Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Bazooka]

I'm merely asking if there's something that once caused you doubt which deeper study has caused you to reverse your view about that specific doubt to the point where it became a reinforcement of truth

I had a long list of Book of Mormon issues that have caused me grief over the years and the list disappeared when I changed tabs in Google Chrome on iPad. Crap. I don't want to make the list again right now. Dancing With the Stars is on. The simple answer is "No". The issues, on the whole, are still issues. This being the case, however, doesn't discount what I said previously in regards to looking at the Book of Mormon with different eyes than I did for a number of years.

Regards,
MG

So, in actual fact, deeper study didn't resolve the issues at all.

[_Bazooka]

But there is a difference. Inside the Book of Mormon there is a promise that if one prays about its truthfulness, the holy ghost will bring confirm it. That is quite a claim to make for any fraudster who may have wrote it. Unless of course, the book is what it claims to be.

How, specifically does the Holy Ghost confirm it in a way that can only be unmistakably the Holy Ghost giving confirmation?

[_Equality]

But there is a difference. Inside the Book of Mormon there is a promise that if one prays about its truthfulness, the holy ghost will bring confirm it. That is quite a claim to make for any fraudster who may have wrote it. Unless of course, the book is what it claims to be.

The religious equivalent of a money-back guarantee. Because, you know, financial hucksters would never give those, right? I mean, it must be a good investment if the snake-oil salesman is offering me a money-back guarantee.

[_Themis]

HP definitely borrows from "scripture", since all heroic literature does the same. The Book of Mormon begins by borrowing from scripture, the 600 BCE setting of apostate Jerusalem, then soon starts quoting from the Bible and doesn't stop till the end. LOTR, Star Wars, Asimov's books, Hubbard, Heinlein, the list is very big. Rowling is just a come-lately member of that club. And yes, if the literature is inspiring to make the reader a better person then it works exactly like scripture is supposed to....

But there is a difference. Inside the Book of Mormon there is a promise that if one prays about its truthfulness, the holy ghost will bring confirm it. That is quite a claim to make for any fraudster who may have wrote it. Unless of course, the book is what it claims to be.

Why would he use a method already so common? I know those revivals were emotionless preaching, and no one was ever filled what they thought was the spirit. People just never deceived people in such ways.

[_Always Changing]

Oh my heck. Alma 19 doesn't have anything to do with revival hysteria-- there HAS to be another explanation.

[_Tobin]

You guys are hilarious. Where did all the critical thinkers on the board go?

New to the forum and as I go through this massive thread that's been my line of thinking so far. It's one big circle jerk. "It's awesome" "The death blow" "Raining silver bullets" I really hope it doesn't continue on like this or I'm going to lose interest.

No. That is about it. There isn't much the critics have to offer other than that and you've got the theme of this thread nailed.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

You guys are hilarious. Where did all the critical thinkers on the board go?

New to the forum and as I go through this massive thread that's been my line of thinking so far. It's one big circle jerk. "It's awesome" "The death blow" "Raining silver bullets" I really hope it doesn't continue on like this or I'm going to lose interest.

Welcome Water Dog!

It's true, there's some rah-rah comments in this thread, but I think you'll find find a lot of substantive comments as well. Happy hunting!

[Guest]

It's true, there's some rah-rah comments in this thread, but I think you'll find find a lot of substantive comments as well. Happy hunting!

Such as? I've read most of this thread and fail to see any substantive comments other than critics repeating the claim that the Book of Mormon seems to be a 19th century work in the style of the Late War. Big deal. The only people quaking in their boots are the Mormon apologists that made the insipid argument that the Book of Mormon was an ancient text because it wasn't a 19th century production. Great. I'm glad that argument went away. Can we move on now?

[_Bazooka]

No. Just checking on the use of the phrase in England historically. It comes up in a few books on architecture and the like from the 1500s.

The phase "curious workmanship" was used by Shakespeare. Written in 1590s.

http://www.shakespeareswords.com/Poem.a ... em=50#1186

So... how is this relevant to anything?

I'd suggest you read the thread because I think the questions you have may well have already been answered somewhere within the preceding 60 pages.

[_Always Changing]

So... how is this relevant to anything?

It is just one more piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon was written in the late 1820's, that it fits in very well with the context of the times. Most of already know that, but........

No, one cannot prove that the authors were familiar with the other works listed in the study, but at least showing that there was nothing unusual about it will help.

I have found a lot of parallels with Shakespeare, that is no surprise. However, I couldn't find it on my first read-through. I will check my paper copy. Added: line 734. thank you!!

Sorry about that. Many of us have had trouble with Mormon friends, family, co-workers for years, and get a bit overenthusiastic when something new shows up.

Glad to see someone objective looking at it. ROFL!! Thanks again.

You may be setting yourself up for a flame-war, but you already have a hothead on your side.