Book of Mormon

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hey you guys. I wanted to post this video of an incredible talk by Jeffrey R. Holland. He is an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe that apostles are special witnesses of Jesus Christ, just as the apostles in the New Testament. In this talk, Elder Holland bears an incredibly powerful testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. It's on youtube in two parts: Part One. Part Two.

I'd love to hear how you feel after watching it if any one wants to share.

[jabberwockybruno]

I've read the Book of Mormon, and I don't buy it.

There are many parts I simply do not think are true, because they don't correlate with secular history. Some examples:

1. There is absolutely no DNA or anthropological evidence that native Americans are descendants from the Jewish race. Rather, all evidence suggests Mongoloid/Asian ancestory.

2. The BOM describes many great cities in the Americas, and describes civilizations that have bronze shields, helmets, and swords, as well as a coin currency system. It also describes all of these things, as well as animals such elephants and horses, being in existence thousands of years ago. There is no archeological evidence for any of this.

If a book makes such claims of these supposed civilizations, I would expect archeologists to find some evidence. I would also expect DNA analysis to verify its claims of the Native Americans' ancestry. Since the evidence is either lacking or contradictory, I cannot believe that the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is true.

I have other things to say, but does anybody care to know?

[Apex]

Originally Posted by jabberwockybruno

I've read the Book of Mormon, and I don't buy it.

There are many parts I simply do not think are true, because they don't correlate with secular history. Some examples:

1. There is absolutely no DNA or anthropological evidence that native Americans are descendants from the Jewish race. Rather, all evidence suggests Mongoloid/Asian ancestory.

2. The BOM describes many great cities in the Americas, and describes civilizations that have bronze shields, helmets, and swords, as well as a coin currency system. It also describes all of these things, as well as animals such elephants and horses, being in existence thousands of years ago. There is no archeological evidence for any of this.

If a book makes such claims of these supposed civilizations, I would expect archeologists to find some evidence. I would also expect DNA analysis to verify its claims of the Native Americans' ancestry. Since the evidence is either lacking or contradictory, I cannot believe that the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is true.

I have other things to say, but does anybody care to know?

Have you looked at any of the responses to these points given by LDS scholars and apologists? I am not implying that you would instantly see the "truth" if you did, but it is generally a good idea to look at all sides first.

[jabberwockybruno]

So what I got from the video you linked is: It must be true because Joseph Smith and his brother died for it. Why would they so strongly defend an untrue book? It's validity is also evidenced by the positive impact it has had on so many lives.

These are valid points. I'm still unconvinced of its historicity. I'm looking for independent verification from secular sources. If you give me more links to videos or articles, I'll watch/read them.

Do you know anyplace where I can get transcripts of Joseph's Smith's sermons? I figure there's no better way to learn of a religion than directly from its founder.

[Akira]

i feel rather guilty for first becoming confused by the BOM because of an episode of South Park. i'm not going to lie, i know very little other than the contents of that episode. I will however try and watch these two clips with an open, yet as always suspicious, mind.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Akira

i feel rather guilty for first becoming confused by the BOM because of an episode of South Park. i'm not going to lie, i know very little other than the contents of that episode. I will however try and watch these two clips with an open, yet as always suspicious, mind.

Yes you/we should...

Also...let's be very respectful of their space here on RF. This was placed in the "Christianity" section so we want to be more of and observer than a commenter...

[Clear]

I think the first time I even knew a Mormon, I was in high school. (I mixed up the LDS with the Amish and was surprised my student body president was LDS...). Later, in college a Lutheran scholar handed me a Book of Mormon, told me “You really have to read this”. They explained they had a spiritual confirmation the book was true and were converting. If that person had not been so spectacular, I would have simply concluded delusion. I admit that I only read bits, still I felt it was as profound a testimony of Jesus as I’d ever been exposed to.

Now, that I’m older and looking back the perspectives have changed a lot. I have more background in history than ever, more ability to think critically (and perhaps more cynical of claims) than ever. I understand enough regarding DNA to understand the competing data (those who do believe in the LDS claim parade their data, and those who do not believe in the claim parade their equally impressive data sets - both data sets are impressive, but inclusive to me). Individuals debate as to what is meant literally and what is meant symbolically and allegorically, etc. Now that I’m older, I believe many, many of these disagreements have to do with the data sets individuals are exposed to.

For example, Dirty Penguin points out a set of data where horses did not exist on the American Continent, whereas my historical exposure confirmed horses long before spaniards arrived. Horses in my data set were sold from Sante Fe and sent south. Though our data sets are different and incongruent. Neither he nor I can easily change our minds without further data. This, we do not have. At least not in any arguments I’ve seen.

The data sets between the LDS and non LDS differ in many ways that cause similar difficulties. For example, it’s been claimed that the indians have no parallel belief remnants in their religion with christianity. My neighbor is a Navaho indian who spoken specifically of these parallels others claim do not exist. I do not think either side is attempting to outright lie, but they are simply making the best decision they can on limited information. Perhaps my Navaho neighbor doesn’t really know his own religious background or perhaps the other claimant is incorrect. As an observer to the two claims, I am stuck in the position of simply admitting to myself that I cannot come to any honest conclusion. OR, I can simply take the position that agrees with my prior bias. Often the truth that I find, is somewhere in between the claims.

For example, it was claimed in another thread on the Book of Mormon, that Smith plagiarized “word for word” directly from the King James. The claim was made with wonderful and impressive examples. The LDS then countered with denials with some examples. And I am still left in the same position as before. Maybe.... However, I took some time to actually LOOK at some of the verses and compare the Book of Mormon’s Isaiah “word for word” with the King James Version and find that something else entirely is going on (at least in my opinion). The LDS are perfectly correct (even if they didn’t know it), the verses are not lifted “word for word” from the King James. At least half of the verses I read are different in the Book of Mormon. There are additions, subtractions and changes (the typical plus, minus and change errors that one see’s between most New or Old Testament Manuscripts...)

This is only seen when one actually is diligent enough to LOOK "word for word" (how many will do that....?). However, the critics are partly correct that there are sections taken from the King James also (including italics). If Smith felt that the KJV WAS as good as his source material (whatever it was), then this is acceptable for a translator to do. (up to 30% of New Testament references are from other books...) However, If what is to be translated is different, then this was bad form and poor stuff (My wife is a translator). However, it gets much more complicated than this. The WORDS that are added and subtracted ARE different in important ways. (I’ve heard the LDS discussion on “the ships of tarshish” translation and it’s interesting) However, Smith seems to follow other translations and is consistent in some places with the syriac version and in other places with the codex alexandricus. My point is that I am left with a personal data set that shows it is NOT a “word for word” lifting; yet it is consistent with other versions that I have no reason (yet) to believe he had access to, or if he DID have access to the syriac, could he have made a couple of hundred changes in the short production time to create the book? Also, the specific Chapters Smith placed in the Book of Mormon have profound import to the books purposes (rather than other chapters in Isaiah...).

I also admit that the Book of Mormon is much more credible for me after having read Smith’s “Pearl of Great Price”, which contains so many parallels with so many histories that I’ve been exposed to that I still am unable to conceive of how someone could have created THAT testimony of Jesus. I’ve never seen anything like that done before. Ever. Given THAT text as a context, it was still surprising to find even the subtle gospel currents woven into the Book of Mormon. I do not believe that even the Mormons themselves are aware of the doctrines paralleling the parable of the Sower and the Seed (of Matt 13) in the Book of Mormon in nephi's "tree of life dream". The same four groups are involved. (I have to wonder if the "four trees" and "four countries" of the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the same principles as well).

I’ve also considered the motives of Smith. Suppose he was completely nefarious. I cannot imagine the genius that could create such a book was also a complete imbecile when it came to benefitting from his scheme. I’ve practiced medicine for more than 27 years and have never seen, nor heard of, nor experienced that combination. Smith brings incredible persecution upon his own head and never makes a dime nor does he seem to be able to create a peaceful and happy life full of prosperity as many individuals who’ve sold religion have done. Even trying to imagine a schemer who makes up hundreds of salvific doctrines (i.e. those doctrines that directly impact our salvation), yet the “made up” doctrines then just happen to be salvific doctrines that are VERY unorthodox to modern christianity, yet he accidentally “imagines up” or chooses those that are indeed the ancient Christian doctrines of salvation are not explainable by the data set I now have. How does a schemer and plotter wanting to “do wrong” (perhaps obtain fame and money) then accidentally “do right”? (and provide authentic teachings; understanding; and testimonies of God) How does this schemer teach individuals to seek direct revelation from God and then to actually obtain revelation for themselves as the ancient Christians did? There are too many profound questions that I (personally), cannot answer by any of the theories of the critics (that I’ve seen so far).

the claims of "Prophetic Hypocrisy" don't really help at all. OFTEN the ancient prophets were accused of hypocritical behaviors. For example : Critics may point out that Moses became a "murderer" before he was a prophet. In contrast, does it matter if Smith prospected? I don't know. Moses is taken to task by his Brother and Sister for marrying Tharbis (the ethiopian woman of numbers chapt 12) when it had been prohibited by HIM to marry outside of Israel. Moses brings back the ten commandments that prohibit making a graven image, yet he then makes one (as a serpent upon a pole) and instructs the image to be attended to. However, such things cannot make proper sense without further Data. However, the data may not be available to Moses' Critics (which is WHY they are critics) and the data may be known by those who believe Moses was a prophet. (The underlying data in these example IS certainly available and justify Moses in each account - but only to some individuals who look at the underlying historical data as to why such things happened). The point is, the critics AND the believers in Moses maintain opposing beliefs BECAUSE they have differing sets of data (information). I believe the same applies to Smith and to almost all religious arguments.

I hope this makes sense BOTH to the LDS and the critics. I hope I did NOT seem argumentative, but why the theories (on both sides of the argument) are not helpful if they are looked at in a “drive by fashion”. I do think the LDS are correct, that revelation from God is the strongest reason to believe in the existence of God.


Clear

I apologize if this seems somewhat rambling, but it’s 01:50 am and I’m really quite tired. I'll also try to get to the clips when I have some time....

[Green Kepi]

Gal 1:6 - I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Joseph Smith said an angel named Moroni taught him something different. Mohammad claimed to have received visions from God by the angel Gabriel. Enough said...I don't need anything else to dismiss their claims as false!!!!

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

Gal 1:6 - I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Joseph Smith said an angel named Moroni taught him something different. Mohammad claimed to have received visions from God by the angel Gabriel. Enough said...I don't need anything else to dismiss their claims as false!!!!

This is not a debate forum, but it is necessary to tell you that Gal. 1:8 includes the provision "other than the one we preached to you." If you did some research and praying, you'd discover what the LDS teach is the same gospel preached before.

[Green Kepi]

Originally Posted by Watchmen

This is not a debate forum, but it is necessary to tell you that Gal. 1:8 includes the provision "other than the one we preached to you." If you did some research and praying, you'd discover what the LDS teach is the same gospel preached before.

I'm not debating and don't want too...however, I've done the research and discovered that it isn't the same gospel...if it's the same gospel...then we don't need another 'book' 1000 of years later. Anyway...I won't respond again...don't want to be accused of "debating"!