Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_MishMagnet]

As far as Holy Books go I find the Koran to be much more compelling. Mohammad, purported to be competely illiterate, recieves the Koran from God through the angel Gabriel. Upon receiving these revelations Mohammad convulses and is physically changed. He recites the scripture and it's written down by someone else. All three gospels,K the Torah, the New Testament and the Koran are deemed from God. Jesus and Mary make several appearances in the Koran, giving us further detail from what we know of them in the Bible.

Why is the Koran not accepted as scripture amongst the general population? I personally find it to be more compelling than the creation of the Bible (a quilt of letters paired with a more-ancient script that is being disregarded more each year.)

I've been out of the church for a while and I find this Meso-America issue troubling. When I was growing up the Book of Mormon happend HERE, in North America. I've been to Adam-Ondi-Ahman and we've looked for the Nephite alter which Joseph Smith said he found there. There was only one Hill Cumorah. My question is why was Joseph Smith wrong about the location? Why isn't the First Presidency taking a stand on any new location? These are not regurgitated questions that I've found on discussion boards. My husband and I traveled to Riviera Maya last year and my mother, seminary teacher, told me that this is where the Book of Mormon took place. This was the first I'd heard of this. I asked if she was teaching this in her Seminary class ( truly out of curiosity ) and she then said no, she had been given a very non-specific map to use in her teaching and had been instructed to mention no place in particular. Neither here nor there.

Many people had a 'spiritual witness' if you will to the Da Vinci Code. It created a ripple in Christianity that required some spin-control. Spiritual witnesses are just not reliable in my opinion.

[_Mercury]

So here goes:

Was the Book of Mormon a consequence of Joe stringing everyone along for years? imagine you are joe. You swear up and down the white indian teleporting into your room every so often wants you to have this weighty gold brick with a record on it. You get married, people think your a scam artist and then you start realizing that if you don't produce the book the gullible saps will even lose faith in you. So you swear the towel covering the brick is said gold plates and stick your head in a hat, relying on the saps to transcribe your colorful rantings.

Was the Book of Mormon just an end to a continual tall tale that helped joe learn how to spin even bigger tales?

Mercury, I would suggest that you read the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to the complexity of the "plot," the doctrine taught, and the desription of the social and cultural structures. Then read the eye witness accounts of the way it was produced.

Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

Then come back and we can talk about whether or not it was a slapped together attempt to shore up a failing following.

I have read the Book of Mormon. It is a repetitive trite concoction. Considering the method of its production I find it easy to believe that a dumbass hick and the dupes he convinced hang around and write down his drunken ramblings could have done so very easilly. This is not an extraordinary acomplishment. I have met plenty of undermensch that have pasted a book together comparable to the chloroform in print that is the Book of Mormon.

As I have read the Book of Mormon several times I suggest you read Carl Sagans Demon Haunted World. Once you have done so with an open mind come back to me and we can say that we are on equal ground. Until you have done this you are lacking in the proper attitude to discuss these matters rationally.

[_Mercury]

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control.

Rational thought requires skepticism. Your lack of skepticism is troubling and shows a deep lack of approaching matters properly. I am sure you are functional in your daily life but when it comes to your approach to so-called spiritual matters I see your behavior to be laughably ignorant.

[_Runtu]

Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

I would say there are possible parallels, but no compelling evidence. Sorry, charity, but it's just not there.

Could you explain the difference?

Between possible parallels and compelling evidence? Sure. If pressed, I could find possible parallels between myself and Bob Crockett. Both of us have lived in Southern California. Both of us speak English. Both of us are members of the LDS church who served missions and married in the temple. These are interesting parallels, but they are not compelling evidence that I am Bob Crockett.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Mercury, I would suggest that you read the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to the complexity of the "plot," the doctrine taught, and the desription of the social and cultural structures. Then read the eye witness accounts of the way it was produced.

Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

Yeah, if you frame the argument that way it makes it more compelling. You have to wonder why the missionaries are rejected at such a high rate after they tell people about the Book of Mormon. The thing is the story isn't this simple.

If Joseph Smith was just a farmer with no other interests, and he only had a 3rd grade education and then one day out of the blue said, "Hey, I'm gonna write a book" and in 9 months he produced the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon, I would find it hard to believe, too. But that's not the critics argument, is it?

The 1981 Book of Mormon is the final draft, polished up by professionals. The 1830 Book of Mormon was the first draft, and it was pretty rough. Joseph Smith wasn't just a simple farm boy with a 3rd grade education. He made money as a "glass looker." You know his background. He was telling tales since the time he was a boy, whether it be tales of finding treasure with his seer stone, or entertaining his family with stories of ancient Native Americans. Joseph's mind was pre-occupied with a much bigger world outside his farm. You don't need an education to be a story teller and a showman. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon shares many themes which were common in Joseph Smith's day, and which exist in literature from the same time-period.

[Anonymous]

Mercury, I would suggest that you read the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to the complexity of the "plot," the doctrine taught, and the desription of the social and cultural structures. Then read the eye witness accounts of the way it was produced.

Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

Then come back and we can talk about whether or not it was a slapped together attempt to shore up a failing following.

I know you're repeating information you've been given regarding Joseph and the translation but have you ever considered the possibility that it's not correct?

For example regarding the "Translation time" for the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 9 weeks or as the Book of Mormon challenge says 60 days. Martin Harris became Joseph's scribe in April 1828. The book was finished just before it was published in March 1830. That's 23 months nearly 2 years. Plus Joseph's mother Lucy recounts, in her biography of her son, that he would "would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their manner of traveling, the animals which they rode, the cities that were built by them, the structure of their buildings, with every particular of their mode of warfare, their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them." This was years before Joseph even had the plates in his possession let alone began "translation".

Second is he really only 3rd grade educated. Take a look at Joseph's writings before the translation of the Book of Mormon and you'll see a keen and articulate mind. Heck look at his "Revelations" written at the same time D&C 3& D&C 10. Does the language and writing style seem familiar?


Phaedrus

[_Runtu]

I know you're repeating information you've been given regarding Joseph and the translation but have you ever considered the possibility that it's not correct. For example regarding the "Translation time" for the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 9 weeks or as the Book of Mormon challenge says 60 days. Martin Harris became Joseph's scribe in April 1828. The book was finished just before it was published in March 1830. That's 23 months nearly 2 years. Plus Joseph's mother Lucy recounts in her biography of her son that he would "would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their manner of traveling, the animals which they rode, the cities that were built by them, the structure of their buildings, with every particular of their mode of warfare, their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them." This was years before Joseph even had the plates in his possession let alone began "translation".

Second is he really only 3rd grade educated. Take a look at Joseph's writings before the translation of the Book of Mormon and you'll see a keen and articulate mind. Heck look at his "Revelations" written at the same time D&C 3& D&C 10. Does the language and writing style seem familiar?

Phaedrus

The myth of Joseph as illiterate backwater bumpkin must be preserved at all costs. How dare you disturb us with facts?

[_charity]

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.

On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.

Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.

And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.

It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.

[_charity]

Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

Hey can I go over the top and spin out of control, too?

I find nothing compelling in the form of any evidences. The spiritual witness business is bunk too. Moroni's promise doesn't work either.

By the way, welcome to the board, Charity.

Thanks for the welcome, Pokator. You can spin all you want. You do it a lot! :)

(Does this board have smilies availalbe? I haven't found them.)

EVen if you don't find the evidence compelling, you do see it. Correct?

[_Mercury]

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.

On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.

Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.

And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.

It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.

Uhh, no. Whatever you cite will be laughable. Your assertions are laughable. The Book of Mormon was concieved, written and marketed for the purpose of continuing the fraud that is Joseph Smith.