The Mormon Archeology Shuffle

[LongJourney]

What you need to know is this: the BOM, even if the events were correct and accurate, has nothing to do with modern Mormonism. The missionaries won’t tell you that, but it’s true.

In fact, a thorough reading of the BoM can be used to demonstrate that the LDS church is in apostasy from the BoM.

In fact, you won’t find a plurality of gods, God once being a man, God having a physical body, the pre-mortal existance, a Heavenly mother, or anything else unique to Mormonism in its pages

And some of those teachings came from a companion book of “scriptures”. And it is also an obvious fraud, which has been demonstrated in a conference in SLC this past weekend.

 

[PaulDupre]

In fact, a thorough reading of the BoM can be used to demonstrate that the LDS church is in apostasy from the BoM.

And some of those teachings came from a companion book of “scriptures”. And it is also an obvious fraud, which has been demonstrated in a conference in SLC this past weekend.

Which conference was that?

 

[twopekinguys]

Which conference was that?

I think that is the FAIR conference that was on the 5th and 6th.

 

[Tmaque]

It is only a matter of time until the LDS church will re-invent its position on the BoM and the BoA. A few years from now, Diana and the others will be telling us that the LDS church has never claimed that those books recounted real historical events or were translated from actual documents, but have always said that they were received in revelation by Smith as divine allegory. All of the statements from the LDS prophets and apostles, all the lesson manuals and the intros to the books themselves - well those were just someone’s opinions, now shown to be incorrect by the current prophet who has shed more light and knowledge on the matter.

They will certainly start to move in a more liberal direction with the historicity of the BOM. Some leading LDS scholars already think the BOM is allegorical and I suspect within the next fifty years LDS Church leadership will make belief in an historical BOM optional for the faithful.

When I left the LDS Church in 1984 all of Genesis was taken historically by every LDS person I knew. Now I’m acquainted with many LDS that view much of Genesis as more allegory than history.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

They will certainly start to move in a more liberal direction with the historicity of the BOM. Some leading LDS scholars already think the BOM is allegorical and I suspect within the next fifty years LDS Church leadership will make belief in an historical BOM optional for the faithful.

When I left the LDS Church in 1984 all of Genesis was taken historically by every LDS person I knew. Now I’m acquainted with many LDS that view much of Genesis as more allegory than history.

Who are the leading scholars that think the Book of Mormon is allegorical? From what I’ve seen, they all fervently maintain that the BOM is historical, and cite each other on Mesoamerican “evidences”, linguistic “evidences” (supposed Hebraic sentence structures), etc.

 

[Javl]

Who are the leading scholars that think the Book of Mormon is allegorical? From what I’ve seen, they all fervently maintain that the BOM is historical, and cite each other on Mesoamerican “evidences”, linguistic “evidences” (supposed Hebraic sentence structures), etc.

As a point of information: I’ve read the BOM ( It is a bit interesting, but you need a good imagination ). The peoples mentioned in it are supposedly Hebrews that emmigrated here.
What amazes me in reading the BOM is that the sentence structure, phraseology, etc., of the sayings, speeches, etc., used in the BOM of these people are all in “The King’s English”. Now , we know that the Hebrews of the time spoke basically Aramaic. If the BOM, like the Bible was translated into English, it would still contain the structure and phraseology of Aramaic, or even Hebrew. This, to me, raises a Red Flag!! Just this alone shows, to me, that the BOM is a work of fiction, but I’ll leave it up to you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think that is the FAIR conference that was on the 5th and 6th.

Or maybe the Sunstone Symposium on the 4th through the 7th?

 

[Returning_Home]

What amazes me in reading the BOM is that the sentence structure, phraseology, etc., of the sayings, speeches, etc., used in the BOM of these people are all in “The King’s English”. Now , we know that the Hebrews of the time spoke basically Aramaic. If the BOM, like the Bible was translated into English, it would still contain the structure and phraseology of Aramaic, or even Hebrew.

This is the point that I’ve brought up repeatedly. We have two statements from David Whitmer and Apostle Russel M. Nelson clearly stating that the BOM is a literal translation and didn’t contain any of Smith’s own words. If that’s the case, why would a text, translated from "Reformed Egyptian,’ a language known nowhere outside of Mormonism, be related as Elizabethan English? And the Elizabethan English comes from the KJV, first published in 1611, the then-modern interpretation of Biblical text, a book not yet written by men not yet born on a continent over 5,000 miles away from the fictional Nephites. This would have to be an astronimical coincidence.

This is where apologists claim it’s of God, thus the reason it’s much the same as the Biblical text. If that were the case, why would God be using the words or even the paraphrase of words from men who wouldn’t be recognized by those same fictional Nephites? That doesn’t make sense. Not only that, but even if we assume that God did that for some reason, why would ‘Jesus,’ in 3 Nephi 20:22-25 use the almost word-for-word paraphrase of Moses’ words used by Peter in Acts 3:22-23 as and assign them to Moses himself?

How could God make such a mistake?

Thus, we build on each piece of information until we reach the inevitable conclusion that it’s all a scam.

 

[Returning_Home]

In fact, a thorough reading of the BoM can be used to demonstrate that the LDS church is in apostasy from the BoM.

I’ve long thought this, but am thrilled to hear someone else say it. Rock on!

 

[Javl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongJourney
In fact, a thorough reading of the BoM can be used to demonstrate that the LDS church is in apostasy from the BoM.

I’ve long thought this, but am thrilled to hear someone else say it. Rock on!

From what I’ve read of LDS literature, its history, and modern LDS, it certainly is NOTHING like the original LDS Church. If J.Smith were alive today he wouldn’t recognize it. And they claim that we are not like the original Christian Church !!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem