Former Mormons, How Do You Pray?

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure what you mean as an historical book.

The historical meaning giving to it by Joseph Smith, “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

I’m not sure what you mean as an historical book. But I would go with divinely revealed.

Has Mormonism rejected Joseph Smith historical claim about the Book of Mormon? Do you expect the Pope to embrace his historical claim?

 

[Marie5890]

I would be curious to know how Mormons view the BoM these days.
Joseph Smith declared that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church 4:461), and I remember hearing Pres. Ezra Taft Benson reiterate that many times in General Conference.

Do Mormons still hold that Smith’s claim that it’s the “most correct book on earth”? Or has that hard-line stance since softened?

 

[rmcmullan]

Still the most correct. At least, I haven’t heard otherwise.

Stephen168, I’m still not sure what you mean by historical. I can’t see how either the Bible or the BoM can be only historical or only divine. If the Bible is an accurate account of angels and prophets and the resurrection, how is it not divine? It has to be both, doesn’t it?

 

[TexanKnight]

Still the most correct. At least, I haven’t heard otherwise.

Stephen168, I’m still not sure what you mean by historical. I can’t see how either the Bible or the BoM can be only historical or only divine. If the Bible is an accurate account of angels and prophets and the resurrection, how is it not divine? It has to be both, doesn’t it?

Sure you have. You just have not listened. You have not listened to all the changes like changes “white” to “pure” when it was clear blacks were not turning white. You have listened to the fact the Book of Mormon teaches the Trinity, despite your leader saying there is no Trinity.

The list is very long

 

[Marie5890]

Still the most correct. At least, I haven’t heard otherwise.

Stephen168, I’m still not sure what you mean by historical. I can’t see how either the Bible or the BoM can be only historical or only divine. If the Bible is an accurate account of angels and prophets and the resurrection, how is it not divine? It has to be both, doesn’t it?

Thank you. I wasnt sure what present day stance was.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168, I’m still not sure what you mean by historical. I can’t see how …… the BoM can be only historical or only divine.

Historical - of or concerning history; concerning past events. Joseph Smith made the claim is was a book of history containing historical facts that really happened. A historical “account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." Do you expect the Pope to embrace his historical claim?

 

[Marie5890]

Historical - of or concerning history; concerning past events. Joseph Smith made the claim is was a book of history containing historical facts that really happened. A historical “account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." Do you expect the Pope to embrace his historical claim?

I can only hope that most Mormons realize that the BoM isnt a history of the ancient Americans as Smith claimed. Not with today’s science.

Faith without reason is fanaticism and reason without faith is paganism. I believe Pope BXVI said that.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m still not sure what you mean by historical. I can’t see how either the Bible or the BoM can be only historical or only divine. If the Bible is an accurate account of angels and prophets and the resurrection, how is it not divine? It has to be both, doesn’t it?

I think you bring up a very important point here. The Bible is both historical and divinely inspired. That’s the beauty of it. It really happened and we can go and visit the places mentioned and read outside sources concerning its historicity. In other words, reason does not conflict with the divinely inspired texts. Truth is truth, after all.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, can make no such claim. All of the evidence points the other direction. Reason dictates that there is no reason to believe that which it purports to be history because there is not a shred of evidence in its favor. As to its purported “divine” origin, all we have is the claim of one man. That’s it. Not very convincing to me.

 

[TexanKnight]

I think you bring up a very important point here. The Bible is both historical and divinely inspired. That’s the beauty of it. It really happened and we can go and visit the places mentioned and read outside sources concerning its historicity. In other words, reason does not conflict with the divinely inspired texts. Truth is truth, after all.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, can make no such claim. All of the evidence points the other direction. Reason dictates that there is no reason to believe that which it purports to be history because there is not a shred of evidence in its favor. As to its purported “divine” origin, all we have is the claim of one man. That’s it. Not very convincing to me.

We can walk the streets of Jerusalem, we can walk the streets of Bethlehem. But ask a Mormon where Bountiful is, and you get a lot of excuses and odd justifications. And you will also get opinions from Michigan to South America where Bountiful can exist.

The Book of Mormon is a plagiarized tale. Nothing more.

 

[twopekinguys]

One thing for a Mormon though is the Book of Mormon and I couldn’t become a Catholic again unless the pope embraced it and I don’t see that happening.

Let’s approach this from a different angle.

What do **you **mean by “unless the pope embraced it”?

What is **your **definition of embraced? embracing? embraces?

I have a feeling I know where you’re going with this, but I want to hear it from you.

 

[rmcmullan]

Historical - of or concerning history; concerning past events. Joseph Smith made the claim is was a book of history containing historical facts that really happened. A historical “account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." Do you expect the Pope to embrace his historical claim?

Well no, I don’t expect the Pope to believe Jesus visited his other sheep after His resurrection, including his sheep in the New World. But that’s why I can’t be a Catholic. I probably believe 95% of what Catholics believe but the reason why I’m not attending Mass instead of sacrament meeting is because of the BoM. Believe me, I’d rather attend a 1 hour Mass than a three hour sacrament meeting but my heart is not there.

As for those of you who enjoy disparaging the BoM, go ahead and have your fun but don’t expect to make any headway with me. You’re just besmirching your own reputations.

 

[lax16]

Still the most correct. At least, I haven’t heard otherwise.

from the current LDS Institute Student Manual:

External Evidences of the Book of Mormon
•Some students of the Book of Mormon are interested in geographical, textual, or archaeological evidences of the book’s ancient origin. While these are often fascinating and helpful, it must be remembered that these kinds of discoveries do not constitute the substance and truth of the Book of Mormon. President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) counseled against relying solely on these discoveries for our testimony of the Book of Mormon: “The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it ‘came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ’ (Book of Mormon title page)” (“Four Cornerstones of Faith,” Ensign, Feb. 2004, 6).

 

[lax16]

Well no, I don’t expect the Pope to believe Jesus visited his other sheep after His resurrection, including his sheep in the New World. But that’s why I can’t be a Catholic. I probably believe 95% of what Catholics believe but the reason why I’m not attending Mass instead of sacrament meeting is because of the BoM. Believe me, I’d rather attend a 1 hour Mass than a three hour sacrament meeting but my heart is not there.

As for those of you who enjoy disparaging the BoM, go ahead and have your fun but don’t expect to make any headway with me. You’re just besmirching your own reputations.

Please explain why the BoM holds special meaning for you.

thanks!

 

[rmcmullan]

Please explain why the BoM holds special meaning for you.

thanks!

Well, when I first heard about it I was astonished that nobody had told me about it before. Any claim at all that Jesus had visited America seemed at least worth mentioning and I had attended Catholic schools and churches all my life and they never failed to make it a point to mention Jesus but here’s this claim he came to America and they didn’t say a word!

As for the rest of the story, it’s a typical and boring Moroni 10:3-5 thing.

 

[Stephen168]

Well no, I don’t expect the Pope to believe Jesus visited his other sheep after His resurrection, including his sheep in the New World. But that’s why I can’t be a Catholic. I probably believe 95% of what Catholics believe but the reason why I’m not attending Mass instead of sacrament meeting is because of the BoM. Believe me, I’d rather attend a 1 hour Mass than a three hour sacrament meeting but my heart is not there.

As for those of you who enjoy disparaging the BoM, go ahead and have your fun but don’t expect to make any headway with me. You’re just besmirching your own reputations.

I think the Pope does believe Christ visited his other sheep through his Church that he founded 2000 years ago at Pentecost. The Catholic Church has taken him to all corners of the earth. As a historical fact.

Interesting story. I attended Mutual every wednesday for over four years and it is because of the story contained in the Book of Mormon that I knew I would never be Mormon. Even in the ‘70s scientists knew it was a work of fiction. Being a man of faith and reason, Mormonism never made any sense to me, even at the age of 16. I found much more comfort in the Eucharist and knowing I was in the Church actually founded by Christ as a historical fact.

I just can’t imagine going through a crisis of faith so severe that you would leave your church without a lot of Gethsemane style prayers.

I just could not imagine how anyone could turn their back on the Eucharist and the prayer of the Mass.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, when I first heard about it I was astonished that nobody had told me about it before. Any claim at all that Jesus had visited America seemed at least worth mentioning and I had attended Catholic schools and churches all my life and they never failed to make it a point to mention Jesus but here’s this claim he came to America and they didn’t say a word!

They never mentioned it because it was not true. I’m surprised when you first heard it, you would believe it. I didn’t.

 

[lax16]

Well, when I first heard about it I was astonished that nobody had told me about it before. Any claim at all that Jesus had visited America seemed at least worth mentioning and I had attended Catholic schools and churches all my life and they never failed to make it a point to mention Jesus but here’s this claim he came to America and they didn’t say a word!

As for the rest of the story, it’s a typical and boring Moroni 10:3-5 thing.

Funny, about twenty years ago or so, a Mormon friend was talking to me about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. I asked him to give me a summary of what it was all about.

He explained that Jesus had appeared to the natives in America and that it was all written down in the Book of Mormon.

I said that I thought it was neat that Jesus would appear to Native Americans and that he possibly did, but why did I have to be Mormon to believe that?

He said he would send the missionaries over to answer my questions.

Anyway, there are some really interesting stories about people having apparitions but the Bible warns us to test these to make sure they are true.

While I have no doubt that you believe the BoM to be true there are some questions to the validity of Joseph Smith’s claims as to how he received the plates and his telling of the First Vision changed several times.

The Book of Mormon is a nice story but the real question lies with Joseph Smith and his claim of truly being a prophet of God.
That is the question that needs to be answered.

 

[Stephen168]

As for the rest of the story, it’s a typical and boring Moroni 10:3-5 thing.

I was actually offended by Moroni 10:4, but like I said, I’m a very rational person.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well no, I don’t expect the Pope to believe Jesus visited his other sheep after His resurrection, including his sheep in the New World. But that’s why I can’t be a Catholic.

Ah…because you believe a convicted con man who allegedly had a vision (of which there are at least 9 versions) copied a theory and parts of a book from a guy writing a novel…you can’t be Catholic? lol

I probably believe 95% of what Catholics believe but the reason why I’m not attending Mass instead of sacrament meeting is because of the BoM. Believe me, I’d rather attend a 1 hour Mass than a three hour sacrament meeting but my heart is not there.

Yes…better to do the Wonder bread and water (prison food) than the Body and Blood of Christ done the JESUS said to do it…

As for those of you who enjoy disparaging the BoM, go ahead and have your fun but don’t expect to make any headway with me.

Sigh…when truth disparages a book…then you need to read a different book

You’re just besmirching your own reputations.

I do not feel a bit besmirched…does anyone else?

I was exactly where you are once…I will pray God leads you into truth as God led me…

 

[Marie5890]

. I probably believe 95% of what Catholics believe but the reason why I’m not attending Mass instead of sacrament meeting is because of the BoM. Believe me, I’d rather attend a 1 hour Mass than a three hour sacrament meeting but my heart is not there.

But you were comfortable walking away from the Eurcharist? I take it that falls within the 5% you dont believe in.

(First for those who dont know, LDS Sacrament meeting really isnt 3 hours. Its an hour. What rmcmullan is referring to is the 3 hour block Mormons attend each Sunday that include Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, Priesthood for men or Relief Society for women or age appropriate classes for the youth and kids.)