Page 1 of 1
Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:24 pm
by _Runtu
I've mentioned before that, when I worked at the COB, there were two Curriculum guys who kept trying to publish their idea that God has a writing style that, if we're paying attention, we'll recognize. Never mind that it only works in English. But I digress.
Apparently, one of them has published a book that proves the Book of Mormon is true:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... icity.htmlHere's part of the description:
This book presents some of the intellectual “proofs” he has discovered that affirm the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. Delve deeper into the Book of Mormon and discover for yourself why it's true.
What are these intellectual proofs? Glad you asked:
The book gives examples of Chiasmi, a writing style that was popular in the days of the Bible and are also found in the Book of Mormon. Rose also shows examples of the Hebrew style of writing known as Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon in addition to several other points that he believes prove that Joseph Smith was not the author of the text.
At least it's cheaper than my book.
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:42 pm
by _Yoda
Runtu wrote:At least it's cheaper than my book.
You get what you pay for. ;-)
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:46 pm
by _Drifting
Here's what the Church thinks...
Is there physical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?
Although we don’t base our faith on physical evidence, there is linguistic, historical, and archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. For example, the idea of writing on metal plates was once ridiculed, but in recent years numerous examples of sacred writings on metal plates—some hidden in stone boxes—have been found.
Linguists have noted Book of Mormon words and phrases that sound awkward in English but make perfect sense in Hebrew and related languages that would have been known by the people of the Book of Mormon—languages young Joseph Smith did not know.
But these kinds of evidences are not what convince us of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. It is a matter of faith and personal revelation.
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:59 pm
by _Fence Sitter
Does he mention any of Theodore Geisel's groundbreaking work in Chiasmas?
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:02 pm
by _Buffalo
Sam I am
I am Sam
I am Sam
Sam I am.
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them Sam I Am.
Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:05 pm
by _Buffalo
Anyway, why Chiasmi? Why not sonnets? Cinquains? Haiku? Limericks? Sestinas? God doesn't seem to have much imagination.
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:11 pm
by _just me
Buffalo wrote:Anyway, why Chiasmi? Why not sonnets? Cinquains? Haiku? Limericks? Sestinas? God doesn't seem to have much imagination.
God likes to be repetitive when he has limited writing space.
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:27 pm
by _why me
Runtu wrote:What are these intellectual proofs? Glad you asked:
The book gives examples of Chiasmi, a writing style that was popular in the days of the Bible and are also found in the Book of Mormon. Rose also shows examples of the Hebrew style of writing known as Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon in addition to several other points that he believes prove that Joseph Smith was not the author of the text.
At least it's cheaper than my book.
These are major for the Book of Mormon. But I think that all this would not matter if the book did have the early experience which it did: the 11 witnesses and the translation process. All of these are pluses for the book.
Re: Proof of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:37 pm
by _Buffalo
why me wrote:
These are major for the Book of Mormon. But I think that all this would not matter if the book did have the early experience which it did: the 11 witnesses and the translation process. All of these are pluses for the book.
Why don't you accept the witness' testimony that the church had fallen into apostasy? Or the witness testimony of the Strangeite plates?