Do Mormons Still Believe The Book of Mormon to Be Actual History?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-Wa1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to know the truth about the book of Mormon ask those who were there.
 
Chris-Wa1 said:
Given the complete lack of evidence supporting the existence of the Nephites or Lamanites, plus the myriad of other issues challenging the historicity of the book, do most LDS still believe those civilizations actually existed or are many starting to see the BoM more as religious allegory?
Click to expand...
Hey Chris,

Only the old-schoolers tend to still treat the BoM as an actual history book - as it’s “the most perfect book on Earth” per their prophet, Mr. Smith.

I find that younger Mormons who have grown up in an increasingly secular, rationalized society have largely divorced themselves from a strict, literal interpretation of the texts. This is done out of necessity.

They know, as we know, that Smith wrote in all kinds of impossible anachronisms into the text when he authored it such as cows, horses, steel, silk and other mentioned objects that absolutely did not exist in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. Moreover, younger Mormons are also more generally aware that there has yet to be a single, solitary shred of archeological or genetic evidence that indicates the existence of “Reformed Egyptian” writing, pre-Columbian American Hebrews or any of the geographic locations mentioned in the text outside the Levant. In other words, no shred at all of “the big stuff” that you’d think we’d find fairly readily.

In light of such brutally obvious holes in Smith’s story, the greatest and best survival mechanism for that religion (at least for the more rationally minded adherents of it) is to apply revising interpretations that completely nullify the value of the BoM as a literal text. As such, when Smith writes of horses, cows, steel and silk, he was only speaking of these things figuratively. When he writes of cities and armies, he was only speaking of small tribal-scale skirmishes between sub-populations so small that you could reasonably expect to find no evidence for them at all.

Put pithily, rational Mormons have to apply such broad, abstract and open interpretations that the text could feasibly say virtually anything without the reasonable expectation to find non-BoM textual evidence that any of it actually occurred.

So yes. It is less and less a historical book and more and more an allegorical one. For reasons that are as obvious as the sky.
 
Last edited:
Do you think it’s possible that our Father in heaven didn’t reveal this truth to you? Rather, you chose it out of a deep, evolved desire to be part of a group? A “tribe”, if you will?

After all, Christ said that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. But as Mormons claim to be a restoration of the True Church, Hell had to prevail at least temporarily - as to necessitate the required restoration done by Smith, no?
 
Do you know that proselytizing is against the rules on CAF. Besides we are faithful Catholics and already know the Truth and it is not the LDS.
 
Only the truth Will set you free. If you know you are free I don’t find a reason why you are against our belief. After reading through this forums I feel sorry for how you are protesting against us. If you know you the true church then continue with the good work and stop pointing fingers at other denominations.
 
I read the Book of Mormon. It was not convincing and why on earth is it written in Elizabethan English? No don’t bother to answer.
 
Have you forgotten this is a Non-Catholic Religions sub forum on a Catholic Forum? I am not protesting against the LDS. I am pointing out the false nature of the LDS organization. I spent much of my adult life living among the LDS, at no point was there a time I considered looking into converting.

Having been raised a Christian I was able to compare beliefs between mainline Christianity and the LDS coming to the conclusion there is nothing in the LDS that looks like Christianity when examined closely.

I am for everyone learning and knowing the truth. I don’t consider truth relative. As a Catholic I am charged with spreading the gospel, spreading the true words of Christ. That includes telling them about false religions.
 
Thank you… Happy researching. But what you mentioned does not bother me at all. I will stick with LDS. Thank you. God bless you.
 
Mi_Rose said:
I read the Book of Mormon. It was not convincing and why on earth is it written in Elizabethan English? No don’t bother to answer.
Click to expand...
Elizabethan English is not quite right or at least not specific enough.

For whatever reason (LDS do not know), the BOM is written in Early Modern English. This language predates King James English as present in the KJV of the Bible. It of course is nothing like the English of today or the English of Joseph Smith’s day. This is really quite remarkable.


That being said there are a few “readers versions” of the BOM.
This one is excellent:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Readers-Grant-Hardy/dp/025207341X
Enjoy.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
bobk said:
If you could read the minds of every Catholic present next time you go to Sunday Mass your hair would probably turn white – more quickly on Christmas and Easter. Just because someone shows up doesn’t mean they are sincere, in any religion.
Click to expand...
Oh, is that a talent you have? You know what everyone is thinking? Well, aren’t you special. 😏
 
TOm - A review from a Mormon owned newspaper and a Mormon written description of a book for sale? This is evidence the BOM is what JS claimed it is?
 
Horton said:
TOm - A review from a Mormon owned newspaper and a Mormon written description of a book for sale? This is evidence the BOM is what JS claimed it is?
Click to expand...
No. The science behind Dr. Carmack’s research is evidence that Joseph Smith didn’t write the BOM. I have read 3 papers and watched one of his presentations. Many “grammatical errors” in the BOM manuscript are bad 19th century English and bad King James English, but are constructions found in Early Modern English which pre dates KJ English. How could Joseph Smith put those in there? These “grammatical errors” were points of criticism, but now they are evidence that Joseph Smith is not the author of the BOM.
This is similar to Jesus born in the “land of Jerusalem.” This term was criticized by anti-mormons, but archeology has shown folks with the history claimed for the purported authors of the BOM would use this term. Every 19th and 20th century person would know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Joseph Smith would not put such a thing in his book, but Lehi’s people would.
“Land of Jerusalem” is one phrase. Carmack’s Early Modern English is a huge number of phrases. Sometimes LDS can only ameliorate criticisms (perhaps it was a tapir), but sometimes criticisms properly understood become evidence.

You are welcome to reject the little article because it is from a LDS. It is easy for me to see how you have so little regard for the BOM when you show your true biases. I read both sides. LDS have addressed every question anti-Mormons throw at us, but most anti-Mormons pay no attention to responses and even less to evidences. I am not saying that if they paid attention and ATTEMPTED some OBJECTIVITY everyone would be a LDS, but we LDS would not be view is ridiculous as we are. Of course Christ’s followers in the beginning where ridiculous that is why Augustine refused to be a Christian until he was exposed to the “learned Christianity” of Ambrose.
I suspect “learned” in Christ’s time rejected truth because of its source just like you seem to do. The “learned” centuries after Christ changed Christianity and kept their learning. Give me the faith of St. Monica and not St. Ambrose please.

I fully intend to read any pro-Catholic arguments with as much objectivity I can muster. That is why I now say I would worship with the SSPX if many many things changed and I didn’t believe I should be a LDS. This is what comparing the best to best means AND it cannot be done if you dismiss arguements based on their source.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
You are welcome to reject the little article because it is from a LDS. It is easy for me to see how you have so little regard for the BOM when you show your true biases
Click to expand...
It isn’t really bias Tom, it is the fact that I know without a doubt whatsoever that the BOM is a work of fiction which was written to conduct a con by JS. I don’t have to think about the language or the little tiny bits of proofs the LDS will use in an attempt to prove the validity of JS story. I reject the whole thing, Smith, his story, his “visions”, and everything that followed.

You many attempts on CAF to prove the LDS true by trying to prove Catholicism false just doesn’t work. It really doesn’t matter how OBJECTIVE you claim to be, it just doesn’t work. It is the tried & true LDS technique of deflection.
 
I am Jewish, neither Catholic nor LDS. But I have to say after going through this thread.

I find it very disturbing for a few reasons.

First, the question is simply: “Do Mormons still believe _The Book of Mormon_to be actual history?”

That’s simply a yes or no question. And if you _really_wanted the answer, you could have gone to the source. No one who wants to know what an apple tastes like goes to a lemon tree and picks a lemon and bites into it to see what an apple tastes like.

What this really is, is an attempt to downgrade and pick a fight with a member of the LDS church. Why do Christians do this? Didn’t Jesus say that people will know his true disciples by the earmark of love among fellow Christians? (John 13:35) I don’t see how love is expressed by trying to discredit what LDS believe about the BOM., especially when the Catholic Church is currently dealing with the cries of child abuse victims for justice and the horrible mess these crimes is making of the image of Catholics.

Really, what is worse? The Catholic Church’s child abuse crisis where now even Pope Francis is being called into question or what Mormons believe about the BOM? I would worry about getting my house cleaned up and straightened out before looking through the windows of my neighbors house and telling them what they should be doing. You Catholics don’t have a foot to stand on right now.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be false? Well, have you never read what Jesus said at Matthew chapter 7.15-20?

“Be on guard against those who claim to speak for me but aren’t really telling the truth! They come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but on the inside they are ravenous wolves!..Only good trees bear good fruit. A bad tree will produce bad fruit. A tree that is truly good on the inside will not bring forth bad fruit, and neither will a tree that is truly bad on the inside bring forth good fruit…This is the way you will be able to determine those who are speaking the false from the truth, by the the type of fruit they produce.”

I would compare the fruit of your two religions first, and then compare Catholic teachings vs. the BOM if I were Christian. What type of fruit has the Catholic Church produced? If it is good, the tree is good. If it is bad, the tree is bad. Good trees don’t produce bad fruit.
 
Mi_Rose said:
That is what not why.
Click to expand...
I did answer the question of “why?” The answer is we do not know.
LDS do not believe that Joseph Smith wrote the BOM. I am not sure if Joseph Smith ever made comments on the why of the language of the BOM, but I am sure that most LDS thought it was King James English LIKE the KJV of the Bible.
My point in responding was to point to the fact that Early Modern English is the language into which the BOM was “translated.” No LDS can explain WHY with more than speculation AND no critic to my knowledge has ever tried to explain HOW. I never thought Joseph Smith could mimic KJV English and create the BOM, but to create a book written in Early Modern English is another level of impossible.
Charity, TOm
 
Horton said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
You are welcome to reject the little article because it is from a LDS. It is easy for me to see how you have so little regard for the BOM when you show your true biases
Click to expand...
It isn’t really bias Tom, it is the fact that I know without a doubt whatsoever that the BOM is a work of fiction which was written to conduct a con by JS. I don’t have to think about the language or the little tiny bits of proofs the LDS will use in an attempt to prove the validity of JS story. I reject the whole thing, Smith, his story, his “visions”, and everything that followed.
Click to expand...
I hear you explain that you do not pursue BOM evidences and problems with an open mind. You KNOW it is false so you can scarcely be troubled to read anything suggesting otherwise. I truly do not have a problem with that. I believe it is often appropriate to close ones mind around truth. I just think you evidence your closed mind has failed to evaluated much that is very relavant to the question. Perhaps God told you the CoJCoLDS is false. That is fine, you shouldn’t be a LDS.

That being said, you attack the CoJCoLDS repeatedly and regularly. This may be because God told you to do so. It may be because you hate the CoJCoLDS. It may be because of many reasons. And it may be because you continually seek to demonstrate that you have made the right decision because you are really not as sure as you claim. I do not know.

But, I do know that you do not evaluate LDS claims with objectivity and I find it very likely that my position on the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church involves far more data and far more objectivity than your position. Again this is fine, but I will point it out when you dismiss something BECAUSE it is written by a LDS.

Charity, TOm
 
I don’t believe the BOM in actual history, however, when I first started becoming active in Christianity I found some of the teachings in the book very helpful to me as I became involved in the world of religion.
 
Yes the BoM message is basically consistent with Protestant Christianity, specifically the 19th Century Protestantism commonly found in the Burnt Over District of frontier America. There’s not much “Mormon” in it.
 
Oh Tom, there you go thinking you are smarter than everyone else. I’m sure you are very smug in your belief you have figured me out, but…I am not a simple woman.

I have no need to demonstrate I made the right decision in choosing to join the Catholic Church. In fact I disliked the LDS organization years before I converted to Catholicism. I went to college in Utah, I had to find out what all these people were talking about, the Mormon thing. So I did my research and I reached the conclusion based on my Christian background there was nothing true within the LDS. Living in predominate LDS areas since then did nothing to change my opinion on the matter.

When I felt called by God to return to Him, it never even occurred to me to search the LDS for I knew it was not of God and God could not be calling me there. God was calling me home. As sure as you are the LDS is write is as sure I am it is not. No equivocation at all, no doubt, no uncertainty, no question, the LDS is not a church from God. With that same certainty I know the Catholic Church is.

So if all you can do from now on is insult me Tom, just stop. It doesn’t make me appear as foolish as it does you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top