The Book Of Mormon

[OUmd]

When we say that the Book of Mormon is true, we mean that it is factually true, doctrinally true, historically true, theologically true, even the manner of its production, transmission, discovery, and translation is true.

I will conclude that you meant to say 'you' instead of 'we'. Not all Mormons have that same definition and yet many can and do hold the book closer to their heart than any other book on this earth. Myself included.

Edited October 22, 2011 by OUmd

[stevedallas]

Of course it is. That is what we mean when we say that it is true.

Muslims say the Koran is true. Does that make it so?

But the Holy Ghost does!

Interesting comment. We can go to any church of any denomination this Sunday and ask people if the Holy Spirit has confirmed that the Church they attend is the true Church. You will find people in any denomination that say "yes". Does that mean all Churches are true? If not, how do you know which Holy Spirit is lying? Once cannot base the answer to the question of veracity on a good feeling alone. Must must also use the logic and intelligence God gave them. If I say I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I cannot prove it so, BUT, I can walk the streets of the cities and areas mentioned in the Bible. I can look at archeology that supports stories from the Bible. It does not make the Bible the Word of God, but it adds a certain element of credibility to the claim.

One cannot do that with the Book of Mormon. Once can compare the Bible and Book of Mormon and see where ideas and whole chapters were lifted. One cannot, however, go to any New World city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Again, no non LDS archeologist or historian has ever supported any notion that the Book of Mormon is a factual book.

You can't learn about God's love from religious fiction. You can learn it only from the revealed word of God. And of course, you can learn a lot more from the Book of Mormon than just about "God's Love". You can learn true gospel doctrine from it. You can learn about God's dealings with a portion of the Human family. You can learn about God's covenants with mankind, and in particular with the house of Israel, and how it has been fulfilled in connection with the Nephites, and how it will continue to be fulfilled in the future. You can even learn true history from it. You can learn a lot from the Book of Mormon.

Sure you can. I read the book "Joshua" and was inspired by God's love. I read the Books "This Present Darkness" and "Piercing the Darkness" and was solidified in my knowledge that God loves and protects us and that prayer truly helps. I know of Mormons who read the Lund series about the beginnings of LDS Church and claimed they never realized how much God loved them. As to the Book of Mormon, there are no covenants that I learned from reading it that I did not already know reading the Bible. Which, was not shoicking since the ideas in the Book of Mormon were taken from the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it was true. You do not know how badly I wish that.

There is a way that you can know that it is true; but there is no way that you can know that it is not true. Therefore your confident assertion that it isn't is misplaced. You can take my word for it that it is true.

Yes, there is a way to know it is not true. Just like I can read the Wizard of Oz and know it is not true.

[Mike Reed]

It appears to me that you have the key, but can't use it.

And you can't use it, since you aren't able to identify it.

It is difficult to identify what is red while wearing red glasses, is it not?

Sorry, that didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Study it out in your mind, Zerinus. The answer is in the question.

He who has eyes to... see.

[MAsh]

...I think you should know that Mike has meticulously studied the BoM and has personally come to a different conclusion.

If I remember correctly, Mike had already come to a different conclusion about the BoM (changed conclusion) before he meticulously studied it to confirm his changed conclusion.

It is difficult to identify what is red while wearing red glasses...

[zerinus]

I will conclude that you meant to say 'you' instead of 'we'. Not all Mormons have that same definition and yet many can and do hold the book closer to their heart than any other book on this earth. Myself included.

Me, and I believe the great majority of Mormons. I was not excluding the odd ones from Mormonism.

Edited October 22, 2011 by zerinus

[MAsh]

No reputable, non-LDS archeologist can claim there is any evidence of it. No reputable, non-LDS historian can accept it as history.

The second sentence is primarily true, although the "can accept" is a bit misleading. The first sentence, however, is hyperbolic. I'm sure that no non-LDS archaeologist claims that the BoM is based on historical Nephites/Lamanites, and I'm sure that they don't think there is overwhelming evidence that the BoM is historical, but I don't believe it's accurate to say that all non-LDS archaeologists would claim there is no evidence (your "any evidence") for it.

[zerinus]

If I remember correctly, Mike had already come to a different conclusion about the BoM (changed conclusion) before he meticulously studied it to confirm his changed conclusion.

Well said.

[stevedallas]

The second sentence is primarily true, although the "can accept" is a bit misleading. The first sentence, however, is hyperbolic. I'm sure that no non-LDS archaeologist claims that the BoM is based on historical Nephites/Lamanites, and I'm sure that they don't think there is overwhelming evidence that the BoM is historical, but I don't believe it's accurate to say that all non-LDS archaeologists would claim there is no evidence (your "any evidence") for it.

ok. Then show me the studies from non LDS archeologists that admit ANY evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

Yes, there is a way to know it is not true. Just like I can read the Wizard of Oz and know it is not true.

Knowing that the Wizard of Oz is not true is no great achievement. It doesn't claim to be true. But the Book of Mormon does, with credible witnesses testifying of the fact.

Edited October 22, 2011 by zerinus

[Mike Reed]

Throw me a bone here - did I get even close on this topic with my mysterious reply?

Clever response, and an interesting source you are alluding to.

The key I discovered did not come from PBR or his literature.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Mike Reed

[stevedallas]

Knowing that the Wizard of Oz is not true is no great achievement. It doesn't claim to be true. But the Book of Mormon does, with credible witnesses testifying of the fact.

So, your saying that if a book purports to be true, it must be true?

[MAsh]

ok. Then show me the studies from non LDS archeologists that admit ANY evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not going to derail Mike Reed's thread. The problem with your statement is a misunderstanding of "evidence." We are not talking proof, we are talking "evidence."

[zerinus]

So, your saying that if a book purports to be true, it must be true?

No; but it cannot be proven false without evidence. Lack of evidence that it is true does not equal evidence that it is false.

[cdowis]

There is no endowment, eternal marriage or three degrees of glory in the BofM.

It has the fullness of the Gospel, but does not claim to have the complete Gospel. { Look up "fullness" in the dictionary.) Mormon had a specific goal or design for the book -- teach the doctrine of Christ, namely faith, repentence, baptism, receive the Holy Ghost, endure to the end.

That is the foundation of the Gospel, but there are additional principles which were left to the living prophet to reveal.

Joseph Smith's later theology is quite different from the Lehite theology;

Is a roof "quite different" from the foundation? All of these come together to create a complete structure. There is nothing in the BOM that contradicts the restored Gospel, and the spiritually enlightened understand that the Bible and BOM are the foundation of those doctrines.

which is quite orthodox and black and white. Nothing in the BofM allows for Joseph Smith's later salvation for the dead and temple work or even saving those in spirit prison. In the BofM, when you die your fate is sealed in either heaven or hell:

We know from the BOM (and the Bible), for example, that baptism is necessary, but what about those who have never heard of the gospel? The BOM does not address that question, but left it to the living prophet of our day to reveal it.

Again, the BOM does not claim to have the complete gospel,only the fullness. Without modern revelation, the Bible and the BOM are incomplete.

Edited October 22, 2011 by cdowis

[Ariarates]

Maybe the key is that BoM statements actually mean the opposite of what they say, e.g. when it says "for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife", it actually means "for there shall be some men among you that have more than one wife". Or when it says "and he answered, No" (to Zeezrom's question whether there is more than one God) it really means "and he answered, Yes".

Is that the key? Would solve a lot of problems concerning BoM historicity as well...

[Ariarates]

No; but it cannot be proven false without evidence. Lack of evidence that it is true does not equal evidence that it is false.

But it's not a 50-50 proposition either. The most you can conclude from a lack of evidence is that there is a lack of evidence. That does not bring you one inch closer to the conclusion that it is true.

[ERayR]

But it's not a 50-50 proposition either. The most you can conclude from a lack of evidence is that there is a lack of evidence. That does not bring you one inch closer to the conclusion that it is true.

Ah but there really isn't a lack of evidence but only a lack of conclusive evidence.

[zerinus]

But it's not a 50-50 proposition either. The most you can conclude from a lack of evidence is that there is a lack of evidence. That does not bring you one inch closer to the conclusion that it is true.

I didn't say it did.

[stevedallas]

I'm not going to derail Mike Reed's thread. The problem with your statement is a misunderstanding of "evidence." We are not talking proof, we are talking "evidence."

My dear friend,

I do n ot misunderstand evidence and proof. I am an attorney very familiar with the rules of evidence. I have not asked for proof. I have asked for evidence. If you have none, just say so, but do not dodge, please.

[zerinus]

ok. Then show me the studies from non LDS archeologists that admit ANY evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Okay, there is none. That proves what?

[stevedallas]

No; but it cannot be proven false without evidence. Lack of evidence that it is true does not equal evidence that it is false.

ah, but therein lies the rub. YOU claim without doubt that it is true. It is up to you to back up your claim. YOU have the burden of proof. I have asked for non LDS historians and archeologists who support ANY of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I have actually helped you focus your efforts on how to support you claim. Should you require the same of me regarding the Bible, I could gladly, and easily, oblige. You should be no less able to do the same for the Book of Mormon.

And please know, I do not say these things to argue. I would love for the LDS Church to be true. Further, I truly hope you can do that which I ask.

In Christ

[citizen28]

ah, but therein lies the rub. YOU claim without doubt that it is true. It is up to you to back up your claim. YOU have the burden of proof. I have asked for non LDS historians and archeologists who support ANY of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I have actually helped you focus your efforts on how to support you claim. Should you require the same of me regarding the Bible, I could gladly, and easily, oblige. You should be no less able to do the same for the Book of Mormon.

And please know, I do not say these things to argue. I would love for the LDS Church to be true. Further, I truly hope you can do that which I ask.

In Christ

The Book of Mormon is accepted on faith, just as the Bible is. I get tired of the double standard Christians apply to the Book of Mormon. It usually comes down to: "We've found the places described in the Bible, but we haven't found the places described in the Book of Mormon." Well, we've found the places described in Greek mythology too. The fact is, faithful Bible archaeology is on the same shaky ground that Book of Mormon archaeology is. From the perspective of mainstream science, the Bible is ancient mythology and the Book of Mormon is modern mythology.

[Peppermint Patty]

Mike,

This sounds very interesting. I really look forward to reading more.

P.S. I think you did a great job at the Symposium this year.

[ERayR]

ah, but therein lies the rub. YOU claim without doubt that it is true. It is up to you to back up your claim. YOU have the burden of proof. I have asked for non LDS historians and archeologists who support ANY of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I have actually helped you focus your efforts on how to support you claim. Should you require the same of me regarding the Bible, I could gladly, and easily, oblige. You should be no less able to do the same for the Book of Mormon.

And please know, I do not say these things to argue. I would love for the LDS Church to be true. Further, I truly hope you can do that which I ask.

In Christ

Being an attorney you understand the concept of preponderance of evidence. If you don't or can't take Moroni's challenge and get a spiritual witness, there is not one lightning bolt piece of evidence. However, should you take the time to gather the pieces, bit by bit, it soon begins to add up. You will have to decide for yourself when you think it adds up to a preponderance of evidence. A good place to start would be here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

[zerinus]

ah, but therein lies the rub. YOU claim without doubt that it is true. It is up to you to back up your claim. YOU have the burden of proof.

You got that all wrong. I did not write the book, I am not responsible for its claims or its production, and I am under no obligation to satisfy anyone's curiosity that it is true. God is responsible for the production of that book, and He alone claims responsibility for convincing anyone of its truth. He reveals the truth of it to anyone He likes, and withholds that knowledge from anyone He likes. I have no control over His choices and decisions. If you want to know of its truth, it is between you and Him. If He chooses to withhold that knowledge from you, that is His decision I am afraid; there isn't a lot that I can do about that. The only thing I can do is to testify that He has revealed that truth to me. But I have no control over his decision to reveal it to you.

I have asked for non LDS historians and archeologists who support ANY of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I have actually helped you focus your efforts on how to support you claim.

You wasted your time then, didn't you. I never claimed to be able to provide archaeological evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, and you are barking up the wrong tree trying to look for one.

Should you require the same of me regarding the Bible, I could gladly, and easily, oblige.

Good for you; I am glad you have the evidence you require for the truth of the Bible. The Bible is certainly true, and I am glad to hear that you believe that too. I hope that your conviction is equally strong that Jesus rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will some day return again.

You should be no less able to do the same for the Book of Mormon.

Not at all; see above.

And please know, I do not say these things to argue. I would love for the LDS Church to be true.

Let me assure you that it is!

Further, I truly hope you can do that which I ask.

You are hoping in vain. The Book of Mormon is a test of our faith. You either believe it or you don't. It was never meant to be proven in the way you expect.