What if you want the church to be true,

[Sput]

Wow my wife and I dont have this problem at all. We only get confused on who was what and where? We get alot of OHHHH now i get it. And alot of started after we recieved our endowments and were sealed. The only problem if i would say its a problem is with myself. From not being the person i wish i was for so many years and even with repentance and all that i still have somewhat of a heavy heart. Alot of ppl think that the church is confining but for me I have found it to be liberating. Taking the time to ask for help when i needed it either from the bishop or heavenly father was pretty awesome and has given me the spirtual confirmation that what Im doing is right. I dont let the lil things effect me in any of my scripture study. And when we read the scriptures as a family we have a couple of books next to us to help us out if we get confused about something.

[Kevin Christensen]

My experience in reading the Book of Mormon has been very different, and the differences are clearly in line with the expectations suggested by the parable of the Sower. What soil do we plant the seed and what care do we take of it? I find that somethings that seemed problematic when viewed my my own cultural lenses end up changing when I bring more context to my reading. Indeed, the experience of watching problems change into confirmations has been one of my chief pleasure with the Book of Mormon. I put together a post on that a few days ago, which I won't repeat here. And I have published many articles over the years, with no end to the possibilities in sight. For me, the text offers continual surprises, discovery, and wonder.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[rameumptom]

My experience with the Book of Mormon is more akin charity's and Kevin's. I have read it well over 50 times (lost track around there), and it still is an amazing book to me.

The "anachronisms" didn't bother me, as there have been periods of history that tend to repeat throughout the world. And if we have problems with prophets copying prophets (or other more ancient documents), then the Bible needs to be thrown out.

If a person only sees the oyster, they miss the pearl within. As I've studied the BoM, I've come to find a very close relationship with God and Christ. My understanding of the Godhead has increased immensely over the years. My understanding of the temple rite is built upon what I've learned about it within the pages of the Book of Mormon - for it is filled with temple teaching and learning. The Book of Mormon is an endowment, just like the one in the temple. In that is the 'fulness of the gospel.'

It has often been a catalyst for me to receive inspiration and revelation. And the scientific evidences I have found only enhance my love for the book. I love the chiastic structures and poetry within the BoM. How Joseph Smith could construct complex chiasms by accident is purely beyond reason and logic. And I have found that Nephi's Psalm has a close correllary in the DSS - so close that it amazed me to find it. I was reading the DSS, and thought to myself - I've read this in the Book of Mormon before. Then in comparing, the structures were the same. Clearly there was a common source.

But most of all, it is the spiritual witness and experiences that I have received that keeps me spell-bound to the book. I am a witness that it really is true.

[Pokatator]

Tragic Mind wrote:

My issues with LDS doctrine began by reading the Book of Mormon. Maybe I've got a defective gene or my brain isn't wired correctly, but the first time I read the Book of Mormon all the way through as a teenager I was floored. And not in a good way. Zenos? Zenock? Full chapters of the Bible -- in King James translation, no less -- transplanted into the BoM? Greek-named apostles among the Nephites? A general in Moroni whose rhetoric about liberty and freedom came straight out of the American Revolution? These things and more screamed at me from the pages. Naturally, I thought I was sinning and that I needed to read it closer and focus on the doctrine. But the more I read, the less I could accept it as anything but a poorly-written and anachronistic novel. With each reading, the revivalist rhetoric, the absolute specificity of reference to Joseph Smith coupled with the utter noncommittal, generalized references to events beyond Joseph's time... it all just got worse.

wow. did you read my mind? i could easily have written the same thing. the inconsistencies, the anachronisms, the doctrines we don't even believe in (heaven/hell, no repentance after death, etc) have plagued me every time i've read the BoM since i was a teenager. like you, i always wondered why i was the only one that found so many problems when everyone else found it so inspiring. maybe we both have the same defective gene. i think it's found on chromosome 15.

on my mission, there was a program among the missionaries where we were asked to read a fresh copy of the BoM and highlight it using a blue pencil to circle any mention of the savior and a red pencil to highlight his teachings. well after about a week of this little excercise, i quit doing it because the BoM teachings on the godhead and the trinity are hopelessly confusing. i talked to my MP about it and he tried to help me out, but i never really got any resolution on the issue. like a good righteous missionary, i finished the project but i had to throw all intellectual thinking to the wind to make any sense of it.

i've always found the BoM really hard to swallow but, like you, i tried for years to find meaning and truth in it. now that i'm at where i'm at, exhortations to "just read the BoM" make me want to laugh and cry. if i had just read little verses out of context here and there like most people do, i never would have noticed the problems. i actually stopped reading it a while back to try to avoid confusion and just focus on the good day to day teachings of the gospel. i wish i could just pick it up and read and find the answers to all my questions, but my confidence in that happening is pretty much zero.

Tragic Mind DITTO

Redman DITTO

Pokatator

PS Rameumptom, I've read it dozens of times.

[ave maria]

Tragic Mind wrote:

My issues with LDS doctrine began by reading the Book of Mormon. Maybe I've got a defective gene or my brain isn't wired correctly, but the first time I read the Book of Mormon all the way through as a teenager I was floored. And not in a good way. Zenos? Zenock? Full chapters of the Bible -- in King James translation, no less -- transplanted into the BoM? Greek-named apostles among the Nephites? A general in Moroni whose rhetoric about liberty and freedom came straight out of the American Revolution? These things and more screamed at me from the pages. Naturally, I thought I was sinning and that I needed to read it closer and focus on the doctrine. But the more I read, the less I could accept it as anything but a poorly-written and anachronistic novel. With each reading, the revivalist rhetoric, the absolute specificity of reference to Joseph Smith coupled with the utter noncommittal, generalized references to events beyond Joseph's time... it all just got worse.

wow. did you read my mind? i could easily have written the same thing. the inconsistencies, the anachronisms, the doctrines we don't even believe in (heaven/hell, no repentance after death, etc) have plagued me every time i've read the BoM since i was a teenager. like you, i always wondered why i was the only one that found so many problems when everyone else found it so inspiring. maybe we both have the same defective gene. i think it's found on chromosome 15.

on my mission, there was a program among the missionaries where we were asked to read a fresh copy of the BoM and highlight it using a blue pencil to circle any mention of the savior and a red pencil to highlight his teachings. well after about a week of this little excercise, i quit doing it because the BoM teachings on the godhead and the trinity are hopelessly confusing. i talked to my MP about it and he tried to help me out, but i never really got any resolution on the issue. like a good righteous missionary, i finished the project but i had to throw all intellectual thinking to the wind to make any sense of it.

i've always found the BoM really hard to swallow but, like you, i tried for years to find meaning and truth in it. now that i'm at where i'm at, exhortations to "just read the BoM" make me want to laugh and cry. if i had just read little verses out of context here and there like most people do, i never would have noticed the problems. i actually stopped reading it a while back to try to avoid confusion and just focus on the good day to day teachings of the gospel. i wish i could just pick it up and read and find the answers to all my questions, but my confidence in that happening is pretty much zero.

Tragic Mind DITTO

Redman DITTO

Pokatator

PS Rameumptom, I've read it dozens of times.

Never passed my filter, either.

[Tragic Mind]

What soil do we plant the seed and what care do we take of it?

A better question might be, "What happens when we buy pumpkin seeds, carefully tend the garden, nourish the soil, provide plenty of water, diligently control and remove the weeds, and then a kudzu plant grows instead?"

Look, it's no shock that a person can build an affinity for God and Jesus Christ by reading the Book of Mormon. The entire book is composed of what was the latest thinking on Protestant Christianity in Joseph Smith's time -- thinking that was designed precisely to generate interest in God and Christ and personalize it for people.

It is also not surprising that people constantly reinterpret the text upon multiple readings. As a writer myself, I have consistently found it amazing when people have extrapolated ideas, philosophies, theories, and interpretations from a text that I thought was pretty simple and straightforward when I put it to paper. I have discovered that people's minds are trained to mine familiar themes from texts that draw parallels to their experience or bolster a particular way of thinking. The sheer diversity of response to my own writings has convinced me of that. The difficulty comes when those responses and interpretations supplant completely the original intent of the text or cast it into themes that were not native to the text. The interpretations then become more important to those readers than the text itself.

But I digress.

The parallels between the Book of Mormon -- stylistically and in terms of content -- and other scripture are not accidental. It is patterned, after all, on the KJV. In fact, the Book of Mormon is peppered with word-for-word phrase lifts from the KJV. Much of this has to do with Joseph Smith's fascination with Paul (and whose phraseology and thinking pervades Joseph Smith's theology). In fact, the BoM makes a compelling case for study if only to discover what elements were borrowed from which source.

But for me and for many others, it is not a divine book. A somewhat interesting one, yes. But not divine... much less of ancient origin.

Regards,

TM

[Bertram]

The last few threads in which doubt, cynicism and intellectual interpretations seem to prevail was brought to mind as I was reading the 20th Chapter of St. John today where our Risen Saviour was speaking, in particular, to Thomas:

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.

And do you not also wonder what was referred to in Verse 30? Maybe some of us need to be made aware of those Signs in order that our feeble minds could also have Faith!!!

30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

Maybe little/large(?) pieces of missing Scripture like these would be of use to us?

[Meta]

Charity, you're a very nice person and I'm sure if religion didn't enter into the discussion we'd easily be friends. So please take what I'm about to say with the enormous grain of salt I intend you to take it with...

My issues with LDS doctrine began by reading the Book of Mormon. Maybe I've got a defective gene or my brain isn't wired correctly, but the first time I read the Book of Mormon all the way through as a teenager I was floored. And not in a good way. Zenos? Zenock? Full chapters of the Bible -- in King James translation, no less -- transplanted into the BoM? Greek-named apostles among the Nephites? A general in Moroni whose rhetoric about liberty and freedom came straight out of the American Revolution? These things and more screamed at me from the pages. Naturally, I thought I was sinning and that I needed to read it closer and focus on the doctrine. But the more I read, the less I could accept it as anything but a poorly-written and anachronistic novel. With each reading, the revivalist rhetoric, the absolute specificity of reference to Joseph Smith coupled with the utter noncommittal, generalized references to events beyond Joseph's time... it all just got worse.

I prayed. Prayed like you wouldn't believe. Even when I got to the MTC, I kept praying and fasting. One night I went out onto the MTC lawn and got on my knees and spent two hours praying about it -- my companions thought I had gone AWOL! But I got no answer.

So I hit upon a strategy. Focus on the individual verses set aside in the discussions and the scripture mastery scriptures and try not to think too hard about the rest. That worked for a while, but every so often I'd start over and read from the beginning and everything would crash down upon me again.

Everyone I talked to said, "Just keep reading. And bear your testimony about it more often. Your witness will come." Others said, "You're not feasting upon the word. You are being too superficial," as if they had witnessed every moment of my study. The capper was when people would tell me, "You don't want to believe enough" or "You lack faith." I begged to differ -- nobody wanted to believe it more than I did! I felt as if I was a broken puppet, as if I had something fundamentally wrong with me.

I spent years trying to find the sin that I had committed that was blocking my spiritual progress. My bishops started seeing me as a spiritual hypochondriac from the number of times I'd come in with a new confession...

Eventually, of course, I discovered why I felt the way I did and it was as if I had received an injection of morphine into an amputated limb. The feeling of peace, of clarity, and utter relief I felt was exactly what I was supposed to have felt as a confirming witness of the Book of Mormon -- and yet it came as I realized that the Book of Mormon was not true.

Since then, people have been telling me that the feelings I felt were a deception, artificial, inspired by Satan. My response is, "Why does Satan send me clarity while God sends me confusion, distress, and emotional and spiritual pain?"

I do not begrudge you your beliefs, Charity, nor anyone else's here at this board. But please do not tell me that reading the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Ensign will solve all of my problems and questions. I've already gone down that road with faith and hope, and my faith and hope were not rewarded by anything that had been promised to me by my Church leaders and fellow members. Whereas you have found peace in faith, I have found mine in reason. I think the main thing is not the manner by which we found it -- only that we have it.

Regards,

TM

I'm sure you've heard this before, but I think you spend too much time looking for facts then looking for possibility.

The feeling of peace, of clarity, and utter relief I felt was exactly what I was supposed to have felt as a confirming witness of the Book of Mormon -- and yet it came as I realized that the Book of Mormon was not true.

I would wager that the feeling of peace was more like the feeling of ease of not having to find a spiritual witness-- not having to search and search and search. Kind of like trying your hardest for years to be the best quarterback on the team but never successfully making it. When quitting, you feel a peace of mind that you won't have to continue your obsessive desire to be the best.

[Abulafia]

Charity said: I am convinced that you will never be able to have the quality of life outside the Church as you could being in the Church and believing

.

Charity, I can see where you are coming from here. The church provides great opportunities for altruistic service to others both within and without the church.

Missionary service is basically altruistic. My home ward did a lot of work for outside organisations like the local hospital, and other charity status groups.

Callings help people to strengthen each other, and are altruistic in nature. Genealogy work is basically altruistic from the pov of members.

If you believe in the church and its threefold mission strengthening the saints, redeeming the dead, teaching the LDS faith to others, then it is a great place for altruistic service, for truly losing yourself in the service of others.

However, if you do not believe, then missionary service becomes redundant, strengthening the saints becomes redundant and genealogical work becomes redundant.

The only type of altruistic service that you can then honestly do (within an LDS context), is work for outside charitable organisations, and to be understanding, and compassionate to those that still believe.

Anyways, what I am saying in a long winded kind of way. Is that once you no longer believe, the church is not a vehicle for happiness.

I found on leaving the church (as I have said before) that my life, paradoxically became happier on a social, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual level. I am happy, because I am being honest with myself and others about what I do and do not believe, and what I really am not sure on. I am happy because I still spend most of my life in altruistic service both in my family and in my profession. I am happy because I am not in debt and we can distinguish between wants and needs. (though my partner is a gadget freak and just bought a very expensive oscilloscope....why!)

I have a good marriage because we were really good friends before we tied the knot and our boats are both travelling in the same direction. I am happy because I have the intellectual freedom to truly think for myself, and to continually learn new and exciting things about the earth and the universe. THe list goes on.

To me, Jesus' mission was to teach a way of life that would bring the most social cohesion and happiness. Forgive others, forgive yourself, don't judge, try and love even those who are your enemies, don't look down on the poor, beware of hypocracy, be wise, look after the needy and vulnerable and so forth.

In short I think that principles of happiness are universal and not contained within the LDS faith, but if you are a believing member then I can see how you can be happy too.

Abulafia

[ave maria]

I am convinced that you will never be able to have the quality of life outside the Church as you could being in the Church and believing. Not faking it. But being believers. I know you think that is not possible.

What are you referring to specifically when you talk about "quality of life," charity?

Because on its face, unless you qualify it, I'd dispute this statement.

It appears that you are appealing to fear here, and not love.

[Kevin Christensen]

A better question might be, "What happens when we buy pumpkin seeds, carefully tend the garden, nourish the soil, provide plenty of water, diligently control and remove the weeds, and then a kudzu plant grows instead?"

That is not a better question. It is simply another question having to do with labels and expectations. Disappointment, disillision, frustration is always going to be relative to preconceptions. As Kuhn puts it, "anomally emerges against a background of expectation." My Book of Mormon seeds keep growing, and are unexpectedly fruitful. When I read from people who say that they see the rhetoric of the American revolution, I just wonder if they have read Bushman's essay on the topic, or if they have considered ancient rhetoric on the topic. When I read people who see only misplaced New Testament thought, I wrote things like "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" in FR 16:2. I've not been tied to the expectations imposed by any labels. I'm simply planting and nourishing seeds, and enjoying the harvest.

The difficulty comes when those responses and interpretations supplant completely the original intent of the text or cast it into themes that were not native to the text. The interpretations then become more important to those readers than the text itself.

Louis Midgley has an excellent essay in the first volume of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon on this very topic. The question is, who gets to decide what the original intent of the text is? Earl Wunderli? Jerald Tanner? B. H. Roberts? Joseph McConkie? Fawn Brodie? Hugh Nibley? Dan Vogel? Richard Bushman? John Sorenson? Or how about Nephi? How about Mormon and Moroni? Each answer calls for a different patch of soil, a different kind of nurturing, and a different label on the seed package, a different set of expectations, a different set of methods.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[charity]

Ave asked, "What are you referring to specifically when you talk about "quality of life," charity?"

Happiness in life is based on conforming to the laws of God. It doesn't matter if we understand what they are or not. D&C 130: 20-21 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

It is possible, of course, to stumble onto those laws and reap the blessings without knowing why the blessing is coming. Or even recognizing it as a blessing. In fact, probably most people just think it is "natural consequences" unrelated to any kind of eternal law.

However, a hit or miss approach is a lot less reliable in finding those laws. When people are taught what the laws are, and can then conform their behavior, they will reap more blessings, thus have a higher quality of life.

That is what I was referring to.

[ave maria]

Ave asked, "What are you referring to specifically when you talk about "quality of life," charity?"

Happiness in life is based on conforming to the laws of God. It doesn't matter if we understand what they are or not. D&C 130: 20-21 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

It is possible, of course, to stumble onto those laws and reap the blessings without knowing why the blessing is coming. Or even recognizing it as a blessing. In fact, probably most people just think it is "natural consequences" unrelated to any kind of eternal law.

However, a hit or miss approach is a lot less reliable in finding those laws. When people are taught what the laws are, and can then conform their behavior, they will reap more blessings, thus have a higher quality of life.

That is what I was referring to.

Yes, well it could be for some that conforming to the laws of God would preclude them from subscribing to the tenets of the church Joseph Smith organized.

Your mileage might vary.

[charity]

Ave, you said: "Yes, well it could be for some that conforming to the laws of God would preclude them from subscribing to the tenets of the church Joseph Smith organized."

And it could be that for everyone God will expect them to subscribe to the tenets of the Church that Jesus Christ restored through Joseph Smith.

I guess we will have to wait until we all get on the other side to see who was right.

[ave maria]

Ave, you said: "Yes, well it could be for some that conforming to the laws of God would preclude them from subscribing to the tenets of the church Joseph Smith organized."

And it could be that for everyone God will expect them to subscribe to the tenets of the Church that Jesus Christ restored through Joseph Smith.

I guess we will have to wait until we all get on the other side to see who was right.

In the meantime, however, people really do have to worship (or not) according to the dictates of their own conscience, and you should respect that, rather than trying to enforce conformity.

[charity]

Ave, I am not trying to force any kind of conformity. I fully subscribe to the 11th Article of Faith. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

It is God who commands obedience to Him and conforming our lives to His will.

[ave maria]

Ave, I am not trying to force any kind of conformity. I fully subscribe to the 11th Article of Faith. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

It is God who commands obedience to Him and conforming our lives to His will.

Let Him do that, then, and you can get on with loving your neighbor.

[randyc]

Charity, you're a very nice person and I'm sure if religion didn't enter into the discussion we'd easily be friends. So please take what I'm about to say with the enormous grain of salt I intend you to take it with...

My issues with LDS doctrine began by reading the Book of Mormon. Maybe I've got a defective gene or my brain isn't wired correctly, but the first time I read the Book of Mormon all the way through as a teenager I was floored. And not in a good way. Zenos? Zenock? Full chapters of the Bible -- in King James translation, no less -- transplanted into the BoM? Greek-named apostles among the Nephites? A general in Moroni whose rhetoric about liberty and freedom came straight out of the American Revolution? These things and more screamed at me from the pages. Naturally, I thought I was sinning and that I needed to read it closer and focus on the doctrine. But the more I read, the less I could accept it as anything but a poorly-written and anachronistic novel. With each reading, the revivalist rhetoric, the absolute specificity of reference to Joseph Smith coupled with the utter noncommittal, generalized references to events beyond Joseph's time... it all just got worse.

I prayed. Prayed like you wouldn't believe. Even when I got to the MTC, I kept praying and fasting. One night I went out onto the MTC lawn and got on my knees and spent two hours praying about it -- my companions thought I had gone AWOL!  But I got no answer.

So I hit upon a strategy. Focus on the individual verses set aside in the discussions and the scripture mastery scriptures and try not to think too hard about the rest. That worked for a while, but every so often I'd start over and read from the beginning and everything would crash down upon me again.

Everyone I talked to said, "Just keep reading. And bear your testimony about it more often. Your witness will come." Others said, "You're not feasting upon the word. You are being too superficial," as if they had witnessed every moment of my study. The capper was when people would tell me, "You don't want to believe enough" or "You lack faith." I begged to differ -- nobody wanted to believe it more than I did! I felt as if I was a broken puppet, as if I had something fundamentally wrong with me.

I spent years trying to find the sin that I had committed that was blocking my spiritual progress. My bishops started seeing me as a spiritual hypochondriac from the number of times I'd come in with a new confession...

Eventually, of course, I discovered why I felt the way I did and it was as if I had received an injection of morphine into an amputated limb. The feeling of peace, of clarity, and utter relief I felt was exactly what I was supposed to have felt as a confirming witness of the Book of Mormon -- and yet it came as I realized that the Book of Mormon was not true.

Since then, people have been telling me that the feelings I felt were a deception, artificial, inspired by Satan. My response is, "Why does Satan send me clarity while God sends me confusion, distress, and emotional and spiritual pain?"

I do not begrudge you your beliefs, Charity, nor anyone else's here at this board. But please do not tell me that reading the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Ensign will solve all of my problems and questions. I've already gone down that road with faith and hope, and my faith and hope were not rewarded by anything that had been promised to me by my Church leaders and fellow members. Whereas you have found peace in faith, I have found mine in reason. I think the main thing is not the manner by which we found it -- only that we have it.

Regards,

TM

Sounds pretty familiar in a lot of ways.

The feeling of peace, of clarity, and utter relief I felt was exactly what I was supposed to have felt as a confirming witness of the Book of Mormon -- and yet it came as I realized that the Book of Mormon was not true.

I would wager that the feeling of peace was more like the feeling of ease of not having to find a spiritual witness-- not having to search and search and search. Kind of like trying your hardest for years to be the best quarterback on the team but never successfully making it. When quitting, you feel a peace of mind that you won't have to continue your obsessive desire to be the best.

Yeah, I would guess that that was part of it. I am Obssesive Compulsive, and (though I have not experienced it often) it is extremely peaceful when an obssesion just dissipates. Not being driven to futility is very nice. I doubt that my peace at knowing that the LDS church and BoM were not true came from God (there is no God), but still they were there.

[Meta]

The parallels between the Book of Mormon -- stylistically and in terms of content -- and other scripture are not accidental. It is patterned, after all, on the KJV. In fact, the Book of Mormon is peppered with word-for-word phrase lifts from the KJV. Much of this has to do with Joseph Smith's fascination with Paul (and whose phraseology and thinking pervades Joseph Smith's theology). In fact, the BoM makes a compelling case for study if only to discover what elements were borrowed from which source.

And how do you know that's not divine intervention?

The book of Mormon is a SECOND witness to the bible. It backs it up with important information that's needed to be reiterated. People feel a closeness to the BoM because they're familiar with the bible, and likewise both mix well. I don't think this is an accident or that JS stole it from the bible.

IF JS wrote the book of mormon from his own brain, he wouldn't have needed to add stuff from the bible-- or would have been smart enough to change it more then the way it was changed. Can we agree upon that? I think we can both agree that the BoM was either an excellant fraud or a divine witness.

[randyc]

I actually found a lot greater peace and satisfaction with life outside of the LDS church, Charity. Granted, that has changed a little recently, but still when I became a non-LDS Christian, I saw explosive growth spiritually and in knowledge about how things work. I really was amazed by the speed of my growth as an individual. I learned to speek, to lead, to be recklessly passionate for God, and I was for the first time able to do away with "sins" and not want them back. They became a bother to me, for I was passionate about my God. I loved him, and yet I had much more realistic expectations of him. I don't know what else to say but that my life was not better when I was striving in the LDS way.

[randyc]

And how do you know that's not divine intervention?

A good point. The fact that there is much in the BoM directly from the Bible does not mean it is not divine. The fact that there is much directly from the KJV is slightly different and provides an opportunity for criticism. Of course, if we also take into account the weight of the content that seems to be of 19th century origin, then this Bible quoting becomes more of a joke to many of us.

IF JS wrote the book of mormon from his own brain, he wouldn't have needed to add stuff from the bible-- or would have been smart enough to change it more then the way it was changed.  Can we agree upon that?

I see no reason to make such an assumption. He was claiming to make another testament of Jesus Christ, so he (and anyone else who helped) would have made just that.

[Meta]

A good point. The fact that there is much in the BoM directly from the Bible does not mean it is not divine. The fact that there is much directly from the KJV is slightly different and provides an opportunity for criticism. Of course, if we also take into account the weight of the content that seems to be of 19th century origin, then this Bible quoting becomes more of a joke to many of us.

How so? Do explain.

IF JS wrote the book of mormon from his own brain, he wouldn't have needed to add stuff from the bible-- or would have been smart enough to change it more then the way it was changed.

[Tragic Mind]

Louis Midgley has an excellent essay in the first volume of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon on this very topic. The question is, who gets to decide what the original intent of the text is? Earl Wunderli? Jerald Tanner? B. H. Roberts? Joseph McConkie? Fawn Brodie? Hugh Nibley? Dan Vogel? Richard Bushman? John Sorenson? Or how about Nephi? How about Mormon and Moroni? Each answer calls for a different patch of soil, a different kind of nurturing, and a different label on the seed package, a different set of expectations, a different set of methods.

This is precisely the reason why I believe apologetics as a pseudoscience is detrimental to the Church. The sheer weight of analysis and reinterpretation does a disservice to Occam's Razor by creating an environment where the twists and turns of byzantine tangential thought completely obscures context.

You do have a valid point that the reader analyzes intent based on his own experiences. That is unavoidable in literature. But -- and this is where we diverge -- there are salient facts about the text itself and its creation process that are knowable and definable without reinterpretation. These facts place the text into its proper context. Ignoring that context necessarily robs the reader of a proper understanding of the text -- an understanding which is exceptionally important in a book purporting to be non-fiction and historical.

[Kevin Christensen]

This is precisely the reason why I believe apologetics as a pseudoscience is detrimental to the Church. The sheer weight of analysis and reinterpretation does a disservice to Occam's Razor by creating an environment where the twists and turns of byzantine tangential thought completely obscures context.

Does taking seriously Nephi's comment about the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, and then reading the text in that context (as in Nibley's Lehi in the Desert and the more recent Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem), obscure that context?

I see good apologetics and bad, and a spectrum in between. Bad apologetics is detrimental. Good apologetics is necessary. Most apologetics is a process to distinguish the two kinds over time.

this is where we diverge -- there are salient facts about the text itself and its creation process that are knowable and definable without reinterpretation.

Some specifics please. Something that is knowable and definable without reinterpretation. Something to generalize from, rather than a generalization floating in the air.

These facts place the text into its proper context. Ignoring that context necessarily robs the reader of a proper understanding of the text -- an understanding which is exceptionally important in a book purporting to be non-fiction and historical.

Okay. Do any of these facts preclude, for example, anything I have published on the topic? For example, my long essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem that looks at the Book of Mormon text in relation to Lehi's Jerusalem, or say Potter and Wellington's essay that places the verses about Lehi in the Valley of Lemuel in a good candidate (and only) for the Valley of Lemuel, or Nibley's discussion of poetic forms used by Lehi in that story compared with poetic forms that would be expected in the purported context?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tragic Mind]

I see no reason to make such an assumption. He was claiming to make another testament of Jesus Christ, so he (and anyone else who helped) would have made just that.

Yes, true, but if he was as brilliant of a writer as some think, he wouldn't have needed to copy and paste portions of the bible. Not to mention his ego probably wouldn't allow him to. It would also make far more sense to write it in his own words then to copy some things from the bible and take a chance that others would find out.

I mean, let's face it. What did JS have to gain from this whole purportedly religion? Money? No, I would wager (IF he created this religion) he'd do it for power and fame. That's egotism, and I again would doubt anyone with that egotistic endeavour would steal work from the bible when they were intelligent enough to create their own seperate identity.