“The worst religious text I have ever read.”

[I Have Questions]

You know this, how? References?

Regards,
MG

1828 (April)- Joseph begins translating the Book of Lehi using a stone in his hat with Martin Harris as scribe; The same method he used for treasure digging (Compare JSH 1:62)

1828 (June)- Lucy Harris disposes of the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon suggesting that if Joseph actually had golden plates and the “gift of translation” that he could easily re-translate the work

1828 (July)- Joseph receives revelation that gift of translation is taken away for a season

1828 (Sept)- Joseph resumes translation with Emma as scribe; No revelation or instruction from God to do so; He doesn't start again at the beginning of the Book of Mormon with the Book of Lehi; Skips 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob Enos, Jarom, Omni and Words of Mormon; Continues where he left off chronologically at the end of the Book of Lehi, the beginning of Mosiah

1829 (April)- Joseph begins “rapid-fire” translation with Oliver Cowdery as scribe

1829 (May)- Joseph receives revelation not to re-translate Book of Lehi and to replace it with Books of Nephi; God tells Joseph that NOW his gift of translating is “restored”

1829 (June)- Book of Mormon translation completed (D&C 17); Monotheistic theology (Testimony of the 3 Witnesses, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14, Mormon 7:7, Text changed to “Son of God” in 1837: 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32, 13:40); No mention of First Vision, angelic priesthood restoration, plan of salvation, temple ordinances or other critical elements needed for salvation; Condemns polygamy (Jacob 1:15, 2:25, 2:27, Mosiah 11:2, Ether 10:5)

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/ ... asic?pli=1

Not to mention that Joseph’s mother told of how a young Joseph would entertain the family with made up stories about the origins of the native Americans. He was concocting “Book of Mormon” stories for many years.

[Equality]

And he had multiple nocturnal encounters over a six-year period between 1823 when the angel Moroni/Nephi appeared to him while he was engaged in a fraudulent treasure-seeking scheme on the autumnal equinox, including the time he brought his dead brother Alvin’s dug-up bones to satisfy the ancient Native American treasure guardian’s folklore-magic demands, during which Smith supposedly learned many great and interesting truths about the world of the Nephites and Lamanites.

[I Have Questions]

And he had multiple nocturnal encounters over a six-year period between 1823 when the angel Moroni/Nephi appeared to him while he was engaged in a fraudulent treasure-seeking scheme on the autumnal equinox, including the time he brought his dead brother Alvin’s dug-up bones to satisfy the ancient Native American treasure guardian’s folklore-magic demands, during which Smith supposedly learned many great and interesting truths about the world of the Nephites and Lamanites.

Apologists and denialists need to ignore all evidence of Joseph being involved with stories of the Native American origins prior to the moment he decided to start writing them down with the help of people who had better writing skills than he did. Instead they focus solely on the writing period and proclaim that miraculous.

I cannot recall the reference, but I remember commenting on Peterson boasting about Jeff Bradshaw (I think) writing something up (It may have been a book) within the same timeframe (Peterson was oblivious to the implications of what he was saying about Jeff) as the Book of Mormon was written down. Thereby proving it wasn’t such a miraculous feat after all.

There’s also an older thread on here where the “miraculous timeframe” was discussed at length and shown to be nothing of the sort. On it there are examples of books like “The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas” whose author wrote the first draft in two and a half days.

The best evidence for the legitimacy of The Book of Mormon should be the contents of the book itself. Even the apologists don’t go there, favouring instead to claim that Joseph’s close friends and relatives are the best evidence for The Book of Mormon. And with good reason, because its contents contain smoking guns that show categorically that it isn’t what it claims to be.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Yes, and then we have that Joseph Senior's dream of the Tree of Life is inside the Book of Mormon as Lehi's.

My personal theory is that Smith and his accomplices wrote the Book of Mormon through automatic writing in a manner similar to how the Doctrine and Covenants was composed. It's a mix of fraud and delusion.

[Fence Sitter]

I’ve always found it ironic when believers demand that critics produce some alternative evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon that aligns with the standards believers themselves accept. There’s this underlying attitude that unless a critic can provide a fully fleshed-out, naturalistic explanation for the book’s origin, all other issues can just be dismissed.

But from my perspective, the origin story alone—gold plates, angelic visitations, seer stones in hats—is already so implausible that it serves as sufficient evidence the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century creation.

That, and the fact that it’s an incredibly tedious read.

“And it came to pass that most people stopped reading it after just a few chapters.”

On my mission, I came across countless bright blue paperback copies of the Book of Mormon that people had tucked away. Strangers would show them to me—usually with the first few pages dog-eared and the rest of the book looking completely untouched.

[I Have Questions]

I’ve always found it ironic when believers demand that critics produce some alternative evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon that aligns with the standards believers themselves accept. There’s this underlying attitude that unless a critic can provide a fully fleshed-out, naturalistic explanation for the book’s origin, all other issues can just be dismissed.

But from my perspective, the origin story alone—gold plates, angelic visitations, seer stones in hats—is already so implausible that it serves as sufficient evidence the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century creation.

That, and the fact that it’s an incredibly tedious read.

“And it came to pass that most people stopped reading it after just a few chapters.”

On my mission, I came across countless bright blue paperback copies of the Book of Mormon that people had tucked away. Strangers would show them to me—usually with the first few pages dog-eared and the rest of the book looking completely untouched.

For the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be, it needs to contain information that is consistent with the Americas up to around 400AD. If there is content that dates from much later, or which is inconsistent with that time period and that location, then it fails. Critics only need show one thing that fails the historicity test to show that it is not what it claims to be. The book needs to deliver more than the odd bullseye in amongst a lot of misses. For instance, if the book contained something contemporary to Joseph Smith’s environment and time, rather than 400AD or earlier, then it fails the test.

And of course, it does contain things contemporary to Joseph Smith's environment and time, that would be impossible to exist in 400AD or earlier. Content from the 17th Century should not appear in a record that was supposedly written in 400AD, and of course it does. It’s unarguable. It’s indefensible. It’s a fact that the Book of Mormon contains writings that can only come from the 17th Century or later. That KJV Bible content (italics and mistakes made in the 17th Century) are all you need to conclude, categorically, that it isn’t what it claims to be - a 100% translation of a record from 400AD.

If the Church held honesty as a priority, they would change the introduction to The Book of Mormon (like they have already done in their explanation about who the book is about). And make it read “a translation of an ancient record, found in gold plates, with some 17th century content weaved in and presented as if it was also on those same gold plates”. But they’ll never do that because they’re admitting the lie if they do.

[Philo Sofee]

16k+ views compared to barely over a hundred for Interpreter. I mean: where does one begin? If you are the Interpreter board, what is it that you talk about? Back in the good ol’ days, Bill Hamblin would show up to meetings wearing a Beavis T-shirt and the hardcore Mopologists would talk about how they were going to clobber such-and-such critic. What now, though? Do they just talk about DCP’s travels, and what he ate?

Well... I mean... in a sort off handish way that does support the Gospel of Jesus Christ... doesn't it? Doesn't it?!

[Physics Guy]

All long religious texts that I know have long dull parts, as well as passages that are absurd or appalling to a modern reader, but the famous religious texts also have multiple highlights that are in some way impressive enough that I can see how people might consider the text inspired. So far I haven't found any such highlights in the Book of Mormon—and I have asked for years, now and then, for examples of them, from people who do uphold the Book of Mormon as Scripture.

The merits that Mormons attribute to the Book of Mormon seem to me to be of three kinds:
1) It's a book with about the length and complexity of a fantasy novel with many shallow characters and a loose plot, so it couldn't have been written by a complete idiot, and its weird prose style shares some features with the King James Old Testament, at least if you squint right;
2) It reveals the amazing fact that an ancient Jewish-Christian civilization flourished in the Americas; or
3) It explicitly discusses some popular religious and political ideas from the 19th-century United States, laying down explicit rulings on sectarian questions of that time and place.
These are all things that may be important to people who are already Mormons, but none of them seem at all impressive to non-Mormons. If anything, they make non-Mormons think less of the Book of Mormon, not more.

To my request for an impressive highlight from the Book of Mormon, I have never gotten an answer of the form, "Here, just read this famous chapter. Doesn't that seem pretty darned inspired?" You can do that for the Bible, for the Quran, for the Bhagavad Gita and some other Hindu Scriptures. I haven't found any mainstream Buddhist texts that impress me so much, but I haven't read many of these, and there are some cryptic anecdotes about Zen masters that are pretty intriguing. I've never had anyone quote or cite a Book of Mormon passage as being profoundly impressive just in itself, as a text.

So my guess at this point is that the Book of Mormon has no highlights, because I figure that if it had any, Mormons would have been eager enough to share them that I would have seen them by now.

[Gadianton]

I'm assuming that since then you've read it a few times?

I doubt I read any of it on my mission. I did read the entire Old Testament on my mission, what a trip.

Since then, I read the second half after my mission for the 2nd part of the Book of Mormon class. So I've read it at least once.

I probably read most of it between the ages of 8 and 11, after I got my first fancy set of scriptures as a gift for baptism. I left that part out.

That's all that I recall. How many times have you read it, MG? If you've read it less than 350 times, then you're a hypocrite. It proves you do not believe the Book of Mormon is the greatest thing ever and you've ignored the council of the prophets to read 1/2 hour a day.

If we count from 18 to the time I went inactive, that's 5 years, and I read it once. You've been an active adult for at least 50 years. That means, if you've read it 10 times, you've exactly matched my pace as a spiritual slacker. How many times have you read it, MG?

[Gadianton]

I don't really understand how the Book of Mormon can be compared to other purported scripture.

As I understand it, most very old scripture is myth and songs passed down for hundreds or thousands of years. The weirdest scripture I read back in the day was the Avestan Gathas. Good luck finding inspiration in that. A modern, educated person doesn't read "scripture" to learn wisdom, that leads to the great counters to democracy, planes crashing into buildings, attacks on capitols and mass deportations. You read the Gathas for the anthropological insights. For the same reasons you'd pluck out tiny bones from chert rock.

You can't really compare a book written as a con by a guy trying to mimic his era's interpretation of scripture to actual scripture; the result is a caricature of scripture. If a culture had boring scriptures and boring rituals and boring lives but lasted for hundreds or thousands of years, then that is interesting. Scripture is scripture simply because a lot of people over a very long time considered it to be scripture; it's survival of the fittest of the ideas pervading actively mythological cultures with poor means of record-keeping. Even if Mormonism lasts another 10,000 years, I don't think the Book of Mormon will ever count as scripture, because by modern times, reading and the technology of writing is so pervasive and the days of mythological thinking are long gone.

T-Rex is more interesting than trilobites and early mammals for cultural reasons; our obsession with power and war. It's a happy accident that Joseph Smith didn't produce something cryptically brilliant. If he had, then what would we say?

The Koran is probably the newest piece of religious writing that can be used as a counter example to what I'm talking about and held up as an example of scripture. Mormon apologists would likely try to ride its coat tails. I'd count the Koran as scripture, but it needs special consideration I think.