cinepro Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Here's a great column today from my longtime friend and Deseret News colleague Jerry Johnston on futile efforts over the years to torpedo the Book of Mormon.Incidentally, Ron Howard was set to direct a film based on Krakauer's book. It has been three years since that was publicized. I wonder how the project's going. Only time will tell, but I suspect history will show "The Book of Mormon" broadway musical (and movie) will have done more damage to the Church's perceived credibility than any Ron Howard movie about the Lafferty's would have. 3
cdowis Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Wouldn't the recent "Late War" and word count claims be the most recent attack on the Book of Mormon? The Late War an attack on the BOM? I am talking about serious, substantive arguments. This one, like the "adieu" argument, does not pass the smell test. Edited May 2, 2014 by cdowis
Bob Crockett Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Did John Whitmer recant? i don't think so. http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_whitmer_john_testimony.html It seems that he remained faithful to the end.Yes he did. But only because he couldn't read the script he saw on the plates. 1
JulieM Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 I love the Book of Mormon, but I have found that more and more members do not believe it is historically true but still inspired and from God (some are my close family members and a few friends I've discussed it with). Even the missionaries have told me this (they have found the same trend with members recently). I haven't researched it that much but plan to and I'm left wondering what to even think about this. Has anyone else found that this is happening? 1
Bikeemikey Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 I love the Book of Mormon, but I have found that more and more members do not believe it is historically true but still inspired and from God (some are my close family members and a few friends I've discussed it with). Even the missionaries have told me this (they have found the same trend with members recently). I haven't researched it that much but plan to and I'm left wondering what to even think about this. Has anyone else found that this is happening?Happens frequently.Many I know believe the BOM contains varying degrees of historical accuracy. 1
readstoomuch Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 I like Blake Ostler`s The Book of Mormon as a Modern Exansion of an Ancient Document. David Bokovoy`s new book about the Old Testament has a chapter about the Book of Mormon and is an expansion of Blake Ostler`s expansion theory. I think that is the middle ground that many are looking for. Black and white BoM historicity has been a hard sale-at least for me personally. 1
cdowis Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) I like Blake Ostler`s The Book of Mormon as a Modern Exansion of an Ancient Document. David Bokovoy`s new book about the Old Testament has a chapter about the Book of Mormon and is an expansion of Blake Ostler`s expansion theory. I think that is the middle ground that many are looking for. Black and white BoM historicity has been a hard sale-at least for me personally. A few observations for the "the BOM is not historical" crowd: BOM not historical -- no Moroni, No Moroni, no angel MoroniNo angel Moroni, JS liedNo Mormon, no gold platesNo gold plates, the witnesses lied The entire fabric of the church would be built on lies and deceptions -- no angels, no plates, JS and the witnesses all lied. So how is that "inspired"? "Middle ground"-- is that like being partially pregnant. Edited May 3, 2014 by cdowis 2
Bikeemikey Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 A few observations for the "the BOM is not historical" crowd:BOM not historical -- no Moroni, No Moroni, no angel MoroniNo angel Moroni, JS liedNo Mormon, no gold platesNo gold plates, the witnesses liedThe entire fabric of the church would be built on lies and deceptions -- no angels, no plates, JS and the witnesses all lied. So how is that "inspired"? "Middle ground"-- is that like being partially pregnant.The BOM being historical has no bearing on whether JS saw angels.
cinepro Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 I love the Book of Mormon, but I have found that more and more members do not believe it is historically true but still inspired and from God (some are my close family members and a few friends I've discussed it with). Even the missionaries have told me this (they have found the same trend with members recently). I haven't researched it that much but plan to and I'm left wondering what to even think about this. Has anyone else found that this is happening? I've never met a member of the Church in real life that would admit to not believing the Book of Mormon is historical. Not counting the ones that were on their way out of the Church, of course. 1
cdowis Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) The BOM being historical has no bearing on whether JS saw angels. It does have a bearing on whether he saw a non-existent Moroni == perhaps he saw some generic angels such as in the book of Revelation. But that is not the narrative, since the non-existent Moroni buried the non-existent gold plates and pointed out the location to JS. This whole narrative would be a lie and a deception. Edited May 3, 2014 by cdowis 1
Stargazer Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 Yes he did. But only because he couldn't read the script he saw on the plates. I'd like to see this assertion backed up, because it's news to me. You have a reliable source? 1
Calm Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all
Bikeemikey Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=allThanks for the link.
DarkScythe Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Yes he did. But only because he couldn't read the script he saw on the plates. Reference Please Edited May 4, 2014 by DarkScythe
cdowis Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Reference PleaseSpeaking of the original text on the plates, he said, "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all Obviously he is able to read the english language, so he was talking about the language/characters on the plates. Edited May 4, 2014 by cdowis
readstoomuch Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 I was going to just leave the comments about the middle ground alone, but I am not very good at that. I got to the middle zone by learning that many things I was taught about the Book of Mormon are not exactly the way I thought they were. Take horses, anachronisms, two cumorahs, Ancient America Speaks filmstrip from my mission and/or a number of different topics. So you read apologetics from FARMS, FAIR and assorted sources available and you come to some compromises about the BoM. These compromises never are exactly the same as I originally thought when I went into the MTC in the early 80`s. I got into a discussion about this when FAIR had a board associated with it. As long as there was some type of relic or plates that Joseph Smith came across which spurred inspiration for him that produced the Book of Mormon, then that seemed to satisfy most involved (including serious apologists)/So I throw the Middle Ground back out there. Read what I am talking about. Every year that I am in the Church I hear more Mormons in the middle ground on a lot of different issues.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 4, 2014 Author Posted May 4, 2014 I love the Book of Mormon, but I have found that more and more members do not believe it is historically true but still inspired and from God (some are my close family members and a few friends I've discussed it with). Even the missionaries have told me this (they have found the same trend with members recently). I haven't researched it that much but plan to and I'm left wondering what to even think about this. Has anyone else found that this is happening?The human mind can talk itself into anything, I suppose, but the self-contradictory notion that the Book of Mormon is false in its historicity yet "inspired and from God" strikes me as another form of fox in the hen house and is ultimately unsustainable. It is simply inescapable that the Book of Mormon purports to be an authentic record of a people who actually lived.
readstoomuch Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Before I go to bed, I just want to say that I am not trying to talk any one out of their beliefs about the BoM. I also want to add that I believe there are real historical elements to the BoM and Joseph Smith`s story. I also believe that the articles that I mentioned appear to have the same opinion. Blake Ostler`s The Book of Mormon, a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document is available by google. It is not a fox in the henhouse article for me. It is one of those writings that has gotten me through the years. Another one would be Knowing Brother Joseph Again by Karl Sandberg. Also available online. Those and reading the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon have helped me to stay active in the Church and raise four children in it. I am a ward missionary right now and baptized someone in January. Hopefully, he will get another new member lesson at my home tomorrow night.
cdowis Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 I was going to just leave the comments about the middle ground alone, but I am not very good at that. I got to the middle zone by learning that many things I was taught about the Book of Mormon are not exactly the way I thought they were.Take horses, anachronisms, two cumorahs, Ancient America Speaks filmstrip from my mission and/or a number of different topics. 1. BOM geography is not theology, not doctrine but a matter of intelligent research and informed opinion. If members can just take hold on that one idea, they will not be disturbed by the issue you mention,, that these are NOT "teachings" regardless of who "taught" them. 2.There are no "anachronisms" in the BOM. Now please open a new thread and prove me wrong
readstoomuch Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 cdowis, I think I rub you the wrong way, so I think that it is probably best not to open a new thread an prove you wrong. I am not even sure I want to prove you wrong. Only try to help someone else who may have struggled with some issues. I believe in the Book of Mormon and I`ll just leave it at that. I articulated my thoughts already. 1
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Okay, how true is this? I heard on a MS podcast that no one has ever seen JS translate using the gold plates, and that there was a curtain or veil during the translation process, even when he was using a hat. Why would there need to be a veil if the plates weren't in the room?
Bikeemikey Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Okay, how true is this? I heard on a MS podcast that no one has ever seen JS translate using the gold plates, and that there was a curtain or veil during the translation process, even when he was using a hat. Why would there need to be a veil if the plates weren't in the room?Maybe he didn't want people watching him peep in a hat...
Calm Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Okay, how true is this? I heard on a MS podcast that no one has ever seen JS translate using the gold plates, and that there was a curtain or veil during the translation process, even when he was using a hat. Why would there need to be a veil if the plates weren't in the room?Who made the claim and what was their evidence? Edited May 4, 2014 by calmoriah
CV75 Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Here's a great column today from my longtime friend and Deseret News colleague Jerry Johnston on futile efforts over the years to torpedo the Book of Mormon.Incidentally, Ron Howard was set to direct a film based on Krakauer's book. It has been three years since that was publicized. I wonder how the project's going.It would seem the foxes are themselves examples of weakness according to the flesh (1 Nephi 19:6); the followers of Christ who are taught by the precepts of men (2 Nephi 28:14); tending to mock the good-faith efforts of the Lord’s servants (Ether 12:25), etc. As far as hearkening to the foxes that make their brand of history the standard, I think anyone who assesses the veracity of the Book of Mormon by such precepts of men and the arm of flesh is not taking a wise approach. But there will always be people who have good reason to believe in the Book of Mormon. 1
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 Who made the claim and what was their evidence?It was Palmer, he said not one person has claimed they've seen him translate using the plates. Just as a side note, he said he was first disciplined for telling his seminary students the mode for translating was using the stone and hat. One of students told their parents and they told the principal. Apparently truth wasn't useful back then.
Recommended Posts