Most compelling evidence for/against the Book of Mormon?

[cdowis]

On 8/26/2016 at 5:26 AM, Honorentheos said:

cdowis,

Again, my position and claims are supported by illustrating parallels between the Book of Mormon and the religious debates of the 19th century. It's YOUR argument that needs to demonstrate the ancient context fits the Book of Mormon. Demanding that I define as comprehensive a set as possible to prove the negative of your argument isn't necessary. I can point to the sum total of your examples to accomplish the same thing. You've presented none, the set is empty.

OK, so you are unable to talk specifically about the actual beliefs in mesoamerica, but attempting to draw parallels.

Did you somehow miss my post on parallels?  We find specific parallels to  the Taliban, the Mafia, etc in the Book of Mormon which clearly indentifies  the Book of Mormon as a 20th century production.  You can prove or disprovde a ham sandwich with the parallel argument.

In deepest humility, my personal opinion of using using parallels rather than actual historical facts is a rather pathetic argument.  But if that's the best you got, go for it and be happy that you have proven the BOM false.  QED

Edited August 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Gervin said:

Well, let's see ..., the Continental Congress adopted the dollar as the accepted unit of national currency in 1785, about 230 years ago, or , what ... 6 or 7 generations ago.

How's that holding up?

Superficial. Just do a google search. The history of the U.S. monetary system is too complex and varied too pursue here. There was no "greenbacks" printed until 1861. State banks issued their own notes. There was the gold and silver standard. And then the gold standard. Even after the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, there have been a lot of changes, with certain bill denominations introduced and dropped. Changes from generation to generation, to fit the needs and circumstances of that generation.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/26/2016 at 3:26 AM, Honorentheos said:

.................

Again, my position and claims are supported by illustrating parallels between the Book of Mormon and the religious debates of the 19th century. It's YOUR argument that needs to demonstrate the ancient context fits the Book of Mormon. Demanding that I define as comprehensive a set as possible to prove the negative of your argument isn't necessary. I can point to the sum total of your examples to accomplish the same thing. You've presented none, the set is empty.

 

On 8/26/2016 at 3:36 AM, Honorentheos said:

...............

Certainly it's a possible argument to say that Mormon, as the abridger of the text, imposes his singular view of a particular Christian faith onto the text. That the Nephite chronicle (meaning writings of Nephi and his brother that give us the first books of the Book of Mormon) could simply be the source of Mormon's theology.

The challenge is that it's still presenting a system of Christianity that is very comfortable in the debates of the 19th century when it was published.

From another angle to continue to examine this issue, let's take our time today. Suppose the Book of Mormon were to be revealed for the first time in 2016. What do you see in the Book of Mormon that would make it meaningful in the theological discussion of our time? Supposing the LDS church had arisen without it, and it came forward today by other hands, other means. Perhaps secular means such as the Nag Hammadi finds. .............

...............................

You are wrong on all counts, Honorentheos.  As usual you have not actually studied the text of the Book of Mormon, bur rather have imposed your apriori view upon it and have attempted to attribute everything in it to a 19th century origin, despite there being no justification for such an approach.  At the same time, you have carefully ignored anything which is demonstrably ancient.  You need to read my introduction to the subject, “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Alma 11:4 is pretty clear.

And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

The Nephites gave the measures their names. They aren't those of the Jews nor those used in Jerusalem. It's clearly a disclaimer to let the reader know that they should not expect them to align. My comments aren't false. I'm sorry you dislike what the Book of Mormon has to say about this.

Once again, you falsely claimed that "the Book of Mormon itself tells us there isn't a parallel to the old world systems so anything you come up with would have to be coincidence according to the text itself," and I pointed out that weights & measures systems always have precursors, and they always change through time.  That is a historical and anthropological fact, something you refuse to acknowledge -- even though England has long since scrapped the old system for the metric system.  The Book of Mormon does not in fact say that "there isn't a parallel to the old world systems."  Those are your interpretive words, which you impose because it suits your apriori views.  Good exegesis requires that we allow the text to speak for itself in great detail, something which you automatically reject.  Bad form, Honorentheos.

17 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

As to the units, the Book of Mormon describes them the same way the English Common system is described. Two pints make a quart just like two shiblon make a senum. The Onti that you are hung up on, being the sum of the smaller units, doesn't align with your attempts at finding an ancient analog. It's odd regardless of the source. One wonders if Joseph just used the phrase of it being the sum of the others because it sounded nice.

If that were in fact the case, why would we find the exact ratio for onti/limnah which we also have for the Hebrew mina/maneh?  The 8-shekel base which Bill Dever discusses (which I compare to senine/senum) leads to a 56-shekel mina/maneh (7 x 8 = 56) which exactly matches the onti/limnah of the Nephites.  It is also rather remarkable that the ancient Egyptian sniw (from snw, snny "price") was unit one, as was the case for the Nephite senine/senum, which appear to be etymologically related.  Along with the other solid names for the various measures, one has to candidly ask:  Just what do you consider "coincidence."  And why would you prefer a system that does not in fact match?  Only because it fits your apriori 19th century claims?  So you violate Occams Razor by attempting to shoehorn a binary system into one in base-8.

17 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The English Common system used similar proportions for dry measures were our current bushel come from. And at one time, a bucket had a set volume under that system.

It's really as easy as kindergarten/1st grade 4 quarts equal a gallon and to make it something more is over reaching to try and make a case the Book of Mormon is ancient rather than a product of the 19th century. Again, I'm sorry you don't find the simplest answers that address the same information your complicated attempts take on to be satisfying.

If it is so easy, Honorentheos, why do you force it to fit instead of seeking the best match?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

It doesn't make sense to me that every generation would "alter their reckoning and their measure" based on their "minds and the circumstances of the people."  What does it even mean?  

Do we know of any culture where this was exhibited, generation after generation?

All peoples alter their modes of reckoning over time, and just keeping track of it all for the various historical cultures is a huge job.  In my own lifetime, I have seen the British (following the rest of the world, except the USA) scrap their traditional system and fully adopt the metric system.  Anciently it was much more of a hodgepodge of variant systems, local and regional.  Much of it, including the ancient Israelite systems, we have had to recover archeologically.

The Nephites may have been referring to those local and regional differences, along with the changes in units of value over time (prices varying according to good and bad agricultural years, and based on other conditions -- such as war).  I know of no culture in which this was not the case.

As merely one example, "The foot, which was one of the earliest units, is believed to have had as many as 280 variants in Europe as late as the 18th cent."  http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/weights-measures.html .

[Honorentheos]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, you falsely claimed that "the Book of Mormon itself tells us there isn't a parallel to the old world systems so anything you come up with would have to be coincidence according to the text itself," and I pointed out that weights & measures systems always have precursors, and they always change through time.  That is a historical and anthropological fact, something you refuse to acknowledge -- even though England has long since scrapped the old system for the metric system.  The Book of Mormon does not in fact say that "there isn't a parallel to the old world systems."  Those are your interpretive words, which you impose because it suits your apriori views.  Good exegesis requires that we allow the text to speak for itself in great detail, something which you automatically reject.  Bad form, Honorentheos.

If that were in fact the case, why would we find the exact ratio for onti/limnah which we also have for the Hebrew mina/maneh?  The 8-shekel base which Bill Dever discusses (which I compare to senine/senum) leads to a 56-shekel mina/maneh (7 x 8 = 56) which exactly matches the onti/limnah of the Nephites.  It is also rather remarkable that the ancient Egyptian sniw (from snw, snny "price") was unit one, as was the case for the Nephite senine/senum, which appear to be etymologically related.  Along with the other solid names for the various measures, one has to candidly ask:  Just what do you consider "coincidence."  And why would you prefer a system that does not in fact match?  Only because it fits your apriori 19th century claims?  So you violate Occams Razor by attempting to shoehorn a binary system into one in base-8.

If it is so easy, Honorentheos, why do you force it to fit instead of seeking the best match?

I guess there will be a doubling down on positions from here going forward, as there isn't really room to move. You seem to believe that Alma 11:4 doesn't say what I see it clearly saying. The Nephites created the names used in their system. The narrator (speaking in strange 3rd person omniscient voice, BTW, which is problematic as well) clearly states the Nephite system does not use their naming nor their method of measuring. Right in the text. It says that. Like, verbatim - "  the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews".

As to the "Mina, Mina, Shekel, Onti" approach, it's muddying the waters to paint the Book of Mormon as saying anything more than their system is "Two of this equals one of these". Here's the text focusing on silver because it gives us the fractional units as well -

 

Quote

 

6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.

11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.

12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.

13 And an onti was as great as them all.

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

 

 

So, here's the alignment again for the English Common System -

1/8	Leah	1/8	pony
1/4	Shiblum	1/4	jack
1/2	Shiblon	1/2	gill
1	Senum	1	cup
2	Amnor	2	pint
4	Ezrom	4	quart
7	Onti	8	pottle

Your table attempting to align ancient Hebrew systems to ancient Egyptian systems of weight are speculative, the assigning of proportions between them speculative. The minah likely post-dated the monarchy, so using it is problematic and did not equal 56 shekels under any of the various old systems that refered to it. You're making stuff up and presenting it as fact. 

Again, the text in the Book of Mormon is both specific and simple. The apologetic you employ is speculative, invokes arguments that are both convoluted and, when it comes to the etymology of the terms incompatible with what the Book of Mormon itself says while being anachronistic or casting such as wide net looking for ancient near/middle eastern sources one it's almost more amazing you don't have hits for every single mentioned unit.

Let's be frank, Robert F. Smith. Were the Book of Mormon what it claims to be, the more telling and amazing example of potential ancient authenticity also consistent with the text and archaeology would be to find a genealogy that ties to the pre-Columbian Americas.

[Honorentheos]

Hi Gervin,

I wouldn't worry too much about the Book of Mormon's claim that the units evolved. It's certainly true that units do evolve. What is problematic for our friends like Robert F. Smith, Glenn and cdowis is that the evolution of these things happen for reasons in a given context. What context, then, is exerting influence on the peoples claimed to live in Book of Mormon times and lands? One doesn't read Robert F. Smith's attempt at pulling in any ancient near eastern context and come out the back end with a better understanding of the Nephites, their system, and the context in which they lived over a millennia of time. This is in contrast to what one might find looking at real history where the evolution of weights, systems of trade, payment, and commodities are all responding to a greater context.

The arguments in this thread continue to reiterate one point - the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet who had direct access to an ancient document. So the apologetics shoot at everything that looks ancient, then stuff and mount it on their wall without real thought as to how the real studies of archaeology, anthropology, etc., etc., go on oblivious to their particular sport. Read the actual archaeological exploration of the evolution of the shekel, for example. It doesn't occur in a cultural vacuum, and the physical evidence is critical to the development of the informed understanding. We don't have a cultural context for the Book of Mormon (unless my argument that it's the 19th c. US is accepted, which I think is demonstrated), nor do we have an ancient American silver weight equal to the sum weights of three smaller weights discovered in a dig site in the Americas. It's not meaningful for cdowis to demand evidence from mesoamerica to counter his argument in that context because it's his argument the Book of Mormon belongs there. It's not meaningful for Glenn to argue that certain positions seem to be goal shifting because they would negate the existence of Nephites because arguing for actual Nephites is his position to defend. Robert F. Smith argues against the Book of Mormon text itself because the text is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated as belonging in an ancient setting. Absent the ability to contextualize it in the ancient new world, he attempts to place it in the old.

Context certainly matters, and you're right to argue that pointing to evolution alone is meaningless to the argument. Without tying it into the context driving the evolution the claim it evolved is simply the author's way of saying the reader should not expect it to accurately align with anything they might know.

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Honorentheos

[UtahTexan]

35 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Gervin,

I wouldn't worry too much about the Book of Mormon's claim that the units evolved. It's certainly true that units do evolve. What is problematic for our friends like Robert F. Smith, Glenn and cdowis is that the evolution of these things happen for reasons in a given context. What context, then, is exerting influence on the peoples claimed to live in Book of Mormon times and lands? One doesn't read Robert F. Smith's attempt at pulling in any ancient near eastern context and come out the back end with a better understanding of the Nephites, their system, and the context in which they lived over a millennia of time. This is in contrast to what one might find looking at real history where the evolution of weights, systems of trade, payment, and commodities are all responding to a greater context.

The arguments in this thread continue to reiterate one point - the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet who had direct access to an ancient document. So the apologetics shoot at everything that looks ancient, then stuff and mount it on their wall without real thought as to how the real studies of archaeology, anthropology, etc., etc., go on oblivious to their particular sport. Read the actual archaeological exploration of the evolution of the shekel, for example. It doesn't occur in a cultural vacuum, and the physical evidence is critical to the development of the informed understanding. We don't have a cultural context for the Book of Mormon (unless my argument that it's the 19th c. US is accepted, which I think is demonstrated), nor do we have an ancient American silver weight equal to the sum weights of three smaller weights discovered in a dig site in the Americas. It's not meaningful for cdowis to demand evidence from mesoamerica to counter his argument in that context because it's his argument the Book of Mormon belongs there. It's not meaningful for Glenn to argue that certain positions seem to be goal shifting because they would negate the existence of Nephites because arguing for actual Nephites is his position to defend. Robert F. Smith argues against the Book of Mormon text itself because the text is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated as belonging in an ancient setting. Absent the ability to contextualize it in the ancient new world, he attempts to place it in the old.

Context certainly matters, and you're right to argue that pointing to evolution alone is meaningless to the argument. Without tying it into the context driving the evolution the claim it evolved is simply the author's way of saying the reader should not expect it to accurately align with anything they might know.

 

I have not heard anyone say that the purpose for the Book of Mormon is to bolster Joseph Smith.  Either you are misreading, or misleading.  I will leave which one up to you.

The purpose is what it has always been....to teach about God, His son, and His people.  To teach us what happened and why it happened.  To testify to Christ.  To teach us Doctrine

People attack the Bible all the time for the same reasons people attack the Book of Mormon.  So, the only difference between Biblical Apologists and Mormons is that we have TWO books to defend instead of one....but the positive is; We have the fullness of the Gospel.  We have TWO books to guide us instead of one.

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I have not heard anyone say that the purpose for the Book of Mormon is to bolster Joseph Smith.

Now you have.

Boyd K. Packer, April 2005

We do not have to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ will defend him for us. Those who reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and revelator are left to find some other explanation for the Book of Mormon.

And for the second powerful defense: the Doctrine and Covenants, and a third: the Pearl of Great Price. Published in combination, these scriptures form an unshakable testament that Jesus is the Christ and a witness that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Honorentheos

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Now you have.

Boyd K. Packer, April 2005

We do not have to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ will defend him for us. Those who reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and revelator are left to find some other explanation for the Book of Mormon.

And for the second powerful defense: the Doctrine and Covenants, and a third: the Pearl of Great Price. Published in combination, these scriptures form an unshakable testament that Jesus is the Christ and a witness that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

No, I haven't.  First, you said it was happening on THIS thread...your response quoted someone not in the thread,  And even then, it does not say that reason for the Book is to bolster......

[Honorentheos]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

No, I haven't.  First, you said it was happening on THIS thread...your response quoted someone not in the thread,  And even then, it does not say that reason for the Book is to bolster......

I don't believe I said it was someone in this thread who made that claim. And you're quibbling. The original purpose of the Book of Mormon according to the title page and 1 Nephi had to do with things that made a lot of sense in the 19th c. but which modern Mormons don't really use it for with the exception that it's also described as another testiment of Jesus Christ to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile or similar language. The restoration of plain and precious truths is the phrase used by Nephi which it's not used for today (so little of what distinguishes Mormonism in the 21st c. is actually in the Book of Mormon) and it has completely distanced itself from the idea it was intended as a record for the descendants of Lehi to remind them of their true heritage. We don't even accept the claims there are distinguishable descendents of Lehi to whom the narrative could be given. That's a 180 degree swing in less than four decades, there.

Anyway, look to your apologetics CountryBoy. They focus on placing the Book of Mormon in an ancient, historical setting. They do it because they believe if it fails this it undermines the claims that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Read the arguments in the various threads currently on this board expressing concern with viewing the Book of Mormon as anything but historical. 

Packer expressed it simply. To those who believe, the Book of Mormon is the only defense needed for Joseph Smith. Read Peterson's FAIR talk and see how it exactly parallels the quote from Packer above.

It's the state of the debate, my friend. Best get on board or find a better vehicle (I'd suggest a better vehicle, myself...)

 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I don't believe I said it was someone in this thread who made that claim. And you're quibbling. The original purpose of the Book of Mormon according to the title page and 1 Nephi had to do with things that made a lot of sense in the 19th c. but which modern Mormons don't really use it for with the exception that it's also described as another testiment of Jesus Christ to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile or similar language. The restoration of plain and precious truths is the phrase used by Nephi which it's not used for today (so little of what distinguishes Mormonism in the 21st c. is actually in the Book of Mormon) and it has completely distanced itself from the idea it was intended as a record for the descendants of Lehi to remind them of their true heritage. We don't even accept the claims there are distinguishable descendents of Lehi to whom the narrative could be given. That's a 180 degree swing in less than four decades, there.

Anyway, look to your apologetics CountryBoy. They focus on placing the Book of Mormon in an ancient, historical setting. They do it because they believe if it fails this it undermines the claims that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Read the arguments in the various threads currently on this board expressing concern with viewing the Book of Mormon as anything but historical. 

Packer expressed it simply. To those who believe, the Book of Mormon is the only defense needed for Joseph Smith. Read Peterson's FAIR talk and see how it exactly parallels the quote from Packer above.

It's the state of the debate, my friend. Best get on board or find a better vehicle (I'd suggest a better vehicle, myself...)

 

You said,  "The arguments in this thread continue to reiterate one point - the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet"  I am not sure how clearer you could have been, or why you deny it now.

I am not quibbling.  You seem to say what WE believe the purpose is, when we don't.  YOu made a claim that is simply false.  Do we believe the Church stands or falls on Joseph?  Yes.  Do we believe the Book of Mormon shows He was a prophet?  Yes.  But do we believe the " the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet"?  No.

 

 

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

You said,  "The arguments in this thread continue to reiterate one point - the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet"  I am not sure how clearer you could have been, or why you deny it now.

I am not quibbling.  You seem to say what WE believe the purpose is, when we don't.  YOu made a claim that is simply false.  Do we believe the Church stands or falls on Joseph?  Yes.  Do we believe the Book of Mormon shows He was a prophet?  Yes.  But do we believe the " the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet"?  No.

Ok, I see where you are coming from.

My point there is that the arguments used are based on this underlying need not an explicit statement of purpose. Robert F. Smith's dismissal of the actual words used in the Book of Mormon in order to follow the only avenue available for attempting to demonstrate ancient ties in the text is an example of this shift in purpose from participating in the theological debates of the 19th c. If saying they reiterate the point is too poetic of a term for your tastes, let's say they demonstrate that modern apologetic has focused on this purpose which seems to be the primary external use of the Book of Mormon.

I don't get the impression you served a mission prior to your personal apostacy. So you may or may not be familiar with how the Book of Mormon fits into teaching potential converts about the Church. It's role in the days of the six discussions when I taught was to build on the call of Joseph Smith as prophet and set up the potential convert to pursuing the question with God, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?" among other questions.

Not only is the claim not false, I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating a counter position that the BoM is used outside of the Church in another manner today.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Honorentheos

[UtahTexan]

7 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Ok, I see where you are coming from.

My point there is that the arguments used are based on this underlying need not an explicit statement of purpose. Robert F. Smith's dismissal of the actual words used in the Book of Mormon in order to follow the only avenue available for attempting to demonstrate ancient ties in the text. If saying they reiterate the point is too poetic of a term for your tastes, let's say they demonstrate that modern apologetic has focused on this purpose which seems to be the primary external use of the Book of Mormon.

I don't get the impression you served a mission prior to your personal apostacy. So you may or may not be familiar with how the Book of Mormon fits into teaching potential converts about the Church. It's role in the days of the six discussions when I taught was to build on the call of Joseph Smith as prophet and set up the potential convert to pursuing the question with God, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?" among other questions.

Not only is the claim not false, I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating a counter position that the BoM is used outside of the Church in another manner today.

Actually, I was baptized in 1983 (I was 23) and went on my mission in 1984 (24-year-old college grad)....in 1989, I resigned from the Church.  Back then, they held disciplanary councils when you requested your name be removed from Church records.  ......and then came back in 2015.

I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon is used in conjunction with Joseph Smith.  My argument is that the " the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet".  It is not.  Do we look at things in the Book and say, "wow, no way Joseph could have made this up."?  Yes.  But do we say, "the main reason for this Book is to bolster Joseph".  No.  For us, the Book of Mormon is Scripture.  It bolsters Christ, not Joseph.  Just like the first Books of the Bible bolster God, not Moses.

Edited August 27, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Honorentheos]

Just now, CountryBoy said:

Actually, I was baptized in 1983 (I was 23) and went on my mission in 1984 (24-year-old college grad)....Left in 1989......and then came back in 2015.

I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon is used in conjunction with Joseph Smith.  My argument is that the " the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet".  It is not.  Do we look at things in the Book and say, "wow, no way Joseph could have made this up."?  Yes.  But do we say, "the main reason for this Book is to bolster Joseph".  No.  For us, the Book of Mormon is Scripture.  It bolsters Christ, not Joseph.  Just like the first Books of the Bible bolster God, not Moses.

The challenge with your comment is that one doesn't look to the Book of Mormon as believer or otherwise and take it's claims regarding Christ at face value. One has to filter it through the lens that it came from a person in the early-mid 1800's who claimed to have received it through miraculous means. To say it bolsters Christ one first accepts that it has a right to participate in the conversation at all. Many Christians would argue it doesn't, both for internal reasons but especially for the person behind it.

When Packer made his statement quoted above, he hit on the central issue for which the Book of Mormon is actively engaged today in defending and advertising Mormonism to the world. The world has a bible, and it's not looking for a watered down sectarian tract from 1830. For it to have room at the table, it has to be something more than that. The apologists defending it know this. The apostles leading the Church know this. The membership who believe in it know this. Those who reject it is successful know this.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The challenge with your comment is that one doesn't look to the Book of Mormon as believer or otherwise and take it's claims regarding Christ at face value. One has to filter it through the lens that it came from a person in the early-mid 1800's who claimed to have received it through miraculous means. To say it bolsters Christ one first accepts that it has a right to participate in the conversation at all. Many Christians would argue it doesn't, both for internal reasons but especially for the person behind it.

When Packer made his statement quoted above, he hit on the central issue for which the Book of Mormon is actively engaged today in defending and advertising Mormonism to the world. The world has a bible, and it's not looking for a watered down sectarian tract from 1830. For it to have room at the table, it has to be something more than that. The apologists defending it know this. The apostles leading the Church know this. The membership who believe in it know this. Those who reject it is successful know this.

ah...but that was not the point.  The point I was specifically arguing was the claim that the  "the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet."  Though that might be your opinion, it is not the LDS position or belief.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

ah...but that was not the point.  The point I was specifically arguing was the claim that the  "the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet."  Though that might be your opinion, it is not the LDS position or belief.

 

Church position aside, personally I believe the restoration through Joseph Smith was 100% more important to our salvation and exaltation than the Book of Mormon.  Joseph and Brigham virtually never quoted or referred to it.

Even without the Book of Mormon the restored gospel, priesthood, and ordinances through the prophet Joseph should be of the most importance in our time.

The Book of Mormon provides another witness of Christ.  But it is the restoration through the prophet Joseph that gives us the path back to Christ, even if the Book of Mormon never existed.

Edited August 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Church position aside, personally I believe the restoration through Joseph Smith was 100% more important to our salvation and exaltation than the Book of Mormon.  Joseph and Brigham virtually never quoted or referred to it.

Even without the Book of Mormon the restored gospel, priesthood, and ordinances through the prophet Joseph should be of the most importance in our time.

The Book of Mormon provides another witness of Christ.  But it is the restoration through the prophet Joseph that gives us the path back to Christ, even if the Book of Mormon never existed.

That has been my point.  

[Honorentheos]

17 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

ah...but that was not the point.  The point I was specifically arguing was the claim that the  "the modern purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bolster the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet."  Though that might be your opinion, it is not the LDS position or belief.

 

I think we're talking about two different things, but sure. In the context of what you describe as the Church's professed primary purpose of the Book of Mormon I concede. Fair enough.

[UtahTexan]

18 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I think we're talking about two different things, but sure. In the context of what you describe as the Church's professed primary purpose of the Book of Mormon I concede. Fair enough.

Cool.

 

Is there another two different things we can discuss?

 

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Cool.

 

Is there another two different things we can discuss?

 

Well, I guess we could discuss if the function of the Book of Mormon as actually used is to bolster the role of Joseph Smith as prophet or not.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Well, I guess we could discuss if the function of the Book of Mormon as actually used is to bolster the role of Joseph Smith as prophet or not.

That topic seems vague?
What exactly are you referring to.
Joseph was a prophet with or without the Book of Mormon.
 

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Well, I guess we could discuss if the function of the Book of Mormon as actually used is to bolster the role of Joseph Smith as prophet or not.

lol

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

lol

Glad it came across as funny, as it certainly wasn't expected to be taken seriously.  

[Honorentheos]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That topic seems vague?
What exactly are you referring to.
Joseph was a prophet with or without the Book of Mormon.
 

Is this a game? I'm not sure of the rules but I'll take a stab at it.

"Joseph was a pretender to translating ancient languages, with or without the Book of Mormon."

Is that how this works?