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.
I just ran some statistics on the Book of Mormon.

Very interesting. Meaning of these numbers is available here.

readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-assessment.php

Should be a very interesting subject for Diana. Maybe she can find a set of samples that will come up with different numbers.
Jerusha,
For one thing, this is very interesting (thank you) in that I just checked Isaiah 53 and John 17 and they have higher scores for the first category and lower scores for the other two. What it says to me is that the accusation that Joseph Smith “borrowed” the whole Book of Mormon from the Bible is clearly not so. What it also says to me is that the prophets who had the thoughts that were transcribed into the words of the Book of Mormon, thought in very complex language patterns, and used a very emotive language. There is quite a bit of imagery, symbolism, and a poetry pattern called “chiasmus” (not by them, but by us) in the Book of Mormon, as also some in the Bible.

This is all very interesting. Thanks! Have a great day!
 
What it says to me is that the accusation that Joseph Smith “borrowed” the whole Book of Mormon from the Bible is clearly not so.
No one has ever said that. 😃 Many parts are borrowed from the Bible.

It was written in very bad King James English. Subject-verb disagreements are common, which you won’t find in real KJE. And you probably ran it on the King James translation. Try it on more modern translations.

Chiasmus was known in the 1830’s, and some of it could easily be accidental.

Perhaps it is written so badly to obscure the meaning, such as a perception of a punitive and murderous God. And that is not the NT God.
 
I just ran some statistics on the Book of Mormon.

Very interesting. Meaning of these numbers is available here.

readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-assessment.php

Should be a very interesting subject for Diana. Maybe she can find a set of samples that will come up with different numbers.
Cut Joseph Smith some slack. He had to fabricate an entire book and was not able to steel from other heretical texts like Muhammed was able to. You try to do that and I am sure you will have difficulties.
 
I just ran some statistics on the Book of Mormon.

Very interesting. Meaning of these numbers is available here.

readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-assessment.php

Should be a very interesting subject for Diana. Maybe she can find a set of samples that will come up with different numbers.
because we aren’t supposed to be reading it…

The Apostles made the Gosples (most of their contents) fairly easy to understand… What is not understandable is explained by the Church Christ insituted on Earth…

but people are not satisfied with the Original…
 
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:
 
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:
Jerusha,
I think it was inspired to be written that way to “find” those who really are the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” and who know the Good Shepherd’s voice, versus those who will “throw a book across the room” because it does not meet their pre-conceived expectations. I love hearing your reaction to it, because that is exactly what some of us would expect. The Book of Mormon is a litmus test, a sifter of hearts.
 
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:
so why bother?

i have better things to do with my limited time…

I’ve found one can learn enough about Mormonism by reading books like Stolen Innocence… and… can’t recall this other one… i think it was called Under the Banner of Heaven… Yes, i am 99% sure it was called that…

after reading one or both of those … you won’t want to know anything much more about tht religion…

i also read The Godmakers… Yikes!!! :eek:
 
Totally agreed!! 😃 I reject a religion based on hate.
Jerusha,
Oh, so this is your version of “hate?”

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re like a parrot. (By the way, it found the “hatred” inside of your heart with what little reading you did, so the litmus test worked.) Bye.
 
Jerusha,
Oh, so this is your version of “hate?”

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re like a parrot. (By the way, it found the “hatred” inside of your heart with what little reading you did, so the litmus test worked.) Bye.
i was thinking more of this:

2 Ne. 5: 21
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

or this:
Moroni 8:14
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
 
i was thinking more of this:

2 Ne. 5: 21
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

AND THIS:
Alma 3:6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
• • •
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.
• • •
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

Jacob 3: 3 But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction.

or this:
Moroni 8:14
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
Majick,
Yes, those would be difficult issues to deal with as a Catholic. I honestly don’t get why Catholics don’t have a problem with infants needing baptism or they are not going to the highest heaven. If you don’t call that a lack of love for humankind, then I do. We differ. (One pope justified it because they “don’t know any better.” What nonsense! They are going to have just as much knowledge in the hereafter as anyone else!)
 
(remember Catholics don’t believe in a “highest heaven” a la Celestial Kingdom, as we do. They only believe in one Heaven, one Hell, one Purgatory)
 
(remember Catholics don’t believe in a “highest heaven” a la Celestial Kingdom, as we do. They only believe in one Heaven, one Hell, one Purgatory)
That’s right, our heaven has no ghettos.
 
Majick,
Yes, those would be difficult issues to deal with as a Catholic. I honestly don’t get why Catholics don’t have a problem with infants needing baptism or they are not going to the highest heaven. If you don’t call that a lack of love for humankind, then I do. We differ. (One pope justified it because they “don’t know any better.” What nonsense! They are going to have just as much knowledge in the hereafter as anyone else!)
Let’s not get into a debate what church leaders “say”. Brigham Young said something stupid quite frequently. Rather, let’s talk about why Catholics baptize infants. We do it because the apostles did it, plain and simple. There’s ample evidence of that.

We can theorize all we want regarding the necessity of it and where babies go if they don’t get baptized, but really all of that is beside the point. The apostles, who sat at the foot of Christ gave us this practice, we carry it on.
 
Majick,
No, they didn’t. You have no proof that they did. Someone posted some verses about baptizing “all their household”. That offers no proof that there were infants or young children in the household.

I personally think the way the latest words from whoever wrote them that Rebecca cited and linked, imply some kind of a “lesser heaven” for infants without baptism. That’s why I used the term “highest heaven.”
 
Majick,
No, they didn’t. You have no proof that they did. Someone posted some verses about baptizing “all their household”. That offers no proof that there were infants or young children in the household.

I personally think the way the latest words from whoever wrote them that Rebecca cited and linked, imply some kind of a “lesser heaven” for infants without baptism. That’s why I used the term “highest heaven.”
We have evidence they did, not proof, but indications that they baptized infants right from the beginning. We do have proof that they were baptizing infants in the 2nd century. In addition to evidence, I have sacred tradition. You have NOTHING that says they didn’t. The Catholic position is much stronger than the LDS in this regard.
 
Majick,
Yes, those would be difficult issues to deal with as a Catholic. I honestly don’t get why Catholics don’t have a problem with infants needing baptism or they are not going to the highest heaven. If you don’t call that a lack of love for humankind, then I do. We differ. (One pope justified it because they “don’t know any better.” What nonsense! They are going to have just as much knowledge in the hereafter as anyone else!)
They why don’t you baptize them just as you do dead people. Seems they are both equally aware of it in this life and have to count on knowledge in the hereafter.
 
We have evidence they did, not proof, but indications that they baptized infants right from the beginning. We do have proof that they were baptizing infants in the 2nd century. In addition to evidence, I have sacred tradition. You have NOTHING that says they didn’t. The Catholic position is much stronger than the LDS in this regard.
Tmaque,
OK, you win with your “sacred tradition” handed down from the 2nd century. I call that apostasy, you call it “sacred tradition.”

Once again, I’ll post what Christ said about babies before they are adults:

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8 ¶ The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13 ¶ They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

Jesus didn’t baptize the man or say he had original sin. He said he had no sin at birth. But you will insist that your “sacred tradition” is more valid than what Jesus Himself said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top