Historicity Of The Bom

[Palerider]

Interesting. I really, really did not want the Book of Mormon to be true. I was happy with my life and lifestyle; I enjoyed my life. Unfortunately I prayed and fasted and found out the bloody thing was true and then was in a pickle. I have been a LDS for too many years to count now; at times I still wish it was not true. By nature I don't like authority and I am very skeptical of things. I still go with the bedrock teaching of Jesus; follow the Spirit. If you did not not receive an answer, then you don't have an answer. I hope that you continue to follow the Spirit.

I am curious, if you did not receive an answer why are you on this forum? Are you still trying to find an answer or is it something else?

Ever considered that you may have responded spiritually to the "tame branches" that I referenced above in my post to "BCspace"?

Edited September 13, 2011 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

I was pretty much raised in the Church. Did the mission, much of which I enjoyed. Did various assignments and callings including a couple of E.Q. presidencies, Young men's Pres., Bishopric (5 years) H.P. group leader. Temple marriage, All of my sons did missions, all of my kids did temple marriage. We tried pretty hard to give our lives to the Savior and the church.

Studied the history of the church, found the problems, couldn't find satisfactory answers. Thought this might be an interesting place to express myself anonymously since I didn't want to cause a row at the church.

It's their thing and they deserve to be able to worship in peace. In their house they have the last word.

But on the other hand I would never have been able to bite my tongue or sit on my hands forever. So I needed to physically leave the building but still have a place to talk about the issues. When the home teachers find me I only demand the same respect that I give them. When you're in my house.......I have the last word.

My experience here has been interesting to say the least..........

I still believe in Christ and all aspects of his sacrifice and atonement on our behalf as set out in the Bible. I still keep (as Mormon's would say) the commandments to the best of my ability, including the word of wisdom. I'd be happy to pay tithing if I had a church to attend although I do make donations to charitable causes that I have done some verification work on.

It happens in life; we meet a wall that we just cannot get through, over, or around and then we just stop or find another way. You found another way. I do not believe that truth is relative, but I do believe that we each gravitate to truths that fit and we focus on them. For this reason I believe that many follow the Spirit by being good Cathoics, Muslims, and Sihks.

There are times where I do get fed up with leaders, but I realize that I have problem with authority so I give them the benefit of the doubt. Other times I just shake my head in wonder and ignore them. Frankly, I tend to ignore a lot of what comes out of the Salt Lake. In the end I believe that God's will will be done and I just have to endure to the end.

May the Spirit continue to be present in your life and that your actions reflect his love and peace to your family and friends.

[Palerider]

It happens in life; we meet a wall that we just cannot get through, over, or around and then we just stop or find another way. You found another way. I do not believe that truth is relative, but I do believe that we each gravitate to truths that fit and we focus on them. For this reason I believe that many follow the Spirit by being good Cathoics, Muslims, and Sihks.

There are times where I do get fed up with leaders, but I realize that I have problem with authority so I give them the benefit of the doubt. Other times I just shake my head in wonder and ignore them. Frankly, I tend to ignore a lot of what comes out of the Salt Lake. In the end I believe that God's will will be done and I just have to endure to the end.

May the Spirit continue to be present in your life and that your actions reflect his love and peace to your family and friends.

Thanks Stormrider.

Sounds like a fairly level headed approach to me.

I have no problem with Heavenly Father leading a person to Christ through the LDS faith. The church just shouldn't be surprised when people outgrow them and the Spirit leads them on to a better, clearer understanding of things.........

Edited September 13, 2011 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

Thanks Stormrider.

Sounds like a fairly level headed approach to me.

I have no problem with Heavenly Father leading a person to Christ through the LDS faith. The church just shouldn't be surprised when people outgrow them and the Spirit leads them on to a better, clearer understanding of things.........

I feel much the same as you. Sometimes our Father in Heaven takes the hardheaded and guides them down a lonely path without community or congregation; they are just to dang harded headed to walk the higher path. Outgrow is not what comes to mind for such people. I really could not let the that last comment go unanswered. Shake that foggy head of yours and remove those cobwebs. The Church will be there when you are ready.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Storm Rider

[Palerider]

I feel much the same as you. Sometimes our Father in Heaven takes the hardheaded and guides them down a lonely path without community or congregation; they are just to dang harded headed to walk the higher path. Outgrow is not what comes to mind for such people. I really could not let the that last comment go unanswered. Shake that foggy head of yours and remove those cobwebs. The Church will be there when you are ready.

So, in your mind, what would "the higher path" be? What do you mean by "such people"? Which "church" would that be "when I am ready"?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hello Seattle, love the town BTW.

Interesting proposition, but you make many assumptions that I would reject. I have studied religion for decades. I am a skeptic at heart and don't easily follow just because others are doing so. I reject the premise that one can only approach the Book of Mormon from an intellectual position. In fact, I would counsel you that doing so is error. God, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, provided a path whereby both spirit and body are united. In doing so, he seeks for us to find balance between these two beings. If we only seek the intellectual then we deny the spirit and our conclusions are left to our own understanding. If we follow only the spirit then the body withers and progression is ended. It is in combining the two that happiness is found and exaltation becomes possible.

Faith is food for our spirit and it is through our faith that we learn most easily the things of the spirit: does God live, was Jesus the Christ, does a prophet guide the Church, etc. Is the Book of Mormon true? I don't think that science can answer the question presently; too much is unknown. Can you live by faith? What does it mean to do so? Is there a risk in living by faith? Does a person of faith still use his intellect? I recommend you read Pope John Paul II Encyclical letter FIDES ET RATIO. He does an excellent job of defining Faith and Reason and how we live with them in a balance manner. You can find it on the internet.

I choose to live by faith and hope to be a man of faith. I strive to learn and grow intellectually, but never so much that I cannot hear that still small voice whisper the eternal truths that save my sinful soul.

What you say reminds me of RIchard Poll's classic essay on the distinction between Iron Rod style Mormons and Liahona style Mormons HERE.

[Robert F. Smith]

In my opinion, the BoM cannot teach correctly about God if it is lying about history at the same. The Church bases it's truth claims on the fact that the BoM is a work of ancient scripture. There not even a smidgen of fictionality, allegory, or metaphor in it's overall presentation of history. Therefore, if the BoM is not historical to a significant degree, the LDS Church is not true.

d'accord.

[Storm Rider]

So, in your mind, what would "the higher path" be? What do you mean by "such people"? Which "church" would that be "when I am ready"?

Okay Pale, back to serious discussion. First, there is much that can be done in solitude i.e. without a church or congregation; however, in the long run I think it stunts spiritual growth. The higher path for me would be with a church. "Such people" relates directly to those you stated "The church just shouldn't be surprised when people outgrow them and the Spirit leads them on to a better". First, what is good for you does not mean it is good for me. Can the Spirit lead people in other spiritual paths, yes! Which is the "best" path; for some it is the LDS Church; it is a gospel of Exaltation. I believe that God will lead all his children to Exaltation in the end.

None of us know how it all fits together, but I believe our Father's Will will be done. Jesus is not the Savior of Christians alone, but he is the Savior of the whole world. All will come to the Father through him at some point. No other religion offers the plan of universal redemption as does the Church of Jesus Christ. Individuals, LDS in particular, can learn much from the spiritual paths of others, but all can learn from the Church also.

[Calm]

The church just shouldn't be surprised when <i>people outgrow them</i> and the Spirit leads them on to a better".  First, what is good for you does not mean it is good for me.  Can the Spirit lead people in other spiritual paths, yes!  Which is the "best" path; for some it is the LDS Church; it is a gospel of Exaltation.r />

I would suggest that what people outgrow is their current perception of the Church and it may require a separation for them to be able to ever see it in a different way, perhaps even a new way of perceiving that will not be available to them for various reasons until after death.

Thankfully, God has provide for that eventuality along with others.

[Questing Beast]

sunstoned, on 12 September 2011 - 09:41 PM, said: My experience is very close to yours. I wanted the BofM to be true. I really did. Fasting, prayer, more fasting and more prayer. I put the promise to the test, and I did not receive any validation of the BofM at all.

I'm glad I'm not alone and I suspect there are many more like us out there........

It takes some of "us" many years to get to that point. I have read the BofM well over two dozen times, cover to cover, and countless times in part. And I never entertained more than an intellectual belief in its literal historical claims. All that remains at this point is a respect for its complexity and internal consistency, which I think is equal to or greater than any other book's. The BofM is a stunningly impressive work of religious literature.

But I have to say that if it, along with any other religious literature, is reduced to mere analogy and inspiration, and is not to be considered literal history, then scripture loses a great deal of its authoritative power. It becomes a comparison of C. S. Lewis and "Mormon"; which is hardly impressive enough to make readers pay attention. Harry Potter is much more accessible and instructive to the general public than the BofM or even C. S. Lewis. And without literal historicity in its truth claims, the BofM is no more real than Harry Potter: yet the stories in it might impress some readers to better their lives....

[BCSpace]

In my opinion, the BoM cannot teach correctly about God if it is lying about history at the same. The Church bases it's truth claims on the fact that the BoM is a work of ancient scripture. There not even a smidgen of fictionality, allegory, or metaphor in it's overall presentation of history. Therefore, if the BoM is not historical to a significant degree, the LDS Church is not true.

I disagree.

Most of C. S. Lewis' works are fictional and yet they teach great truths regarding Heavenly Father. The Book of Mormon may have been someone's best and well intentioned attempts to teach the Gospel and still be fiction..........

The problem with that is C.S. Lewis never pretended his works were not fiction. JS presented the BoM as real and even had witnesses to the plates and claimed to see an angel. If some ancient writer made it all up, it still is an ancient work but would suffer from the same problem. It's presented as real history and the examples of the prophets and heroes therein carry no weight because not existing, they did not have any real visions or visitations nor were they guided or inspired by the Spirit as ostensibly we should be. How can we expect these things and other miracles in our lives if those that occured in the BoM were not real? The BoM would also be in opposition to the very existence of God because, being fictional, there is no testimony that God did any works among men.

This is one of the great conundrums regarding Mormonism. Everyone always wants to paint it as either black or white. They keep trying to use the parable of the good tree bringing forth good fruit. Unfortunately it's the wrong analogy.

Everything is black and white. There are no examples in all of existence of something that is not black and white. We are debating something black and white right now. Is the BoM is historical or not? Is any given part of the BoM historical or not?

The true analogy for the LDS faith is the tree that has had "wild branches" grafted in amongst the "tame branches" and thus brings forth both good and...... not so good fruit.

The BoM is the root because of it's foundational claims. The vine bears no fruit and dies if the root ceases to exist. If the root never existed, the vine never existed.

Edited September 13, 2011 by BCSpace

[SeattleGrunge]

Which book?

The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Part 1, 2 and 3)

[SeattleGrunge]

I'm glad I'm not alone and I suspect there are many more like us out there........

That is why I have put a significant amount of personal research into this. If the church and BOM are what they say they are and if one believs even slightly that they are true, then confirming that as true is the single most important thing in the world.

Because I grew up Mormon, I believed it to a certain extent. I'm overly analytical and a health professional, both of which created in me the analysis that I couldn't truly say I knew without a doubt that they were true via what I previously perceived as spiritual confirmations. Because of that I've done what I could both spiritually and intellectually (the latter because the former hadn't worked yet and to help promote the former) to prove it either correct or false. I've been intellectually honest too. I can't say with certainty that is true, and I can't say with certainty that it isn't true. There are no silver bullets for either side. I want to know if those who don't have the background for a basis of faith in the BOM agree that there are no silver bullets for either side. If not, what am I missing. If so, I feel better about my personal research and their intellectual integrity.

Finally, there must be a point where a number of arguments against the work have failed creating a complexity that makes the work seem not entirely humanly possible. I think I've arrived at that point after reading Brant's book, and want to know if others have as well.

Edited September 13, 2011 by SeattleGrunge

[mfbukowski]

Interesting. I really, really did not want the Book of Mormon to be true. I was happy with my life and lifestyle; I enjoyed my life. Unfortunately I prayed and fasted and found out the bloody thing was true and then was in a pickle. I have been a LDS for too many years to count now; at times I still wish it was not true. By nature I don't like authority and I am very skeptical of things. I still go with the bedrock teaching of Jesus; follow the Spirit. If you did not not receive an answer, then you don't have an answer. I hope that you continue to follow the Spirit.

I can totally relate!

The worst part was that those hicks from Utah had the true gospel! AUGH! Unimaginable!

[Hughes]

That is why I have put a significant amount of personal research into this. If the church and BOM are what they say they are and if one believs even slightly that they are true, then confirming that as true is the single most important thing in the world.

Because I grew up Mormon, I believed it to a certain extent. I'm overly analytical and a health professional, both of which created in me the analysis that I couldn't truly say I knew without a doubt that they were true via what I previously perceived as spiritual confirmations. Because of that I've done what I could both spiritually and intellectually (the latter because the former hadn't worked yet and to help promote the former) to prove it either correct or false. I've been intellectually honest too. I can't say with certainty that is true, and I can't say with certainty that it isn't true. There are no silver bullets for either side. I want to know if those who don't have the background for a basis of faith in the BOM agree that there are no silver bullets for either side. If not, what am I missing. If so, I feel better about my personal research and their intellectual integrity.

Finally, there must be a point where a number of arguments against the work have failed creating a complexity that makes the work seem not entirely humanly possible. I think I've arrived at that point after reading Brant's book, and want to know if others have as well.

Can you clarify what you would consider a "silver bullet"?

Because it seems to me the complete lack of any ancient copies in the original languages would be a deal breaker for me to believe that the BoM is an ancient work.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caractors_large.jpg

[T-Shirt]

Can you clarify what you would consider a "silver bullet"?

Because it seems to me the complete lack of any ancient copies in the original languages would be a deal breaker for me to believe that the BoM is an ancient work.

So, given the fact that today's copies of the Book of Mormon are about the same age as the copies of the Old Testament were at the time of Christ, and if you lived back then, when Peter came knocking at your door, would you have told him that since he had no evidence for the ancientness of his scriptures, it was a deal breaker?

Best,

T-Shirt

[SeattleGrunge]

Can you clarify what you would consider a "silver bullet"?

Because it seems to me the complete lack of any ancient copies in the original languages would be a deal breaker for me to believe that the BoM is an ancient work.

Yeah, a silver bullet would be something for which a fairly intellectual person (that can put aside personal biases) can look at and say there is no logical argument that makes sense of this contradiction. If the BOM claimed that all American Indians were direct descendents from Lehi and that he was a thoroughbred Jew, then I would say we have a silver bullet with today's DNA spectrum of the Native Americans. Culture may have stated that, but the BOM didn't and it was never proclaimed by one of the presidents as direct revelation (ie-1978 priesthood revelation).

[Fly Fisherman]

Finally, there must be a point where a number of arguments against the work have failed creating a complexity that makes the work seem not entirely humanly possible. I think I've arrived at that point after reading Brant's book, and want to know if others have as well.

Not to mention that there is, in my honest opinion, no reasonable alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon. See Dr. Peterson here: "In the Hope That Something Will Stick": Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon

If I ever have a moment of doubt, I come back to that.

The fact is, the falsehood of the Book of Mormon has no more been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all serious observers than has its truth. But what is even more striking is that critics of the Book of Mormon have not yet been able even to formulate a coherent counterexplanation, a unified global theory, with which to challenge the traditional story of the book's origins. As John A. Widtsoe remarked in his 1951 preface to the second volume of Francis Kirkham's New Witness for Christ in America, "Unbelievers in Joseph Smith's story have not been able to agree on any one explanation. It has even been [regarded as] necessary by some writers to change the explanation they first proposed. This unsuccessful, changing search is of itself an evidence of the truth of the Prophet's own story."

[SeattleGrunge]

Not to mention that there is, in my honest opinion, no reasonable alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon. See Dr. Peterson here: "In the Hope That Something Will Stick": Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon

If I ever have a moment of doubt, I come back to that.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks FF

[Jesterss]

What about the counter argument that perhaps people have provided a congruence of arguments against the BOM, but many LDS members overlook them because they feel in their hearts that the religion is right?

It's one thing to say that there's no "agreement by everyone" so there hasn't been a valid argument against our religion. Since this is a historicity forum and started on that I'll stick to that.

So what about the Book of Abraham? Egyptologists have studied the original document and JS translation and concluded that JS was completely wrong. It was about Osiris, not Abraham, and the works going on were not anything JS said they were.

Although it may not be direct history, D&C 87 was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith about a war breaking out starting with South Carolina, and including ALL nations.. That never happened. Therefore, a false prophecy..

[SeattleGrunge]

What about the counter argument that perhaps people have provided a congruence of arguments against the BOM, but many LDS members overlook them because they feel in their hearts that the religion is right?

It's one thing to say that there's no "agreement by everyone" so there hasn't been a valid argument against our religion. Since this is a historicity forum and started on that I'll stick to that.

So what about the Book of Abraham? Egyptologists have studied the original document and JS translation and concluded that JS was completely wrong. It was about Osiris, not Abraham, and the works going on were not anything JS said they were.

Although it may not be direct history, D&C 87 was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith about a war breaking out starting with South Carolina, and including ALL nations.. That never happened. Therefore, a false prophecy..

Give one example. I don't know of a single argument that good LDS scholars such as BG have "overlooked."

Your second paragraph makes the assumption that we have the entire papyri and we know how his translation process occurred. We don't have the former and the latter is explained very well in the books I mentioned in the original post.

[Nathair/|\]

I have often considered a slightly cynical and non-doctrinal theory that God may have given his children some exclusive revelations (ala blind men and the elephant) to see how they would treat each other when it came to sharing them and respecting each other.

The Mormon practice of providing saving ordinances for kindred dead is a plus - all other claims being equal. Many protestant neighbors can only muster a warning that I'm going to h***. Radical Islamists are intent on sending me there as soon as possible.

DCP pointed out a passage from the Qur’an that says much the same thing you are proposing.

His translation:

"To each of you we assigned a law and a program. If God had willed, he would have made you one community, but [he intended] to test you with regard to what he gave you. So compete with one another with respect to good deeds. Unto God you will return, all of you, and he will inform you regarding that wherein you differ."

I've found much value in studying other spiritual traditions both ancient and new and finding those principles that complement our own faith. By doing so, I believe, I get a more complete picture of the cosmos.

Yours under the universal oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Jesterss]

Give one example. I don't know of a single argument that good LDS scholars such as BG have "overlooked."

Your second paragraph makes the assumption that we have the entire papyri and we know how his translation process occurred. We don't have the former and the latter is explained very well in the books I mentioned in the original post.

I'm not familiar with who BG is, sorry, I'm a newbie here, but I found this subject and found it quite interesting, especially when someone made the assumption that nobody has a congruent disposition to the mormon faith, when there are a ton out there..

FairMormon try's their hand at making statements or counter arguments to anti-mormon statements but it doesn't take into affect someones actual position or argument back against their statements. Since I don't know BG I'll focus my answer on the prophecy part. Because I'm familiar with the fair mormon defense on this.

Joseph Smith prophecied that a war would break out starting in the southern state of south carolina and raising up the south against the north. Then it goes on to say how it would involve all nations. So the FairMormon belief is that the prophecy wasn't just regarding the civil war but the wars to follow? (in order to make the prophecy about all nations be correct)

That's ridiculous to even state. First off, it had to be about the civil war if you're even going to make the war even justified as a correct prophecy. Starting with South Carolina? Ok that was the civil war, but we know that ALL nations were not involved in the civil war.. fairmormon says thats what started the world wars but we know that's also not true. the civil war had nothing to do with the onset of the world wars, in fact, the united states had nothing to do with it, and didnt even join in until well after he had been going on. World War 1 was started due to conflicts in europe and hunger and territory and the balkan wars.... what's the history lesson to counter this? facts are facts.

[Jesterss]

I must also add dates to further position my point..

Civil War 1861-1865

World War 1 1914-1918

That's a span of 49 years between wars... Quite some time...