What do you find odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Guest]

"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.

I agree with Schmo.

It can be judged inauthentic without reading it, but of course, no one can know the contents without reading the book. It's just seems to me the contents don't matter much once it's thought the book isn't from God. It's supposedly scripture, not a simply a good read. The Book of Mormon is neither, in my opinion.

KA

[_Doctor Steuss]

I gotta disagree on this one, Steuss.

And I disagree with your disagreement in a purely disagreeable way. Ha-rumph! ;-)

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.

I will agree that it is a “different animal.” However, if you are to have a strong opinion of its contents (and I’m not talking authenticity here), I think you need to read it.

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.

I think the contents do matter. I also think the contents of the Vedas matter. On a flip side though, I think the Summum holy book is tripe. I had an opinion that it was a farce, and the author was either delusional or a scam artist. However, I waited until I read the actual contents before I formed an opinion of the contents.

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?

Without looking at the contents, how can they determine it’s boring? I actually don’t find it boring.

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

Word.

I think I might be pushing my own crazy worldview on everyone else, and it’s causing some things to be lost in translation. I enjoy reading holy writ (whether it’s the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the acid trip known as the Apocalypse of John [a.k.a.; “Revelations”]). So, to me it seems natural to read the actual book before having a strong opinion towards it (other than authenticity which can have a “strong” opinion prior to reading based on current opinions/paradigms/worldviews, etc.).

Edited to add:
I just went back and re-read my comments. It definately sounded like I was coming from an authenticity standpoint (perhaps I was without knowing... the joys of my brain). Sorry for the confusion.

*hangs head in shame*

[_ozemc]

One is Nephi making a ship. .

Just one word answers your concerns, seth. NOAH.

And Nephi didn't have a build a boat big enough to take two of some kinds of animals, 7 of others, all the food to feed them for a year. He just had to get a small family across the Atlantic. No big.

You really believe that the story of Noah is true?

[_Some Schmo]

One is Nephi making a ship. .

Just one word answers your concerns, seth. NOAH.

And Nephi didn't have a build a boat big enough to take two of some kinds of animals, 7 of others, all the food to feed them for a year. He just had to get a small family across the Atlantic. No big.

You really believe that the story of Noah is true?

Unless you can prove it didn't happen, she does.

[_Scottie]

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?

Well, to hear DCP talk about it, certainly Joseph Smith had his flaws, but his character was of the highest caliber. So, when he considers the source, he assumes the best.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Edited to add: I just went back and re-read my comments. It definately sounded like I was coming from an authenticity standpoint (perhaps I was without knowing... the joys of my brain). Sorry for the confusion.

*hangs head in shame*

Aww. It's alright, Steuss.

*pets then picks up Steuss's hung head*

(And wonders if Studdly is playing her like a saxamaphone. :P)

KA

[_ozemc]

One is Nephi making a ship. .

Just one word answers your concerns, seth. NOAH.

And Nephi didn't have a build a boat big enough to take two of some kinds of animals, 7 of others, all the food to feed them for a year. He just had to get a small family across the Atlantic. No big.

You really believe that the story of Noah is true?

Unless you can prove it didn't happen, she does.

Well, I guess I can't really prove it, though it is highly improbable.

So, it must be true! <grin>

[_Maxrep]

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.

Do you mean that the Book of Mormon prophets knew way too much about Christ and his mission before his birth? Kind of like Joseph had built a time machine, traveled back to the days of the nephites, and then told them what to write?

Here's another conflated verse:

4 Nephi 1:6
6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also
the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and
second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and
also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even
until fifty and nine years had passed away.

In summation the verse says 59 years went by.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Do you mean that the Book of Mormon prophets knew way too much about Christ and his mission before his birth? Kind of like Joseph had built a time machine, traveled back to the days of the nephites, and then told them what to write?

Sort of. There are some prophecies within it that are too “spot on” and don’t really match the vagueness of Old Testament prophecies. It’s almost a predestinationalistic (yes, I created a new word) text in some ways. IF the Book of Mormon is authentic, a lot of Joseph made its way into the pages in my opinion (there are aspects that mirror 19th Century American Protestantism a bit too much to have been “Nephite” in my view).

It’s still something I’m trying to mull over. My views are kind of "up in the air" as of right now.

[Guest]

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.

Do you mean that the Book of Mormon prophets knew way too much about Christ and his mission before his birth? Kind of like Joseph had built a time machine, traveled back to the days of the nephites, and then told them what to write?

Here's another conflated verse:

4 Nephi 1:6
6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also
the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and
second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and
also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even
until fifty and nine years had passed away.

In summation the verse says 59 years went by.

Can't you just see Joseph Smith with his face in the hat...

* Reads aloud * "And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away"...* thinking * hmmm.....what happened the 39th year?? Nothing coming to mind...
* Reads aloud * "And also the thirty and ninth" * thinking * Ok, something happened in this year....think Joe...think.....mmmmm...Sally sure has some nice knockers...how do I get into her pants???.....ok, stop it!!.....thiiiiiiiink........I got nothin.....
* Reads aloud * "And forty.....aaaaaaand......first" * thinking * Come on Joe!! Think of something!! Anything!! Something happened in the 42nd year....what was it???? DAMN!!!