Origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:21 pm

Runtu wrote:Nope, the Lord saved his really big guns for the important stuff.

What an appropriate image.

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:25 pm

Two words: polished shaft.

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:26 pm

Blixa wrote:Two words: polished shaft.

Y'all are evil. LOL

Post by **_evolving** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:27 pm

I am astonished Charity throws the Loose translation theory's around so blatantly.. Last time I checked, Prof. Royal Skousen is furthering his research on, and teaching classes on the "tight translation theory". does he not have the full support of the BYU presidency..?? ---

once again someone in the LDS apologetic world making assumptions and defending beliefs on behalf of the church, without their knowledge or support... tell me again Charity why do you do that ??

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:29 pm

Runtu wrote:Y'all are evil. LOL

Evil? This is about the priesthood, man!

It is crucial to understand the principles upon which the priesthood is founded.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:29 pm

beastie wrote:Although I haven't studied the Israelite connections with the Book of Mormon, I do have to comment on something two of these items: Nahom and the metallurgy recently located exactly where Lehi traveled in the Old World. Exciting stuff for believers.

But here's what cracks me up about it: both Nahom and metallurgy are found in the Bible. Obviously the Book of Mormon borrows heavily from the Bible (yes, I know, understatement of the century). So something clearly demonstrated in the Bible somehow become evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Nahom (or Nahum, depending on the version) is a name in the Bible. The Bible was written by people who lived in ancient Israel, so we can assume that name Nahom, or something similar, is going to be found in ancient Israel. Metallurgy was a well demonstrated skill in the Bible, so anyone who was writing a book about Biblical people would include it.

And this is the best evidence they have.

Best that we have? Maybe archeologically. But the real good stuff is the ancient literature coming out now which was either undiscovered or untranslated until recently. But that is a topic for another thread. I already can't get to one I said I would start today.

Sure metal working was in the Bible. Sure the name NHM was in the Bible. But NHM in the right place, within the right context. Metal working described in a place that fits, with iron ore which is only found in that one little area. It isn't exactly like talking about finding canoes in Minnesota!

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:31 pm

charity wrote:Sure metal working was in the Bible. Sure the name NHM was in the Bible. But NHM in the right place, within the right context. Metal working described in a place that fits, with iron ore which is only found in that one little area. It isn't exactly like talking about finding canoes in Minnesota!

Except that Nihm and nahom do not come from the same root. Other than the fact that they have nothing to do with each other, you're golden.

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:32 pm

Trevor wrote:
Runtu wrote:Y'all are evil. LOL

Evil? This is about the priesthood, man!

It is crucial to understand the principles upon which the priesthood is founded.

Got to go with Trevor on this one. I mean these are Grand Fundamental Principles. And I for one am embarking on a serious study of them!

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:34 pm

Blixa wrote:Got to go with Trevor on this one. I mean these are Grand Fundamental Principles. And I for one am embarking on a serious study of them!

And that is a fine testimony from the Church of Cheese and Rice and T M I.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:34 pm

MishMagnet wrote:Joseph Smith was very clear (in my opinion) about where the Book of Mormon took place. How did the general membership come to believe the Book of Mormon took place elsewhere without any higher authority saying so?

THis is a very good point. Obviously, if someone teaches "doctrines" that are contrary to what the brethren say, it is clear apostacy. All this Book of Mormon history talk that contradicts Joseph Smith would seem blasphemous, yet nobody cares. The Brethren haven't cleared up this debate at all, and I think the answer is clear. Nbody knows, and nobody cares. It has been stated by church authorities that the Book of Mormon is not a history book, which I find to be a strange statement. If it's not a true history book, wouldn't that make it fictional? Isn't that argument the same as the "inspired fiction" position?