Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_No Mas Mentiras]

I wonder how many readers of this board find that they still profit from reading the Book of Mormon, even though they no longer believe it to be either historically true or divinely inspired?

Please signify.

(Note the condition: I am hoping for opinions from former Mormons, not those who still believe that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text rather than a 19th century fiction.)

I have not bothered to read the Book of Mormon in the last nine years. Previously, I would read it c. once a year and racked up well over two-dozen cover to cover readings. Since accepting that it is nothing more than inspiration via fictional mechanism I no longer have any interest. Too many books and not enough time. I will read passages from scripture when engaged in discussion, but that's it....

This is very confusing to me. You defend Mormonism, seeming to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt at every turn, yet are active to appease your wife and are a self confessed non-believer.

I understand the attendance thing because I find myself in a sorta similar situation, but to defend the indefensible is weird.

[_Uncle Ed]

This is very confusing to me. You defend Mormonism, seeming to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt at every turn, yet are active to appease your wife and are a self confessed non-believer.

I understand the attendance thing because I find myself in a sorta similar situation, but to defend the indefensible is weird.

What is indefensible about the assertion that Joseph Smith is essentially no different than Muhammad or Jesus Christ? It is the followers that take the early religion and run with it, later generations morph it to their needs.

Joseph Smith was no monster, he was a man with moral and religious needs. He custom-made his religious morality to suit his personality. The result got him killed, which was fortunate for Mormonism in the place and time, since martyrs are good for "business".

The martyrdom of Muhammad, if it had occurred, would have produced the opposite effect, since Islam (as Arabic) sees worldly success, especially military and political, as a sign of God's favor. Muhammad was no monster either.

Jesus Christ was a mystic who threatened the politico-religious power by being too popular. Aside from his later-messiah role, he must have been too critical yet impressively mystical to ignore. Killing him was the worst mistake those powers that be could have made. It's hard to see this far removed why Christianity survived much less explain why it thrived. But it seems inarguable that the doctrine morphed right away into even greater assertions of what/who Jesus was.

Joseph Smith's reputation within Mormonism is on a similar path of distortion to suit the needs of the religion.

But that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith was the pariah that antis want him to be. Making him out to be worse than he was doesn't sit well with me. No historical figure with that many irrational enemies should be distorted the other way, but I guess if believers are going to raise their spiritual "father" into demigod status, it is only expected that enemies will brand him as a devil. The universe must remain in balance, after all....

[_sock puppet]

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

As the fiction it is, I find it pretentious and tedious.

[_mentalgymnast]

The other thing is that Mormons are so obsessed with discovering the literal historical truth in the Book of Mormon, but are unable to extract any moral truths form the book, and apply them to their own lives.

I think you have this flipped backwards.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

-

[_mentalgymnast]

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

I have not opened my Book of Mormon since I stopped believing (honest answer). I was heart broken when I finally accepted that the church was not what I'd loved, believed, followed and diligently served my entire life. It's not that I hate the church or that I'm angry or that I find no value in the Book of Mormon now, it's just not in me to open it up and start reading again.

It's been the same for my husband.

I could very well be a "former Mormon" if I had succumbed to the feelings of despair and hopelessness in believing the truth claims of the LDS church that I've periodically had to deal with off and on for the last twenty years or so. But for me, the saving grace of my continued activity in the church has been going back and making the Book of Mormon an object of deeper study rather than leaving it on the shelf or throwing it off to the side.

The two books that acted as a catalyst in helping me to look at the Book of Mormon with different eyes were, "By the Hand of Mormon", by Givens...and, "Understanding the Book of Mormon", by Grant Hardy.

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

But for me, the saving grace of my continued activity in the church has been going back and making the Book of Mormon an object of deeper study rather than leaving it on the shelf or throwing it off to the side.

Can you give an example of something from the Book of Mormon that initially you found jeopardised your belief in it but which a subsequent, deeper study, turned into a confirmation of the books truthfulness?

[_robuchan]

As a TBM, I found the storyline engaging and the sermon/doctrine to be the most important revealed truths about God known to man. As a former believer, I find the storyline tedious. As for the sermon/doctrine, I think it holds up very well for anyone with belief in Jesus Christ.

[_Uncle Ed]

...

The other thing is that Mormons are so obsessed with discovering the literal historical truth in the Book of Mormon, but are unable to extract any moral truths form the book, and apply them to their own lives. Point: Alma 1:26-33. But if anyone preached on that, they would soon be kicked out. what to do? what to do?

No moral truths in the Book of Mormon? You've got to be kidding!

And your example: where is the problem with teaching the meaning of that? A clear separation between "church and state" was established in the Nephite lands, making personal belief non punishable, but the story insists that the non believers were on the whole degenerate, i.e. criminal in their activities, thus risking prosecution by the law, the civil and the criminal law, which, as in the USA and most of the modern West, just happens to dovetail with the religious "law of God" from which the modern civil and criminal law derived its moral basis for the main part. There is nothing in that passage of Alma suggesting that the "church" maintained a dogmatic hold over the civil and criminal laws of the Nephites. The "law of Moses" applied only to those still living it, the rest, that could get an Israelite stoned for infractions, had been tossed out, freeing non believers from the fear of punishment under the religious law. (vs 17)

If you take the Book of Mormon by itself, like most people did the Bible for generations on generations, deeming it to be literally historical truth, the Book of Mormon stands up just fine. It is internally consistent, far more than the Bible is in fact, and aside from not (yet) being located to a specific place on earth (a big problem that got bigger over time) it's internal, textual geography is also consistent. So TBMs don't need to listen to the ongoing flap about historicity. The book's moral teaching content is its dominant feature.

What you've apparently done is look at the origin claims and historicity problems, decided that they invalidate the book as "scripture", and then tossed the moral content out like the baby with the bath....

[_Bazooka]

The Book of Mormon is unique in one respect.

History is normally told by the victors - In the case of the Book of Mormon, it's the losers letting us know what happened.