Is the Book of Mormon sacred text despite is 19th Century concoction?

[Guest]

JSJr claimed the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of god, from gold plates hidden in the Hill Cumorah circa 424 AD. The text thereof purports to be, and JSJr promoted it as, the contemporaneous record kept of people in the American continents from about 590 BC down to 424 AD. The text claims that a resurrected Jesus appeared to these people shortly after his ascension.

Many, if not most, adherents of the Book of Mormon accept the claims of its primary promoter, JSJr.

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century book of scripture. It is sad that literal belief in ancient origins is required by some people to accept it as a sacred text. Older does not equal truer. It is a funny quirk of tradition that makes it seem so. Perhaps someday 1830 will seem so ancient that it won't make a difference.

If one does not accept the claims of JSJr about the origins, the provenance, of the Book of Mormon, why should it be accepted by that person as 'sacred text'? If the Book of Mormon is not what JSJr and its own text claim, is the Book of Mormon not simply a prop used by a scammer who did not want to be a farmer/laborer like his father.

As far as a 'good' book, with wisdom, what can a reader glean from the Book of Mormon that he or she cannot from the Bible?

It seems to me that the Book of Mormon was an essential tool of JSJr's fraud, and offers nothing more than the Bible already had offered for 14 centuries.

What then about the Book of Mormon text warrants anyone who realizes its provenance is not what it claims, accepting it as 'sacred'?

[_Kishkumen]

I would argue that it is the role that the book plays in the lives of millions of people that makes it a sacred text to them. The facts of its historical origins don't detract from that fact, in my opinion.

I can call the Vedas a sacred text in Hinduism without becoming Hindu. Why begrudge the Book of Mormon the status of sacred text?

Edited to add: I still consider the Book of Mormon a sacred text in a stronger sense personally, because I find some of its expressions and aspirations very profound and inspired.

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

[_Chap]

If one believes that there are some texts (or at least one text) that really and in plain fact comes from a divine source (which implies you believe there is at least one divinity to be that source), then it might make some sense to reserve the title 'sacred' for such texts, and to say that other texts regarded as central to their faith by religious groups were mere human creations.

That is what some EV Christians do -

The Bible: sacred text.
The Book of Mormon: mere human creation, and (worse) deliberately created to deceive.


But if like me you do not believe there are any divinities, you cannot use such a definition of 'sacred' So all I can do is to fall back on an anthropological definition: any text which is regarded by any religious group as having in some sense a divine origin and a central importance to their religion may be called a sacred text in the context of that group's religious practice.

Since 'sacred' is then just a label, there is not much point in arguing about to which texts it should be attached. But I'd be happy to say "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text for the Mormon church". The only problem is if you insist on my saying whether the Book of Mormon is or is not sacred in itself. I see that question as meaningless.

by the way, I see no problem in affirming both the following propositions simultaneously:

1. "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text for the Mormon church".
2. "The Book of Mormon is a piece of early 19th C. fiction that Joseph Smith knowingly and falsely passed off as a translation of an ancient text delivered to him by divine intervention."

[_Kishkumen]

by the way, I see no problem in affirming both the following propositions simultaneously:

1. "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text for the Mormon church".
2. "The Book of Mormon is a piece of early 19th C. fiction that Joseph Smith knowingly and falsely passed off as a translation of an ancient text delivered to him by divine intervention."

Nor do I.

[_Buffalo]

If you view 19th century Methodist teachings as sacred, then the Book of Mormon should also be sacred to you.

[_Chap]

If you view 19th century Methodist teachings as sacred, then the Book of Mormon should also be sacred to you.

19th century Methodist teachings: may be sacred for Methodists (I don't know)

Book of Mormon: definitely is sacred for Mormons

But neither is sacred for me. See my post above: "sacredness" as used by me (and I think for anthropologists of religion) does not refer to an inherent property of a text, but is a description of its role in the practice of a particular religious group. What is sacred for X need not be sacred for Y.

[_Buffalo]

If you view 19th century Methodist teachings as sacred, then the Book of Mormon should also be sacred to you.

19th century Methodist teachings: may be sacred for Methodists (I don't know)

Book of Mormon: definitely is sacred for Mormons

But neither is sacred for me. See my post above: "sacredness" as used by me (and I think for anthropologists of religion) does not refer to an inherent property of a text, but is a description of its role in the practice of a particular religious group. What is sacred for X need not be sacred for Y.

Oh yes, as long as someone considers a text sacred, it's accurate to refer to it as such.

My sacred text:

[_MCB]

If you view 19th century Methodist teachings as sacred, then the Book of Mormon should also be sacred to you.

There is something of the sacred in both, in different proportions, because both are in part derived from the Bible.

Now, in terms of respecting that, note my addition to my sig.

[_DarkHelmet]

I must be in the minority. I don't see how a TBM could consider it both a 19th century creation and a sacred text. This is why the church will never go the "inspired fiction" route. It is impossible, in my opinion.

[_Chap]

I must be in the minority. I don't see how a TBM could consider it both a 19th century creation and a sacred text. This is why the church will never go the "inspired fiction" route. It is impossible, in my opinion.

Are you thinking about what I said:

by the way, I see no problem in affirming both the following propositions simultaneously:

1. "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text for the Mormon church".
2. "The Book of Mormon is a piece of early 19th C. fiction that Joseph Smith knowingly and falsely passed off as a translation of an ancient text delivered to him by divine intervention."

If so, I am not a TBM, and I do not say the Book of Mormon IS sacred in any absolute sense, merely that in anthropological terms the CoJCoLDS treats it as a sacred text. That is quite consistent with my also saying it is a 19th century fiction.

Or are you thinking of what Kishkumen said?

I still consider the Book of Mormon a sacred text in a stronger sense personally, because I find some of its expressions and aspirations very profound and inspired.

If so, I really don't think Kishkumen would claim to be a TBM.