Historicity Of The Bom

[SeattleGrunge]

First my question, then my background for asking:

Who are the top couple of Mormon Studies people that have a broad grasp on the facts surrounding the origins of the BOM, yet do not believe it is an actual book from an ancient people, and which of the following would be their thoughts on it:

A-Instinctively I don't think it is divine, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

B-I'm still holding judgement, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

C-Something else?

I don't ask this facetiously or snidely. I would say until recently I have had a serious personal, moral dilemma over never having had what people describe as an undeniable spiritual experience to validate the BOM's veracity, or the church in general for that matter. I have hoped for that or even for an undeniable intellectual explanation, though I didn't hold out much hope for the latter. After reading (almost, not quite finished) his book, and taking into account all the other reading/research I've done on the subject over the past few years, I don't think an intellectually honest person can look at the whole story and think of anything other than the above answers A or B. There are too many positives (things JS couldn't have known, but are in there nevertheless) and some fairly good explanations for the negatives (ie-candle anachronism or KJV similarities). I think knowing everything I do I have to conclude either we are missing some information that would explain how JS pulled this off, or God really did have JS do this even though it wasn't done as clean and perfectly as I assumed in my youth growing up in the church.

I'd really like to know. For example, I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity. Has he given an answer on this? Also, what do you think?

[bu11fr0g]

I would say more like

D- The problems in the Book of Mormon massive enough that the 'positives' & 'good explanations for the negatives' which are in proportion so minor can be attributable to good fortune for the time being.

[Storm Rider]

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.

[altersteve]

There are plenty of intellectually minded people who truly believe, from the bottom of their hearts, that this book is an authentic translation of an text written on gold plates by ancient American prophets. But they understand, as Storm Rider said, that basing your testimony on reason alone is harmful. If you have truly a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is true, then no criticism against it will cause you to doubt. This spiritual confirmation will allow you to look upon every criticism, every so-called "anachronism," every KJV similarity with confidence, knowing that it will one day be reconciled with our knowledge of the book's truthfulness, and that the critics will one day, either in this life or the next, be proven 100% wrong.

"I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken" (2 Nephi 9:40).

[thesometimesaint]

Having had that Divine Inspiration that the Book of Mormon is true long before I knew of any physical evidence for its truthfulnes. I hold to that testamony. But at the same time I am pleased that as time goes on the Book of Mormon is shown to be more and more correct.

[Vance]

Having had that Divine Inspiration that the Book of Mormon is true long before I knew of any physical evidence for its truthfulnes. I hold to that testamony. But at the same time I am pleased that as time goes on the Book of Mormon is shown to be more and more correct.

Ditto!

[Questing Beast]

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

E. T. Benson quoted that repeatedly. It was the core of his BofM promotion. "Correct" does not require historical placement or explanation. The BofM TEACHES. It teaches correctly. Everything else is empirical wrestling.

But does the BofM teach exclusively? By that I mean to ask: Does the BofM teach the only "truth" that "God" believes in, and that he requires all people to adhere to? The same question is applied to the Bible; to the Judeo-Christian religions. I believe that the answer is "No". It is a fallacy to demand that all people believe in your religion in order for "God" to save them. There is no tie-breaker where arguing for religious exclusivity is concerned. So Joseph Smith's assertion that the BofM brings people closer to God than any other book is a strictly egocentric assertion by the founder of the religion resulting from the book....

[altersteve]

Joseph Smith's assertion that the BofM brings people closer to God than any other book is a strictly egocentric assertion by the founder of the religion resulting from the book....

The Book of Mormon, if understood correctly (that is very important), brings people closer to God than any other book because it plainly teaches the gospel message, that Jesus is the Christ, in its fullness. That is not to say, however, that the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Apocrypha, and even the Qur'an, the Tao Te Ching, the United States Constitution, and other texts do not draw people closer to God — I strongly believe they can and do. All Joseph was saying was that those who correctly understand the fullness of the gospel, as it is taught in the Book of Mormon, will come to a fuller understanding of the nature and character of the Father and the Son and Their plan for us, which in turn leads to a deeper relationship with Them.

Hardly an "egocentric assertion" at all.

[Questing Beast]

A Muslim will assert that the Koran brings one closer to God than any other book. A Jew will assert the same for the Torah. Ditto the canonical texts of the Bahá'í Faith. Where the founder is also the dispenser of the religious texts, I cannot see that "egocentric assertion" is an inaccurate statement of what Joseph Smith was doing with that quote....

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

Ask God. Then go with the answer you get.

[Palerider]

QB:

Ask God. Then go with the answer you get.

I have.

Numerous times. Fasting and prayer.

I really wanted the B of M to be true. As you have said, I went with the answer I got.

Nothing in the B of M remotely comes close to the testimony I have received of the Biblical scriptures. To me it is a fair example of 19th century preaching and a poor substitute for writings inspired by the Holy Ghost given through true prophets.

[cdowis]

Have you tried Alma 32.

[sunstoned]

I have.

Numerous times. Fasting and prayer.

I really wanted the B of M to be true. As you have said, I went with the answer I got.

Nothing in the B of M remotely comes close to the testimony I have received of the Biblical scriptures. To me it is a fair example of 19th century preaching and a poor substitute for writings inspired by the Holy Ghost given through true prophets.

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.

[Olavarria]

First my question, then my background for asking:

Who are the top couple of Mormon Studies people that have a broad grasp on the facts surrounding the origins of the BOM, yet do not believe it is an actual book from an ancient people, and which of the following would be their thoughts on it:

A-Instinctively I don't think it is divine, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

B-I'm still holding judgement, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

C-Something else?

I don't ask this facetiously or snidely. I would say until recently I have had a serious personal, moral dilemma over never having had what people describe as an undeniable spiritual experience to validate the BOM's veracity, or the church in general for that matter. I have hoped for that or even for an undeniable intellectual explanation, though I didn't hold out much hope for the latter. After reading (almost, not quite finished) his book, and taking into account all the other reading/research I've done on the subject over the past few years, I don't think an intellectually honest person can look at the whole story and think of anything other than the above answers A or B. There are too many positives (things JS couldn't have known, but are in there nevertheless) and some fairly good explanations for the negatives (ie-candle anachronism or KJV similarities). I think knowing everything I do I have to conclude either we are missing some information that would explain how JS pulled this off, or God really did have JS do this even though it wasn't done as clean and perfectly as I assumed in my youth growing up in the church.

I'd really like to know. For example, I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity. Has he given an answer on this? Also, what do you think?

Which book?

[Olavarria]

First my question, then my background for asking:

Who are the top couple of Mormon Studies people that have a broad grasp on the facts surrounding the origins of the BOM, yet do not believe it is an actual book from an ancient people, and which of the following would be their thoughts on it:

A-Instinctively I don't think it is divine, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

B-I'm still holding judgement, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

C-Something else?

I don't ask this facetiously or snidely. I would say until recently I have had a serious personal, moral dilemma over never having had what people describe as an undeniable spiritual experience to validate the BOM's veracity, or the church in general for that matter. I have hoped for that or even for an undeniable intellectual explanation, though I didn't hold out much hope for the latter. After reading (almost, not quite finished) his book, and taking into account all the other reading/research I've done on the subject over the past few years, I don't think an intellectually honest person can look at the whole story and think of anything other than the above answers A or B. There are too many positives (things JS couldn't have known, but are in there nevertheless) and some fairly good explanations for the negatives (ie-candle anachronism or KJV similarities). I think knowing everything I do I have to conclude either we are missing some information that would explain how JS pulled this off, or God really did have JS do this even though it wasn't done as clean and perfectly as I assumed in my youth growing up in the church.

I'd really like to know. For example, I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity. Has he given an answer on this? Also, what do you think?

Which book?

[Olavarria]

First my question, then my background for asking:

Who are the top couple of Mormon Studies people that have a broad grasp on the facts surrounding the origins of the BOM, yet do not believe it is an actual book from an ancient people, and which of the following would be their thoughts on it:

A-Instinctively I don't think it is divine, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

B-I'm still holding judgement, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

C-Something else?

I don't ask this facetiously or snidely. I would say until recently I have had a serious personal, moral dilemma over never having had what people describe as an undeniable spiritual experience to validate the BOM's veracity, or the church in general for that matter. I have hoped for that or even for an undeniable intellectual explanation, though I didn't hold out much hope for the latter. After reading (almost, not quite finished) his book, and taking into account all the other reading/research I've done on the subject over the past few years, I don't think an intellectually honest person can look at the whole story and think of anything other than the above answers A or B. There are too many positives (things JS couldn't have known, but are in there nevertheless) and some fairly good explanations for the negatives (ie-candle anachronism or KJV similarities). I think knowing everything I do I have to conclude either we are missing some information that would explain how JS pulled this off, or God really did have JS do this even though it wasn't done as clean and perfectly as I assumed in my youth growing up in the church.

I'd really like to know. For example, I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity. Has he given an answer on this? Also, what do you think?

Which book?

[Olavarria]

First my question, then my background for asking:

Who are the top couple of Mormon Studies people that have a broad grasp on the facts surrounding the origins of the BOM, yet do not believe it is an actual book from an ancient people, and which of the following would be their thoughts on it:

A-Instinctively I don't think it is divine, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

B-I'm still holding judgement, but it is too complicated and not enough information is known still to give a clear explanation of how it came to be.

C-Something else?

I don't ask this facetiously or snidely. I would say until recently I have had a serious personal, moral dilemma over never having had what people describe as an undeniable spiritual experience to validate the BOM's veracity, or the church in general for that matter. I have hoped for that or even for an undeniable intellectual explanation, though I didn't hold out much hope for the latter. After reading (almost, not quite finished) his book, and taking into account all the other reading/research I've done on the subject over the past few years, I don't think an intellectually honest person can look at the whole story and think of anything other than the above answers A or B. There are too many positives (things JS couldn't have known, but are in there nevertheless) and some fairly good explanations for the negatives (ie-candle anachronism or KJV similarities). I think knowing everything I do I have to conclude either we are missing some information that would explain how JS pulled this off, or God really did have JS do this even though it wasn't done as clean and perfectly as I assumed in my youth growing up in the church.

I'd really like to know. For example, I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity. Has he given an answer on this? Also, what do you think?

Which book?

[KevinG]

A Muslim will assert that the Koran brings one closer to God than any other book. A Jew will assert the same for the Torah. Ditto the canonical texts of the Bahá'í Faith. Where the founder is also the dispenser of the religious texts, I cannot see that "egocentric assertion" is an inaccurate statement of what Joseph Smith was doing with that quote....

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.

[KevinG]

FYI - Elder Dalin Oaks "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon" http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=30

Good food for thought.

[BCSpace]

E. T. Benson quoted that repeatedly. It was the core of his BofM promotion. "Correct" does not require historical placement or explanation. The BofM TEACHES. It teaches correctly. Everything else is empirical wrestling.

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.

[Palerider]

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..........

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.

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.

Regarding the christian religion:

"I must leave to younger persons to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages."

Thomas Jefferson

Edited September 13, 2011 by Palerider

[Palerider]

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........

Edited September 13, 2011 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

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

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?

[Palerider]

Have you tried Alma 32.

It's part of the Book of Mormon isn't it?

[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?

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 Mormons 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.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Palerider