Why is the Book of Mormon so difficult to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerusha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulDupre said:
St. Paul taught that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).

In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

-From the Catholic Answers Library “Infant Baptism”
Click to expand...
Paul,
Thanks for the verses. Please note that your assumption “if Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism” is an assumption that I wouldn’t make. Paul was a Jew, as we know. He was very much aware of the law of circumcision and its symbolism as a sign of the old covenant. Baptism was a sign or symbolism of the new covenant–of course his logic would relate the two symbols.

Note also that the words include the phrase “in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh”. Go back to the verses we looked at from Jesus’ experience with his disciples and the man “blind since birth.” Jesus said in essence that the baby boy, born blind, had no “sins of the flesh.”

“Putting off the body” relates to circumcision by what we know circumcision to be, a cutting away of certain flesh. The symbolism Paul used was not something I would use in today’s world, but that cutting away of flesh by circumcision, is certainly being compared by Paul to “the circumcision made without hands” because it was made through the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who “cut away” our sins of the flesh and “put them off” if we are baptized unto repentance.

See also Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” This clear connection between believing and baptism could not possibly be referring to newborn infants.

Peace to you, Paul. I appreciate your response. I wish all well. I’m coming into a busy period where I may not respond (Some will like that–most will like that–maybe all will like that.) Hey, all of you folks, take care of yourselves. Life is good! We are all very blessed.

I love the open book test nature of this life. What a fun test! (But I always tell my kids I have always loved tests.) Bye, all.
 
Eucharisted said:
Has anyone “translated” the Book of Mormon into plain old English?
Click to expand...
There are two translations around. One tames down the gory stuff and the doctrines that are difficult to swallow, for children. I have paged through it. The other, that I have not seen, is also biased, anti.
 
Jerusha said:
I disagree with that. Anyone who wants to be well-prepared for debating with Mormons MUST be familiar with the BOM. That is one reason for my little writing project. Many Catholics are afraid of reading it. I guarantee you, it is so badly written, and contains so much offensive reading material, you will want to throw it across the room on your first attempt. :eek:
Click to expand...

There is a fairly interesting story struggling to get out; it can’t, because it is half-suffocated by inelegant & inartistic language, & is implausible - as in the narration of the fight between Coriantumr & Shiz. The notion that Jesus preached in America may not be true, but it is at least an inventive idea - it’s not implausible, merely fictional. The narrative about the Jaredites is inventive, as is the much more detailed narrative about Nephi & his sons: it’s fiction, but it is not unimaginable - it has verisimilitude.​

IMO, the journey to Utah after the death of Joseph Smith would have made a far better foundation myth for Mormonism than anything said about the Jaredites & Nephites; not because unlike them it is a real event, but because it has a certain epic quality: Brigham Young (who even looks “Mosaic” :)) & his “This is the place” is not easily forgotten. Early Mormonism’s literary problem is, that it had no literary style. Unlike the AV.
 
I agree, it could have been an epic.

Unfortunately, the authors got so caught up with trying to imitate biblical style that it fell flat on its face.

That Coriantumr and Shiz thing was a mockery of the immense tragedy that went before it. 😦

I can see Jesus standing on a Host, teaching the Sermon on the Mount, when the first Mass was said on Greenland.

I think the entire story of a blood-feud between two related peoples, ending in mutual genocide, is an excellent lesson in exactly how insane humanity is. Sort of like the Arabs and the Jews.

I think an accurate account of what happened from 1940 to 1849 would be better. Ending with BY’s “This is the place.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top