volgadon Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 What other book of any kind can you think of that could be more accurate and correct than the Book of Mormon?Thousands of them, depends on the subject at hand. 2
Sethbag Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I interpreted the question of the poll like this:Is the Book of Mormon at least as historically accurate as... any other book?Whatever other books you compare it to, it's at least as accurate as that, even if that other book isn't accurate, because the Book of Mormon is the most accurate book there is.I think the Book of Mormon is slightly more accurate than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. At least Jerusalem existed. And Egypt. 2
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Me. What other book of any kind can you think of that could be more accurate and correct than the Book of Mormon?Well, yeah, but he probably would have said both accurate and correct if he had thought about it. He wasn't perfect then, though.Lol... 'me' as a CFR answer.Words have meaning and roots which shed light on why it is significant:Accurate: 1610s, "done with care," from Latin accuratus "prepared with care, exact, elaborate," pp. of accurare "take care of," from ad- "to" (see ad-) + curare "take care of" (see cure). The notion of doing something carefully led to that of being exact (1650s). Related: Accurately; accurateness.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=accurateCorrect: vb. mid-14c., "to set right, rectify" (a fault or error), from Latin correctus, pp. of corrigere "to put straight, reduce to order, set right;" in transferred use, "to reform, amend," especially of speech or writing, from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + regere "to lead straight, rule" (see regal). Originally of persons; with reference to writing, etc., attested from late 14c. Related: Corrected; correcting.Correct: adj. 1670s, from French correct "right, proper," from Latin correctus (see correct (v.)). Related: Correctly; correctness.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=correctSo accurate means to be prepared with exactness.Correct on the other hand means 'reform, set to right, amend' (it was a verb first and an adjective second) - that's a very good description for the Book of Mormon. The most 'able to put things straight' on the earth. But the Book of Mormon is not the one prepared with most exactness, precision and attention to details. 3
Calm Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 Well, yeah, but he probably would have said both accurate and correct if he had thought about it. He wasn't perfect then, though.I highly doubt that....for reasons canard has been kind enough to point out.
Bikeemikey Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 Scripture is about history as much as the present and the future. The key difference is in who you are learning from.Scripture is not history. Nephi repeats frequently that he is not dealing with issues of temporal significance. At best it is a spiritual history.
Bikeemikey Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 Since we're on the topic of Book of Mormon historicity, Mormon Interpreter recently put out new article about the Book of Mormon. http://www.mormonint...mmon-and-ammon/This provides more examples of the complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon.That is a great article.
Gervin Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 That is a great article.Yet, the first line in the summary is "Mormon is a historian." Compare to your previous post.
Calm Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Since we're on the topic of Book of Mormon historicity, Mormon Interpreter recently put out new article about the Book of Mormon. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/in-his-footsteps-ammon-and-ammon/'>http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/in-his-footsteps-ammon-and-ammon/ This provides more examples of the complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon. Just a note, the journal itself is Interpreter, not Mormon Interpreter. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/
ERayR Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Yet, the first line in the summary is "Mormon is a historian." Compare to your previous post.There is secular history and there is religious history. Me thinks you are not differentiating between the two.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 The Book of Mormon is the "most accurate" book as a book of scripture, not as a history lesson. I'll open the Book of Mormon if I want to learn more about the gospel, but if I want to learn about the history of the Native American people I'm going to go to the library.The Book of Mormon is not a history of the "Native American People" (Amerinds in general), and by its very nature cannot be. It contains a very limited history of some Mesoamerican peoples from about 3200 BC to about 411 AD.It may, however, be a history lesson, if we draw some conclusions from it about the nature of social conflict, syndical criminality and the threat it poses to the state, military strategy and tactics, as well as the prominent place of religion and religious ritual in ancient times.The Book of Mormon also verifies some central notions of the Documentary Hypothesis in biblical studies, i.e., editing or redacting of received texts goes on apace.As to whether it comports with secular histories of Mesoamerica penned primarily by archeologists, I suggest reading John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex when it appears later this year.Meantime, check out Coe, Snow, and Benson, eds., Atlas of Ancient America, for a history of the entire Western Hemisphere. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I think the Book of Mormon is slightly more accurate than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. At least Jerusalem existed. And Egypt.And this observation is based on what?
Deborah Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I think the Book of Mormon is slightly more accurate than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. At least Jerusalem existed. And Egypt.So does America.
Deborah Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I think the Book of Mormon is slightly more accurate than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. At least Jerusalem existed. And Egypt.Having read the trilogy multiple times and seen the extended versions of the movies multiple times, I have to say I love getting loss in Middle Earth with characters that come alive. But never have I even considered them real. When I read the BOM however I feel that it was real and I look forward to meeting Nephi and Alma and Moroni and all those who lived before.
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Other.I believe the BOM is historical but unfortunately we don't have any historical evidence that the authors existed, whereas we do have evidence that the other authors existed. (ancient quotes from other authors of the mentioned authors)So from a scientifically historical pov there is no comparison.But I do believe that the events chronicled in the BOM "really happened" though it is impossible to know that, (scientifically) and always will be.Incidentally I think that probably nearly all the events in the bible will also never be possible to prove "actually happened".Of course we can know that the BOM is true by spiritual confirmation.
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Just a note, the journal itself is Interpreter, not Mormon Interpreter. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/I think they will find that fighting that is a losing battle since the name of the website is mormoninterpreter.com. If you want to find the site that is what you have to type in if you don't have a link.It's kind of like saying that the name for Google is something else. It will remain a marketing problem imho. Edited January 20, 2013 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I agree, no one should get annoyed because the mistake is natural. I don't know if the choice was conscious....if they were aware of the confusion it would cause, but I think they needed to put "Mormon" in there somewhere. This way is the easiest and most memorable, IMO, but has a cost to it. I think the bigger issue would be using the mistaken initials as it might confuse their journal with the organization that stills bears those initials.
canard78 Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I think they will find that fighting that is a losing battle since the name of the website is mormoninterpreter.com. If you want to find the site that is what you have to type in if you don't have a link.It's kind of like saying that the name for Google is something else. It will remain a marketing problem imho.Agreed, I had been innocently it Mormon Interpreter for weeks until it was pointed out. I agree that they're probably fighting a loosing battle.
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I agree, no one should get annoyed because the mistake is natural. I don't know if the choice was conscious....if they were aware of the confusion it would cause, but I think they needed to put "Mormon" in there somewhere. This way is the easiest and most memorable, IMO, but has a cost to it. I think the bigger issue would be using the mistaken initials as it might confuse their journal with the organization that stills bears those initials.What a coincidence!
Recommended Posts