Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Bazooka]

What you've apparently done is look at the origin claims and historicity problems, decided that they invalidate the book as "scripture", and then tossed the moral content out like the baby with the bath....

So the Harry Potter series could be classed (by you) as scripture?
Forget the origin claims and historicity problems, the moral content makes it worthy of that label, right?

[_SteelHead]

Star Wars is scripture for those who religiously identify as Jedi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

[_Fence Sitter]

It would be interesting if one were to take The Late War, spend a couple of months expanding it to include moral observations condemned or supported by God throughout the book, and mix in a few chapters directly from the Bible.

Give that product to people to read, asking them to pray about it, and I am sure you would find those would would feel moved by the spirit by its wisdom.

[Guest]

Although others may object to my eligibility to respond to the question, I still cherish many of the Book of Mormon's teachings. The highlight for me is King Benjamin's speech. Especially this part:

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.

To this day that scripture resonates in my mind as one that inspires me to try to do better in my interactions with others. Yes, I fail, but that was not the question. The question regarded our personal esteem for the Book of Mormon.

I regret that we all so often fall short of treating each other appropriately. And, I recognize that it does not require a belief in God to see the wisdom in treating others better. At the same time, I hold it as altogether reasonable to suppose that the above scripture admonishes its reader to do just that. It does not matter that the LDS Church itself has fallen far short of such a mission, or that most religious people do to one degree or another. I still believe that the underlying concern for the common weal is something this world could use more of. I am in favor of all teachings that contribute to a better world for all.

[_mentalgymnast]

But for me, the saving grace of my continued activity in the church has been going back and making the Book of Mormon an object of deeper study rather than leaving it on the shelf or throwing it off to the side.

Can you give an example of something from the Book of Mormon that initially you found jeopardised your belief in it but which a subsequent, deeper study, turned into a confirmation of the books truthfulness?

Years ago one of the first non-apologetic books I read on the Book of Mormon was Brent Metcalfe's "New Approaches"

http://www.amazon.com/New-Approaches-Bo ... 1560850175

Reading this book was the beginning of the jeopardizing of my belief in the Book of Mormon. Pick any of the topics covered in this book and you'd find the issues that became troublesome to me. And to some degree, I would guess that if I picked up the book again and started reading it there would still be topics that have not been resolved satisfactorily and I would still find myself wondering, "What the heck?" Deeper study, especially after reading the two books I mentioned, has caused me to look at the Book of Mormon with, like I said, new eyes. There is much more complexity and cohesiveness to the history and teachings/prophecies throughout the book than I had realized through reading it solo without any in depth analysis as provided by Givens And Hardy. Not that these two authors are the only ones out there that have written rigorously in regards to the Book of Mormon's content/narrative, but they are the two that brought me around to looking for alternative ways to explain some of the problem areas that come up as one makes efforts to ascertain the Book of Mormon's authenticity. As some have mentioned here, in my earlier readings of the Book of Mormon I looked at the text/narrative as being very Yankee centric and unimaginative and simplistic. This line of thinking still acts as a potential obstacle in my belief. Especially when you throw in Spaulding and Late War stumbling blocks along with View of the Hebrews, DNA, etc.

When all is said and done there is a balance scale with weighting on each side, for and against, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I look at the scale as being around 40/60, at times, and 60/40 at other times. Enough to give the book the benefit of a doubt...provisionally. Enough to move forward in faith. Maybe not in every footstep, but enough to stay on the path of hope in the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Regards,
MG

[_Tim the Enchanter]

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

Though I no longer believe it is of divine origin, I turn back to it from time to time, mainly as an object of study, rather than to glean spiritual insight. However, there are times I turn to it for spiritual nourishment.

I love, love, love (that's three loves, which signifies extreme imporance, like I've been told wo, wo, wo does ) the story of Abinadi. To me, it is a powerful story of someone standing up for what they believe in, despite the consequences of doing so. Part of what I love about the story is that in the text, there is no indication that Abinadi ever realized the impact he had on Alma (the priest of King Noah who believed Abinadi's words). Sometimes in life, like Abinadi, we don't know the impact we will have on others. We may, like Abinadi, die not knowing the impact we've had on the life of another. And yet, though I believe the Book of Mormon is as authentic as a 3 dollar bill, the story of Abinadi reminds me not be afraid to stand up for what I believe in even when it seems like it may fall on deaf ears, and even when there may be drastic consequences.

I could come up with some other things. This is just an example.

[_why me]

I have not opened my Book of Mormon since I stopped believing (honest answer). I was heart broken when I finally accepted that the church was not what I'd loved, believed, followed and diligently served my entire life. It's not that I hate the church or that I'm angry or that I find no value in the Book of Mormon now, it's just not in me to open it up and start reading again.

It's been the same for my husband.

I find what you wrote rather interesting. What changed in regards to the church. You stated that it wasn't the church that you used to love, believed and followed. What changed? I am sure that you had spiritual experiences when you were a member. And your husband too. And you must have gave your testimony during testimony meeting and felt the spirit.

I find it strange that members can throw their spiritual experiences out with the bath water.

[_Madison54]

I find what you wrote rather interesting. What changed in regards to the church. You stated that it wasn't the church that you used to love, believed and followed. What changed?

I learned the truth that was there all along. I just hadn't taken the time to research, study and find this out for myself.

I am sure that you had spiritual experiences when you were a member. And your husband too. And you must have gave your testimony during testimony meeting and felt the spirit.

I find it strange that members can throw their spiritual experiences out with the bath water.

I had spiritual experiences when I was active and I continue to have spiritual experiences now that I no longer attend or believe. One has nothing to do with the other.

Do you honestly believe that a person has to be an active, believing Mormon to be spiritual or have spiritual experiences?

[_Bazooka]

Can you give an example of something from the Book of Mormon that initially you found jeopardised your belief in it but which a subsequent, deeper study, turned into a confirmation of the books truthfulness?

Years ago one of the first non-apologetic books I read on the Book of Mormon was Brent Metcalfe's "New Approaches"

http://www.amazon.com/New-Approaches-Bo ... 1560850175

Reading this book was the beginning of the jeopardizing of my belief in the Book of Mormon. Pick any of the topics covered in this book and you'd find the issues that became troublesome to me. And to some degree, I would guess that if I picked up the book again and started reading it there would still be topics that have not been resolved satisfactorily and I would still find myself wondering, "What the heck?" Deeper study, especially after reading the two books I mentioned, has caused me to look at the Book of Mormon with, like I said, new eyes. There is much more complexity and cohesiveness to the history and teachings/prophecies throughout the book than I had realized through reading it solo without any in depth analysis as provided by Givens And Hardy. Not that these two authors are the only ones out there that have written rigorously in regards to the Book of Mormon's content/narrative, but they are the two that brought me around to looking for alternative ways to explain some of the problem areas that come up as one makes efforts to ascertain the Book of Mormon's authenticity. As some have mentioned here, in my earlier readings of the Book of Mormon I looked at the text/narrative as being very Yankee centric and unimaginative and simplistic. This line of thinking still acts as a potential obstacle in my belief. Especially when you throw in Spaulding and Late War stumbling blocks along with View of the Hebrews, DNA, etc.

When all is said and done there is a balance scale with weighting on each side, for and against, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I look at the scale as being around 40/60, at times, and 60/40 at other times. Enough to give the book the benefit of a doubt...provisionally. Enough to move forward in faith. Maybe not in every footstep, but enough to stay on the path of hope in the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Regards,
MG

If you take for example the potential jeopardy to ones testimony of seeing (fairly categorically) that the text of the Book of Mormon is strikingly typical of the genre and era surrounding Joseph Smith, which you confess still poses a threat. You haven't resolved that issue by deeper study. What you've done is 'found' other things to do with the book that you like that you feel offsets the doubt caused by the writing style and words used. You haven't turned your doubts into a reinforcement for truth, you've simply put your doubts on a shelf and ignored them. I don't mean to be confrontational, 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 - which is what you said had happened.

[_Uncle Ed]

So the Harry Potter series could be classed (by you) as scripture?
Forget the origin claims and historicity problems, the moral content makes it worthy of that label, right?

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....