Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I would need to know what you mean by lie. I believe that JS was sincere in his beliefs. Could you be a little more specific, so I can respond more clearly?

Deliberately telling an untruth.

 

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

  By the way, do we know who wrote the introduction?  

Yes. Bruce R. McConkie. The Book of Mormon itself makes no reference to principal.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes. Bruce R. McConkie. The Book of Mormon itself makes no reference to principal.

I just came back to edit my post after searching and finding that it was Bruce R. McConkie who wrote the introduction to the BofM.

I highly doubt that he "misunderstood" the meaning of the word "principal".  That was what was believed at the time about the Lamanites.  But DNA, etc., research has altered those beliefs and IMO, that's why they changed the wording in the intro.

[Ouagadougou]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I just came back to edit my post after searching and finding that it was Bruce R. McConkie who wrote the introduction to the BofM.

I highly doubt that he "misunderstood" the meaning of the word "principal".  That was what was believed at the time about the Lamanites.  But DNA, etc., research has altered those beliefs and IMO, that's why they changed the wording in the intro.

From Spencer W Kimball in 1971 (acting President of the quorum of the 12 at the time):

"And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood?lang=eng

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[James Tunney]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I just came back to edit my post after searching and finding that it was Bruce R. McConkie who wrote the introduction to the BofM.

I highly doubt that he "misunderstood" the meaning of the word "principal".  That was what was believed at the time about the Lamanites.  But DNA, etc., research has altered those beliefs and IMO, that's why they changed the wording in the intro.

One wonders what other changes will be made as science and historical understanding increase? The God of the gaps does seem to be shrinking like BofM geography and who we call lamanites is shrinking.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The Book of Mormon is definitely an enigma. I recognize that there are both many aspects that appear authentic and ancient and others that are anachronistic. Some of these anachronisms are not explainable as artifacts of a translation process (example below), so I am most tempted to take a middle way that defines the BoM as inspired fiction though I do at least admit the possibility of the text being a modern expansion of some type of legitimate ancient document similar to Blake Ostler's suggestion. I prefer an inspired fiction model because various bodies of evidence suggest that the whole narrative is mythological (though I'm excited to see how Brian Stubb's research develops), and inspiration could account for the ancient elements that litter the text (if we want to talk why this would be that's another discussion).

As promised, here is a quick anachronistic intertextuality not easily explainable as an artifact of translation. Events surrounding King Omer in Ether 8-9 appear to be an allusion to King Omri's ascent and reign in 1 Kings 16. Parallel elements include: 

• Civil wars associated with both Omer's and Omri's reigns
  • 1 Kings 16:21: "half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri")
  • Ether 8:1-3: "1 And it came to pass that he begat Omer, and Omer reigned in his stead. And Omer begat Jared; and Jared begat sons and daughters. 2 And Jared rebelled against his father, and came and dwelt in the land of Heth. And it came to pass that he did flatter many people, because of his cunning words, until he had gained the half of the kingdom. 3 And when he had gained the half of the kingdom he gave battle unto his father, and he did carry away his father into captivity, and did make him serve in captivity;
• Secret combinations or conspiracy, which are condemned in the text.
  • 1 Kings 16:9-16: "9 And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him... 16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp."
  • Ether 8:8-26.
  • Omer and Omri are on the opposite side of the conspiracy in both cases.
• In case you didn't catch it yet, the names Omri and Omer are similar.
• Lastly, both kings are associated with hills.
  • Ether 9:3 "And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family." 
  • 1 Kings 16:23-24: "¶In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria."
  • So, hill owned by Shemer bought by Omri with city named Shemer is a good match for the hill Shim mentioned in the Omer narrative.

     

     

You are way behind the curve here. Jeff Lindsay nailed it years ago. The Book of Mormon is actually dependent upon Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." But it is also dependent upon "The Late War" and upon Mercy Otis Warren's "History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution" by Mercy Otis Warren. And "A History of the American Indians" by James Adair. But it is also dependent on the English translation of the "Travels of Marco Polo." But it is also dependent on Bernal Diaz's  account of the Conquest of Mexico by Cortez. But it also is dependent on "The First Book of Napoleon" published in 1809 and the 1822 edition of the "Koran."

Years ago Dale Broadhurst, a "Spaulding Theory" aficionado, devised a computer program and found striking parallels between the Book of Mormon and the superficially completely different Spaulding manuscript held by the Oberlin College in Ohio.

And then there are the extensive parallels between the Book of Mormon and the "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith.

Also demanding not to be left out is "The Golden Pot" by E.T.A Hoffman published in 1814, "The Westminster Confession of Faith", and "The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed" by Josiah Priest.

I am fairly sure that if someone will take the time and develop the proper software and take the time, it will be found that the entire Book of Mormon was lifted from various texts available in Joseph Smith's day. Smith was clever in the way he rearranged some of the stuff.

And some apologists insist that Joseph Smith was an unlearned Country Boy!!!! Anyone with half a brain can see that Joseph Smith had to be the number one genius his time. Not only did he lift words, phrases, and ideas from many different sources, but he was able to rearrange and adapt some of the ideas and scenarios to fut his narrative, but he was able to adopt a Biblical sounding language complete with multiple Hebraic (or Egyptian if you will) constructs, clothed in a grammatical style from the era before that of the King James Bible. He was able to include several complex chiasmus sections, integrate over three hundred and forty proper names, make up or scour sources not readily available to him for other names, pluck names like Moroni out of thin air before it was shown on any map (Comoros Islands capital), and make up several other names which miraculously fortunately later have been identified as Egyptian names (before Egyptian could be translated).

I won't even get into the description of the trip out of Jerusalem to the place they named "Bountiful," the latter part of which went against the known maps of the day which showed the area to which they would have gone as a desolate, barren land, but which turned out to have some very fertile stretches, found later in time.

That greatest genius of this time or maybe even ever has to be a more plausible idea than........

Glenn

 

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If you don't mind me asking Brant, I kind of know the answer, what do you believe? You've done your homework and then some.  

Unfortunately, I'm not certain about what you want to know my beliefs. If it is the Book of Mormon, I believe that it is a modern translation of an ancient document that was written for religious reasons and supported by editing historical texts (Mormon's part, anyway). That probably sounds bit convoluted, but I don't see simplicity when I see that text.

If you wonder what I believe about people teaching and in Bishoprics who don't have the same views I have--that probably describes every Bishop I've every had and probably every Sunday School teacher. I think we have responsibilities to the church as an organization to teach and lead in accordance with the outlined policies and beliefs of that organization. I still think there is room for local inspiration in how that is done.

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I highly doubt that he "misunderstood" the meaning of the word "principal".  That was what was believed at the time about the Lamanites.  But DNA, etc., research has altered those beliefs and IMO, that's why they changed the wording in the intro.

It is certain that there was a tradition that held that all Native Americans, from the entire hemisphere, came from the Book of Mormon peoples. I was taught that and was certain it must be correct. With our modern access to better history and science, we tend to forget what the world was like in the "good old days"--whenever they were. Particularly, soon after the publication of the Book of Mormon there was an acceptance of pretty much anything--and almost everything was brand new. 

We don't see a lot of serious work done on Book of Mormon geography until after the turn of the last century (early 1900's). That was a beginning, and there were a lot of different opinions--enough that the First Presidency called people out for contention and reminded us that we don't really know, so stop the infighting (a message that hasn't been overly well accepted and implemented ).

As for the introduction of "principal," that was a nod to the increasing evidence that it was impossible for the Book of Mormon to describe every Native American. Then that became still too restrictive and misinterpreted--so it was changed to "among." What created the need for the change? It was the result of a long process of understanding the Book of Mormon as a text. The scholars were teaching (and not being widely accepted) that the Book of Mormon had to have dealt with a small part of the New World population for over 50 years before DNA ever became a thing (and it is surprising how many times we still hear it as an argument against the Book of Mormon, since using it that way violates the science it is built on).

Ideas about the Book of Mormon have changed since probably even before it was published, but certainly ever since. Of course our understanding of how it fits in the world changes, and adapts to better understanding of that world. That has required some changes to the Introduction and Headers that McConkie added. Changing what he thought the text said to a different description of the text isn't changing the text at all. 

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is certain that there was a tradition that held that all Native Americans, from the entire hemisphere, came from the Book of Mormon peoples. I was taught that and was certain it must be correct. With our modern access to better history and science, we tend to forget what the world was like in the "good old days"--whenever they were. Particularly, soon after the publication of the Book of Mormon there was an acceptance of pretty much anything--and almost everything was brand new. 

We don't see a lot of serious work done on Book of Mormon geography until after the turn of the last century (early 1900's). That was a beginning, and there were a lot of different opinions--enough that the First Presidency called people out for contention and reminded us that we don't really know, so stop the infighting (a message that hasn't been overly well accepted and implemented ).

As for the introduction of "principal," that was a nod to the increasing evidence that it was impossible for the Book of Mormon to describe every Native American. Then that became still too restrictive and misinterpreted--so it was changed to "among." What created the need for the change? It was the result of a long process of understanding the Book of Mormon as a text. The scholars were teaching (and not being widely accepted) that the Book of Mormon had to have dealt with a small part of the New World population for over 50 years before DNA ever became a thing (and it is surprising how many times we still hear it as an argument against the Book of Mormon, since using it that way violates the science it is built on).

Ideas about the Book of Mormon have changed since probably even before it was published, but certainly ever since. Of course our understanding of how it fits in the world changes, and adapts to better understanding of that world. That has required some changes to the Introduction and Headers that McConkie added. Changing what he thought the text said to a different description of the text isn't changing the text at all. 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and additional information!

However, I do disagree with your last sentence.  The wording or text was very definitely changed in the introduction in 2007.

[Calm]

I think Brant is differentiating between the text of the BoM and the text of the introduction to the BoM which is a description of the text and not the text itself.

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think Brant is differentiating between the text of the BoM and the text of the introduction to the BoM which is a description of the text and not the text itself.

Oh ok.  I didn't see where anyone made that claim (that the text on the BofM changed too), but I haven't followed all of this thread so maybe someone did?

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

You are way behind the curve here. Jeff Lindsay nailed it years ago. The Book of Mormon is actually dependent upon Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." But it is also dependent upon "The Late War" and upon Mercy Otis Warren's "History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution" by Mercy Otis Warren. And "A History of the American Indians" by James Adair. But it is also dependent on the English translation of the "Travels of Marco Polo." But it is also dependent on Bernal Diaz's  account of the Conquest of Mexico by Cortez. But it also is dependent on "The First Book of Napoleon" published in 1809 and the 1822 edition of the "Koran."

Years ago Dale Broadhurst, a "Spaulding Theory" aficionado, devised a computer program and found striking parallels between the Book of Mormon and the superficially completely different Spaulding manuscript held by the Oberlin College in Ohio.

And then there are the extensive parallels between the Book of Mormon and the "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith.

Also demanding not to be left out is "The Golden Pot" by E.T.A Hoffman published in 1814, "The Westminster Confession of Faith", and "The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed" by Josiah Priest.

I am fairly sure that if someone will take the time and develop the proper software and take the time, it will be found that the entire Book of Mormon was lifted from various texts available in Joseph Smith's day. Smith was clever in the way he rearranged some of the stuff.

And some apologists insist that Joseph Smith was an unlearned Country Boy!!!! Anyone with half a brain can see that Joseph Smith had to be the number one genius his time. Not only did he lift words, phrases, and ideas from many different sources, but he was able to rearrange and adapt some of the ideas and scenarios to fut his narrative, but he was able to adopt a Biblical sounding language complete with multiple Hebraic (or Egyptian if you will) constructs, clothed in a grammatical style from the era before that of the King James Bible. He was able to include several complex chiasmus sections, integrate over three hundred and forty proper names, make up or scour sources not readily available to him for other names, pluck names like Moroni out of thin air before it was shown on any map (Comoros Islands capital), and make up several other names which miraculously fortunately later have been identified as Egyptian names (before Egyptian could be translated).

I won't even get into the description of the trip out of Jerusalem to the place they named "Bountiful," the latter part of which went against the known maps of the day which showed the area to which they would have gone as a desolate, barren land, but which turned out to have some very fertile stretches, found later in time.

That greatest genius of this time or maybe even ever has to be a more plausible idea than........

Glenn

 

Glenn, I think you misread my tone and overlooked a little of my content. I am open to inspiration and revelation shaping the text. I'm even open to a historical ancient document at the core of the BOM text which was expanded on in the translation process, which could account for things like Bountiful and Nahom. By the above, I mean to clarify that I believe JS was more than a religious and textual genius, which is how you seemed to characturize my stance.

Also, I think your reference to Jeff Lindsay's historically impossible yet strong intertextuality isn't a compelling dismissal considering that the Bible, the source of inspiration for the possible intertextuality I outlined, was one of the texts that most significantly impacted JS. Also, there are hundreds of other examples of various kinds of intertextuality between the BOM and the Bible, including quotation, paraphrase, allusion, and relatively uncontroversial narrative intertextuality (ex. Nephi and the Exodus, Nephi and Joseph, Laban and Goliath). The proximity of these other intertextualities, many of them being anachronistic in their own right, increases the likelihood of my independently strong example. I also recognize that many of the anachronistic intertextualities are explainable as artififacts of a translation process, but I also recognize others really cannot be as easily explained (hence, my example above). The first intertextuality I stumbled on that let me know there was something funny going on between the BOM and the Bible was Moroni 10's use of Paul's writings on the gifts of the spirit.

[carbon dioxide]

I can understand a person believing the BOM if fiction and not being a committed LDS member but I don't see how can be LDS and say that. One can't even say its inspired fiction.    Either Jesus appeared to the Nephites or he did not.  Either Moroni existed or he did not.  Same with everything else.  One can't be LDS and assert the BOM is fiction anymore than a Catholic can claim he is a committed Catholic but Peter or Paul did not exist.  At some point a person is going to have to plant his or her flag on a side rather than attempting to play both sides.

[Brant Gardner]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and additional information!

However, I do disagree with your last sentence.  The wording or text was very definitely changed in the introduction in 2007.

Calm has it right. I was referring to the introduction, which never was part of the translated text. There have been changes to the text over time. Some were made by Joseph himself, and others have been done more recently based on research into the manuscripts. Some of the changes I wish hadn't been made. I really, really wish that we had the original chapters and not the ones that Orson Pratt created. 

[Brant Gardner]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The proximity of these other intertextualities, many of them being anachronistic in their own right, increases the likelihood of my independently strong example. I also recognize that many of the anachronistic intertextualities are explainable as artififacts of a translation process, but I also recognize others really cannot be as easily explained (hence, my example above). The first intertextuality I stumbled on that let me know there was something funny going on between the BOM and the Bible was Moroni 10's use of Paul's writings on the gifts of the spirit.

There are at least two possible types of intertextuality. The most common is vocabulary when we have quotations or clear allusions. The second is in structural elements. Unfortunately, neither is necessarily determinative of a modern construction. The vocabulary is easily understood as an artifact of translation, since the reason they are found is that the English text of the Book of Mormon quotes or echoes the English text of the KJV. English wasn't the original biblical language, nor was it tie original Book of Mormon language. Hence the very fact that such intertextualities are found indicates that they happen on the level of English, and may or may not reflect the original.

For that case, since there is an intertextuality in English, might that require that the original of the Book of Mormon was English in order to produce them? No, it only requires that the meaning be sufficiently parallel that the KJV language is used to express it. I was reading about the scholars translating the NIV and at least one of them suggested that they all had to work to not use the KJV language for a passage. What is so well known is easily supplied.

What about more structural, story-level intertextualities? That is more complicated, and requires examination of each case. Some are intentionally similar (as in Nephi). Some may be coincidental. For these reasons, attempting to determine historical authenticity based on the English text of the Book of Mormon is difficult at best, and perhaps impossible.

What I have found much more difficult to explain is historical context. Orson Scott Card has an interesting article entitled "The Book of Mormon--Artifact or Artifice?" He talks about the problems of inventing worlds in science fiction and the fact that the authors time and culture subtly enter the writing even when the author is attempting to create something entirely new. That is the problem with the Book of Mormon. It should reflect Joseph's time (and it has aspects where it seems to). Examined closely, it just doesn't fit in that world, and has its best explanation for both history and culture in a very different time and place. I find those constructions much more reliable that those that are so easily influenced by the translation process.

[Benjamin Seeker]

17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I can understand a person believing the BOM if fiction and not being a committed LDS member but I don't see how can be LDS and say that. One can't even say its inspired fiction.    Either Jesus appeared to the Nephites or he did not.  Either Moroni existed or he did not.  Same with everything else.  One can't be LDS and assert the BOM is fiction anymore than a Catholic can claim he is a committed Catholic but Peter or Paul did not exist.  At some point a person is going to have to plant his or her flag on a side rather than attempting to play both sides.

I disagree. I can believe that JS and co. had authentic encounters with the divine, and that those interactions largely took place within his worldview shaping their form and content. This means I believe in real spiritual experiences at the foundation of Mormonism, and I also believe that the BOM is, at least partially, a product of JS's 19th century understanding, culture, personal experience, etc. In other words, I believe that it is entirely or at least partially ahistorical.

 

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Calm has it right. I was referring to the introduction, which never was part of the translated text. There have been changes to the text over time. Some were made by Joseph himself, and others have been done more recently based on research into the manuscripts. Some of the changes I wish hadn't been made. I really, really wish that we had the original chapters and not the ones that Orson Pratt created. 

This is new to me.  Maybe I missed it on the thread,  but could you tell me about these Orson Pratt chapters please?

[Calm]

Rain, this may help:

http://nathanrichardson.com/2013/01/the-original-chapter-breaks-in-the-book-of-mormon/

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is certain that there was a tradition that held that all Native Americans, from the entire hemisphere, came from the Book of Mormon peoples. I was taught that and was certain it must be correct. With our modern access to better history and science, we tend to forget what the world was like in the "good old days"--whenever they were. Particularly, soon after the publication of the Book of Mormon there was an acceptance of pretty much anything--and almost everything was brand new. 

We don't see a lot of serious work done on Book of Mormon geography until after the turn of the last century (early 1900's). That was a beginning, and there were a lot of different opinions--enough that the First Presidency called people out for contention and reminded us that we don't really know, so stop the infighting (a message that hasn't been overly well accepted and implemented ).

As for the introduction of "principal," that was a nod to the increasing evidence that it was impossible for the Book of Mormon to describe every Native American. Then that became still too restrictive and misinterpreted--so it was changed to "among." What created the need for the change? It was the result of a long process of understanding the Book of Mormon as a text. The scholars were teaching (and not being widely accepted) that the Book of Mormon had to have dealt with a small part of the New World population for over 50 years before DNA ever became a thing (and it is surprising how many times we still hear it as an argument against the Book of Mormon, since using it that way violates the science it is built on).

Ideas about the Book of Mormon have changed since probably even before it was published, but certainly ever since. Of course our understanding of how it fits in the world changes, and adapts to better understanding of that world. That has required some changes to the Introduction and Headers that McConkie added. Changing what he thought the text said to a different description of the text isn't changing the text at all. 

This reminds me of the interesting appearance of a particular word in D&C 88:77-80:

“And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—That ye may be prepared in all thing…” The perfection of the explanation of things as we suppose them to be, to the best of our good-faith effort, is an ongoing aspect of learning and teaching. and is attended by grace.

For me, a couple of examples of God using theory include D&C 121:39 and 50:12.

[mapman]

10 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Of course there should--and is. There is room for those who don't believe in anything, but are willing to give place to the seed. There is room for the sinner in the middle of repentance. There is room for those who have no idea about the historicity of any scripture. There should be room for everyone at any level of faith. 

 

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that there isn't room. I think some members would be uncomfortable with there being other members that don't believe in the historicity of the Book of of Mormon, but that generally speaking people are ok with people being at different places on these things.

Edited November 14, 2016 by mapman

[mapman]

I think the question of historicity is complicated by the fact that people usually think there are only two possibilities: it is either historically accurate ancient history or it is modern fiction. Usually those that hold to the first view virtually always believe the BoM is inspired scripture, and most (though not all) that hold to the second view believe it is not inspired of God. But there are other options. For example:

Blake Ostler argued that parts of the book are translations of an ancient document, but others are modern expansions. From his point of view it is an inspired book.

The Book of Abraham shows that JS used the term "translation" a lot more loosely than what we are used to. Some have argued that the Egyptian papyri served as a catalyst for his receiving revelation about Abraham, even if he didn't really know what the writing said. From this point of view, God inspired him to receive a revelation about Abraham that could possibly even have accurate historical information not contained in the Bible or the papyri. What if the plates were a "catalyst" for revelation about the people the angel Moroni told him about and the fullness of the Gospel he was promised to receive? How would he actually know that the words he was dictating were what the plates actually said? He was confident that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham came from God and seemed to assume both were actually on the ancient records he had.

I'm not necessarily advocating these views, but I think that we need to try to think more outside the box on this question since it seems clear to me that JS was operating under different assumptions of the nature of language and scripture than we do.

[The Nehor]

On 11/12/2016 at 6:14 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

I am more interested in why you seem to take perverse pleasure in antagonizing your family. Then again, you seem more to be playing a role in this thrilling drama you cooked up and I have doubts this actually every happened. I suspect it was a shallow pretext to open this tedious discussion we have had dozens of times before. Have fun I guess.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am more interested in why you seem to take perverse pleasure in antagonizing your family. 

Where did they say that?  They take "perverse  pleasure"?  Don't they have a right to express their beliefs too in a discussion about the BofM?

Edited November 14, 2016 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am more interested in why you seem to take perverse pleasure in antagonizing your family. Then again, you seem more to be playing a role in this thrilling drama you cooked up and I have doubts this actually every happened. I suspect it was a shallow pretext to open this tedious discussion we have had dozens of times before. Have fun I guess.

Antagonizing my family you know nothing about?  What about the following guidelines?  

"- Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing
- Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
- Spreading malicious gossip"

Instead of answering any of my questions, you attack me personally and suggest that I antagonize my family because I have different opinions?  

I might have different opinions as others here, but I'll never attack them personally.  

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I can understand a person believing the BOM if fiction and not being a committed LDS member but I don't see how can be LDS and say that. One can't even say its inspired fiction.    Either Jesus appeared to the Nephites or he did not.  Either Moroni existed or he did not.  Same with everything else.  One can't be LDS and assert the BOM is fiction anymore than a Catholic can claim he is a committed Catholic but Peter or Paul did not exist.  At some point a person is going to have to plant his or her flag on a side rather than attempting to play both sides.

I think you bring up an interesting point.  I do know some members who are active but don't accept the BoM as a non-fiction.  

If the BoM is another testament of Jesus Christ, then why is so much in the culminating moment of this book during Christ's visit (3rd Nephi) to the people in the Americas copied straight from the Bible?  Christ had nothing new/specific for these people?  

Also, if you look at 3rd Nephi 12: 41

 "41 And whosoever shall compel thee to goa mile, go with him twain."

Why would Christ use the unit of measurement of a "mile" when the people in the Americas at that time wouldn't know what that measurement was/meant?  

[Atheist Mormon]

On 11/12/2016 at 6:14 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

Not only BoM, Bible is fiction also.