The Most Remarkable Thing in the Book of Mormon?

[consiglieri]

I should think that everybody on the board is familiar with the promise at the end of the Book of Mormon, frequently referred to as Moroni's Promise, to the effect that if the reader wants to know whether it is true, they should ask God in the name of Jesus; the promise being that the truth of it will be made known by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The point of this thread is not to talk about those who have received answers (I would be one), and those who have not (whose sincerity I would not begin to question).

Rather, looking at the presence of this promise as objectively as I can, I think it a remarkable thing to have in a book of purported scripture.

It is possibly the most remarkable thing in a book filled with remarkable things.

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree.

Couple it with Benjamin's sermon in early Mosiah and Alma's faith sermon in 32 (but keep all the surrounding stuff too,the Korihor, the Amulek, etc) and you have one absolutely remarkable book of scripture.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

To use the words of Lamanite...Big Up!

[Anijen]

I should think that everybody on the board is familiar with the promise at the end of the Book of Mormon, frequently referred to as Moroni's Promise, to the effect that if the reader wants to know whether it is true, they should ask God in the name of Jesus; the promise being that the truth of it will be made known by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The point of this thread is not to talk about those who have received answers (I would be one), and those who have not (whose sincerity I would not begin to question).

Rather, looking at the presence of this promise as objectively as I can, I think it a remarkable thing to have in a book of purported scripture.

It is possibly the most remarkable thing in a book filled with remarkable things.

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Very well put, so well put that I would like to use it someday, of course contributing it to you a online friend.

Anijen.

[Cold Steel]

The most remarkable thing about the Book of Mormon is the account in III Nephi. Whatever a person may expect, I think III Nephi exceeds it. But it's got so many things going for it that it's difficult to say what the most remarkable thing about it might be.

Critics will be quick to say that getting people to pray about the truthfulness of the work is a way for them to get an emotional response which they will mistake for the Spirit. To anyone who's ever received a real testimony, this is nonsense, yet it persists.

Even for atheists and agnostics, the Book of Mormon offers a purported translation of an ancient document. What could present more of a challenge than that? It should be as simple to dispel as was the Aquarian Gospel. As Hugh Nibley pointed out, picking any page at random should contain enough to give it the old heave-ho! And with knowledge multiplying at the incredible rate it is today, the Book of Mormon should prove easier than ever to disprove. Instead it becomes even more plausible, and that shouldn't happen.

[Jason]

The most remarkable thing about the Book of Mormon is that God does corroborate it.

[mpschmitt]

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Consig,

I think this statement you make above points out something very important that a lot of writers who are critical of the Church ignore about Joseph Smith. It frustrates me to no end when I hear someone assert that Joseph Smith was just a charlatan, only in it for his own gratification. The historical record simply doesn't support that conclusion in my view. Joseph Smith clearly believed that he was called of God, and he suffered tremendously for rocking the theological boat. This passage, as you suggest, is another evidence of that fact. When I look at all of the historical evidence available to me, I see in Joseph Smith a man who believed he was divinely commissioned and who was willing to suffer for the sake of Christ.

As far as I'm concerned, the critics can say what they want, but one thing they cannot say without treading on very unstable ground is that Joseph was knowingly hoodwinking his followers. He was as sincere and honest a man in his ministry as any I have ever studied, and even if I didn't believe his story (which I do, as you know), I believe I would still (like Robert V. Remini) marvel at his tenacity, capacity, and courage.

mp

[Mighty Curelom]

Hey Consig,

I think this statement you make above points out something very important that a lot of writers who are critical of the Church ignore about Joseph Smith. It frustrates me to no end when I hear someone assert that Joseph Smith was just a charlatan, only in it for his own gratification. The historical record simply doesn't support that conclusion in my view. Joseph Smith clearly believed that he was called of God, and he suffered tremendously for rocking the theological boat. This passage, as you suggest, is another evidence of that fact. When I look at all of the historical evidence available to me, I see in Joseph Smith a man who believed he was divinely commissioned and who was willing to suffer for the sake of Christ.

As far as I'm concerned, the critics can say what they want, but one thing they cannot say without treading on very unstable ground is that Joseph was knowingly hoodwinking his followers. He was as sincere and honest a man in his ministry as any I have ever studied, and even if I didn't believe his story (which I do, as you know), I believe I would still (like Robert V. Remini) marvel at his tenacity, capacity, and courage.

mp

There's a third possibility: Joseph Smith sincerely believed the stories that popped into his head came from some divine source. Knowing that people are more likely to believe something with some kind of physical evidence, he invented the story of the gold plates to give his tales an anchor in the physical world. In this manner, JS could have been sincere in his religious convictions and a charlatan. In Joseph's mind, the lie of the gold plates was offset by the "truth" of the stories contained therein.

This possibility is supported by the D&C section in which God/Joseph explains the process of translation/revelation to Oliver Cowdery. That process is described as "pondering it" (whatever "it" is), and praying about the answer you come up with. If you get a good feeling, the answer you thought up on your own is revelation (or "translation," as the case may be). If you're met with the infamous "stupor of thought," then whatever your imagination was pumping out is decidedly not from God.

A person with this understanding of revelation/translation could easily dupe themselves into believing their own fanciful imagination was actually a direct communication from the heavens. In fact, millions of people engage in this kind of magical thinking every day.

As for Moroni's promise: I'm afraid I'm utterly unimpressed. It's a test without the possibility of failure, as is demonstrated every time an apologist attempts to explain why someone didn't receive the expected positive outcome. "Just keep trying...it'll happen," or "It only works if you pray with a sincere heart. Maybe you aren't praying as sincerely as you think you are." There's no way to lose--the horizon can be extended infinitely, and if that doesn't work the true intentions of the investigator can be questioned. No matter what, Moroni's promise cannot produce a negative result. How is that daring? How is that sticking your neck out?

Even putting that issue aside, Moroni's promise is no different from the same claims made by innumerable charlatans. Are as as impressed by Uri Gellar when he lets his audience handle a spoon before he bends it "with his mind"? Are you as impressed by politicians who boldly and forcefully deny allegations of misconduct ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman")? What about money-back guarantees on questionable merchandise? Are you convinced of the efficacy of "male enlargement" pills if the guy on late-night TV tells you he'll give you a full refund if you're not totally satisfied?

That last example is probably the most apropos, since a portion of the people who buy that stuff will actually claim to have experienced positive results. All it takes is a confident salesman, a placebo, and a suggestible dupe. I wouldn't be surprised if Moroni's promise produces a positive outcome on the same relative portion of the population as "male enhancement" pills, along with healing magnetic bracelets and toxin absorbing foot pads.

You are dangerously close to the line. Watch how you speak of Joseph Smith and what you compare our religion to. ~Mods

[blackstrap]

sick comparison oh mighty giant sloth!!!

[Avatar4321]

I have always thought the promise was a remarkable thing. How many books in the world come with a promise that God will reveal that its true if you ask him? Just one. Ever.

and i think close to that the most remarkable thing found in the Book of Mormon are the witnesses.

[JeffM]

I should think that everybody on the board is familiar with the promise at the end of the Book of Mormon, frequently referred to as Moroni's Promise, to the effect that if the reader wants to know whether it is true, they should ask God in the name of Jesus; the promise being that the truth of it will be made known by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The point of this thread is not to talk about those who have received answers (I would be one), and those who have not (whose sincerity I would not begin to question).

Rather, looking at the presence of this promise as objectively as I can, I think it a remarkable thing to have in a book of purported scripture.

It is possibly the most remarkable thing in a book filled with remarkable things.

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps. Or it might be that he was just confident there were plenty of people around who could be convinced of God's corroboration.

[sleepyhead]

I have always thought the promise was a remarkable thing. How many books in the world come with a promise that God will reveal that its true if you ask him? Just one. Ever.

and i think close to that the most remarkable thing found in the Book of Mormon are the witnesses.

Hello avatar,

In the beginning of my book of mormon there are two testimonies by joseph Smith. Underneath them one has three printed names and one had 8 printed names. I was wondering if any of these individuals actually signed this testimony. I've looked around but I couildn't find any signatures.

[cinepro]

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Actually, Moroni 10:5 extends that promise to everything that has ever been written.

With the exception of forged documents and inspiring war/baseball stories, of course.*

Also, keep in mind that the structure of the promise can only lead one to a conclusion that it is more likely true. You can figure out how likely here.

*The point of that comment is to indirectly point out that the Holy Ghost has not proven to be a reliable indicator of the truthfulness of claims. I think it's easy to overestimate that value of a confirmation from the Holy Ghost. If Moroni also insisted that archaeological evidence would be forthcoming that would confirm the book's claims (starting with the artifacts he himself was depositing to be found 1400 years later), now that would be something.

[LeSellers]

In the beginning of my book of mormon there are two testimonies by joseph Smith. Underneath them one has three printed names and one had 8 printed names. I was wondering if any of these individuals actually signed this testimony. I've looked around but I couildn't find any signatures.

I haven't seen any such document. However, since all eleven of the witnesses lived long after the publication of their testimonies, if they, or any one of them had any objection, he could have raised it in public. None ever did. Many had good reason to (had the testimony been fabricated), but none did. Many had personal disputes with Joseph and could easily have renounced his testimony, but none did. Some died in opposition to either Joseph or the Church he restored, and all (where we have any record at all) affirmed their testimonies.

Their physical signatures may not be available, but their strong endorsement by tacit approval or powerful restatement ought to suffice.

Lehi

[sleepyhead]

I haven't seen any such document. However, since all eleven of the witnesses lived long after the publication of their testimonies, if they, or any one of them had any objection, he could have raised it in public. None ever did. Many had good reason to (had the testimony been fabricated), but none did. Many had personal disputes with Joseph and could easily have renounced his testimony, but none did. Some died in opposition to either Joseph or the Church he restored, and all (where we have any record at all) affirmed their testimonies.

Their physical signatures may not be available, but their strong endorsement by tacit approval or powerful restatement ought to suffice.

Lehi

Since they all lived long enough to raise objections then they must have lived long enough to provide there own written testimony, and therefore we should be able to read unedited testimonies by these people. If all of there testimonies have been edited then they have no value.

[Pandorian]

That guy getting his head scalped off was very interesting

[LeSellers]

Since they all lived long enough to raise objections then they must have lived long enough to provide there own written testimony, and therefore we should be able to read unedited testimonies by these people. If all of there testimonies have been edited then they have no value.

I can't say that all of them left written testimonies, but many did.

Daniel C. Peterson, PhD., has pointed several times to the book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. The witnesses did not die "intestate" as it were.

Lehi

[oremites]

Perhaps. Or it might be that he was just confident there were plenty of people around who could be convinced of God's corroboration.

Write a book, declare it as scripture and have people pray about it. Get enough people to pray and there are sure to be some who fall for it. Genius!

Funny nobody else ever thought of it. Or has tried it since.

[sleepyhead]

Write a book, declare it as scripture and have people pray about it. Get enough people to pray and there are sure to be some who fall for it. Genius!

Funny nobody else ever thought of it. Or has tried it since.

Whats the name of that group that tom cruise is a member of? I know they have a book of scripture.

[LeSellers]

Whats the name of that group that tom cruise is a member of? I know they have a book of scripture.

As best I can tell, Dianetics is not held to be "scripture", certainly not as we Christians (or Jews or Mouselemins) count "scripture".

There was nothing "supernatural" about anything Hubbard did or wrote (and he did not claim there was), thetans notwithstanding.

Lehi

[mpschmitt]

There's a third possibility: Joseph Smith sincerely believed the stories that popped into his head came from some divine source. Knowing that people are more likely to believe something with some kind of physical evidence, he invented the story of the gold plates to give his tales an anchor in the physical world. In this manner, JS could have been sincere in his religious convictions and a charlatan. In Joseph's mind, the lie of the gold plates was offset by the "truth" of the stories contained therein.

The trouble I have with the "invention of the story of the gold plates" theory is the number of people who actually saw and handled the plates. Joseph must have gone to great lengths (including coming up with a quantity of gold (or gold like metal) that he couldn't possibly have afforded at that time, and hiring someone to dress up like an angel convincingly enough to persuade three reasonably normal seeming men to believe that they had seen one, and then persuading whoever the bloke was who dressed up like an angel to never say a word of it to anyone (maybe the Danites got 'im ). I don't believe the theory some posit that Joseph was just an exceptionally good hypnotist, so that explains the angel bit. I find no evidence in the historical record to support such a notion. Also, none of the witnesses to these things ever retracted their statements, though some fell away from the church. Interesting factoid that...

This possibility is supported by the D&C section in which God/Joseph explains the process of translation/revelation to Oliver Cowdery. That process is described as "pondering it" (whatever "it" is), and praying about the answer you come up with. If you get a good feeling, the answer you thought up on your own is revelation (or "translation," as the case may be). If you're met with the infamous "stupor of thought," then whatever your imagination was pumping out is decidedly not from God.

I've had good results using this proven system. Please see my infomercial...

A person with this understanding of revelation/translation could easily dupe themselves into believing their own fanciful imagination was actually a direct communication from the heavens. In fact, millions of people engage in this kind of magical thinking every day.

Yes they could, and if that is your view, it's an entirely defensible one (though I disagree with it personally). My point was that you can't simply dismiss Joseph Smith as an out-and-out fraud because the historical evidence needs to be quite wrangled to support that view. You seem to agree with that portion of my point, though you disagree with my conclusion that he was a genuine prophet. I'm okay with that.

As for Moroni's promise: I'm afraid I'm utterly unimpressed. It's a test without the possibility of failure, as is demonstrated every time an apologist attempts to explain why someone didn't receive the expected positive outcome. "Just keep trying...it'll happen," or "It only works if you pray with a sincere heart. Maybe you aren't praying as sincerely as you think you are." There's no way to lose--the horizon can be extended infinitely, and if that doesn't work the true intentions of the investigator can be questioned. No matter what, Moroni's promise cannot produce a negative result. How is that daring? How is that sticking your neck out?

ibid (the infomercial)...

Even putting that issue aside, Moroni's promise is no different from the same claims made by innumerable charlatans. Are as as impressed by Uri Gellar when he lets his audience handle a spoon before he bends it "with his mind"? Are you as impressed by politicians who boldly and forcefully deny allegations of misconduct ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman")? What about money-back guarantees on questionable merchandise? Are you convinced of the efficacy of "male enlargement" pills if the guy on late-night TV tells you he'll give you a full refund if you're not totally satisfied?

I've not found any figure in history outside of biblical Judeo-Christian history that I can reasonably compare to Joseph Smith (with one possible exception being Mohamed, though that only goes so far in my view). Charlatans and false prophets fail to measure up to what this man managed to accomplish in my view. I've read other Holy books from other religions and have not yet found a book (the bible excepted, of course) whose spiritual depth and principles can measure up to what I find in the Book of Mormon. I'm left to ask myself, What do I make of this man who brought this book to light? He was uneducated yet able to write sermon after sermon, in different literary voices, that rival the best of the best in theological content of the first and second Great Awakenings. He had nuances and aspects to the work that revealed characteristics of ancient writings that were either not known at the time or would have required a familiarity with manuscripts that he did not have. He dictated the book straight over 60 days, spelling words he couldn't pronounce, and occasionally seeming surprised himself at the contents of the story. He would get up from translating to take a break and return to where he was seated several minutes (or hours) later and pick up right where he left off without asking his scribe to refresh his memory. He kept his story consistent throughout despite many branching and intertwining histories and events. So much so that it had a very historical feel to it. There are many places in the Book of Mormon that I find to be elegant and beautiful prose. Not anything I could imagine Joseph capable of writing given what I've studied of him. Certainly something to ponder. If he wasn't a prophet, how did he manage that? Has anyone in the history of the earth singlehandedly created such a work before or since?

That last example is probably the most apropos, since a portion of the people who buy that stuff will actually claim to have experienced positive results. All it takes is a confident salesman, a placebo, and a suggestible dupe. I wouldn't be surprised if Moroni's promise produces a positive outcome on the same relative portion of the population as "male enhancement" pills, along with healing magnetic bracelets and toxin absorbing foot pads.

I find a great distinction between what I have experienced and now believe, and the smooth talking con-man. But that's a matter of opinion, and I'll understand if you don't buy it.

(But if you do accept my view in the next 15 minutes, I'll also throw in a super absorbent travel hanky absolutely free)

[Kyle]

As best I can tell, Dianetics is not held to be "scripture", certainly not as we Christians (or Jews or Mouselemins) count "scripture".

You think they care what you count as scripture? Or lets reverse it and ask you if you care what they count as scripture?

There was nothing "supernatural" about anything Hubbard did or wrote (and he did not claim there was), thetans notwithstanding.

Lehi

As far as you know.

Let me ask you, have you prayed and pondered about his book and teachings sincerely, or have you just listened to what others say about him?

[jo1952]

This seems like an appropriate place to make this post.

I have a very close friend who is extremely intelligent, well read, and a God fearing Christian. He participates on many websites debating the Bible. He is a faithful church goer - a decent human being; loving, caring.....knows his scriptures AND has a fine understanding of what he reads. In fact, he is a stickler for accuracy and has not only satisfied his own spiritual search for truth, he has done extensive research into the background of the books in the Bible, etc. He is a reasonable man.

I asked him to read the Book of Mormon which he did. He then wanted to read the D&C and the PofGP; which he has. His conclusion is this. He wants to do more research. For years he has read about and been taught we are a cult - the usual anti-LDS arguments. As a result of actually reading all of our scriptures - and praying for the power of discernment before he read any of them (those were his words for prayer), he believes we ARE Christians. He believes the Book of Mormon is doctrinely sound. He believes JS was an inspired individual who loved God and was trying to do the right thing. He does not believe JS was trying to dupe anybody. He thinks all of the anti-JS arguments are refutable and have nothing to do with the accomplishments achieved by JS. He also thinks JS just got carried away with things by the time he started writing the D&C.

I have given him my copy of the new book defending the BoM with 80 different evidences. He would make a super Mormon.

If you know of any other sources I can refer him to, please let me know. If there is any irrefutable evidence that has been uncovered which JS could not have known about, he will know and accept the BofM is, indeed, what it claims to be. At that point, he will know JS WAS a prophet.....and the issues he has with doctrine in our other scriptures will then be accepted on faith. Meanwhile, he will start investigating the references listed in the new book of 80 evidences as soon as he finishes another book he is reading which is some 1200 pages (not related to the Church).

I will keep you posted on what is happening.

[Mighty Curelom]

The trouble I have with the "invention of the story of the gold plates" theory is the number of people who actually saw and handled the plates. Joseph must have gone to great lengths (including coming up with a quantity of gold (or gold like metal) that he couldn't possibly have afforded at that time, and hiring someone to dress up like an angel convincingly enough to persuade three reasonably normal seeming men to believe that they had seen one, and then persuading whoever the bloke was who dressed up like an angel to never say a word of it to anyone (maybe the Danites got 'im ). I don't believe the theory some posit that Joseph was just an exceptionally good hypnotist, so that explains the angel bit. I find no evidence in the historical record to support such a notion. Also, none of the witnesses to these things ever retracted their statements, though some fell away from the church. Interesting factoid that...

I don't believe JS was a hypnotist either. But he was a persuasive, enthusiastic, charismatic individual living in a time and place where magical thinking was the norm. I don't find it difficult to believe a person like that could get a group of highly suggestible, superstitious, magical thinking country bumpkins to think they saw something they didn't. And memory being what it is, they may have even manufactured memories of angelic visitations years after the initial event took place. It's not really THAT big of a jump from "I saw it in my mind's eye" to "I saw it with my own eyes." I've read a lot about the nature of memory and the psychology of belief, and I know for a fact stranger things have happened. The likelihood that a few highly suggestible religious zealots could work themselves into a visionary state is, to me, much more likely than actual angels. Obviously you disagree.

Yes they could, and if that is your view, it's an entirely defensible one (though I disagree with it personally). My point was that you can't simply dismiss Joseph Smith as an out-and-out fraud because the historical evidence needs to be quite wrangled to support that view. You seem to agree with that portion of my point, though you disagree with my conclusion that he was a genuine prophet. I'm okay with that.

It may be the position of the Evangelical anti-Mormons that JS was an evil fraud, out for nothing but money and fame. But the more thoughtful non-believers (I won't even say "critics" because I'm not criticizing anything) have universally arrived at the so-called "pious fraud" understanding of JS. It's practically a straw man to attack the "out-and-out fraud" antis.

I've not found any figure in history outside of biblical Judeo-Christian history that I can reasonably compare to Joseph Smith (with one possible exception being Mohamed, though that only goes so far in my view).

And that's why you're a Mormon. Your opinion of the BoM is not universally shared. In fact, it's shared by a minuscule percentage of the general public, and that percentage drops precipitously with increased education levels (excepting, of course, Mormons born into the religion, but that's another topic.)

If he wasn't a prophet, how did he manage that? Has anyone in the history of the earth singlehandedly created such a work before or since?

This is a disingenuous challenge, since anything I name will necessarily be different in some respect. If I say that Mohammed wrote a book and founded a religion with over 1 billion believers, you'll say that Mohammed was older than Joseph when he wrote the Koran, and that, besides, the Koran isn't as impressive as the BoM. If I name L. Ron Hubbard, whose religion has grown larger than the LDS church in less than 50 years, you'll dismiss him out of hand. There are the founders of the Seventh Day Adventist religion, and the Watchtower. There are thousands of sects, Christian and otherwise, and most of them can be traced to charismatic leader. Mormonism is not unique--or, at least, it is no more unique than every other religion. And Joseph Smith was not unique either--just one of the more successful charismatic zealots to found a religion. And no miracle in LDS mythology/history is any more impressive or unexplainable than the collections of supposed miracles that every religion accumulates, and which you, no doubt, dismiss as easily as I dismiss those relating to Mormonism.

[The Dude]

I should think that everybody on the board is familiar with the promise at the end of the Book of Mormon, frequently referred to as Moroni's Promise, to the effect that if the reader wants to know whether it is true, they should ask God in the name of Jesus; the promise being that the truth of it will be made known by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I am familiar with it. When I was an LDS missionary, I tried to implement it every time I met with an investigator, asking him/her to read and pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. So yes, I am quite familiar with it.

Rather, looking at the presence of this promise as objectively as I can, I think it a remarkable thing to have in a book of purported scripture.

It is possibly the most remarkable thing in a book filled with remarkable things.

Not really. If I can offer my opinion, it would be that such a promise is just the kind of thing one would expect to find in a book of purported scripture. Common Evangelical tracts end with an invitation to commit, to make a spiritual effort. The Book of Mormon's invitation to read, study and pray is functionally similar to asking someone to pray and accept Jesus as his savior.

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

I would just point out that Evangelical tracts have the same confidence in their invitations, if we take them at face value. It's all rather commonplace IMO.

I would go on but I would just be repeating parts of Mighty Curelom's fine post about other evangelical sects, Mohammed, L Ron Hubbard, etc.