The Book of Mormon is Scripture

[UtahTexan]

I see a lot of posts decrying the Book of Mormon, or jabbing at it.

Let me just say that I I have a testimony of it.  I see things in it all the time.  For example, I read where the people asked for a second witness to verify veracity.  That is Jewish Law.  How would they have known Jewish Law?  How would Joseph have known it?

This is an LDS board....I just figured it was time for a pro-LDS post.

I love the LDS Church.  I fought it for 26 years.  I was wrong.  I finally feel at peace.

[mfbukowski]

Those are wonderful words and I know just what you mean

I now understand that I was searching my whole life until I found it at age 31.

Peace is a wonderful thing to have in your life!  

Unquestionably the BOM is scripture at LEAST as credible as the bible.   During my days of total doubt I would read the Bible for laughs.  It's pretty ridiculous from that point of view.  But now I see the wonder of the bible and I see even better the wonder of the Book of Mormon

Bob Smith makes the point that the fact that the Book of Mormon is so blatantly preposterous in its story that it is either a miracle or a total hoax

But when I see the philosophy of the BOM and other revelations Joseph received- he was just light years ahead.   No doubt in my mind that he was a prophet and the BOM is scripture.

No other explanation works

I am going through the BOM finding doctrines and philosophies that revolutionize Christianity.   Someday I will post or publish them.  Pretty amazing stuff!

[maklelan]

15 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I see a lot of posts decrying the Book of Mormon, or jabbing at it.

Let me just say that I I have a testimony of it.  I see things in it all the time.  For example, I read where the people asked for a second witness to verify veracity.  That is Jewish Law.  How would they have known Jewish Law?  How would Joseph have known it?

This is an LDS board....I just figured it was time for a pro-LDS post.

I love the LDS Church.  I fought it for 26 years.  I was wrong.  I finally feel at peace.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it is inspired, but the actual Jewish law was that two witnesses were required to convict someone for a crime. To protect the innocent, someone's accusation against another needed a second witness. One witness alone was insufficient for conviction. The "two witnesses" thing has nothing to do with truth claims broadly, but specifically with the prosecution of criminals. This is the way Paul used it in Corinthians (he took it from Deuteronomy, and Joseph Smith took it from him), but we wrenched it out of context and use it to mean something else entirely.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, maklelan said:

I agree that the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it is inspired, but the actual Jewish law was that two witnesses were required to convict someone for a crime. To protect the innocent, someone's accusation against another needed a second witness. One witness alone was insufficient for conviction. The "two witnesses" thing has nothing to do with truth claims broadly, but specifically with the prosecution of criminals. This is the way Paul used it in Corinthians (he took it from Deuteronomy, and Joseph Smith took it from him), but we wrenched it out of context and use it to mean something else entirely.

Actually, the law was not just for convictions.  It was also used in monetary cases and, even more broadly, to prove an event occurred.

 

[ksfisher]

"And now, when Amulek had spoken these words the people began to be astonished, seeing there was more than one witness who testified of the things whereof they were accused, and also of the things which were to come, according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them."

Alma 10:12

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Bob Smith makes the point that the fact that the Book of Mormon is so blatantly preposterous in its story that it is either a miracle or a total hoax

Willard Richards said much the same thing.  He read it cover to cover twice in 10 days and said that either God or the Devil produced it for no man ever wrote it.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I see a lot of posts decrying the Book of Mormon, or jabbing at it.

Let me just say that I I have a testimony of it.  I see things in it all the time.  For example, I read where the people asked for a second witness to verify veracity.  That is Jewish Law.  How would they have known Jewish Law?  How would Joseph have known it?

This is an LDS board....I just figured it was time for a pro-LDS post.

I love the LDS Church.  I fought it for 26 years.  I was wrong.  I finally feel at peace.

I agree. The Book of Mormon is absolutely scripture. 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Willard Richards said much the same thing.  He read it cover to cover twice in 10 days and said that either God or the Devil produced it for no man ever wrote it.

Even at face value, the Book of Mormon itself claims to have been been written by men - men with weaknesses, even! 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Even at face value, the Book of Mormon itself claims to have been been written by men - men with weaknesses, even!

I think the meaning is that the words and its coming forth were either from God or the Devil, regardless of which mortal man wrote them.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the meaning is that the words and its coming forth were either from God or the Devil, regardless of which mortal man wrote them.

It seems that Willard Richards was a little excitable on the matter. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

It seems that Willard Richards was a little excitable on the matter.

He was Brigham Young's 1st cousin.  Runs in the family.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Willard Richards said much the same thing.  He read it cover to cover twice in 10 days and said that either God or the Devil produced it for no man ever wrote it.

Those are our choices? Either God or the devil? Considering what we have as absolute proven productions of God (or the devil) I would profer the possibilty that a third alternative is possible.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Those are our choices? Either God or the devil? Considering what we have as absolute proven productions of God (or the devil) I would profer the possibilty that a third alternative is possible.

Joseph Smith agreed with you on spirits.  Not sure where he would have landed on published books of scripture.

[UtahTexan]

Well, I am very educated.  I write.  I could never have written the Book of Mormon...even with all my education and writing experience...and with a computer.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I see a lot of posts decrying the Book of Mormon, or jabbing at it.

Let me just say that I I have a testimony of it.  I see things in it all the time.  For example, I read where the people asked for a second witness to verify veracity.  That is Jewish Law.  How would they have known Jewish Law?  How would Joseph have known it?

This is an LDS board....I just figured it was time for a pro-LDS post.

I love the LDS Church.  I fought it for 26 years.  I was wrong.  I finally feel at peace.

Not to comment on the overall sentiment expressed in your post, but I will just point out that the whole idea of "The Bible" being a singular witness and then "The Book of Mormon" being a second singular witness is one of simple definition.

Both are compilations of the writings (and "witnesses") of many people.  They are not a single expression (or witness) of anything.

For example, if you asked me for evidence for what happened at a car accident and I interviewed 12 people and put their accounts together on some paper that was stapled together, you wouldn't look at the papers and say that I only got one witness.

Likewise, we don't look at the Testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and say that it is a single witness for the book.  We count it as eleven different witnesses.

So for better or worse, "The Bible" is many (dozens?) of witnesses, and The Book of Mormon is many more.  And the Doctrine and Covenants is even more.

And Joseph would have known Jewish law because he studied the Bible?

The issue isn't how many "witnesses" there are, but the nature and veracity of those witnesses, both in how they were originally reported, and then transmitted over the years.

Edited August 19, 2016 by cinepro

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Not to comment on the overall sentiment expressed in your post, but I will just point out that the whole idea of "The Bible" being a singular witness and then "The Book of Mormon" being a second singular witness is one of simple definition.

Both are compilations of the writings (and "witnesses") of many people.  They are not a single expression (or witness) of anything.

For example, if you asked me for evidence for what happened at a car accident and I interviewed 12 people and put their accounts together on some paper that was stapled together, you wouldn't look at the papers and say that I only got one witness.

Likewise, we don't look at the Testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and say that it is a single witness for the book.  We count it as eleven different witnesses.

So for better or worse, "The Bible" is many (dozens?) of witnesses, and The Book of Mormon is many more.  And the Doctrine and Covenants is even more.

And Joseph would have known Jewish law because he studied the Bible?

The issue isn't how many "witnesses" there are, but the nature and veracity of those witnesses, both in how they were originally reported, and then transmitted over the years.

You missed my point regarding witnesses.  I was not calling the Book of Mormon a second witness.

Regardless, I stand by my post.

[Five Solas]

15 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

You missed my point regarding witnesses.  I was not calling the Book of Mormon a second witness.

Regardless, I stand by my post.

I read it the way cinepro did.  Would you kindly clarify what exactly you "stand by?"

--Erik

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I read it the way cinepro did.  Would you kindly clarify what exactly you "stand by?"

--Erik

I was simply showing where, in the Book of Mormon, while Amulek was preaching, the people asked him why they should listen to him, he was just a single witness.  The people were invoking Jewish Law.

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I was simply showing where, in the Book of Mormon, while Amulek was preaching, the people asked him why they should listen to him, he was just a single witness.  The people were invoking Jewish Law.

Curious.  Moses had Aaron, so I suppose one could argue that constituted a "second witness," but most of the Hebrew Prophets preached and wrote in a singular fashion.  It's a rather different context than, say, Deuteronomy 17:6.

--Erik

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Five Solas said:

Curious.  Moses had Aaron, so I suppose one could argue that constituted a "second witness," but most of the Hebrew Prophets preached and wrote in a singular fashion.  It's a rather different context than, say, Deuteronomy 17:6.

--Erik

Perhaps....but that is apples and oranges.  No one would be surprised to hear the Jews invoke Jewish Law.

That is my point.

[omni]

45 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Well, I am very educated.  I write.  I could never have written the Book of Mormon...even with all my education and writing experience...and with a computer.

I've never understood this argument.  Just because you (or even anyone you know) couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.  I don't know anyone who could write a New York Times best seller, or direct an Oscar winning movie, or sing a top 40 hit, yet these things happen all the time.  

Just because something is unusual or even extraordinary, doesn't mean it's impossible.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, omni said:

I've never understood this argument.  Just because you (or even anyone you know) couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.  I don't know anyone who could write a New York Times best seller, or direct an Oscar winning movie, or sing a top 40 hit, yet these things happen all the time.  

Just because something is unusual or even extraordinary, doesn't mean it's impossible.

That's fine.  I am ok with you not understanding.  I am just amazed that a young uneducated man could do it in the time he did it.  I could not have.  I have 19 years of education.  I could not have done it.

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

I agree that the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it is inspired, but the actual Jewish law was that two witnesses were required to convict someone for a crime. To protect the innocent, someone's accusation against another needed a second witness. One witness alone was insufficient for conviction. The "two witnesses" thing has nothing to do with truth claims broadly, but specifically with the prosecution of criminals. This is the way Paul used it in Corinthians (he took it from Deuteronomy, and Joseph Smith took it from him), but we wrenched it out of context and use it to mean something else entirely.

 

The divinely decreed law that the testimonies of separate nations need to be published and run together in order to adequately prove the Lord is an unchanging God is clearly set forth in the Book of Mormon, unambiguously set forth by the prophet Nephi some 600 years before Paul said or wrote anything. As the following declaration from the mouth of the Lord himself amply demonstrates, there is no need to wrench anything "out of context" in order to establish the divine origin of the commandment that the Lord requires the testimonies of various nations to run together that the world might know he is a God of truth:

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of twonations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

 9 And I do this that I may PROVE unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. (2 Nephi 29)

comtinuing...

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

 13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. (2 Nephi 29)

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I was simply showing where, in the Book of Mormon, while Amulek was preaching, the people asked him why they should listen to him, he was just a single witness.  The people were invoking Jewish Law.

Are you talking about Alma 10:12?

12 And now, when Amulek had spoken these words the people began to be astonished, seeing there was more than one witness who testified of the things whereof they were accused, and also of the things which were to come, according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them.

I don't think people need to be familiar with Jewish law to be surprised that there is a second witness to the sighting of an angel (I also don't think people need Jewish law to tell them that it might be a good idea to have a "second witness" of someone claiming to have seen an angel.)

I'm also not sure that I would find it less probable for Joseph Smith to know more about Jewish law than a group of non-Jewish/Christian natives living in the New World over 500 years after Lehi landed.

[UtahTexan]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Are you talking about Alma 10:12?

 

 

I don't think people need to be familiar with Jewish law to be surprised that there is a second witness to the sighting of an angel (I also don't think people need Jewish law to tell them that it might be a good idea to have a "second witness" of someone claiming to have seen an angel.)

I'm also not sure that I would find it less probable for Joseph Smith to know more about Jewish law than a group of non-Jewish/Christian natives living in the New World over 500 years after Lehi landed.

I simply said that the people invoked Jewish Law.  How would people here know of Jewish Law id they were not of Jewish descent?  Also, that fact supports Joseph was translating as opposed to writing himself.