Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Valo]

When you love someone you learn about them. You pay attention to them. You find out about what they like, what they desire, what they want. In order to do this you have to spend time with the person you love. You have to talk to them. Listen to them. Appreciate and respect them. Pay attention to their words and ideas. You take time out of your day for them. Then you find out and learn all about them and your knowledge about your Love will be based on experience and observations.

Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you

It's a fine line...Love recognizes and respects the autonomy and sovereignty of others intelligences.

Love isn't about what can I get from you, although you will receive, it's about true respect and recognition of the value this person intrinsically brings to existence itself. And valueing the symbiotic relationship and the blessings this relationship brings.

[Valo]

In response to Valo's post telling us in some detail how Smith misunderstood what this thing he calls 'God' really wanted Smith to do, I wrote

You really seem to have an amazing confidence in your ability to tell us what this thing you call 'God' is up to. I wonder that your evidential basis for this confidence might be?

To which Valo replied:

When you love someone you learn about them. You pay attention to them. You find out about what they like, what they desire, what they want. In order to do this you have to spend time with the person you love. You have to talk to them. Listen to them. Appreciate and respect them. Pay attention to their words and ideas. You take time out of your day for them. Then you find out and learn all about them and your knowledge about your Love will be based on experience and observations.

Good luck!

If Valo is talking about the what most English speakers imagine when they use the term 'God', he is referring to the supposed creator of the vast universe and the laws that govern it, the source of the moral order, and the unfathomable and eternal basis of all reality. And it turns out that understanding the will of this supposed entity is no more difficult than calling on an elderly relative for regular chats.

If this is the level that theists have descended to, there seems little point in arguing with such people.

You can do what you want with my words.

How do you know anything except experientially? Otherwise you're just talking and saying nothing.

How would any seed grow on barren soil?

[Chap]

If Valo is talking about the what most English speakers imagine when they use the term 'God', he is referring to the supposed creator of the vast universe and the laws that govern it, the source of the moral order, and the unfathomable and eternal basis of all reality. And it turns out that understanding the will of this supposed entity is no more difficult than calling on an elderly relative for regular chats.

If this is the level that theists have descended to, there seems little point in arguing with such people.

[...]
How do you know anything except experientially? Otherwise you're just talking and saying nothing.
[...]

The position that the acquisition of knowledge (which some philosophers have helpfully defined as "having the right to be sure") requires some basis of experience is an ancient and respectable one.

But experience alone can never be enough: the kind of experience one has is crucial, and after you have had an experience you need to analyse its implications very carefully - and maybe seek other kinds of experience you have not so far had. Thus, for instance, the daily experience of someone living in the flat expanses of parts of the American mid-west or of the Russian steppe leads to two obvious conclusions:

(a) The earth is flat.
(b) The earth is stationary.

Both statements are wrong. To see that the first one is wrong requires a number of experiences not immediately available to mid-west plains farmers, but records of those experiences have persuaded the immense majority of educated people in Europe that the earth is in fact round for about two millennia. The right to be sure that the second statement is wrong was acquired considerably later, and was a much more complicated matter.

Similarly, sitting or kneeling at home or in a place or religious activity, and getting feelings about the intentions of what I have called the "supposed creator of the vast universe and the laws that govern it, the source of the moral order, and the unfathomable and eternal basis of all reality" is unlikely to lead to an accurate view of the question (supposing such an entity to exist). For a start, haven't you noticed that the world is full of people who have had your kind of 'experience' and come to radically different conclusions? Are all those people wrong, while you alone are right?

And, most importantly - how are the rest of us to decide between you all?

[Chap]

It occurs to me that the question of what it means to know something is very relevant to many discussions about Mormonism and related topics that take place in this forum.

In the post above, I referred to the idea that you may reasonably be said to 'know' something when you have the right to be sure about it. This comes from a book called 'The problem of knowledge', published by the philosopher A.J. Ayer in 1956.

You can find that book here (no paywall):

https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items ... roblem.pdf

and the claim that I have referred to is discussed in pages 28-34. Of course I do not say that Ayer's answer is definitive. But it is certainly clear, interesting and well-argued. If you have never seriously asked yourself what conditions someone would have to fulfil before they could be said to know something, this is not a bad place to start thinking about it.

[bill4long]

If Christianity is true, then the Apostle Paul said everything that needed to be said. It's quite simple, really. Not that I'm a believer.

I disagree. Paul does not speak clearly about the indwelling of Christ. Paul focuses on "churches" and respecting church status, hierarchy, which are all false ideas. Paul did not teach clearly about the Antichrist and the role of the Antichrist.

Paul doesn't barely touch on what Isaiah says and Isaiah is very important.

Plus, it's also about having additional witnesses to God and Christ, not a witness for men and their churches.

Uhhh, Collosians 2:9,10.

[bill4long]

If this is the level that theists have descended to, there seems little point in arguing with such people.

Agreed. It is best not to argue over such things. People who choose to believe such things ought not to set out to correct others based on their subjective experience of God.

Kish, sorry if I ever offended you. Totally enjoying you on the podcasts.

[Kishkumen]

Kish, sorry if I ever offended you. Totally enjoying you on the podcasts.

Thank you, bill4long. I appreciate the encouragement. No worries about clashing here.

[Valo]

[...]
How do you know anything except experientially? Otherwise you're just talking and saying nothing.
[...]

The position that the acquisition of knowledge (which some philosophers have helpfully defined as "having the right to be sure") requires some basis of experience is an ancient and respectable one.

But experience alone can never be enough: the kind of experience one has is crucial, and after you have had an experience you need to analyse its implications very carefully - and maybe seek other kinds of experience you have not so far had. Thus, for instance, the daily experience of someone living in the flat expanses of parts of the American mid-west or of the Russian steppe leads to two obvious conclusions:

(a) The earth is flat.
(b) The earth is stationary.

Both statements are wrong. To see that the first one is wrong requires a number of experiences not immediately available to mid-west plains farmers, but records of those experiences have persuaded the immense majority of educated people in Europe that the earth is in fact round for about two millennia. The right to be sure that the second statement is wrong was acquired considerably later, and was a much more complicated matter.

Similarly, sitting or kneeling at home or in a place or religious activity, and getting feelings about the intentions of what I have called the "supposed creator of the vast universe and the laws that govern it, the source of the moral order, and the unfathomable and eternal basis of all reality" is unlikely to lead to an accurate view of the question (supposing such an entity to exist). For a start, haven't you noticed that the world is full of people who have had your kind of 'experience' and come to radically different conclusions? Are all those people wrong, while you alone are right?

And, most importantly - how are the rest of us to decide between you all?

You don't choose any human. You choose God. Unless you are a tare you have a portion of Crist in you. No human told me about God and my relationship with God is not dependent on what another human has said. I'm using symbols to describe something I've experienced and to transport that idea to others. Within you is God, who will either resonate with the ideas or not. You will have to gage for yourself. But you have other voices too speaking to you, bringing ideas to your mind, and this can drown out the voice of Father in you. Or perhaps you don't know what Father's voice sounds like or what to listen for? So if you don't know or don't have an idea of what Father might be like, you won't know to look for Him or what He sounds like, especially given the indoctrination we all receive as children that instills in us a perspective of reality that neglects Father God and our link with Him.

You are to find God in all this mess with the light you have been given. The light you have is sufficient to discover Father and His ways but it requires you discovering that light and exercising faith in it.

Other humans, like me, can just tell you what they've experienced, and you either consider it or mock it.

[Kishkumen]

It was a combination of working with others, a manuscript, and auto dictating, possibly under the influence of psychedelics (I'm only recently exploring this vein so mostly speculation atm).

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

Love the interesting ideas here, Valo. You paint a very complicated picture. In your view, Smith is a fraudster, but the Book of Mormon is teaching good stuff. Smith's mistake was to betray his original calling to chase his own following through the church he founded. I don't know how that all hangs together--how a fraudster brought about a "true" book by the will of God. I completely agree with you, however, that the drawing a connection between the Book of Mormon and the veracity of the LDS Church is illogical.

[Valo]

It was a combination of working with others, a manuscript, and auto dictating, possibly under the influence of psychedelics (I'm only recently exploring this vein so mostly speculation atm).

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

Love the interesting ideas here, Valo. You paint a very complicated picture. In your view, Smith is a fraudster, but the Book of Mormon is teaching good stuff. Smith's mistake was to betray his original calling to chase his own following through the church he founded. I don't know how that all hangs together--how a fraudster brought about a "true" book by the will of God. I completely agree with you, however, that the drawing a connection between the Book of Mormon and the veracity of the LDS Church is illogical.

I grew up LDS cause both my parents were. At one point I was very devote and took my oaths and covenants quite sincerely and seriously. I believed in the "religion" of Mormonism.

In time and because of various experiences, my understanding changed to begin to see beyond "religion" and to adopt the view that God and His works are much greater than the small cubby hole my religion had stuffed Him in. This forced me to see how the doctrine and dogma that the LDS religion produces is not motivated by staying true to scriptures or to God, but it is about creating a narrative that sustains the religion, the church, and it's leaders in their positions of power and authority.

The source of their doctrines and dogma, as they will say, are the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon. And in all cases you will see a dogma being supposedly supported by scriptures. When you are LDS and you are drinking deeply of the Koolaid, you don't read the scriptures independently, but rather you interpret the scriptures and make them fit the doctrines and dogma produced by the LDS corporation. These interpretations sometimes align with the actual scriptures but often they don't.

When I realized this I had to make a choice. Do I reject the scriptures or do I reject the LDS interpretation? Does God control His message or does a corporation? Is God bound by President Nelson or is Nelson bound by God? Is God a respector of persons or not?

The LDS, like most all organized religions, want you to doubt your experiential knowledge and accept their interpretation and they do this by claiming only they have an authentic link to God, only one man in fact, who can define scriptures.

Of course this is BS. And it becomes clear when you look at the inner operations, the scandals, etc. that this is just a corporation with a CEO and board members who are loyal to the corporation above all else, and what God wants is low on the list of priorities.

But like I intimated, I have had independent experiences with the divine. My faith in God and my belief in God was not founded on my belief in the religion of my youth. As young as 2 or 3 years old I recall God speaking to me and feelings His presence. When I was 7 God spoke to me and filled me with wonder and awe. When I was a teen, God comforted me. And through out my life I have seen God has been with me. When I was devout LDS I denied my experiential knowledge of God and disregarded my experiences because they did not fit the frame created by the LDS church.

So when it became clear to me that the LDS religion is false and that it's leaders are not following God, I knew the issue was with them, not God. The words of the Book of Mormon still rang true. The words I had been reading and studying all my life still produced good fruit. It still resonated with my soul. In fact now that I was free of the dogma trap, I could read the Book of Mormon purely and accept its message without having to make compromises or mental gymnastics to explain why the Book of Mormon God is different than the LDS God, for instance.

It is my belief that God has revealed His truth to many individuals over time and that once we learn to hear God's voice, we are free to find it all over the place, in the most obscure of works. Even though Joseph Smith was a fraud, nonetheless, the Book of Mormon contains ideas within it that point to Christ and God and the ideas, if followed and implemented, produce good fruits.

God uses the evil that mankind might do to bring about His purposes. He is playing the Antichrist for a fool!