Is The Book Of Mormon Either True Or Not?

[canard78]

In my opinion, the evidence for the Book of Mormon has become so impressive that I believe that one could convince a fair-minded jury that there is no way that anyone in Joseph Smith's day could have authored the book. I would note that a few--very few, but a few--anti-Mormons have begun to make the argument that there are in fact ancient elements in the Book of Mormon, elements that Joseph Smith could not have known about, but that Satan inspired Joseph to include those elements.

By the way... I'd be interested to see sources for those very specific claims you're making in the last sentence.

Edited June 7, 2015 by canard78

[mikegriffith1]

By the way... I'd be interested to see sources for those very specific claims you're making in the last sentence.

 

I'm not gonna bother to look them up, but I know I've read them. I'm sure you could Google this stuff and find it.  Also, evangelical scholar Norman Geisler made this argument to me, in person, when he and I had a series of meetings in 1980 when I was on my mission. At my request, Geisler had read John Sorenson's then-manuscript An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Sorenson had sent me a copy). Geisler said that it appeared to him that Sorenson had established that there was information in the Book of Mormon about which no one in Joseph Smith's day could have known, and he opined that Satan could have inspired Joseph to include that information.

Edited June 7, 2015 by mikegriffith1

[cinepro]

In my opinion, the evidence for the Book of Mormon has become so impressive that I believe that one could convince a fair-minded jury that there is no way that anyone in Joseph Smith's day could have authored the book. I would note that a few--very few, but a few--anti-Mormons have begun to make the argument that there are in fact ancient elements in the Book of Mormon, elements that Joseph Smith could not have known about, but that Satan inspired Joseph to include those elements.

 

Would the determinant of whether or not the jury were "fair minded" be how willing they were to accept your arguments?

 

Also, who would get to represent the counter-claim that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record of pre-columbian peoples and events and that it most likely has a 19th century origin?

 

And would you be willing to accept the burden of proof, in that if you can't "make your case", then the default position is disbelief in the claim until further evidence can be presented?

Edited June 7, 2015 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Would the determinant of whether or not the jury were "fair minded" be how willing they were to accept your arguments?

 

Also, who would get to represent the counter-claim that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record of pre-columbian peoples and events and that it most likely has a 19th century origin?

 

And would you be willing to accept the burden of proof, in that if you can't "make your case", then the default position is disbelief in the claim until further evidence can be presented?

 

For a believer any amount of evidence is sufficient. For a disbeliever no amount of evidence is sufficient.

[rodheadlee]

He didn't.

Well yeah he saved Noah and his famiy.

[filovirus]

I think it depends on your view of Gods designs.  God cast 1/3 part of his children out of heaven, condemned them to a set future judgement, and prevented them having any mortal life at all.

 

I fail to see why the creator of all of us should be against ending a mortal life that was temporary to begin with and was operating contrary to his will.  I obviously do not approve of genocide but ALL wicked nations will be destroyed eventually.  I think our view of power over life/death is very naive.

1\3 part is not literal, just like most things in Revelations are not literal. It just means a large number, but probably no where near 1 out of every 3 spirit children. One of the perpetuated myths in our Mormon culture. Just like the belief that Jesus turned water into grape juice instead of actual wine.

[JLHPROF]

1\3 part is not literal, just like most things in Revelations are not literal. It just means a large number, but probably no where near 1 out of every 3 spirit children. One of the perpetuated myths in our Mormon culture. Just like the belief that Jesus turned water into grape juice instead of actual wine.

 

1/3 part means 3 groupings.

Nobody suggested 1 out of 3.

[Calm]

. It nearly happened in UK last year but fell at one of the final hurdle. Tom Phillips apparently continues to try other country legal systems.

My impression from the British legal analysts I read was that it was a no go from the beginning, given the actual law.

I hadn't heard he was attempting to do the same thing elsewhere. Where is this reported?

[Calm]

I'm not gonna bother to look them up, but I know I've read them. I'm sure you could Google this stuff and find it.  Also, evangelical scholar Norman Geisler made this argument to me, in person, when he and I had a series of meetings in 1980 when I was on my mission. At my request, Geisler had read John Sorenson's then-manuscript An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Sorenson had sent me a copy). Geisler said that it appeared to him that Sorenson had established that there was information in the Book of Mormon about which no one in Joseph Smith's day could have known, and he opined that Satan could have inspired Joseph to include that information.

There was a guy, not a scholar certainly...kind of a religious fanatic IMO...on ZLMB ages ago who claimed iirc it was aliens who showed JS something similar to a video recording of the Nephites and that was how he got things right, but they were doing so in order to deceive people about the true gospel....iirc, it has been years since he related his version. He was into some very strange and possibly dangerous things.

Not really anything of value in this fact, the conversation just brought this back.

[stephenpurdy]

If it was revealed the Pres. Monson had killed a man that was passed out drunk for ANY reason, 90% of the Church would apostatize and the other 10% would probably be very strange.

 

What if a member of the Mafia had stolen the Monson family goods, kidnapped them, and Pres. Monson had a good indication that the leader of the Mafia intended on killing his entire family?

 

I'm just throwing that out there ; )

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

Thoughts?

 

 

I think that those comments are pointed towards this dichotomy

 

Either

 

1) Joseph Smith is a liar/fraud and the Book of Mormon is a hoax

 

or

 

2) It truly is an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed

 

-Stephen

[Calm]

What if a member of the Mafia had stolen the Monson family goods, kidnapped them, and Pres. Monson had a good indication that the leader of the Mafia intended on killing his entire family?

 

I'm just throwing that out there ; )

 

-Stephen

Just waiting for a picture of President Monson in a Rambo outfit.....with or without the headband...hmmmm.....

[Yirgacheffe]

This made my day.

Why?  I find it ridiculous that a major authors name can't be typed because it contains letters presented in a certain order.  I don't see that it reflects well at all.

[Maedros]

I think the true or not true refers to the 5 pillars of a testimony, namely (1) God exists and is the literal father of our spirits, he has a body of flesh and bone and is an exalted man; (2) Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and a separate being from His father; (3) the Holy Ghost reveals this truth to all those who seek in sincerity and through prayer and is himself a separate being; (3) Joseph Smith revealed the truth of the Godhead in the first vision and is a real prophet; (4) the Book of Mormon is scripture and testifies of Christ; (5) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints is the only true and living church led by a prophet and run through divine revelation. 

 

The typographical errors in the BOM, the doctrines on polygamy and the priesthood ban and everything else like DNA etc is subject to the fallibility of man but the above five truths are infallible and if any one of them were proven to be false then the whole thing is false but if those five are true then the whole thing is true in spite of any errors in the leadership of the church and their personal views or failings.

[Tacenda]

I think the true or not true refers to the 5 pillars of a testimony, namely (1) God exists and is the literal father of our spirits, he has a body of flesh and bone and is an exalted man; (2) Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and a separate being from His father; (3) the Holy Ghost reveals this truth to all those who seek in sincerity and through prayer and is himself a separate being; (3) Joseph Smith revealed the truth of the Godhead in the first vision and is a real prophet; (4) the Book of Mormon is scripture and testifies of Christ; (5) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints is the only true and living church led by a prophet and run through divine revelation. 

 

The typographical errors in the BOM, the doctrines on polygamy and the priesthood ban and everything else like DNA etc is subject to the fallibility of man but the above five truths are infallible and if any one of them were proven to be false then the whole thing is false but if those five are true then the whole thing is true in spite of any errors in the leadership of the church and their personal views or failings.

Is it possible for the BoM to be compared to a parable like so many in the Bible. I think JS always wondered about things in his life. He wondered about the Israelites, the Indian mound builders, the various churches and sometimes the unforgiving nature of the sermons. I think Joseph's life experiences from a young child made him search for questions about who God really is and he tried to put in action those things. He gleaned from sources around him, he was given many gifts and one of them could be the gift of prophecy. Scripture is often parables. Is the GoE real? Some LDS say it wasn't and that the temple uses symbolism. I never thought of it that way. I believed it to have happened and The Flood. Why is it so hard to believe JS wrote the BoM using the gifts he was given? Like prophets of old. It's probably the only way I will salvage my testimony. And I believe that a few well known members might also be taking that route. http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/mobile/e/130-authoring-the-old-testament/ Is there a way for a member to go that route, I wonder. Because if it's all or nothing that could make or break, I see the church getting smaller, which to some that is perfectly fine I guess. It's all about faith I guess.

[thesometimesaint]

Is it possible for the BoM to be compared to a parable like so many in the Bible. I think JS always wondered about things in his life. He wondered about the Israelites, the Indian mound builders, the various churches and sometimes the unforgiving nature of the sermons. I think Joseph's life experiences from a young child made him search for questions about who God really is and he tried to put in action those things. He gleaned from sources around him, he was given many gifts and one of them could be the gift of prophecy. Scripture is often parables. Is the GoE real? Some LDS say it wasn't and that the temple uses symbolism. I never thought of it that way. I believed it to have happened and The Flood. Why is it so hard to believe JS wrote the BoM using the gifts he was given? Like prophets of old. It's probably the only way I will salvage my testimony. And I believe that a few well known members might also be taking that route. http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/mobile/e/130-authoring-the-old-testament/ Is there a way for a member to go that route, I wonder. Because if it's all or nothing that could make or break, I see the church getting smaller, which to some that is perfectly fine I guess. It's all about faith I guess.

 

Depends on what you mean by "ALL". We are a church of continuing revelation. So we don't know it "ALL". The key to me is to remain faithful so when new revelation is given Christ doesn't have to ask us "Will you also go away"?" John 6:66-67

[stemelbow]

I think that those comments are pointed towards this dichotomy

 

Either

 

1) Joseph Smith is a liar/fraud and the Book of Mormon is a hoax

 

or

 

2) It truly is an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed

 

-Stephen

Sure. But we're all liars to some extent. no one is totally a liar and no one is totally honest. So could not Joseph be part liar and yet also part authentic, in terms of the text of the BoM coming to him in some way?

[Mormonmaniac]

It comes with some surprise to me that this topic is brought up so often amongst Mormons. If it was us against Catholics or some other religion it would make more sense. But for LDS t question the very keystone of our religion as if it may possibly be false- that's a deal breaker for me. We either stand by the Book of Mormon as a historical record and support our church or we walk away with doubt and have no affiliation.

[canard78]

My impression from the British legal analysts I read was that it was a no go from the beginning, given the actual law.

I hadn't heard he was attempting to do the same thing elsewhere. Where is this reported?

Now you're asking... Fairly sure I read someone he was trying the same approach in France and Sweden (??). I'll try to find a reference if I can.

As to the original point. It got past the initial magistrate (similar to a judge) but needed ratifying by a second higher judge.

I think he over stretched and included things that are solely a matter of faith rather than focusing on information he could claim was retained and not initially disclosed. As a result it was thrown out.

[cinepro]

It comes with some surprise to me that this topic is brought up so often amongst Mormons. If it was us against Catholics or some other religion it would make more sense. But for LDS t question the very keystone of our religion as if it may possibly be false- that's a deal breaker for me. We either stand by the Book of Mormon as a historical record and support our church or we walk away with doubt and have no affiliation.

 

As far as I can tell, the more you learn about The Book of Mormon and the history of the Americas, the less "true" you think The Book of Mormon is when it comes to any specific historical story or claim. 

 

For example, do those who believe the Americas were deserted when the Jaredites showed up (as Joseph Smith, Marion G. Romney and Jeffrey Holland did/do)  have a greater belief in The Book of Mormon than those who believe in "others" because they believe it more literally? 

 

Follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion and you eventually end up with an appreciation for the teachings and doctrine of the book, but extreme flexibility on the idea of huge numbers of Nephites and Lamanites running around ancient American history teaching about Jesus Christ and trying to kill each other.

Edited June 8, 2015 by cinepro

[Mormonmaniac]

As far as I can tell, the more you learn about The Book of Mormon and the history of the Americas, the less "true" you think The Book of Mormon is when it comes to any specific historical story or claim. 

 

For example, do those who believe the Americas were deserted when the Jaredites showed up (as Joseph Smith, Marion G. Romney and Jeffrey Holland did/do)  have a greater belief in The Book of Mormon than those who believe in "others" because they believe it more literally? 

 

Follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion and you eventually end up with an appreciation for the teachings and doctrine of the book, but extreme flexibility on the idea of huge numbers of Nephites and Lamanites running around ancient American history teaching about Jesus Christ and trying to kill each other.

For me, the more I study the Book of Mormon and look at the evidence in the America's the more convinced I am that archaeologists and scientists do not really know what they are doing.

[ERMD]

It depends on what one means by "true".

True does not equal "perfect" or "infallible".

For example, in the instances where it is recorded that a large number of people were converted, and they all spoke with the same voice, saying, "..." I don't believe they were all literally saying the same words, speaking in unison, even though that is what the text is telling us.

[stemelbow]

For me, the more I study the Book of Mormon and look at the evidence in the America's the more convinced I am that archaeologists and scientists do not really know what they are doing.

I wish it were that easy, though. Over time religion loses often enough to question whether a religionist's views on the weakness of science is workable enough to maintain in all of this. I can't fault anyone who sees it as being faithful to question the reliability of science, but it doesn't really work for me.

[JLHPROF]

I wish it were that easy, though. Over time religion loses often enough to question whether a religionist's views on the weakness of science is workable enough to maintain in all of this. I can't fault anyone who sees it as being faithful to question the reliability of science, but it doesn't really work for me.

 

If history is any indicator science moves steadily closer to the truth where after truth is revealed religion moves further away from it.

 

Take a look at the early Christian period to the restoration.  Christ's gospel became more and more twisted and science came to more and more understanding.

 

But the issue with science is accepting what science believes right NOW as being correct.  History also shows that what science believes today it will probably overturn tomorrow.

2 Timothy 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

[TheSkepticChristian]

I find it odd that people get so heated over Nephi killing Laban 

 

Nephi did nothing wrong, there was no police in 600 BC and no one else could stop Laban. Laban was a dangerous man and likely killed many. Laban was not going to get arrested, so Nephi had no other option. I think Nephi did the right thing because it was his only chance to end Laban´s crimes. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian