Book of Mormon Thread

[_Bond...James Bond]

I've been looking into the various alternative theories to the "mainstream" view that Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates. There are verious ideas about Smith compiling the book from other writers or a single writer or that he made it up, and often these arguments take on a life of their own (Spalding Theory, etc).

My question is do we lose sight of what the Book of Mormon contains when we try to figure out the circumstances of its authorship?

Do we lose sight of the fact that the Book of Mormon is largely unproven on the basis of archaeology, history, DNA, etc, etc in arguing Joseph Smith's character?

Shouldn't we argue the Book of Mormon in its own right, because it does exist-whether its fiction or not?

Bond

[_Runtu]

I've been looking into the various alternative theories to the "mainstream" view that Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates. There are verious ideas about Smith compiling the book from other writers or a single writer or that he made it up, and often these arguments take on a life of their own (Spalding Theory, etc).

My question is do we lose sight of what the Book of Mormon contains when we try to figure out the circumstances of its authorship?

Do we lose sight of the fact that the Book of Mormon is largely unproven on the basis of archaeology, history, DNA, etc, etc in arguing Joseph Smith's character?

Shouldn't we argue the Book of Mormon in its own right, because it does exist-whether its fiction or not?

Bond

That's my position. I don't know how it was produced, and I don't care. The book stands or falls on its own content. Obviously, I think it falls. Your mileage may vary.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Shouldn't we argue the Book of Mormon in its own right, because it does exist-whether its fiction or not?

Bond

An AM band SLC radio talk show host, Van Hale told his listeners last year that he believes the whole experience the old Joe has was nothing more than "Special Effects" to bring about Mormonism...

The problem with discussing the more odd religious aspects in the Book of Mormon, is the mo'pologists will grab their bibles and say OH YEAH?!?! WULL LOOK IN THE Bible!!! There are some weird things there too!... Are you going to deny the Bible bizarro s*** too?"

Gets ya NOwhere.

[_beastie]

I agree that the authorship of the Book of Mormon is pretty immaterial, although, out of intellectual curiosity, it is interesting.

Porter,

Mormons have a point when they ask believers who accept the Bible as the word of God to use that as sort of a blueprint. And if one does accept the Bible as a blueprint, it seems one is constrained to accept the possibility of pseudographia as genuine "God's word". Portions of the Bible have been demonstrated by scholars to actually be pseudographia. So there is some inconsistency in being willing to accept that in the Bible but not the Book of Mormon.

[_Sam Harris]

I've been looking into the various alternative theories to the "mainstream" view that Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates. There are verious ideas about Smith compiling the book from other writers or a single writer or that he made it up, and often these arguments take on a life of their own (Spalding Theory, etc).

My question is do we lose sight of what the Book of Mormon contains when we try to figure out the circumstances of its authorship?

Good question! I think, in a sense, yes we do. You see, when people think of a divinely inspired text, they think that God is involved. Since the LDS church purports the image of Joseph Smith translating these plates, and calls those who do not believe this enemies of the church, alternative thoughts tend to take Joseph Smith character into consideration. I think that in the quest to see if this is a literal text, the ethical teachings within it do get lost. I have to admit that it was reading the Book of Mormon that drove me to explore my Christianity...and ultimately leave the church. Not because the Book of Mormon was not historically accurate, because I never believe that, but because my wide viewpoint just wasn't welcome in the church. I think that some people do lose sight of the fact that the Book of Mormon has valid moral teachings in it, when you look beyond the crazy stuff. But then again, there's the Bible...which I read regularly, and just got finished with Old Testament survey in school. The book I had as a text encouraged us not to be biblical literalists, as it caused too much confusion. I think that's wise.

Do we lose sight of the fact that the Book of Mormon is largely unproven on the basis of archaeology, history, DNA, etc, etc in arguing Joseph Smith's character?

If you're arguing in favor of Joseph Smith' character, yes. If Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and this book is true, then why has there been no proof? Christianity claims that ultimately Satan will lose, that God's power always Trump's his. Why do you think that God would allow such an important addition to Christianity to be ultimately lost and still unproven, except for in the hearts of the faithful?

Shouldn't we argue the Book of Mormon in its own right, because it does exist-whether its fiction or not?

Bond

That would have to allow for a more liberal viewpoint. If you're arguing for the Book of Mormon simply because it exists, then you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to see it as a historical text. Arguing for the Book of Mormon simply based on existience, I can jive with. But telling me I have to believe Jesus visited the Americas is another issue altogether.

Nice subject, man. Kudos.

[_Sam Harris]

Shouldn't we argue the Book of Mormon in its own right, because it does exist-whether its fiction or not?

Bond

An AM band SLC radio talk show host, Van Hale told his listeners last year that he believes the whole experience the old Joe has was nothing more than "Special Effects" to bring about Mormonism...

The problem with discussing the more odd religious aspects in the Book of Mormon, is the mo'pologists will grab their bibles and say OH YEAH?!?! WULL LOOK IN THE Bible!!! There are some weird things there too!... Are you going to deny the Bible bizarro s*** too?"

Gets ya NOwhere.

Most Mormons who do that haven't read the Bible. A lot can be explained, if they took an Old Testament and New Testament survey class that wasn't approved by the church. I just finished Old Testament survey, and learned a hell of a lot. And I don't have a literalist viewpoint, either.

The whole blacks and the priesthood bullsh*t isn't biblical. But Coggy and our friend BCSpacedOut wouldn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole. :-)

[_Gazelam]

The Book of Mormon edifys Biblical teaching.

Is that what your refering to Bond?

[_Bond...James Bond]

The Book of Mormon edifys Biblical teaching.

Is that what your refering to Bond?

I didn't even mention the Bible.

Bond

[_Sam Harris]

The Book of Mormon edifys Biblical teaching.

Is that what your refering to Bond?

Um, I have to beg to differ. The Book of Mormon plagerizes certain passages of the Bible, but it doesn't edify this text. Sorry.

Let me step out of Fast and Testimony meeting while I can...

[_Mercury]

The Book of Mormon edifys Biblical teaching.

According to whom specifically??