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

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

I do agree, as I've said previously, that many of the intertextualities in the BOM could be explained as artifacts of translation. Most of the intertextualities that I think are suggestive, not determinative, of modern construction are anachronistic structural/narrative intertextualities, especially when these large-scale intertextualities are supported with phrasal allusions to the same text. That being said, I'd also argue that Moroni 10, though it's in the quotation/allusion category, is also suggestive of modern construction. It can be seen as an expansion of 1 Corinthians 12's gift of the spirit list. Each item is treated in order, and many are expanded. As we've both acknowledged, the original plate text had a similar meaning and so the KJV intertextuality was appropriate, but as each item is present and appears in appropriate order with expansion specific to the alluded/quoted text, Moroni's gifts of the spirit as a doctrinal commentary and expansion of 1 Corinthians 12 is an equally if not more convincing explanation.

• Element 1: Holy Ghost's witness of Jesus Christ
  • "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor 12:3)
  • "And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever." (Moro 10:6-7)
  • Both elements of denial of Christ and testament of Christ are present in both texts with expansion in Moroni.
• Element 2: Diversities of gifts
  • "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." (1 Cor 12:4-7)
  • "And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them." (Moro 10:8)
  • Several phrases in Corinthians are present in Moroni, just with varied wording. In other words, same meaning, but different wording. This is antithetical to the  reasoning for KJV intertextuality which justifies the same wording because of similar meaning. Also, it should be noted that key words, like administration/administered and manifestation, are preserved.
    • "diversities of gifts" = "they are many;"
    • "but the same Lord" = "and they come from the same God"
    • "diversities in administrations" = "different ways that these gifts are administered"
    • "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" = "and they are given by the manifestation of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them"
  • Lastly, the phrase "but it is the same God which worketh all in all" comes following the "diversities of operations" phrase in Corinthians, and appears following the "different ways that these gifts are administered" phrase in Moroni, creating a kind of paraphrase. It's interesting to see how the BOM text jumps from expansion to paraphrase and from variation to quotation here. I'm not sure this particular feature is suggestive of anything, just worth noting.
• Element 3: Wisdom
  • "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;" (1 Cor 12:8)
  • "For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;" (Moro 10:9)
  • simple expansions "of God" and "that he may teach"
• Element 4: Knowledge
  • "to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;" (1 Cor 12:8)
  • "And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;" (Moro 10:10)
  • expansion "he may teach"
• Element 4: Faith
  • "To another faith by the same Spirit;" (1 Cor 12:9)
  •   "And to another, exceedingly great faith;" (Moro 10:11)
  • expansion "exceedingly great"
• Element 5: Healing
  • "to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;" (1 Cor 12:9)
  • "and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;" (Moro 10:11)
• Element 6: Miracles
  • "To another the working of miracles;" (1 Cor 12:10)
  • "And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;" (Moro 10:12)
  • expansion "mighty"
• Element 7: Prophecy
  • "to another prophecy;" (1 Cor 12:10)
  • " And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;" (Moro 10:13)
  • expansion "concerning all things"
• Element 8: Discerning of spirits
  • "to another discerning of spirits;" (1 Cor 12:10)
  •  "And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;" (Moro 10:14)
  • expansion "beholding of angels" and "ministering"
• Element 9: Tongues
  • "to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" (1 Cor 12:10)
  • "And again, to another, all kinds of tongues; And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues." (Moro 10:15-16)
  • expansion without clear purpose(?)
• Element 10: selfsame Spirit
  • But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." (1 Cor 12:11)
  • "And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will." (Moro 10:17)
  • expansion "Spirit of Christ"

The case for the above being artifact of translation is also weakened by the fact that D&C 46 has a very similar commentary style version of 1 Cor. 12. Following is the section that covers the above items. Notice how it covers the same core elements with it's own unique expansions and variations. "To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful. And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men. And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal. And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom. To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge. And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed; And to others it is given to have faith to heal. And again, to some is given the working of miracles; And to others it is given to prophesy; And to others the discerning of spirits. And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues; And to another is given the interpretation of tongues. And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God."

Earlier in the thread I shared one strong example of an anachronistic narrative intertextuality between 1 Kings 16 and Ether 8-9.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker
proof reading

[Steve J]

Bemjamin Seeker- I find your comments on Mormon -Corinthians helpful... I think you have a habit of going too far other times. I also don't think, like Brant states, that necessarily what you wrote about Corinthians - Mormon has to come down to the BOM being  Non-historical. I think it's no- different than if it was a direct word for word copy. It can be interpreted as direct evidence that the BOM is modern. I wish I could be more clear, but I'm writing on a phone.

[Benjamin Seeker]

51 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Bemjamin Seeker- I find your comments on Mormon -Corinthians helpful... I think you have a habit of going too far other times. I also don't think, like Brant states, that necessarily what you wrote about Corinthians - Mormon has to come down to the BOM being  Non-historical. I think it's no- different than if it was a direct word for word copy. It can be interpreted as direct evidence that the BOM is modern. I wish I could be more clear, but I'm writing on a phone.

I'm just saying that it suggests the possibility of non-historicity. This particular example didn't convince me of non-historicity, but it did send me snooping down that path. From here I added, multiple examples of anachronistic narrative intertextuality that did convince me that parts of the BOM are ahistorical.

Following is a quick list of anachronistic narrative intertextualities. All of these are supported with phrasal allusions to the target texts as well (we could talk about any of these in-depth if anyone would like, it'll just take time).

• Paul and Alma the Younger (BYU Studies Comparison)
• Events surrounding Lazarus' return from death (John 11) and Lamoni's return from a death-like state (Alma 19)
• Alma's interaction with Korihor and Paul's interaction with the sorcerer.
• Ammon's defense of Lamoni's flock (Alma 17) and Jesus' parable of the good shepherd (John 10).
• King Omri and King Omer (outlined in a previous post in this thread).

Edited November 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

I did miss your point. But if a person accepts inspiration and revelation, and that the same God who gave Paul his inspiration on gifts of the spirit also gave Moroni the same inspiration. We do not have the information as to just how that information was received by the two. It is even possible that both were paraphrasing another document that we no longer have.

If God is taken out of the picture, I am in agreement.

Glenn

[cdowis]

9 hours 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.

Please tell us the dictionary definition (copy and paste, pleese) and how it poses a problem for the BOM.

HINT: "Principal" does not mean what you (and the anti-Mormons) think it means.  It was actually unnecessary to make the change.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

I am not questioning your sincerity. I believe you might be sincere in your probable lies. If it is true you are kind of a walking cliche which isn't much better.

Oh, and to answer your question, no and you are wrong. Hope this helps.

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

This means that the only authoratative source for determining the ancestors (and the location of the Hill Cumorah) is within the text of the Book of Mormon itself.  BOM geography AND BOM history are not doctrinal issues, but are subject to scientific investigation and differences of opinions.

I realize that this simple fact will make heads explode among the critics.  They just don't get it.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Almost half of the names came from the Bible, right?

Many of the other names could have been available to Joseph Smith in his time / area.  For example:

- Moroni is the capital of Comoros
- Enos is in the Bible
- Zenos was the name of a man who was a member of the church in the 1800's
- Nephi is listed in the Apocrypha
- Levi, Ephraim, and Aaron (along with other names) are listed in the Book of Ether; however, this group of people came around the time of the Tower of Babel, right?  Wouldn't those be anachronisms?  
- "On the other hand, it is worth noting that virtually all of the above names or ones closely comparable, even with their peculiar BoM-like pronunciations, are found in John Walker’s Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scriptural Proper Names, published and sold in the Northeast throughout the early 19th century. Rick Grunder notes that Lehi, Lemuel, and Lah’man are found on the same page, while Nephi, Ishmael, Zeorim, Saraiah, and Sami are close nearby, as well as Laban and Na’ham/Na’hum. [8] " http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/the-book-of-mormon-as-myth-and-more-on-the-name-alma/

I note that you here talk about biblical names, and then go on to list a bunch of them, but fail to deal with the two names that I mentioned (Pahoran, Paanchi)..  That seems counterproductive, if your intent is to dismiss those names which Joseph could have gotten from his KJV (which included the Apocrypha)..  I expected you to focus on the non-biblical names.  You mention Moroni as capital of the Comoros Islands, but there is no evidence that Joseph could have known of that.  It is in any case a good Italian name, so we should probably exclude it as a good test case.  Same for Zenos, which is good Greek name meaning "foreigner."  Many Hebrew names, such as Levi, Ephraim, and Aaron come from high antiquity and exist long before Hebrew came into use.  Levi, for example, Albright argued is represented in ancient Egyptian syllabic orthography Ra-wi-ʼi-ra for Amorite/Semitic *Law(i)-ʼil(a) = Lawiʼil, of which Hebrew Lēwî is probably merely a late qitl-formation and hypocoristicon,^[1] but from the Semitic root √LWY/LYY “be joined, attend, accompany,”^[2] – and derived more directly from lawiyu “a person pledged for a debt or a vow (to Yahweh)”^[3]; the title also appears in Arabic (Luʼaiy), and in Thamudic, Sabaean (Lwy), etc.^[4];  cf., for example, Minaean lawi’u “priest.”  Baruch Levine sees lēwîyîm (2 Samuel 15:24) “as a professional designation,” and adds: 

Quote

The term lēwî itself may be a northern locution; witness its occurrence in these early northern Israelite sources and in Deuteronomy, whose core is probably of northern Israelite origin.[5]

---

^[1] Albright, Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography, §13, p. 8, n. 16, and III, B, 7; Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §21111.5, LXX Greek leu(e)i; Amorite in AS 21:34; Aramaic (see CCENA 49).

^[2] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §21111.5 (p. 71), citing PNPI 93a; APNM 225-226; WSB 88.

^[3] Albright, Archaeology and Religion of Israel, 5^th ed., 109, 204-205 n. 42, cited in M. Rehm in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:300.

^[4] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §21111, citing IC 522 for the Arabic.

[5] Levine, Numbers 1-20, Anchor Bible, 281.

[Ouagadougou]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

This means that the only authoratative source for determining the ancestors (and the location of the Hill Cumorah) is within the text of the Book of Mormon itself.  BOM geography AND BOM history are not doctrinal issues, but are subject to scientific investigation and differences of opinions.

I realize that this simple fact will make heads explode among the critics.  They just don't get it.

Head just exploded. 😄  

[Boanerges]

I realize I am a little late to the party here and I did not read every post (but I did read over half). I am an active, temple recommend holding, major calling holder who believes the BoM and the Bible to be mostly fiction. That doesn't mean it's not good fiction. I do believe the BoM can and does bring people closer to God and Christ and I feel the sweet peace the gospel brings when I read it (as I similarly do when I read the words of the Savior in the NT). Christ taught in parables, which were also fictional stories - but my favorite scripture of all is the parable of the prodigal son. That parable encompasses the core truths of the gospel replete with multiple layers of symbolism. Yet, it is not a true or historical account, it was made up by the Savior to teach a point (or several points as the case may be). I am fine with the BoM being a very large multi-part parable, and I believe much of the OT to be likewise. The literal believer and I can sit in the same class and get exactly the same meaning out of any of the stories and faith can be edified in both of us in pretty much the same way. Likewise, the literal believer and I can sit beside each other in the temple and also each be edified by the presentation. I believe the BoM was given to Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God, just as the parables were given to the ancient apostles and disciples by the mouth of God - and that's good enough for me.

[Steve J]

Benjamin Seeker- Thank you for your response. I seen most of those you listed and also some more(that you probably know about). Some are And I agree with you in that I believe that the book is not historical in the sense that I would use it in a secular setting. I guess I am a mix of a little bit of Gardner, Adam Miller, McGuire, Joe Spencer, Bokovoy, Blake Ostler, etc... I believe the book purposefully is modern in many aspects (how much??? Not sure) and based on faith (and some other interesting factors) that it is ancient.  

I think also that we studying the BOM always want to say that the translation was done one way throughout the book. tight control, loose control, etc... The Book might just be a hodgepodge. Now I realize that to secular students this is an untestable hypothesis and is a cop-out... But if it is really a book of God, that possibility can't be totally dismissed

 

 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Not only BoM, Bible is fiction also. 

If the BOM is fiction, I see no reason to also believe the Bible to be fiction as well.  There is no real reason to believe that even a Jesus existed.  I have no problems with both the Bible and BOM contain some fictional things like parables to teach a concept.  I also have no problem with the idea that popular interpretations being off a bit from the truth but when one starts questioning basic ideas that the people mentioned in the text even existed, then there is no reason to place the Bible and BOM along with Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings.  I would no more use the BOM in a religious discussion than I would Harry Potter.

[thesometimesaint]

Frodo lives.

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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?

We don't know that unit of measurement Christ used when he taught the people in the Americas, we only know that the translation from their units of measurement were turned into miles since that is what unit of measurement most people would be able to relate to, who would be reading it, once it was known as the BOM.

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mention Moroni as capital of the Comoros Islands, but there is no evidence that Joseph could have known of that.  It is in any case a good Italian name, so we should probably exclude it as a good test case.

We've touched on this in another thread but maybe worth mentioning again because I think this is key to understanding Israelite migrations during the BOM period.

The word Comoros comes from the word Qumr, the name given to these people by early Arab explorers. (source) The Greek and Romans called them Camarini, and they were associated with the Rechabites of early Judeo-Christian traditions. According to John Welch, the Rechabites are a model group in Lehi's world.

The Qumr that settled the Comoros have genetic links to Egyptian-like groups, via groups closely resembling today's Ethiopian and Indian Jews, but they passed first through the Malay Peninsula. In a paper published this month, the early inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula have high rates of Haplogroup W3, linking them genetically to Jewish-Christian groups claiming descent from Samaritans.

This recent study demonstrates how Mulekite and Lehite migrations to the isles of the sea were possible.

A group from the north with Samaritan-like DNA settles the northern part of the narrow neck of land. According to legends their founder was an exiled prince from the west. Mulekites. A group with Egyptian and Jewish-like DNA settles in the south of the narrow neck of land. Their legends claim their founder had a vision from God and was led across the waters to a new land. Lehites.

Just follow the lines from Egyptian to Cambodian above, notice they pass through a group resembling Ethiopian and Indian Jews. Then notice the line passing from Pathan to Cambodian. This is likely the group carrying Haplogroup W to the isles of the sea. The Book of Mormon fits the data if you place it in the Old World.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I realize I am a little late to the party here and I did not read every post (but I did read over half). I am an active, temple recommend holding, major calling holder who believes the BoM and the Bible to be mostly fiction. 

Interesting.  Let me see if I understand.

Joseph Smith lied when he claimed that Moroni visited him, because he was a non-existent fictional character.  The plates themselves are fictional, since Mormon, Nephi, and the other authors of this book were also fictional.  The eleven witnesses also lied, since the plates were fictional.

Thus, all of the evidence for the OM are simply coincidence.

Am I following you so far?

BTW, what if Christ had introduced the prodigal son to the disciples (similar to Moroni appearing to JS)?  Then what would that mean in your view of it as being fiction.  Your illustration fails at a very basic level.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please tell us the dictionary definition (copy and paste, pleese) and how it poses a problem for the BOM.

HINT: "Principal" does not mean what you (and the anti-Mormons) think it means.  It was actually unnecessary to make the change.

Webster's New World Dictionary takes 5 words to describe principal (base word "prince"). It describes the word in its adjective form. Please enlighten me why "principal" does not mean what I think it means. "first in rank, importance, etc."

You say it doesn't mean that. You are obliged to supply more information regarding your definition.

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Interesting.  Let me see if I understand.

Joseph Smith lied when he claimed that Moroni visited him, because he was a non-existent fictional character.  The plates themselves are fictional, since Mormon, Nephi, and the other authors of this book were also fictional.  The eleven witnesses also lied, since the plates were fictional.

Thus, all of the evidence for the OM are simply coincidence.

Am I following you so far?

BTW, what if Christ had introduced the prodigal son to the disciples (similar to Moroni appearing to JS)?  Then what would that mean in your view of it as being fiction.  Your illustration fails at a very basic level.

I didn't say anything about Moroni. I believe Joseph Smith believed he saw and spoke with Moroni and others and I stated that I believe the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God, which certainly could have included Moroni. Like the Book of Abraham, the plates, whether physical, spiritual, or "visionary" in nature, could have been the catalyst of the "translation." I do not believe the "reformed Egyptian" characters are necessarily the same words we know as the Book of Mormon. I believe those words were given directly to the prophet independent of the plates, mostly through the seer stone in the hat. Accounts seem to indicate the plates were not always physically present (perhaps not even usually present) during the translation and that Joseph did not look at the plates while dictating.

I am open to the idea the 11 witnesses may have lied or been deceived. I believe the three witnesses (at least two of them). But their accounts have no bearing on my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

I don't know where your criticism of parables is coming from. I don't think anyone disputes that Jesus taught in parables. He himself spoke about teaching with parables and why. There are 46 parables included in the Bible. Jesus couldn't have introduced the prodigal son (or the ten virgins or any of the others) because they didn't exist. I learn from all of the parables, even though there are some I don't yet fully understand. The ones I do understand are nonetheless profound.

I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around the way I think, but I'm not asking you to and I don't care if you think I'm a wacko because I also believe we have a loving Father in Heaven who loves you just as much as he loves me. I believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ; He is my Savior. These testimonies are personal and spiritual and undoubtedly partly based on teachings of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible, both of which I think contain the fullness of the gospel (as stated in temple). The bottom line is that you don't get to decide what I believe and don't believe. You don't give me callings. You don't interview me for temple recommends. And if you heard one of my almost monthly talks or various lessons you'd have no idea that I believe anything different about the Book of Mormon than any literal believer - you will have heard a talk focused on Jesus Christ and core principles of the gospel which includes quotations from the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

[Boanerges]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 I would no more use the BOM in a religious discussion than I would Harry Potter.

I don't think I have ever quoted Harry Potter in a talk, but I have quoted Obi Wan Kenobi and Lord of the Rings as well as words of C.S. Lewis, Charles D-i-c-k-ens, and others. I could see quoting Harry Potter - after all, the Boy Who Lived lived because his mother loved him and that's a message fitting with the gospel.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boanerges

[Monster]

On 11/12/2016 at 8:03 PM, Glenn101 said:

This puts you and waveslider on opposite sides of the divide. waveslider has had to adjust his beliefs because of a spiritual experience that he has had and feels that he cannot deny. II ma pretty much in the same boat as waveslider.)

Whether or not there is "room in the church" for those who believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction is really up to those individuals. They will not be excommunicated for those beliefs, unless they should cross a line into actively and publicly preaching/teaching those beliefs. I would wonder why such an one would stay though. Doesn't seem rational. I am aware of family problems etc. but I could not remain with an organization I felt was a lie.

By the same token, I have yet to have a critic offer those who believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical text as well as scripture a coherent and cogent and plausible explanation of how the Book of Mormon was produced, providing an explanations for the many things that Book of Mormon scholars have found inside and outside its covers. They can only repeat the same things over and over that you have enumerated, some of which are not factually correct, such as the linguistics, as to reasons they do not believe, but have not dealt with what is actually in the book in any coherent fashion. There are a lot of ad hoc theories on this one thing or another, but none propped up by any credible evidence.

Maybe you could take on the task??? Just browse through the old F.A.R.M.S./Maxwell Institute articles as well as the current Interpreter stuff to see what you have to deal with and have at it.

Until someone can provide me with something rationally plausible, I am really comfortable in my beliefs.

 

Glenn

It is not up to anyone to disprove the BofM. When one makes a claim that something is factual, it is incumbent on that person to provide evidence of such. In all my reading I see a coincidence here and there supporting a literal BofM, yet there is overwhelming evidence it is not what it claims, at least from a historical perspective.

If one choses to find value in its pages i have no issue with that. But to claim it is historical you have to supply more than "a spiritual experience" which experiences are notoriously unreliable for determining factual realities.

[Atheist Mormon]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the BOM is fiction, I see no reason to also believe the Bible to be fiction as well.  There is no real reason to believe that even a Jesus existed.  I have no problems with both the Bible and BOM contain some fictional things like parables to teach a concept.  I also have no problem with the idea that popular interpretations being off a bit from the truth but when one starts questioning basic ideas that the people mentioned in the text even existed, then there is no reason to place the Bible and BOM along with Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings.  I would no more use the BOM in a religious discussion than I would Harry Potter.

CD, do this test, ( I was doing last 5 decades)......I believe you exist with moniker of CD, why? Because you revealed yourself to me with a simple response. Imagine this guy who created the whole Universe (me and you & your cat, dog) is incapable of revealing himself to us..? Do I have to stand up on my head, besides praying performing all the rituals day after day, year after year?

Obviously God is a pigment of our believing gene.

[churchistrue]

I don't like the word "fiction" used in description of the BOM, similar to how I don't like it being used to describe the Bible, even though I don't believe much of the Bible to be historically accurate.

Fiction is a genre.  Non-fiction is a genre.  Religious scripture is a genre outside both of those.

The word fiction used to describe the BOM usually seems to be used by critics insulting the BOM or apologists, exaggerating the stance of Middle Grounders.

I don't believe the BOM represents accurate history.  I think it's likely there was no ancient record on any gold plates.  I believe it is most accurately described as a 19th century work.  But I accept it as scripture.
 

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 hours ago, Steve J said:

Benjamin Seeker- Thank you for your response. I seen most of those you listed and also some more(that you probably know about). Some are And I agree with you in that I believe that the book is not historical in the sense that I would use it in a secular setting. I guess I am a mix of a little bit of Gardner, Adam Miller, McGuire, Joe Spencer, Bokovoy, Blake Ostler, etc... I believe the book purposefully is modern in many aspects (how much??? Not sure) and based on faith (and some other interesting factors) that it is ancient.  

I think also that we studying the BOM always want to say that the translation was done one way throughout the book. tight control, loose control, etc... The Book might just be a hodgepodge. Now I realize that to secular students this is an untestable hypothesis and is a cop-out... But if it is really a book of God, that possibility can't be totally dismissed

 

 

 

 

Steve, I'd be curious to hear about other narrative intertextualities you've learned about. I'm aware of a few others that are less problematic. I'm always on the lookout for more.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Webster's New World Dictionary takes 5 words to describe principal (base word "prince"). It describes the word in its adjective form. Please enlighten me why "principal" does not mean what I think it means. "first in rank, importance, etc."

You say it doesn't mean that. You are obliged to supply more information regarding your definition.

I said it does not mean what the CRITICS think it means.

Principal does NOT mean "majority".  The Nephites could have been considered first in rank or importance because of various aspects -- technology, society, etc.  Thus, the Preface of the BOM is correct as it is written.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I didn't say anything about Moroni.

Of course you didn't. bb In case you missed it ===>>  It is a huge hole in your argument.  Either Moroni existed, and your theory that the BOM is fiction is baloney, or JS is a liar, and his whole narrative is false.

Let's see how you respond to my question.

 

I believe Joseph Smith believed he saw and spoke with Moroni

I don't understand.  Was Moroni a hallucination?  Was it a fake vision from his imagination, or did God send it to him or from Satan?  And what does this say about the First Vision account == JS REALLY believed he saw the Father and Son, did he not?

PLEEZE help me understand how the vision of Moroni was a fake, but the FV was real. 

HELP ME!

and others and I stated that I believe the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God, which certainly could have included Moroni. Like the Book of Abraham, the plates, whether physical, spiritual, or "visionary" in nature, could have been the catalyst of the "translation." I do not believe the "reformed Egyptian" characters are necessarily the same words we know as the Book of Mormon. I believe those words were given directly to the prophet independent of the plates, mostly through the seer stone in the hat. Accounts seem to indicate the plates were not always physically present (perhaps not even usually present) during the translation and that Joseph did not look at the plates while dictating.

So Joseph went to the hill and imagined that he dug up the plates, and, years later, had to escape from thieves while running with imaginary plates under his arms.  That he hid these imaginary plates,  BUT HE STILL BELIEVE THAT HE HAD ACTUAL PLATES?

PLEASE HELP ME!

I am open to the idea the 11 witnesses may have lied or been deceived. I believe the three witnesses (at least two of them). But their accounts have no bearing on my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

I am questioning your logic.  I believe that a testimony based on a fictional book, lies, deception, and fake visions is built on a very sandy foundation. 

Let the bishop and stake president judge whether you have a real testimony.  In your temple recommend interview, tell them that the BOM is fictional, that JS lied about the plates and had a fake vision of Moroni, but that you have a testimony that the BOM is a great book.  

Let. them judge.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis