A Book of Mormon tour

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why_me said:
Strevel;3972131:
I believe that you challenged me about the death of JS’s children due to mob violence. I cannot find the thread but if I am mistaken, please forgive me. He lost one child to the mobbing in Kirkland, when he was tarred and feathered. The child’s name was: Joseph Murdock Smith. He had the measles and was weak. When the mob stormed through JS’ home, the child caught a cold and died a short time later.
Click to expand...
that’s not even close to being “mob related”. children died from measles back then…without mobs.
Click to expand...
 
why_me said:
Strevel;3972131:
I believe that you challenged me about the death of JS’s children due to mob violence. I cannot find the thread but if I am mistaken, please forgive me. He lost one child to the mobbing in Kirkland, when he was tarred and feathered. The child’s name was: Joseph Murdock Smith. He had the measles and was weak. When the mob stormed through JS’ home, the child caught a cold and died a short time later.
Click to expand...
The mob did not kill this child, disease did. A sad occassion, no doubt, but if there is any “blame” to be placed it is squarely at the feet of JS himself. He was entering other people’s homes to try and entice their young daughters to polygamy, and in some cases, he was successful. He seduced those young girls, someone’s daughter, into a life of sin. Are you lamenting that loss or celebrating it as “righteous”?
Click to expand...
 
Christine_Blake said:
I agree with you that the BOM is not based on fact; however, I can’t help but think, and mention, that “evidence” you say backs the Bible is only a few hundred, in most cases, less than 100 years old…so were the Jews and Christians who believed before the archaeological evidence fools?
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The evidence itself is 2,000 years old and more. However, much of what is known today was discovered or realized in the last 100 years.

Why?

First, people have been digging up the evidence all along but, before the modern era, most of the evidence found went into secret treasuries and private collections. Once separated from its original location and housed in collections, the artifacts became both extremely inaccessable to anyone who would study them, and became extremely difficult to authenticate.

Second, modern archaeological methods have changed focus from merely recovering artifacts to understanding the artifacts within the context of their culture. We now record and scrupulously cross-reference everything, which has led to many previously unrealized insights.

Finally, modern archaeological methods are able to detect what had been long forgotten and considered untraceable. The City of Ur was just such a find. Long lost to the desert, it was re-discovered when satellite photography revealed topographical features and ancient trading roads.
 
So I am probably a little late to the party and the conversation seems to have diverted from where it originally was but I think that it would be worthwhile for everyone to read this article (yes it was written by a member of the Latter-Day Saint church). While you may disagree with his points, I think it is important to understand that the Latter-Day Saint faith is not without logic. You might disagree with his point that nobody has been able to prove the Book of Mormon false as many of you seem to believe that you have already done so. I do not post this with the intent to prove that the Book of Mormon is true or to sway any of you from your current belief system. However, when asked why I believe that Joseph Smith was the prophet who translated the book of mormon I would like to be able to answer in such a way (quote from Hugh B. Brown):
I believe the Prophet Joseph Smith was a prophet because he did many superhuman things. One was translating the Book of Mormon. Some people will not agree, but I submit to you that the Prophet Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon did a superhuman work. I ask you … to undertake to write a story on the ancient inhabitants of America. Write as he did without any source of material. Include in your story 54 chapters dealing with wars, 21 historical chapters, 55 chapters on visions and prophecies, and, remember, when you begin to write on visions and prophecies you must have your record agree meticulously with the Bible. You write 71 chapters on doctrine and exhortation, and, here too, you must check every statement with the scriptures or you will be proven to be a fraud. You must write 21 chapters on the ministry of Christ, and everything you claim He said and did and every testimony you write in your book about Him must agree absolutely with the New Testament.
Click to expand...
I ask you, would you like to undertake such a task? I would suggest to you too that you must employ figures of speech, similes, metaphors, narrations, exposition, description, oratory, epic, lyric, logic, and parables. Undertake that, will you? I ask you to remember that the man that translated the Book of Mormon was a young man who hadn’t had the opportunity of schooling that you have had, and yet he dictated that book in just over two months and made very few, if any, corrections. For over 100 years, some of the best students and scholars of the world have been trying to prove from the Bible that the Book of Mormon is false, but not one of them has been able to prove that anything he wrote was not in strict harmony with the scriptures.
Click to expand...
I would invite any of you to read the entire article here: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=836e092480e6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

I’d like to reiterate, I’m not trying to “prove” the Book of Mormon is true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet but that there is a logic to what I believe and it is in no way a “blind” faith as I have so often heard.
 
Mandrew’s post quoted Hugh Brown and said that Joseph Smith is a prophet because he preformed the “super human” act of translating the BOM, well Tolkien wrote an involved fiction too. His triology, Lord of the Rings, has a past (and even other books that include legends of that past), an invented language, an involved plot that he managed to keep straight–he even invented maps and a genealogy to go with it. Could that be called a super human act as well? Or might it just be the work of a creative storyteller?
 
AMDGtoo said:
Mandrew’s post quoted Hugh Brown and said that Joseph Smith is a prophet because he preformed the “super human” act of translating the BOM, well Tolkien wrote an involved fiction too. His triology, Lord of the Rings, has a past (and even other books that include legends of that past), an invented language, an involved plot that he managed to keep straight–he even invented maps and a genealogy to go with it. Could that be called a super human act as well? Or might it just be the work of a creative storyteller?
Click to expand...
Bingo!👍
 
I hesitate to even respond to AMDGtoo, but I suppose that the Tolkien analogy is common enough to warrant a response.

Unfortunately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Tolkien wrote a fiction intending to be a fiction that could stand alone. It did not have to rely on any part of it being verifiable in order to be well written. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon. If the languages that Tolkien made up were proven, beyond a doubt, to be false, it really doesn’t matter. It’s still a well-written and enjoyable tale. On the other hand, if ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon is proven, beyond a doubt, to be false it absolutely would destroy the book and all of its worth. Again, I’m not here trying to convince you that it is true, but I have yet to see anything that would PROVE that the Book of Mormon is false.

edit: I should add that even Hugh B. Brown admits that many may not agree with his use of the term “Superhuman.” You obviously do not agree, while I do.
 
mandrew said:
I hesitate to even respond to AMDGtoo, but I suppose that the Tolkien analogy is common enough to warrant a response.
Unfortunately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Tolkien wrote a fiction intending to be a fiction that could stand alone. It did not have to rely on any part of it being verifiable in order to be well written. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon. If the languages that Tolkien made up were proven, beyond a doubt, to be false, it really doesn’t matter. It’s still a well-written and enjoyable tale. On the other hand, if ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon is proven, beyond a doubt, to be false it absolutely would destroy the book and all of its worth. Again, I’m not here trying to convince you that it is true, but I have yet to see anything that would PROVE that the Book of Mormon is false.
Click to expand...
No serious scholar takes the BOM seriously. Even BYU is starting to backpedal on the BOM. There is NO evidence for the BOM, you know that.
Click to expand...
 
hosemonkey said:
No serious scholar takes the BOM seriously. Even BYU is starting to backpedal on the BOM. There is NO evidence for the BOM, you know that.
Click to expand...
Those are some wild generalizations. ALL students of logic know that using the words no/all indicate that you have faulty logic. Please note intentional irony. I’m not here to argue with you whether or not there is evidence for the BoM. I never said there was, so I don’t understand why you even brought it up. I did however, make the claim that there wasn’t evidence AGAINST the BoM. That I still believe to be true even if your claim about scholars not taking the BoM seriously is true.
 
mandrew said:
I hesitate to even respond to AMDGtoo, but I suppose that the Tolkien analogy is common enough to warrant a response.

Unfortunately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Tolkien wrote a fiction intending to be a fiction that could stand alone. It did not have to rely on any part of it being verifiable in order to be well written. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon. If the languages that Tolkien made up were proven, beyond a doubt, to be false, it really doesn’t matter. It’s still a well-written and enjoyable tale. On the other hand, if ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon is proven, beyond a doubt, to be false it absolutely would destroy the book and all of its worth. Again, I’m not here trying to convince you that it is true, but I have yet to see anything that would PROVE that the Book of Mormon is false.

edit: I should add that even Hugh B. Brown admits that many may not agree with his use of the term “Superhuman.” You obviously do not agree, while I do.
Click to expand...
What part of the BOM is verifiable?
 
mandrew said:
ALL

students of logic know that using the words no/all indicate that you have faulty logic. That I still believe to be true even if your claim about scholars not taking the BoM seriously is true.
Click to expand...
Your use of the word ALL indicates that you have faulty logic.
There is no evidence that Superman comics are not true, but everyone knows that they are merely works of fiction and fantasy. Having said that, Superman comics have more verifiable information in them than the BOM. And yes, no reputable scholar attaches any credibility to the BOM. Why do you suppose that is?
 
mandrew said:
Again, I’m not here trying to convince you that it is true, but I have yet to see anything that would PROVE that the Book of Mormon is false.
Click to expand...
There are folks who believe in Bigfoot that make the same argument. We can’t PROVE he doesn’t exist. We haven’t looked everywhere at the same time.
 
mandrew said:
I hesitate to even respond to AMDGtoo, but I suppose that the Tolkien analogy is common enough to warrant a response.

Unfortunately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Tolkien wrote a fiction intending to be a fiction that could stand alone. It did not have to rely on any part of it being verifiable in order to be well written.
Click to expand...
Neither does the BoM. You and every Mormon rely only on feeling good about reading it.
The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon. If the languages that Tolkien made up were proven, beyond a doubt, to be false, it really doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
The language? As in “reformed Egyptian”, seriously, where is the scholarship for this “language”? Where are the contemporary documents written in this language?

There are none because it is the same as the languages of Tolkien. Entirely made up. At least Tolkien had a writing system of all his made up languages and you can get all Tolkien geeked up and write whole books in it if you like. Not even this exists for “reformed Egyptian”.
It’s still a well-written and enjoyable tale. On the other hand, if ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon is proven, beyond a doubt, to be false it absolutely would destroy the book and all of its worth.
Click to expand...
The whole book is a sham, and it is impossible for you to prove otherwise.
Again, I’m not here trying to convince you that it is true, but I have yet to see anything that would PROVE that the Book of Mormon is false.
Click to expand...
And I have never found anything that would PROVE the BoM to be anything but what it is. The 19th century product of a con man and his cohorts.
edit: I should add that even Hugh B. Brown admits that many may not agree with his use of the term “Superhuman.” You obviously do not agree, while I do.
Click to expand...
There is nothing superhuman about plagiarism.
 
I would like to respond to each of you individually but it would take more time than I really want to spend saying the same thing. Every single person who has responded to my posts responded outside of the context of what I was saying. Case in point: Hosemonkey points out that my use of the word all was (according to my own logic) proof that my logic was faulty. He then deliberately left out the part of my post where I said I was being intentionally ironic in my use of the word all.
For the record, I never said any part of the Book of Mormon could be proven. I will honestly admit that I rely on those dreaded “feelings” (otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) in order to verify the truthfulness of what I read. That is how I know the Bible to be the word of God. It’s also how I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I wish any of you would have actually read the entire article by Hugh B. Brown and gotten over his use of the word “Superhuman.” That seems to have led you down some wild tangents that I would rather have not explored.

My original point that I am sticking with is this: There is logic and faith working together in my beliefs. Most of your counterexamples (ie. bigfoot, superman, tolkien, etc.) were completely out of context for what I was discussing. In other words, they were not examples of logic and belief mixing, but rather only belief. I am honestly not trying to argue with everyone, but rather am attempting to explain my beliefs and hopefully help to create an atmosphere where there is a little bit more respect between religions.
 
If I am a “DNC” but I call that phone number, I wonder if they will come back anyway?

In all openess, I’d go dig thru the trash first to get better use of your time. You are not going to convert them on the spot. Just speak your peace openly honestly and frankly. Then tell them to get out of your yard, …it does belong to you. Theitr only purpose is to convert you.

Don in Vegas
 
I understand you views, very much so. I want to make clear that I fully do clealy understand what you feel, and also, your quandry. I am Catholic and have no problems in sharing my faith just as I also did not as a Mormon Missionary earlier. There is no logic (look at the word) in the BOM. The Book of Mormon is not true just because a religious conotation is given to it! We can give a spiritual conotation to a jar of Skippy Peanutbutter. It does not change what, it in fact, is. It only changes how we view it. We must view things as they are and not under some romantic notion. There is also no logic in Aesops Fables or Grimms Fairy Tale. Smoke is not a soul rising to heaven nor angeles. If a large number of people say that they have had a spiritualwitness that it is in deed a message from God…well, we know different. Just because a number of people believe in it, it has no bearing on its reality. People also believe in Voodo, we both agree that voodo is not a correct precept. Yet, millions believe and will die for it. I do not believe in the Book of Mormon, …Mormon never existed, period. They did not come over in reed boats from the Egypt area. we know through scientific fact that the popuation came over a land bridge thru Russia / Alaska. We also know this thru genetic mapping. JS did not know these things would come up and put a stop on his strange teachings.

I believe in a Betty Crocker Cook Book. I have read it, I have smelled it cook in the oven, and others have shared of their experiences. I know that it is good and from God… In a pigs eye. it is a cook book and nothing more. Just because I believe it to be more has no effect on the reality that is is what it is. It will share how to make good rolls, cakes, etc…, but it just a book. …a damned cook book.

Decide where you are. If you are a Mormon looking secretly for converts you are in the wrong group. If you are a Catholic, get your act together. if you are both watch out. even God does not respect it when a person is hot and cold, here and there… Get it together my friend.

Love and Oax Vobiscum, with love but very straightforward.

Don in Vegas
My original point that I am sticking with is this: There is logic and faith working together in my beliefs. Most of your counterexamples (ie. bigfoot, superman, tolkien, etc.) were completely out of context for what I was discussing. In other words, they were not examples of logic and belief mixing, but rather only belief. I am honestly not trying to argue with everyone, but rather am attempting to explain my beliefs and hopefully help to create an atmosphere where there is a little bit more respect between religions.
 
It seems we are at an impasse Strevel. You see no logic in the BoM while I do. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. You also make it sound like I am secretly trying to do missionary work or that I am saying that because I believe it to be true that everyone should/has to. I am not.

I really am just trying to clear up some of the misconceptions that many people have and am hoping to help create an atmosphere that is a bit more open and a little less hostile.

So luckily I do not fall into any of your categories. In other words I know where I stand. Thank you for the cook book analogy by the way. Even though I disagree with your conclusion, it made me smile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top