Why Is The Book Of Mormon So Beautiful?

[Hoops22]

I am left to wonder how a book alleged by critics to have been produced in upstate New York in the early 19th century could be so beautiful, and could continue to yield new insights and understandings after 20-readings and 30-years.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Shakespeare's sonnets are beautiful. As is the prose of Anne Rice in her latest offering. Are they the word of God as well?

[Mudcat]

Since the subject of beauty is in discussion I thought I'd drop a few quotes.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not.

John Greenleaf Whittier

Beauty seen is never lost, God's colors all are fast.

Margaret Wolfe Hungerford

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

My favorite, from a musicians standpoint

Cliff Richard

Once in a lifetime a really beautiful song comes along ... Until it does, I'd like to do this one.

[Cold Steel]

We have written accounts that the BoM was in fact copied from the "Manuscript Found" by Spalding, he spent over 10 years writing this novel. Rigdon added the religious text. Are we seeing the fruit of Spaldings/Rigdon's work? One way to easily prove that God produced the Bom is then why were there soo many errors? Are we in fact reading a version that is not from God but one that has been revised over a 100 year period?

The Book of Mormon could not have been written by anyone living in the 1800s. It was, and is, far beyond the capacity of anyone living then or now. The greatest evidence that it is an actual historical record is that as time has gone by, more evidence is amassing that shows it to be a historical record. If it were a fraud, all the stuff we've learned and are learning should be combining to prove the record is a hoax. Instead, it's just the opposite. Solomon Spalding was a poor writer, and anyone who knows anything about Alexander Campbell and the churches of Christ knows that if Sidney Rigdon had been writing the "religious text," the Book of Mormon would have taught far different doctrine than it does.

Has the Book of Mormon been revised? Yes, and in my opinion it could use some additional revising. Hugh Nibley actually though earlier versions of the book were more accurate, though as it is, the doctrine remains unchanged. It really does constitute a "marvelous work and a wonder" and a person can become much closer to God by reading it in conjunction with the Bible than by reading just the Bible.

The book was prophecied by Isaiah and others, and modern research has shown that neither Rigdon nor Spalding were the authors. The styles aren't even close.

It is a beautiful book.

[Billy]

The Book of Mormon could not have been written by anyone living in the 1800s.

Do you consider the Book of Mormon inspired fiction?

Why couldn't somebody living in the 1800's have written this book?

Could somebody from the 1800's write a fiction book (not the B of M for arguments sake) that tells of a ancient people and ancient religious practices, that has complex twists and turns etc., and that is internally consistent?

[why me]

I don't know if I would consider the book of mormon beautiful. But it does have its beautiful moments. To read the book of mormon is to read a lot of pain and suffering. For after all, it is a book of war and destruction. With every battle there were many widows and orphans. Nothing beautiful in that at all. The book of mormon is a book of war, destruction and hatred. And it doesn't say too much about the human character since evil eventually triumphed. To groups fighting it out until extinction engulfed one group.

Now there are beautiful moments in the book but the death and desolation far out weigh the beauty.

[why me]

Do you consider the Book of Mormon inspired fiction?

Why couldn't somebody living in the 1800's have written this book?

Could somebody from the 1800's write a fiction book (not the B of M for arguments sake) that tells of a ancient people and ancient religious practices, that has complex twists and turns etc., and that is internally consistent?

The problem with inspired fiction is finding the right author. Now of course, Sidney is looked upon as the author by some but then again this theory was around at the time of sidney. But sidney never claimed authorship and he certainly was not an active member when he died. He could have come clean at anytime but never did.

Some claim hyrum was the author. But hyrum went to his death for his brother. He received no glory for his work of fiction. Why would he die for that book with his brother?

We also need to remember that the book was not the major book of scripture for the early saints...the bible was. And so, if any mortal man of the 19th century wrote that book, you would think that they would wish the book to receive more play. It didn't. JS used the bible a great deal to make his points but of course he didn't ignore the book of mormon either.

But one still needs to find the author for the inspired fiction theory.

[Lightbearer]

That same line could easily have been (probably was?) shouted by critic ministers of Joseph's day and age. They had the Bible...why would they need anything more? What had that faithless generation done with what God had already given them?

I too have often wondered why God would give "scripture" at only select periods of time. Seems more like He's putting out new volumes all the time and we humans only canonize 1/1000th of what comes our way.

You fail to understand my response to Cinepro, since his post was filled with disrespect almost to the point of apostasy I was being sarcastic and also saying that it was not for him to challenge a Prophet of God and to complain about not receiving more revelation when that which has already been revealed in this generation (The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) is already being criticized and rejected by even those who call themselves members of the Church. So yes I would love more "written revelation from the Lord" but why can't people recognize the spoken revelation given every April and October as such? Could it be because if we get such specific information we cannot twist and interpret and rationalize it to fit our own personal agenda! If we do not listen to the voice of the living Prophet, it does not matter how many canonized books of scripture we have, they will not save us any more than they did the Jews who rejected Christ and His ancient apostles and prophets!

[Lightbearer]

Can you please share an example of a time when God gave additional scriptures to a group of people who were already fully using what they had? Were the early saints using the Bible so faithfully and completely that they were worthy of the Book of Mormon? Were they using the Book of Mormon so faithfully that God had to give them the Book of Abraham? Or 130+ individual canonized revelations?

And then it just stopped. Sure, there are conference talks and books written by GA's, but everyone knows they are mostly personal opinion. There have been statements from the First Presidency, but those read more like correlated press releases than anything like Joseph's revelation straight from the mouth of God.

Whether Joseph's ability to translate ancient documents and reveal "Thus saith the Lord..." revelations in olde English was given him by God, or something he just made up on his own is irrelevant. Either way, it is painfully obvious that that ability died with Joseph, and didn't make the transition to subsequent prophets. And based on the King Follet Discourse, I don't think it can be argued that Joseph had finished revealing everything he wanted us to know. Subsequent prophets have done a good job tending the doctrinal garden Joseph planted, but it would also be awesome if some new doctrinal plants could bloom every now and then (and "I don't know that we teach that" doesn't count.)

Who says revelation must be printed to be revelation? Think about this scripture:

(Alma 12:9-11) "And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

That is what I meant by my comment to you. Of course God wants to reveal to us all of His mysteries, but the limitation is with us not Him. The Prophet Joseph said that God did not reveal anything to Joseph that He was not willing to reveal to all the Saints as soon as they are ready to receive it. With more knowledge comes greater accountability, our minds are too darkened to receive some things, that is why we have not received them. When I hear the Prophet Thomas S. Monson speak I hear the voice of revelation to this generation and the words he imparts are revelation to us today. Are we listening or are we carping and murmuring about the things that he says? Are we looking beyond the mark? Seeking for things that we cannot understand or are we accepting his words with all patience and faith? That is what I am talking about, unfortunately we as a Church seem to fall short, but the good news is God has more patience with us than we do with Him.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Um . . . isn't it "to me he was so wonderful"?

Unless you're thinking Eddie Fisher suffered from a somewhat misguided Oedipal complex.

It would have to be wonderful...because I am not beautiful.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder, because I just don't see it. I find the Book of Mormon clunky, redundant, with run-on sentences, dead-end tangents, and a total lack of verisimilitude. The characters are one dimensional, with no real motivations other than pure goodness or pure evil (Just look at the Nephi/Laman and Lemuel dynamic). The battles depicted are moronic and childish: two tribes go to war, every single person is killed, and the tribal leaders just happen to the last ones standing, so they go at it. Come on. That wouldn't even fly in Lord of the Rings. Even B.H. Roberts admitted that the BoM seemed to be the product of an inexperienced and immature mind. It's also so sleep-inducingly dull that anyone who's read it can immediately relate to Mark Twain's description of the book as "chloroform in print."

Muslims swoon over the beauty of the Koran, too. It must lose a lot in translation, because I don't see it there, either.

What do you swoon over?

[Kevin Christensen]

Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder, because I just don't see it. I find the Book of Mormon clunky, redundant, with run-on sentences, dead-end tangents, and a total lack of verisimilitude. The characters are one dimensional, with no real motivations other than pure goodness or pure evil (Just look at the Nephi/Laman and Lemuel dynamic). The battles depicted are moronic and childish: two tribes go to war, every single person is killed, and the tribal leaders just happen to the last ones standing, so they go at it. Come on. That wouldn't even fly in Lord of the Rings. Even B.H. Roberts admitted that the BoM seemed to be the product of an inexperienced and immature mind. It's also so sleep-inducingly dull that anyone who's read it can immediately relate to Mark Twain's description of the book as "chloroform in print."

Muslims swoon over the beauty of the Koran, too. It must lose a lot in translation, because I don't see it there, either.

In explaining the meaning of the parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus comments, "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"

Their is a direct relationship between the soil in in which the word is planted, and the care given in the nurturing, and the yield. Some take the seed and get nothing. Others get a hundred fold harvest.

A shallow, careless approach yields a shallow, careless reading. For instance, consider the claim here for a "total lack of verisimilitude." When I compared Alma's conversion while "nigh unto death" with a wide range of studies on near death experience, I found that Alma demonstrates all of the characteristics not only of an NDE, but also all of the after-effects. That, I submit, is a clear demonstration of verisimilitude. I also find it multi-dimentional, quite realistic, rather then flat.

When Nibley described Lehi's perfectly paired qasida describing Laman and Lemuel not only as beautifully done by the standards of desert culture, but as being recounted in an appropriate social situation, and now, as having a plausible real world setting, I find another clear demonstration of verisimilitude.

The BYU Studies essay where a geologist compares the details of the destruction in 3 Nephi to a major volcanic event is another demonstration of verisimilitude. Nibley's and Daniel Peterson's and Sorenson's and Gardner's studies of the wars provide more. For instance, in Since Cumorah, Nibley compared the war chapters with his personal experiences in WWII and declared how utterly realistic it all is. He compares the Book of Mormon with Clauswitz, and finds its insights n the mark. Peterson compared it with the writings of moderns theorists of guerilla warefare. Sorenson and Gardner look in comparison with Mesoamerican practices and settings. Different soil, different care, and surprise, the same words provide a vastly different harvest.

A judgement that the Book of Mormon is "redundant" is one perspective. Studies by Goff and Parry and Welch and Rees on the importance of type scenes, and parallelism in Hebrew literature takes the same seed and places it in different soil, nurtures it differently, and the harvest changes more than 100 fold.

The claim that "even B.H. Roberts admitted that the BoM seemed to be the product of an inexperienced and immature mind" assumes that the Roberts study represents an authoritative, perceptive reading. I find the Roberts study to be shallow and unperceptive, badly dated in light of subsequent work by Nibley, Welch, Sorenson, Gardner, Goff, England, Peterson, Hamblin, and many others. Reliance on Roberts as "Authority" at this late date strikes me as immature and uninformed. The same goes for the recent Michael Coe judgement on the PBS site. He's honest enough to tell me exactly where he plants the seed, and how he nurtures it. Given those facts, I find his poor harvest completely understandable, and not at all threatening to my own judgement.

I can say the same thing about Twain's reading and his judgement. Twain demonstrates no real care in reading and contextualizing the book. A shallow, imature reading by a great writer is still uninformed and shallow. I count myself as an "anyone" who finds the Book of Mormon remarkable, exciting, beautiful reading. And I consistently find that it makes an huge difference in my reading in how I contextualize what I read, and how patient I am with questions that I have.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[consiglieri]

Shakespeare's sonnets are beautiful. As is the prose of Anne Rice in her latest offering. Are they the word of God as well?

Shakespeare wrote too many sonnets when he really didn't have anything to say.

A few of them are memorable, though.

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" Ya da ya da

But I am not necessarily equating beauty with the word of God in this thread.

I am equating beauty with the Book of Mormon. One does not necessarily mean the other.

Do you find the Book of Mormon text beautiful, Hoops?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Since the subject of beauty is in discussion I thought I'd drop a few quotes.

My favorite, from a musicians standpoint

Thanks for the great quotes, Mudcat!

Of course, there is the famous:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.

That is all ye know on earth

And all ye need to know.

All the Best!

--Keatslieri

[consiglieri]

Could somebody from the 1800's write a fiction book (not the B of M for arguments sake) that tells of a ancient people and ancient religious practices, that has complex twists and turns etc., and that is internally consistent?

Yes, and someone did. His name was Solomon Spaulding.

And thanks to the excerpts from that famous work quoted above, you can see that to confuse that text with the Book of Mormon would be to confuse night for day.

So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows

As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.

All the Best!

--Shakespearlieri

[consiglieri]

I don't think this is from the Bible, I looked up the references you gave me from your post and did not find:

1. Heaven made out of solid crystal substance

Not to sound patronizing, but do you know what "firmament" means?

Today, we view the heavens as extending up to the atmosphere and from there into outer space where, millions of miles away, various stars glimmer and glow.

Anciently, the heaven was viewed as a solid crystalline substance in which the stars were imbedded, and which rotated about the earth, thus accounting for the movement of the stars.

This view was subsequently modified somewhat to account for the "wandering" motion of the planets among the stars, each planet requiring its own separate firmament.

This is why the ancients were able to conceive of a flood of water above the firmament, which became dislodged at the time of the flood with disastrous results.

This also helps us understand what Malachi meant when he talked about God opening the "windows of heaven." We take it figuratively. He meant it literally.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[moreholinessgiveme]

As part of teaching gospel doctrine class, I have been reading (and reading hard) the Book of Mormon from the beginning and up through the end of the Book of Mosiah so far.

This would be well over my twentieth time reading the Book of Mormon.

When I read the Book of Mormon the first time at age 18, I received a strong witness that it is the Word of God. As important as that experience was to me, I was far from an expert on the contents of the book at the end of that first reading.

It was for me a profound and beautiful experience.

The surprising thing to me is that, the more I read the Book of Mormon, and the closer I read the Book of Mormon, the more beautiful it becomes.

The life I have experienced in the 30-years since I was 18 have informed my reading of the Book of Mormon, and I see depths and insights and experiences related in the Book of Mormon that went unappreciated and unrecognized when I was a teenager; or a twenty-something; or a thirty-something.

The thought that occurred to me the other night upon finishing Mosiah is that the Book of Mormon is "beautiful."

I am not sure of a better way to express it; and this is separate and apart from my spiritual witness that it is true.

It is simply a beautiful book.

I feel good when I read it.

It uplifts me.

I am left to wonder how a book alleged by critics to have been produced in upstate New York in the early 19th century could be so beautiful, and could continue to yield new insights and understandings after 20-readings and 30-years.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I could not agree with you more.

For me the beauty of the Book often comes to me in hindsight. I witness changes in my life, then I realize that the Book of Mormon was "dead on accurate" about those changes and how they take place. It is in the "mysteries revealed" soul to soul -- from God to me -- that make me love the Book and find it "beautiful."

Tom

[why me]

I can see people are ignoring my previous remarks about the book of mormon and beauty. I don't consider the book beautiful but it does have its beautiful moments. The book itself is one of war and destruction ending with the extinction of a race of people. I see nothing beautiful in that at all. Of course, one can comment on how beautiful it is to feel the words etc but the story itself is one of desolation. To use one's imagination is an exercise in feeling the pain of countless widows and children who lost their fathers and mothers in war.

If JS or someone else wrote it, their mind must have been just a little sick to make up such a story. Now the New Testament is filled with beautiful quotations by christ. But the book of mormon is a book of war between two people opposed to the others belief systems. It is a book of intolerance. But yes, it does have its beautiful moments. However if the book is a correct record of a civilization, the beauty lies in learning from the mistakes of the people who lived in the book of mormon.

[oceanblue]

I can see people are ignoring my previous remarks about the book of mormon and beauty. I don't consider the book beautiful but it does have its beautiful moments. The book itself is one of war and destruction ending with the extinction of a race of people. I see nothing beautiful in that at all. Of course, one can comment on how beautiful it is to feel the words etc but the story itself is one of desolation. To use one's imagination is an exercise in feeling the pain of countless widows and children who lost their fathers and mothers in war.

I don't think "beauty" has to be about puppy dogs and rainbows. There are photos from WWII of pain and destruction that are wonderfully beautiful for what they capture. Just the other day I stared for a long time at the photo of the Budhist monk emolating himself in the streets of Saigon back in the early 60s and found myself thinking it's one of the most beautiful images I've ever seen. Sometimes beauty is the capture of life. And pain and suffering are part of life. There are songs that are beautiful that are nothing if not sad.

I can see someone finding beauty is the narrative of, say the 2000 stripling warriors. Battles and deaths and all.

If JS or someone else wrote it, their mind must have been just a little sick to make up such a story.

Now we're talking!

[Anijen]

I have to agree with Consig... The Book of Mormon is beautiful and the more I read it the more the beauty of that book shines forth. 3rd Nephi is so moving. The more I read I think I feel excited like a young John Welch on his mission in Germany discovery chiasmus in the BoM how he must felt... Or the allegory of the vineyard, King Benjamin's speech or the Psalm of Nephi etc very very beautiful.

[Cold Steel]

Do you consider the Book of Mormon inspired fiction? Why couldn't somebody living in the 1800's have written this book? Could somebody from the 1800's write a fiction book (not the B of M for arguments sake) that tells of a ancient people and ancient religious practices, that has complex twists and turns etc., and that is internally consistent?

Now what did I say that could lead you to this conclusion?

Look, if someone's going to make up a book and palm it off on people, doesn't it stand to reason that as more is learned in the peripheral areas of what the book claims to be, that there must be greater evidence one way or the other? If Joseph Smith made it up, or if someone else in the 1800s made it up, that the more that is known about the Book of Mormon lands, the pre-exilic Jews, ancient cultures, Saudi Arabian geography, apocraphal literature and even 19th Century urban legends should increasingly show it to be a hoax. Or, if Joseph Smith was telling the truth, don't you think that increased knowledge in all of these areas would combine to indicate it was what he claimed it to be?

Well, if the combined scholarship of the world still can't conclusively prove this thing is a fake, I'd say that's probably a pretty good indication that it isn't a fake. It seems every few months something new is learned in one or more of these areas and each time it happens, Joseph Smith gains more credibility. Seems to me this shouldn't be happening if it had been written by Smith, or by Spalding, or by Rigdon. And folks like Zeus drop by, unload, then vanish from the debate.

Which reminds me, I can't tell how many times I've heard that the story of Noah was simply a warmed up version of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Since we have writings of the Gilgamesh flood stories that are older than the Noah stories, many archeologists wrongly conclude that Noah must have come from Gilgamesh. So I'm not too impressed when someone tells me about how much something is written about. So far no one has produced anything from the 19th Century that even sounds remotely like the Book of Mormon, and that includes anything written by Spalding.

What amazes me is that some of these people come by this board and think they're dropping things on us we've never heard before. Then, instead of sticking around, they take off, often reappearing under another name.

[Billy]

Not to sound patronizing, but do you know what "firmament" means?

Anciently, the heaven was viewed as a solid crystalline substance in which the stars were imbedded, and which rotated about the earth, thus accounting for the movement of the stars.

Below are several sources for firmament, which say that this is expanse, sky, heaven, or space.

As for the solid crystalline substance, I am still not sure where you got this from. You say that this was viewed as the case anciently, what source are you quoting?

LDS.org

FIRMAMENT

"The expanse of heaven, meaning, depending on the context, the atmosphere or the sidereal heavens. It is the KJV English translation of a Hebrew word meaning expanse"

FIRMAMENT

Wikipedia

"Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens, generally used in the context of Christianity,"

FIRMAMENT

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0101.htm David Guzik's Commentary on Genesis

"a. Let there be a firmament: The idea of a firmament is of an expanse (NIV, NAS) or space (NLT). The waters of the land are separated from the water vapor in the sky.

b. The waters which were above the firmament: Here, the Bible recognizes the existence of water vapor in the sky. â??The waters above the firmament thus probably constituted a vast blanket of water vapor above the troposphere and possibly above the stratosphere as well, in the high temperature region now known as the ionosphere, and extending far into space.â? (Morris) Such a vapor blanket would greatly change the ecology of the earth, and Henry Morris suggests several effects of a vapor blanket. . ."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Below are several sources for firmament, which say that this is expanse, sky, heaven, or space.

As for the solid crystalline substance, I am still not sure where you got this from. You say that this was viewed as the case anciently, what source are you quoting?

I think he was refering to revelations and how heavan or the place were God resides was like a giant crystal sphere. Ill have to find the verse for you.

[MormonMason]

Hebrew רָקַע (rāqă'), which is what the Hebrew רָקִיעַ (rāq

[All-Seeing Eye]

As part of teaching gospel doctrine class, I have been reading (and reading hard) the Book of Mormon from the beginning and up through the end of the Book of Mosiah so far.

This would be well over my twentieth time reading the Book of Mormon.

When I read the Book of Mormon the first time at age 18, I received a strong witness that it is the Word of God. As important as that experience was to me, I was far from an expert on the contents of the book at the end of that first reading.

It was for me a profound and beautiful experience.

The surprising thing to me is that, the more I read the Book of Mormon, and the closer I read the Book of Mormon, the more beautiful it becomes.

The life I have experienced in the 30-years since I was 18 have informed my reading of the Book of Mormon, and I see depths and insights and experiences related in the Book of Mormon that went unappreciated and unrecognized when I was a teenager; or a twenty-something; or a thirty-something.

The thought that occurred to me the other night upon finishing Mosiah is that the Book of Mormon is "beautiful."

I am not sure of a better way to express it; and this is separate and apart from my spiritual witness that it is true.

It is simply a beautiful book.

I feel good when I read it.

It uplifts me.

I am left to wonder how a book alleged by critics to have been produced in upstate New York in the early 19th century could be so beautiful, and could continue to yield new insights and understandings after 20-readings and 30-years.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I respectfully disagree.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

With? All of it? Have you read 2 Nephi 9-10 on the atonement? Have you read Mosiah 1-5; The sermon of King Benjamin? Have you read Jacob or the words of Abinadi? What type of â??literatureâ? do you find â??inspiringâ??' post='1208434925' date='May 30 2008, 01:04 AM']