identically) in the Book of Mormon. I’m not talking about the subject matter generally.

It’s inescapable that Joseph used a readily available King James Bible to copy content into the Book of Mormon. Which is problematic for believers who think it was produced by either transcribing content of ancient plates, or by reading words off a magic stone. Joseph did neither, he copied content from a KJV Bible. Directly. The reason that Hardy acknowledges that as an anachronism, and a problem, is because it undermines the book’s claims about itself, and Joseph’s claims about how he produced it.

[huckelberry]

If I offend either of you by my selection of quotes I plead an attempt to focus on what is confusing me trying to follow your discussion.

First, I am aware that extended quotes of Isaiah follow the particulars of King James translation . People seem willing to admit Joseph used that source for translation if one sees it as translating. I find it confusing to say King James is first conceived in 16th century. It is a translation of material over a thousand years earlier. This material in 2 Nephi contains ideas from the New testament over a thousand years before King James. But one can notice that 2 Nephi is suppose to be before the New Testament which suggest an anachronism. That is not clear because the Book of Mormon is a different series of historical events in a different place with separately developing tradition. If there is revelation Nephi could have knowledge of details well before such things became known in Jerusalem.

When I make that comment I’m referring to the formatting, the spelling, the fonts, the mistakes etc that are found in the KJV Bible and which are also found (identically) in the Book of Mormon. I’m not talking about the subject matter generally.

It’s inescapable that Joseph used a readily available King James Bible to copy content into the Book of Mormon. Which is problematic for believers who think it was produced by either transcribing content of ancient plates, or by reading words off a magic stone. Joseph did neither, he copied content from a KJV Bible. Directly. The reason that Hardy acknowledges that as an anachronism, and a problem, is because it undermines the book’s claims about itself, and Joseph’s claims about how he produced it.

I Have a Question, I see the point you are making and it has value. In discussion I think a bit of confusion might result from the fact that you are speaking of 2 Nephi chapters 12 through 24 while MG and the Hardy quote concern 2 Nephi chpters 25 through 30, Nephi's commentary which contains Biblically derived ideas but is not quoting the Bible.

[ceeboo]

I have a question

Then ask it.

[MG 2.0]

You ought to. I read a lot of it at Barnes and Noble when it came out. I'm actually a fan, and I think it was a brilliant move on his part. Another way to look at it is to compare Glenn Larson's original Battlestar with the reimagined Battlestar of 2004. Or compare cop shows like "Chips" to "The Shield" or "The Wire". A Moroni who is more like Vic Mackey from the Shield is far more interesting than a goody two-shoes who polishes his shield every morning and never wavers keeping the commandments.

I don't recall how he deals with racial elements or anachronisms, he probably isn't super interested in anachronisms though. It's all about the story elements.

Hardy

Sometimes we’re embarrassed by the Book of Mormon. We’re embarrassed by the lack of evidence for its historicity, by the racism and the absence of women, and about how it uses the King James Bible, particularly the New Testament. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are problematic, and I don’t think we should skip over those. Nephi had attitudes that we would regard as racist today. Apparently even prophets do not always live up to their ideals or to their revelations.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/01 ... Mormon-is/

Stating these things publicly, writing about them so boldly, is borderline Tannerism. He’s promoting the idea that viewing the Book of Mormon as fictional is acceptable.

I grew up with the writings of the Tanners. False comparison. Hardy recognizes the Book of Mormon for what it is while at the same time believing in its historicity. Even when we/he reads/observes things within its pages that don’t comport with our western values and standards.

Members are not labeled as apostate if they have different and conflicting opinions about Book of Mormon historicity. Heretical? Possibly. But as long as heretical views are not taught in church or promulgated with the intent to sway others to one’s own position that questions historicity, I don’t think a member is going to end up with any disciplinary action being taken.

When asked during the question-and-answer session concerning believers who harbor questions about the Book of Mormon's historicity, he said, "Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith? And I think the answer is, absolutely."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Hardy

Same as above.

Is that a position the Brethren are comfortable with? I would guess that’s unlikely. Promoting the idea that it’s okay to disbelieve the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be is an apostate position. It opens the door to other questions about Joseph Smith and his claims about the restoration.

Same again.

One of the temple recommend questions is:
Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Promoting the notion that the Book of Mormon can be viewed as inspired fiction is surely covered by that question.

I think that if a person was to sit in a temple recommend interview and have questions/doubts about Book of Mormon historicity and they were not teaching or promulgating it and they were worthy in every other way, they would be issued a recommend.

Nowadays leaders understand that members may have questions/doubts in one thing or another but if that member is honestly trying to seek and understand, and willing to ‘wait upon the Lord’ and rely upon the anchors of faith that they do have, leaders more often than not exercise patience and forbearance.

That has been my observation for the many years I’ve been involved in the church and being acquainted with members of varying levels of belief. Also having served in leadership positions where I have been somewhat privy to the attitudes and motivations of those that have been called to ‘shepard the flock’.

As a critic of the church and as an actual living breathing apostate you’re going to view things with a somewhat jaundiced eye I would think.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I have a question

Then ask it.

Does this mean I should have used capital letters?

Yes, answering my own question, I will correct.

///
Dear me, I look back at this and find I neglected to capitalize the d in does here. Shades will get after me for such continued sloppiness. Now the corrected version of this message is showing.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I think that if a person was to sit in a temple recommend interview and have questions/doubts about Book of Mormon historicity and they were not teaching or promulgating it and they were worthy in every other way, they would be issued a recommend.

Nowadays leaders understand that members may have questions/doubts in one thing or another but if that member is honestly trying to seek and understand, and willing to ‘wait upon the Lord’ and rely upon the anchors of faith that they do have, leaders more often than not exercise patience and forbearance.

Dan McClellan has publicly stated the Book of Mormon is not historical, but Dan has a temple recommend.

I believe the Book of Mormon is complete bunk and I have a temple recommend. Belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not required for a temple recommend. You should know this M.G. Do you not have a temple recommend?

[I Have Questions]

I think that if a person was to sit in a temple recommend interview and have questions/doubts about Book of Mormon historicity and they were not teaching or promulgating it and they were worthy in every other way, they would be issued a recommend.

Nowadays leaders understand that members may have questions/doubts in one thing or another but if that member is honestly trying to seek and understand, and willing to ‘wait upon the Lord’ and rely upon the anchors of faith that they do have, leaders more often than not exercise patience and forbearance.

Dan McClellan has publicly stated the Book of Mormon is not historical, but Dan has a temple recommend.

I believe the Book of Mormon is complete bunk and I have a temple recommend. Belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not required for a temple recommend. You should know this M.G. Do you not have a temple recommend?

I find that incredible. If you disbelieve the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, then the restoration as Joseph Smith and the Church tells it, didn’t happen. How can you answer yes to believing in the restoration on that basis, and not be lying?

“Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?” Surely the answer is “No, I view the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction”

[MG 2.0]

It’s inescapable that Joseph used a readily available King James Bible to copy content into the Book of Mormon. Which is problematic for believers who think it was produced by either transcribing content of ancient plates, or by reading words off a magic stone. Joseph did neither, he copied content from a KJV Bible. Directly. The reason that Hardy acknowledges that as an anachronism, and a problem, is because it undermines the book’s claims about itself, and Joseph’s claims about how he produced it.

But he did. The witnesses testify that Joseph did use translation ‘devices’ in order to read the words off to the scribe. So we have more than one thing going on. That brings back in to the conversation what I was talking about in an earlier post that I don’t think was responded to.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not required for a temple recommend.

That’s what I said.

I do think, however, that what I said in regards to members, in general, is still true. That is, that members are not encouraged to teach or preach in regards to Book of Mormon historicity issues. They are more or less, even if indirectly, encouraged to investigate these sorts of things through private study.

Yes, there have been some members that have been more public in their views. But again, that’s not encouraged by leaders as far as I know.

Regards,
MG