Have you read the Book of Mormon?

[Javl]

JAVL,

I have wondered after reading your post, whether you have children, grandchildren, whether you have ever written fiction, whether you write letters including experiences from your life, whether you have written some kind of autobiographical presentation about yourself.

The reasons I have wondered those things is that a person who knows what is meant by the word “authenticity” with respect to writing, and a person who has read the Book of Mormon at least three times, will have encountered “authenticity” with respect to the counsel of a father to his sons and of a grandfather to his grandchildren.

Do you remember encountering those situations in your reading?

Since you know what “authenticity” means, go ahead when you have a minute and explain how a reader would identify if they were reading “authentic” writing, or not.

Thanks.

For your edification I am an author and have written a few technical books, plus a cookbook. I have also taught technical courses in college. I see no need for my having to explain “authenticity”.

We have been warned about other gospels, or adjuncts to the true gospel, even though “it be preached by an angel”. Whether or not you believe it, or accept it, the Book of Mormon is this other gospel. The Bible, as it stands needs no “key” as claimed by Christian Science. Nor are you in the dark if you read the Bible without the Jehovahs Witness’ biblical explanations. The Bible stands alone. Contrary to the LDS claim, there are no errors in its translation.

What does stump me ( and perplexes me ) is how you, an obviously very intelligent man, can believe and accept the BoM as truth when it has been proven, time and again, to be false and fictitious, the product of the imagination of a questionable man.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[RebeccaJ]

JAVL,

I have wondered after reading your post, whether you have children, grandchildren, whether you have ever written fiction, whether you write letters including experiences from your life, whether you have written some kind of autobiographical presentation about yourself.

The reasons I have wondered those things is that a person who knows what is meant by the word “authenticity” with respect to writing, and a person who has read the Book of Mormon at least three times, will have encountered “authenticity” with respect to the counsel of a father to his sons and of a grandfather to his grandchildren.

Do you remember encountering those situations in your reading?

Since you know what “authenticity” means, go ahead when you have a minute and explain how a reader would identify if they were reading “authentic” writing, or not.

Thanks.

Any story must have certain elements, otherwise, the audience won’t believe the story is plausible, let alone true. Aristotle described the required elements of a drama, over 2000 years ago. You can study it yourself by looking up “Aristotelian Theory”.

That the BoM has these elements, and may even convey “authenticity” in its story or plot, does not mean it conveys truth.

 

[ParkerD]

What essential truth do you think the Book of Mormon teaches that cannot already be found in the New Testament?

Hi, Catholic20064,
I hope you and your family are well.

2 Nephi 2 has at least a dozen essential truths that are less evident in the Bible. Here are three or four in these verses:

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

Here is another great truth from God taught by Alma in Alma 32:

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

So many of the truths bring a clearer perspective to Biblically taught truths such as growing in faith through planting a seed of faith and nourishing it, and that Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy, and that there must needs be an opposition in all things.

There are hundreds more.

 

[ParkerD]

For your edification I am an author and have written a few technical books, plus a cookbook. I have also taught technical courses in college. I see no need for my having to explain “authenticity”.

We have been warned about other gospels, or adjuncts to the true gospel, even though “it be preached by an angel”. Whether or not you believe it, or accept it, the Book of Mormon is this other gospel. The Bible, as it stands needs no “key” as claimed by Christian Science. Nor are you in the dark if you read the Bible without the Jehovahs Witness’ biblical explanations. The Bible stands alone. Contrary to the LDS claim, there are no errors in its translation.

What does stump me ( and perplexes me ) is how you, an obviously very intelligent man, can believe and accept the BoM as truth when it has been proven, time and again, to be false and fictitious, the product of the imagination of a questionable man.

JAVL,
I honestly don’t think you know what I meant by “authenticity.”

Is there some authentic writing about yourself, your family, an experience in your life, your feelings, your aspirations, or so forth, that would come across as “authentic” if someone else were to read it? (I’m not talking about technical writing or fiction. I’m talking about autobiography and personal essay-type writing that is not full of hyperbole but is genuine, the “real you”?

(You needn’t answer, of course–but I still don’t think you understood what I meant.)

Another way of demonstrating would be to find a paragraph that contains “authenticity” by an author, and find one that doesn’t such as Cooper’s writings, or Longfellow’s writings, or Spaulding’s writings.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
I honestly don’t think you know what I meant by “authenticity.”

Is there some authentic writing about yourself, your family, an experience in your life, your feelings, your aspirations, or so forth, that would come across as “authentic” if someone else were to read it? (I’m not talking about technical writing or fiction. I’m talking about autobiography and personal essay-type writing that is not full of hyperbole but is genuine, the “real you”?

(You needn’t answer, of course–but I still don’t think you understood what I meant.)

Another way of demonstrating would be to find a paragraph that contains “authenticity” by an author, and find one that doesn’t such as Cooper’s writings, or Longfellow’s writings, or Spaulding’s writings.

Again and again, I repeat and repeat, I know and understand what you mean by “authentic”. Believe me when I say that there is absolutely nothing “authentic” in the BoM, either by your definition or by any other. What you are trying to prove is nothing but hyperbole.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[BartBurk]

Hi, Catholic20064,
I hope you and your family are well.

2 Nephi 2 has at least a dozen essential truths that are less evident in the Bible. Here are three or four in these verses:

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

Here is another great truth from God taught by Alma in Alma 32:

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

So many of the truths bring a clearer perspective to Biblically taught truths such as growing in faith through planting a seed of faith and nourishing it, and that Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy, and that there must needs be an opposition in all things.

There are hundreds more.

Thanks for your reply. I have recently started rereading the Book of Mormon and am currently through 2 Nephi 10. Honestly, it is not an easy read and sometimes the writing is awful. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true and some of the passages are quite inspiring like the ones you have written above. The Book of Mormon is very clear about the United States being the promised land and a land of liberty for those who are willing to obey God’s commandments. That’s why if the Book of Mormon did happen I believe it would have taken place in the United States. It was actually quite a claim for the Book of Mormon to make in 1830, but so far it seems to have been fulfilled.

 

[LongJourney]

some of the passages are quite inspiring like the ones you have written above. The Book of Mormon is very clear about the United States being the promised land and a land of liberty for those who are willing to obey God’s commandments.

The BoM is an allegory on this nation. The BoM is flawed, not literally true, and difficult to read. I see you are still confused, Bart. My prayers.

 

[BartBurk]

The BoM is an allegory on this nation. The BoM is flawed, not literally true, and difficult to read. I see you are still confused, Bart. My prayers.

You’ve probably answered this already, but have you read the Book of Mormon all the way through?

 

[LongJourney]

LOL Take a look at my sig. I have read and studied it extensively. I wrote the book featured on the “Cassius University” link. I switched accounts. I used to be Jerusha.

 

[ParkerD]

Again and again, I repeat and repeat, I know and understand what you mean by “authentic”. Believe me when I say that there is absolutely nothing “authentic” in the BoM, either by your definition or by any other. What you are trying to prove is nothing but hyperbole.

JAVL,
Nothing you have written demonstrates that you do understand what I meant, nor has anything you have written demonstrated that you were paying one bit of attention when you “read” the Book of Mormon three times. Of course it wouldn’t appear authentic to one whose mind was on something else besides what they were reading.

You could easily show you have a memory of what you read. I wrote about there being situations in the Book of Mormon where a father counsels his sons and another father counsels his grandchildren. Those were memorable parts of the book.

How about showing some familiarity with those, or with anything from it memorable for you other than calling the book “Science fiction” which would never be its genre classification even if it were a novel?

 

[LongJourney]

I wrote about there being situations in the Book of Mormon where a father counsels his sons and another father counsels his grandchildren. Those were memorable parts of the book.

That is a commonly used literary vehicle. There is nothing exceptional about it. The book is still fiction. Yes, there are some good parts. But it is still fiction. It is fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction. fiction.

Allegorical fiction. Was “Robinson Crusoe” believable? Yes. Was it fiction? Yes. Did it have some foundation in reality? Yes.

 

[ParkerD]

That is a commonly used literary vehicle. There is nothing exceptional about it. The book is still fiction. Yes, there are some good parts. But it is still fiction. …Allegorical fiction. Was “Robinson Crusoe” believable? Yes. Was it fiction? Yes. Did it have some foundation in reality? Yes.

LJ,

Good example of the difference between “authenticity” and “believability” by pointing out “Robinson Crusoe”, which I read and enjoyed as a youth.

Authors can create “believability” yet not have “authenticity” because that would require that the words both “ring true” in and of themselves, and that all the aspects of the experiences described tie together and show the inner personality of the person who actually lived the experience.

I actually find that “authenticity” in the sense I am describing, is kind of like a mirror in that the person doing the looking will find that “authenticity” is reflected back by an authentic piece of writing, if the person doing the looking is connected to their own inner self and thus not masking their own identity. (I think I wrote about that once before on this forum.)

If the person doing the looking is used to thinking that everyone is wearing a “mask”, then they will assume every writer is wearing a mask also and they won’t detect authenticity because it will be beyond their expectations and the reality they create for themselves in their personal life.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Each time I try to read the BoM, I fall asleep. So, I now use it for a sleeping pill. A page or two at most and I am out.

 

[LongJourney]

… it will be beyond their expectations and the reality they create for themselves in their personal life.

And if you have read my book, you will see that I make a special effort, where needed, to be authentic. The book is an expression of my own reality. To refute those Mormons who would prefer to treat me as not being a real human being because of my ancestry. To those who would portray me as someone embittered by the events of 1840 to 1850, rather than accepting themselves as embittered by those events.

 

[JHow]

…Authors can create “believability” yet not have “authenticity” because that would require that the words both “ring true” in and of themselves, and that all the aspects of the experiences described tie together and show the inner personality of the person who actually lived the experience.

I actually find that “authenticity” in the sense I am describing, is kind of like a mirror in that the person doing the looking will find that “authenticity” is reflected back by an authentic piece of writing, if the person doing the looking is connected to their own inner self and thus not masking their own identity. (I think I wrote about that once before on this forum.)

If the person doing the looking is used to thinking that everyone is wearing a “mask”, then they will assume every writer is wearing a mask also and they won’t detect authenticity because it will be beyond their expectations and the reality they create for themselves in their personal life.

ParkerD: Is it your position that the BoM is authentic in the sense described above, and that this overrides any concerns we might have for its obscure orgins? Put another way, are the only criteria we can apply to evaluate a text those derived from reading it and our reaction to it?

 

[utah_rose]

Last week, my family went to Hersey Park with my aunt. At the hotel room we were staying at, I found the Book of Mormon in a drawer and gave it a look that night. As to how it got there, I don’t know (I know about the Gideons but I don’t think they do Books of Mormon), but that is besides the point. I only read 1 Nephi and started on 2 before I went to sleep. So, out of curiosity, has anyone else read it? Just a book is enough to say you’ve read it (note:I’m not stereotyping the Book of Mormon. I’m just saying not everyone will be able to read it cover to cover).

I have read it and it is science fiction, with no credibility to it. By the way, remember in the Bible about Jesus’s warning about false prophets. “By their fruits you shall know them”.

Joseph Smith took on wives and actually tried to rape a 14 year old in his boarding house. Brigham Young had at least 14 wives, Joseph Smith worked with “magic stones” and you know what the Bible says about sorcery.

Many of the things mentioned in the book are also of Masonic rites, so with no disrespect to LDS people I know, the best thing to do is pray for them.

 

[ParkerD]

And if you have read my book, you will see that I make a special effort, where needed, to be authentic. The book is an expression of my own reality. To refute those Mormons who would prefer to treat me as not being a real human being because of my ancestry. To those who would portray me as someone embittered by the events of 1840 to 1850, rather than accepting themselves as embittered by those events.

LJ (Jerusha–I had long ago thought so given that Jerusha said they were writing a book about the Book of Mormon),

“Authentic” means being “authentic” all the time. It is what Christ really wants us to do with our heart–to be authentic so that He can help us change. He can’t readily help us change if we’re hiding ourselves from ourselves, or hiding behind masks.

Your imaginary university is an example of the kind of mask I was talking about. People can do all sorts of things behind masks, and never unmask their true inner self or even their true identity within the world.

By allusion it seems you think many LDS are “embittered by those events” but I know of not one person who is “embittered by those events” in the world today. In the days following 1846, yes that would be true, but today no.

What example do you have of someone who shows they are “embittered by those events?”

 

[LongJourney]

amazon.com/Carthage-Conspiracy-Accused-Assassins-Joseph/dp/025200762X

One-sided and offensive account by a “prophet.”

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD: Is it your position that the BoM is authentic in the sense described above, and that this overrides any concerns we might have for its obscure orgins? Put another way, are the only criteria we can apply to evaluate a text those derived from reading it and our reaction to it?

JHow,

You may think I am creating a catch-22 situation, but I mean that the Book of Mormon never claims that there will be outward proofs such as archeological evidence, in the day and time when the book goes out into the world to be read, yet it does claim to contain the real writings and real feelings of real people.

So a reader is left with figuring out on their own whether they are reading authentic writing as they read. Some are going to say “no way” and that may be because they encounter that it is “difficult reading material” or that it “doesn’t match the Bible” or that it “borrows from the Bible” (of course they had original Biblical writings with them–that is the basic foundation of the book). But they will always bring their own biases with them to the encounter they have with the Book of Mormon.

 

[JHow]

You may think I am creating a catch-22 situation, but I mean that the Book of Mormon never claims that there will be outward proofs such as archeological evidence, in the day and time when the book goes out into the world to be read, yet it does claim to contain the real writings and real feelings of real people…

What about the claims Joseph Smith puts around the circumstances of the discovery and translation of the book? Those are extra-textual, to be sure, so the book itself I don’t think makes claims about this, but don’t we have to evaluate the evidence there and try to establish objective truth about these events?