What do you find odd about the Book of Mormon?

[_KimberlyAnn]

I think it's quite understandable to dismiss the Book of Mormon without ever reading it. People do it all the time, and for good reason.

Once one knows the real story about how Joseph Smith supposedly obtained the plates, the translation process of those plates, and the eventual disappearance of said plates, then it's quite reasonable to determine that his story is suspect, at best! Add to that the fact that Smith married dozens of women, mostly behind his wife's back because God told him to, well his story just doesn't seem very likely. To put it politely, he lacks credibility. Deservedly, his claims, and his Book of Mormon, are dismissed by most folks without a second thought. As they should be.

Most people in my neck of the woods either know nothing of Joseph Smith at all, think he married Pocahontas, or think he was a wacky cultist and likely possessed of the devil. His tale is completely absurd to most folks.

KA

PS - The Book of Mormon is boring beyond all reason.

[_charity]

You know, seth, you can't prove it didn't happen any more than I can prove it did happen.

Well, because you said this, you do realize that you must believe everything that's not provable, right? If we can't prove it wrong, we must believe it... that's essentially what you're saying here.

I can't prove the nonexistence of the following:

- Santa Claus
- The Tooth Fairy
- Easter Bunny
- Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Orbiting Teapot

And last but not least:

- Some Schmo's Magical Three Headed Space Monkey God Who Demands All Believers Give Schmo All Their Money Otherwise They'll Go To Hell.

I'll expect you to contact me soon to arrange making your payments, charity. You don't want to go to hell, I assume.

Of course, we can have our own opnions. But it seems arrogant to me that sethbag can tell me how stupid I am to believe something that isn't empirically provable, and yet insist that his opinion, which is equally unprovable is the only true position. Consisitency. No double standard. That's all I ask.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Sorry, didn't know that my comment would be such a derailment. I guess ignore it and simply use this one instead (hopefully this won't cause the same):

One of the things I find “odd” is the highly refined Christology prior to the incarnation.

[Alf'Omega]

Out of curiosity, is there anyone who has replied in this thread so far who hasn't actually read the Book of Mormon? I'm trying to figure out where Steuss is coming from on this one. At least the exmos and still-members-in-name-only critics here I would assume have read it before.

Do you disagree with my comment that many who criticize it, and many who believe in it have never actually read it? The thread asked what people found odd about the contents of the book. This is merely something that I was thinking about yesterday and this seemed like an appropriate thread for it as it is indeed odd to me that the contents can polarize people without ever being read.

I would assume by John Larson’s response to me that he has not read it. As for others, I am pretty sure a large proportion of those who have responded in this thread have not only read it, but have most likely read it more times than myself.

That would be where I'm "coming from on this one."

I read it as a kid, but remember very little about it (just to put what I'm about to say in context).

Would I feel the need to read it now in order to form an opinion of its validity? Absolutely not. I like what one of my high school teachers once said to me that has always stuck: "Consider the source."

Why on earth would anyone read the book to form an opinion of its authenticity when all you have to do is look at the life of its author? Would you read the "History of North America" to get a good foundation of knowledge on the subject if you knew it were written by Attila the Hun? Or, how about a real, relevant, contemporary example: Do you expect much in the way of truth from OJ Simpson's book? Do you really need to read it to make a judgment about its authenticity?

EDIT: Aw crap, KA beat me to it... :)

[_Some Schmo]

Of course, we can have our own opnions. But it seems arrogant to me that sethbag can tell me how stupid I am to believe something that isn't empirically provable, and yet insist that his opinion, which is equally unprovable is the only true position. Consisitency. No double standard. That's all I ask.

It's not about whether the story is provable or not. It's whether, based on what we know of the story, it's plausible. And given the things that Seth has said about ship building, he's correct in assuming it's not at all plausible (at least, that portion of it). He's got common sense to support his opinion. All you have is wishful thinking to support yours.

That's all there is to it. He's not calling you stupid (if he in fact did; I haven't checked) because he knows he's right. He's doing it because of what you offered up for a rebuttal (and I'm being incredibly generous calling it that).

[_John Larsen]

However, to go onto a Dianetics/Scientology debate board and start throwing out how horrible the book is would be a bit short sighted, don't you think?

I agree with you here. You should have at least read it to engage in debate about its content.

John

[_Doctor Steuss]

I read it as a kid, but remember very little about it (just to put what I'm about to say in context).

Would I feel the need to read it now in order to form an opinion of its validity? Absolutely not. I like what one of my high school teachers once said to me that has always stuck: "Consider the source."

Why on earth would anyone read the book to form an opinion of its authenticity when all you have to do is look at the life of its author? Would you read the "History of North America" to get a good foundation of knowledge on the subject if you knew it were written by Attila the Hun? Or, how about a real, relevant, contemporary example: Do you expect much in the way of truth from OJ Simpson's book? Do you really need to read it to make a judgment about its authenticity?

EDIT: Aw crap, KA beat me to it... :)

A more apt analogy would be:

"Why would anyone need to read This Side of Paradise in order to gain an opinion of its contents when they can simply form an opinion of the author because he was essentially an immoral alcoholic?"

This might help clarify where I’m coming from. Then again, maybe an opinion of its contents can be gained without ever looking at the contents after all. It's magical.

[_KimberlyAnn]

A more apt analogy would be:

"Why would anyone need to read This Side of Paradise in order to gain an opinion of its contents when they can simply form an opinion of the author because he was essentially an immoral alcoholic?"

This might help clarify where I’m coming from. Then again, maybe an opinion of its contents can be gained without ever looking at the contents after all. It's magical.

I gotta disagree on this one, Steuss.

Fitzgerald didn't claim to be a prophet, and his book isn't advertised as scripture. It's a completely different animal than the Book of Mormon.

Smith said his Book of Mormon was scripture from God. It's to be a guide for living one's life--a direct communication from Deity. Well, if it seems beyond belief that God would speak to such a man of questionable character as Smith, and in such a suspect way, then why read the book? The contents don't matter. It's not there for entertainment, believe me! I read it as scripture, which is what it's claimed to be.

The contents don't matter because Smith can be judged a fraud with only a little investigation. And he claimed to be a messenger from God. When one doesn't believe he's such, why should they care about the content of a boring book which they believe cannot be scripture because of the nature of the author?

I do agree that books should be read prior to discussing them in any depth on a message board, of course. I've read the Book of Mormon, by the way. :)

KA

[_skippy the dead]

Here's one:

and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them

Even when describing the burning of people, Joseph can't resist his practice of constantly inflating the story with "up wording". We all understood the first part,"and he doth suffer that they may do this thing". The story becomes no more clear when he adds the second part, "or that the people may do this thing unto them ".

The tedious thing is, the whole Book of Mormon trudges on awkwardly like this with this overlapping babble just to fill space.

Can you imagine Moroni sitting there, with his stylus, tediously engraving character by character onto plates of gold (or tumbaga), and actually adding filler crap like this on purpose?

Exactly. My guess is that if there were to have been a man recording history on metal plates, where the use of an eraser was precluded, he would first compose his thoughts on a piece of papyrus or paper or skin or whatever his people wrote on, then once he was satisfied with the prose, etch it onto the metal plate. Duh.

[_Some Schmo]

"Why would anyone need to read This Side of Paradise in order to gain an opinion of its contents when they can simply form an opinion of the author because he was essentially an immoral alcoholic?"

This might help clarify where I’m coming from. Then again, maybe an opinion of its contents can be gained without ever looking at the contents after all. It's magical.

I agree that if you want to study and form an opinion of the story, you have to read it. No doubt about it.

But I think that when you were talking about people forming opinions of the book without reading it, it seemed like you were talking about anyone making a judgment about it's authenticity, so I posted what I did.