The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Zundrah! I hope you are enjoying your Friday.

What I mean is, in the book of mormon there are books all named after the writers e.g. Either, Nephi - they are all the names of the writer and in it there is the book written by the man called mormon and he put all the different books together and collectively called it all - The Book Of Mormon! What I’m saying is this, our bible is called the bible - Hebrew translation of the word bible is “fact” or “law”. But the people from the LDS church just called there’s after a simple man who only wrote a few books that went into it. So it is like calling the bible The book of Solomon, or the book of Genesis.

My point is that the man called Mormon was obviously a very egoistic and selfish man for calling it after him self, don’t you think so?

Truth patrol has caught up with you!

Your post isn’t completely accurate as to the reason why the Book of Mormon is called the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t Mormon who gave it that title, rather it was Joseph Smith. Also, according to LDS church history, Mormon was much more involved than just “putting the books together.” The Book of Mormon “is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites” (Book of Mormon, Title Page). Even though there is a Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon, Mormon’s comments and insights are found through-out the record, as he took the huge cache of records passed down to him, and abridged them in to a special record that Mormon says he was commanded to make. So, it isn’t just a matter of compiling these different records, but it is an abridgement, with commentary connecting events and insights in to understanding the record provided by Mormon through-out.

I hope this has been helpful in dispelling some misunderstandings about the Book of Mormon.

Now, I’ll leave you guys to continue to poke fun of a sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ…

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[geometer]

I had a neighbor, who like everyone who doesn’t know me well, said to me, “you believe in Jesus Christ and what he taught, you seem like a religious person to me…”

After she had said that, I said that essentially you are right, but it does not mean that I believe church doctrines. She asked me to expain a bit, and the she went on to say that she was a religious person in that she believes in God but does not attend a church.

Some time before a couple of Morman missionaries believed that she should have a book of Mormon, and gave her one. She said that she was uncomfortable having the book, and would like me to have it. I said I am not sure that I would read it much, from what I know about Mormonism. But she kept urging me to take the book from her, and so I did.

I skimmed over the contents of the book, and its bad grammar. It pretends to be King James english, but doesn’t follow grammatical rules for any kind of english.

I am not certain what became of the book, I may have given it to one of my catholic friends.

 

[ParkerD]

I had a neighbor, who like everyone who doesn’t know me well, said to me, “you believe in Jesus Christ and what he taught, you seem like a religious person to me…”

After she had said that, I said that essentially you are right, but it does not mean that I believe church doctrines. She asked me to expain a bit, and the she went on to say that she was a religious person in that she believes in God but does not attend a church.

Some time before a couple of Morman missionaries believed that she should have a book of Mormon, and gave her one. She said that she was uncomfortable having the book, and would like me to have it. I said I am not sure that I would read it much, from what I know about Mormonism. But she kept urging me to take the book from her, and so I did.

I skimmed over the contents of the book, and its bad grammar. It pretends to be King James english, but doesn’t follow grammatical rules for any kind of english.

I am not certain what became of the book, I may have given it to one of my catholic friends.

Hi, Geometer and also Zundrah,
I’ve read the Book of Mormon perhaps fifty times, and enjoyed each time through it. I don’t mind the grammar that is sometimes hard to follow. It reminds me that people have different ways of expressing themselves, using different syntax, plus some languages are more emotive than other languages. I am intrigued when I detect in the Book of Mormon that the writers are coveying their emotions in how they write, and that it comes across in the English translation. I can empathize with their feelings and the depth of those feelings and the urgency with which they wrote about how we would one day read “their words” (but in our language).

I love how the Book of Mormon can guide people in our day, such as my own children, to detect when the government or perhaps an occasional teacher in their schools seek to lead them in a direction that is away from keeping the commandments of God. I am grateful that it provides spiritual awareness of detecting good from evil, and emphasizes faith, hope, and charity just as the apostle Paul did. I am also grateful that it gives further insight into the purposes of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and of the law of restoration–that which we send out returns to us again, both in this life and in the next life. I think it’s a fascinating book, but it can certainly be confusing for people who pick it up for the first time. Mormon and Moroni put their whole life’s work into preparing and preserving the engravings that the book is translated from. I feel a deep sense of appreciation to them for the countless hours they spent in compiling and condensing the record to give us a book that has so many precious insights. It definitely has helped me be a better father and husband.

 

[ricko]

The Book of Mormon claimed to be the “Most correct book ever written” had 4,000 errors in it.

Was translated by Joseph Smith putting a “seer stone” in his hat and sticking his face into same hat.

Conflicts with many of the true teachings of God in the bible.

Many teachings of the Mormons conflict with the teachings of the BOM.

Contains many direct quotes straight from the KJV bible that Smith always used along with the errors in type at that time.

Contains stories of great cities built on the American continent, many made of cement with great roads between them with millions of people and not a single relic to back it up.

You can never believe what the Mormons tell you because they change their teachings. At first these civilizations were all over the continent. Now that they cannot find any evidence of these cities they claim that the remains of the cities are actually only in Central America and are the Incas and Aztec.

Check out the “lost” manuscript of part of the BOM that proves it was a fraud.

The “golden plates” have conveniently disappeared into heaven.

The BOM is not the word of God but the word of Joseph Smith who is a false prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, again, Ricko,
Just some short notes:

The Book of Mormon claimed to be the “Most correct book ever written” had 4,000 errors in it.

Some typos, some printer errors, and some changes that can be said to be “slight changes in meaning.” I wish the Bible had the same care taken each time it gets changed when someone decides to do a new “translation.”

Was translated by Joseph Smith putting a “seer stone” in his hat and sticking his face into same hat.

Good old ingenuity to screen the glare from other light sources, to read the mini-LCD “screen.” (Kind of like the first computer screen ever.) Who would’a thought?!

Conflicts with NOT ONE of the true teachings of God in the Bible.

NOT ONE teaching of the Mormons conflict with the teachings of the BOM.

Contains many direct quotes straight from the KJV bible that Smith always used along with the errors in type at that time.

Contains stories of great cities built on the American continent, many made of cement with great roads between them with millions of people and not a single relic to back it up.

Doesn’t talk about “great cities” or “great roads” and only “millions of people” when the Jaredite civilization existed and self-destructed before other groups took over the land.

You can never believe what the Mormons tell you because they change their teachings. At first these civilizations were all over the continent. Now that they cannot find any evidence of these cities they claim that the remains of the cities are actually only in Central America and are the Incas and Aztec.

The book itself always could be understood about how small the population really was.

Check out the “lost” manuscript of part of the BOM that proves it was a fraud.

(To people who have to have everything proven to them and have no faith.)

The “golden plates” have conveniently disappeared into heaven.

No sign left for the world to seek after–instead they have to read the book and trust the spiritual message, or not–left for each person to decide for themselves. Proving to the world that God is in charge, not man, and God’s ways are not man’s ways.

 

[geometer]

I feel a deep sense of appreciation to them for the countless hours they spent in compiling and condensing the record to give us a book that has so many precious insights. It definitely has helped me be a better father and husband.

Well, I went to a very large public high school and all of the Mormon boys and girls were more civil than the average. Particularly in the way in which they were modest in their behavior and tended to smile at everyone.

Although, my high school was very self controled, and we all maintained a healthy level of respect for each other. Our teachers privately marveled at the peaceful conditions in our school as I found out after graduation. I graduated in 1969 and at that time most schools in my state had been in chaos for years.

The next year, the school that we left instantly became one of the most violent in the state. They had to call in police officers to guard the hallways.

 

[CarolinNC]

I have not read it all the way through but I have read many parts of it. I found it hard to read and full of obvious misinformation. Joseph Smith was not a historian, he looked at what was around him and it appears that he did not know that he was writing about things that did not belong in the pre-Columbian Americas. Wheat, barley, elephants, horses, silk, working in steel and having steel weapons, and chariots, just to name a few things are not indigenous to the Americas, they were brought here by the Europeans when they settled in the new world. There is no evidence that Christ appeared here or that Christians of any type inhabited any part of the Americas. Joseph Smith proclaimed that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, so do you think that God did not know what the pre-Columbian Americas looked like?

Also, if the BOM was written on gold plates, they would have had to have been thick enough to be embossed by the writings and therefore extremely heavy and voluminous a pretty big task for just one man to dig up and carry.

I can say that I don’t believe a word of it.

 

[DonLeon]

Have any of you guys ever read the Book of Mormon?

I have the book of Mormon at home and I often read it too. Have you ever read it, if so then how did you get it?

It is called the book of Mormon because it was a guy called Mormon who put all the books together and collectively made one book out of it.

That’s a bit like calling the bible the book of John, or the book of Peter, or what ever…

Why wasn’t it given a proper decent name?

Yep, I’ve read it. Quite a fairy tale in my opinion. Did some light research into the Book of
Mormon. It was supposedly originally given to Joseph Smith to write by the angel “Moroni”. I also found it very similar in content to a book written a few years prior by a Protestant pastor (don’t remember his name). A very good exposee of the Book of Mormon is given by Dr. Walter Martin in his book “Kingdom of The Cults”. It should be read by all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

Early 1800’s backwoods Americans of English heritage were probably much more familiar with ELIZABETHAN English than were the English at that time. Especially since they had little contact with reading materials other than the KJV.

Old English is

The Miller’s Prologue

Heere folwen the wordes bitwene the Hoost and the Millere

Whan that the Knyght had thus his tale ytoold,In al the route ne was ther yong ne ooldThat he ne seyde it was a noble storie,And worthy for to [drawen to memorie](Librarius: middle-english glossary to memorie);5And namely the gentils everichon.Oure Hooste lough, and swoor, "So moot I gon,This gooth aright; unbokeled is the male,Lat se now who shal telle another tale,For trewely the game is wel bigonne.10Now telleth on, sir Monk, if that ye konneSomwhat to quite with the Knyghtes tale."The Millere that for dronken was al pale,So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,

librarius.com/cantales.htm

I bought two copies, both at used book stores. The first one, I got so disgusted at the tripe and blasphemy, I threw it away. The second one, the bookseller suggested that I make a bookcover out of the paper sack so people wouldn’t know what I was reading. I followed his advice, and I still have it.

However, I prefer this edition:
2think.org/hundredsheep/bom1830/bom_main.shtml

Jerusha, the KJV is written in Early Modern English, Not Old English…and Chaucer didn’t use either one. Old English looks like this:

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

which translates to…

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes…

And so on.

Chaucer wrote in middle English–your example of the Miller’s Tale is a good one for that. For Early Modern English, Shakespeare and the KJV are the best examples. For the language that the early settlers of the USA would have been most familiar with, you need to go to the language of, oh…Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Nathaniel Hathorne (no, that is NOT misspelled) Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift.

The Americans of the time would have been quite familiar with the rhetoric of the time–and of the KJV, which was the standard biblical text in English at the time.

Which was not written, nor translated into, Old English, Middle English or Early Modern English.

Diana, in full English professor snooty mode…

 

[dianaiad]

The Book of Mormon claimed to be the “Most correct book ever written” had 4,000 errors in it.

Wow, you guys just can’t let the truth be truth, can you? I mean really. Must you exaggerate everything, even when the truth would be ‘shocking’ enough? It’s not 4,000. It’s 3,000, and all but six of them were spelling and simple grammar errors (like the misplacing of a comma, or the lack of a period) and were mostly the result of printer error. (the original printer didn’t like us much and didn’t really care a whole lot.)

The few changes that were more than that were changes made to return the printed version of the BOM to the original manuscript.

Is there something about claiming 4000 errors that an acknowledged 3000 doesn’t do, except prove that you can’t help ‘lying for Jesus’ even when you don’t have to? Do you really think that your readers will be more horrified by 4000 than 3000? Are we going to see you claim 5 or 6 thousand errors next?

For Zundrah: the first edition of the Book of Mormon was not printed in verses or columns. That was changed in later editions to make it easier for the reader to find and identify parts of the book. By the way, that’s why the bible is also printed in verses and columns; not because God commanded that it be written that way, but because it is easier for the readers to do indepth study, comparison and quoting from it.

<snip to end; all your arguments here have been answered and refuted many, many times. You don’t listen or acknowledge them, but simply keep repeating your statements. Since this is the very definition of anti-behavior, I think I’ll pass, thank you. >

 

[dianaiad]

Yep, I’ve read it. Quite a fairy tale in my opinion. Did some light research into the Book of
Mormon. It was supposedly originally given to Joseph Smith to write by the angel “Moroni”. I also found it very similar in content to a book written a few years prior by a Protestant pastor (don’t remember his name). A very good exposee of the Book of Mormon is given by Dr. Walter Martin in his book “Kingdom of The Cults”. It should be read by all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Dr. Walter Martin…who got his doctorate from California Coast University (which bought out the California Western University on his degree) which is a diploma mill. It is neither regionally nor nationally accredited and never has been.

He was the father of the counter-cult movement…and if you want to know just how accurate he is in regard to Mormonism, just take a look at how he describes Catholicism.

Walter Martin has a great deal to answer for.

 

[dianaiad]

These are my favorite bits;

**3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 18

Helaman Chapter 9 : 1 - 3

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 2**

If you have a book of Mormon then look it up or GOOGLE them instead!

I can certainly understand why 3 Nephi 9:18 would be a favorite…it’s one of mine, too.

but I don’t get the other two.

I mean…the Helaman quote is rather like telling us the next to the last five minutes of CSI, where the Los Vegas crew announces why the murder was done, but you forgot to tell use whodunnit and why; (that was in the previous chapter, by the way.)

What you gave us was…“hey, don’t believe me, go look!” But it was the previous chapter that let us know that what they were looking for was the dead judge who was murdered by his brother who wanted the job.

What was that all about?

 

[ricko]

Dr. Walter Martin…who got his doctorate from California Coast University (which bought out the California Western University on his degree) which is a diploma mill. It is neither regionally nor nationally accredited and never has been.

He was the father of the counter-cult movement…and if you want to know just how accurate he is in regard to Mormonism, just take a look at how he describes Catholicism.

Walter Martin has a great deal to answer for.

Well he got one thing right about Catholicism

The [Roman Catholic] Church has adapted to the necessity of survival, as she always has. But she has never changed [her] positions.

 

[Answersplease]

What Mark Twain said about the Book of Mormon.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/mark_twain_and_.html

 

[zerinus]

What Mark Twain said about the Book of Mormon.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/mark_twain_and_.html

What Mark Twain said about the Bible, God, and religion:

twainquotes.com/Bible.html
twainquotes.com/God.html
nogodzone.blogspot.com/2006/06/mark-twain-on-bible-and-religion.html
ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/twain01.htm

 

[Answersplease]

What Mark Twain said about the Bible, God, and religion:

twainquotes.com/Bible.html
twainquotes.com/God.html
nogodzone.blogspot.com/2006/06/mark-twain-on-bible-and-religion.html
ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/twain01.htm

How nice of you to provide yet another diversionary tactic.

Instead of defending the Book of Mormon, you try to discredit Mark Twain.

Ad hominem argument.

 

[DonLeon]

Dr. Walter Martin…who got his doctorate from California Coast University (which bought out the California Western University on his degree) which is a diploma mill. It is neither regionally nor nationally accredited and never has been.

He was the father of the counter-cult movement…and if you want to know just how accurate he is in regard to Mormonism, just take a look at how he describes Catholicism.

Walter Martin has a great deal to answer for.

Yes I know about Dr. Martin and his attacks on Catholicism ( he was a Baptist, who are adamantly anti-everything). Those remarks have been refuted, but to date none of his remarks about Mormonism have been refuted satisfactorily (…and you can add many other so called “religions”). Until Mormonism can prove its truly from God, as is true
Christianity, I will still consider it a false religion.

One other point: Mormonism puts the Book of Mormon before the Bible, since the Bible has not been correctly translated. If this is so, then why hasn’t the LDS church translated it correctly for all to see and use? Also, the scriptures in the Bible are almost 2000 years old and just about everything in it has been proven by science ( which, more or less, proves it is not a fairy tale or stories from someones imagination). Can the LDS church do likewise with the Book of Mormon?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Answersplease]

Problems with the Book of Mormon.

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

 

[Answersplease]

See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.
exmormon.org/apology.htm
mrm.org/smithsonian

Book of Mormon witnesses.
exmormon.org/file9.htm

2 Nephi chapter 5 , metallurgy
exmormon.org/2nephi5.htm

Questions on the Book of Mormon
lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml#BOM13

The attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copywright.
mrm.org/attempt-to-sell-copyright

Test your knowledge of the Book of Mormon.
mrm.org/knowledge-test

Praying about the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?
mrm.org/praying-about-bofm

 

[ParkerD]

Ah, well,
If someone reading here follows the link to the article about the Book of Mormon on this website, here are some responses about that article’s validity:

Keep in mind that the missionaries want you to have a feeling about the Book of Mormon after reading it. They’ll tell you that you’ll receive the witness of the Holy Ghost in the form of a “burning in the bosom”—a warm, fuzzy feeling—after reading and praying about it. This feeling is the clincher for them. It’s the real “proof” that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture, and everything else follows from that conclusion.

But think about it. How often have you felt strongly about something or someone, only to learn your feelings were misguided? Feelings, although a part of our human makeup, can’t be a yardstick in matters like this.

After all, some people might get a good feeling after reading anything from the Communist Manifesto or the Yellow Pages. They could pray about such a feeling, and they could take the lingering of the feeling as some kind of divine approbation, but no such sensation will prove the inspiration of Marx’s or Ma Bell’s writings.

When you tell the missionaries you don’t need to pray about the Book of Mormon, they’ll think you’re copping out, that you’re afraid to learn the truth. Admittedly, you’ll seem like a cad if you simply refuse and leave it at that. You need to provide them with an explanation for refusing.

The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.

Personal revelation is not a “warm, fuzzy feeling” and the Book of Mormon is not the yellow pages or the Communist Manifesto. Those words, chosen for the reason the authors intended, are not evidence of Biblical scholarship nor of understanding the writings of the apostle Paul at all. One familiar with the Bible understands revelation by reading 1 Corinthians 2 and Galations 1) as well as many other passages that describe what revelation is all about, and it is the witness of the Holy Spirit with understanding communicated by God, not men.

The introduction tells you that the “Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” There it is again—the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Naturally, you ask yourself just what that phrase means.

According to the Mormon church, authentic Christianity can’t be found in any of the so-called Christian churches—only, of course, in the Mormon church.

Mormons teach that, after Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles taught the true doctrines of Christ and administered his sacred ordinances (roughly the equivalent of Catholic sacraments). After the death of the apostles, their successors continued the work of the gospel, but with rapidly declining success. Within a few generations, the great apostasy foretold in the Bible had destroyed Christ’s Church (contrary to Jesus’ own promise in Matthew 16:18).

The Mormon church asserts that the Church Christ founded became increasingly corrupted by pagan ideas introduced by nefarious members. (Sound familiar?) Over a period of years, the Church lost all relationship with the Church Christ established. Consequently, the keys of authority of the holy priesthood were withdrawn from the earth, and no man any longer had authorization to act in God’s name.

The use of the words “nefarious members” has a particularly intended connotation. I disagree with that connotation completely. It could say “members who still wanted to keep some of their traditions.” It could say “members who misunderstood some of the doctrines.” It could say “members who were using human wisdom and the learning of men as had been warned of by the apostle Paul.”

Matthew 16:18 has been discussed at length on another thread, but briefly “rock” is a translated word which can also be translated as “stone” which Peter himself referred to in 1 Peter 2:6-8, namely the “stone of stumbling”, the “rock of offense” who is the “head of the corner” or the “chief corner stone.” Peter’s knowledge of Christ, revealed by “[his] Father which is in heaven”, is the rock that is the “rock of offense” because it is revealed only by heaven and offended those Jews who did not believe in Christ as being the “chief corner stone.” The “gates of hell will not prevail against” the chief corner stone–Christ, but rather will be subdued and finally be vanquished (during the Millenium) by Christ and His followers (among whom are many, many Catholics).