Why Is It So Hard To Believe?

[Dravin]

Snow, I forget how old the original Book of Mormon was. It parallels the times of the Bible, doesn't it.

You have the narrative of the lives and times of the Nephites going from 600 BC to ~400 AD. Intermixed with the Book of Ether which starts at the time of the Tower of Babel (I don't know the date that is supposed to be), ending time isn't really known, some number of years before the Mulekites found Coriantumr.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

1. I have not, to date, made it a point to analyze or consider the BoM like I have the OT. I understand that it likely presents some of the same difficulties but haven't gotten to it yet.

2. I dispute anyone to demonstrate that "most correct of any book" refers to the Book of Mormon as a history book. I've not seen a compelling reason to believe that the original BoM authors were particularly accurate historians.

3. In it's ability to convey true doctrine, I do not know that the D&C is superior to the BoM.

You are thoroughly consistent and honest in your approach. Whether I agree with it or not, it is intelligent and rigorous.

[Snow]

You are thoroughly consistent and honest in your approach. Whether I agree with it or not, it is intelligent and rigorous.

Thank you but you forgot to mention suave and debonaire.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You are thoroughly consistent and honest in your approach. Whether I agree with it or not, it is intelligent and rigorous.

You are very sly PC ... as those are traits that describe our worst enemy.

[Snow]

You are very sly PC ... as those are traits that describe our worst enemy.

... and who is your worst enemy... that is thoroughly honest.

[john doe]

Thank you but you forgot to mention suave and debonaire.

Okay, who moved the laugh button again?

[Justice]

2. I dispute anyone to demonstrate that "most correct of any book" refers to the Book of Mormon as a history book. I've not seen a compelling reason to believe that the original BoM authors were particularly accurate historians.

This is one of the topics I've considered most when reading and pondering the Book of Mormon.

I think there is some good evidence that these people actually existed. I think there is even enough evidence to believe that these people were a goldly people, at least some of them.

But, whether the events they describe actually happened is still up for debate. There are some very well written stories in the Book of Mormon, which is either the result of actual events (you just can't make this stuff up) or the result of a very well-versed story teller. This story-teller would have to be expert enough to even change writting style when the story required. He would need to be consistent with first person and narratives throughout the story.

Not saying it's impossible, but would be the result of one of the most gifted story tellers the world has ever known.

...and he would have had to write in ancient techniques, even before they are discovered by others. He would also have to be well versed in the actual history of these people in order to make his story follow the historic pattern of other cultures.

Big task... but doable.

I choose the more complicated explanation... that Joseph Smith actually did receive the record from an angel, and that many different people wrote on many different sets of plates (and other material) to make it happen. Perhaps it goes against basic logic, but in this case I believe the more unbelievable answer is the right one. I think the fact that so many different people wrote the book and that parts of it were abridged by different people, gives it the appearance of "inconsistent" with a cursory reading. It's not until you dig deep and really study it until you see these seeming contradictions are actually beautifully harmonious.

I choose the complicated way out not because I relied on my own wisdom and understanding to decide, but because something within tells me it's good... and all good things come from God.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Justice

[ozzy]

Not for me. I don't have any heartburn with the doctrine or obedience requirements. It the extraordinary supposedly historical events that grate.

I don't have any problem relying on God. The main difficulty rests on relying on the anonymous writings of who knows who from 3000 years ago. If God said it was true, I'd be the first one on board.

Okay thanks, I think I now understand where you are coming from better. I don't really know how to add another of your quotes to one of my threads, but you mention later that the spirit is free to testify so long as it agrees with what you want it to. I disagree with this. The spirit is free to testify that what we think is incorrect as well as correct. Besides this, if we make take one of our issues to the Lord in prayer, we must do so with an open mind fully able and ready to admit that we may be wrong. This is what it means to soften our hearts in this context. True prayer (where doctrine, knowledge, and understanding are concerned) is not a discovery of how the spirit agrees with us, but it is a desire to be taught. It is not designed simply so that we know what God thinks, it is designed so that we may align our will with his, and our opinions and feelings with his facts and convictions.

[ozzy]

As a side note, I do understand where you are coming from concerning the inaccuracy of historians. At the same time though, many of the bible stories have similar events in multiple cultures (creation and flood for example) including Greek and African mythology. They vary in a few minor details, but they still hold that the events happened. I think that God performs many marvelous works and wonders and while we may have a couple of small details slightly off (an example concerning the red sea is that Hebrew culture adds in that Moses walked into the Red Sea to his neck before it parted. The Bible doesn't say this) the events still happened.

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you but you forgot to mention suave and debonaire.

Yes...I that's true...I did forget. Middle age and all that.

[Snow]

This is one of the topics I've considered most when reading and pondering the Book of Mormon.

I think there is some good evidence that these people actually existed. I think there is even enough evidence to believe that these people were a goldly people, at least some of them.

But, whether the events they describe actually happened is still up for debate. There are some very well written stories in the Book of Mormon, which is either the result of actual events (you just can't make this stuff up) or the result of a very well-versed story teller. This story-teller would have to be expert enough to even change writting style when the story required. He would need to be consistent with first person and narratives throughout the story.

Not saying it's impossible, but would be the result of one of the most gifted story tellers the world has ever known.

...and he would have had to write in ancient techniques, even before they are discovered by others. He would also have to be well versed in the actual history of these people in order to make his story follow the historic pattern of other cultures.

Big task... but doable.

I choose the more complicated explanation... that Joseph Smith actually did receive the record from an angel, and that many different people wrote on many different sets of plates (and other material) to make it happen. Perhaps it goes against basic logic, but in this case I believe the more unbelievable answer is the right one. I think the fact that so many different people wrote the book and that parts of it were abridged by different people, gives it the appearance of "inconsistent" with a cursory reading. It's not until you dig deep and really study it until you see these seeming contradictions are actually beautifully harmonious.

I choose the complicated way out not because I relied on my own wisdom and understanding to decide, but because something within tells me it's good... and all good things come from God.

Thanks - and the point I am making is that The Book of Mormon could have been transmitted by an angel to Joseph Smith who translated it under the power of inspiration but that doesn't necessarily mean that the original ancient text was a perfect historical record of what happened. The original authors, being human, would let their own biases and mistaken notions enter into their writing. So then the question becomes - why would a historical record be supernaturally transmitted if it contained factual or historical errors or inaccuracies? To which I answer - why not? I believe that God has had a hand in preserving the Bible down through the ages and it comes to us with all sorts of errors and inaccuracies. Still, despite the problems, the doctrine is preserved. Perhaps it is so with the Book of Mormon.

An example of the type of inaccuracy I am referring to can be seen in the OT story of the wall of Jericho. I don't disbelieve that it happened but don't think it has to have happened just the way it was reported.

[Justice]

I didn't mean to imply, although I see now I did, that those were the only 2 possibilities. Perhaps they represent the extreme possibilities in both directions?

Nor did I mean to imply, although I see now that I did, that you have to believe one or the other.

I maintain that all the stories in the Bible are well within the power of God to bring about as actual events. However, I will not argue that all events in scripture had to have happened as written, with no exceptions.

The Book of Mormon writers, at least the ones that bring it up, mentioned their weakness in writing. I think this weakness stems from not being able to deliver their words by the power of the spirit like they could when they spoke. It appears they made every attempt to be historically accurate, even if their language got in the way. I view it more of "I can't write this story with the same impact I can as compared to when I tell it," than "Our language prevents me from accurately describing certain events so I'm going to alter them a bit to fit our language." We know that the Small Plates appear as is, in first person, unabridged (translated of course). The portion that was abridged from the large Plates of Nephi (from King Benjamin on) were abridged, so maybe something was lost in the abridgement. The same would apply to Ether.

For example, if I learn that Nephi didn't really build a ship, although I would be surprised, it wouldn't change the fact that they were led away from Jerusalem by the Lord to a land of promise.

I believe the very purpose of the Book of Mormon (and perhaps scripture in general) is to use real events to teach spiritual truths. We don't understand how some of these events could have happened based on our understanding, but that doesn't mean they didn't (or couldn't) happen. I see your point that they didn't have to actually happen to deliver the same message. Generally speaking, though, I believe they did.

[StallionMcBeastly]

My son and his two closest cousins are all going on their missions at the same time. My one 19 year old nephew was studying the scriptures at home the other day. His mother says that he put down the scriptures with some exasperation and exclaimed, Boy - why is it so hard to believe?

Do you ever wonder why?

I sometimes wish it was easier! The most important beliefs of our church cannot be proven. Our logical and intellectual side tells us "If we can't touch it, see it, or hear it it isn't real." To be honest, we have to throw aside some logic (I hate putting it that way) and put our faith in the scriptures, God, and our own spiritual experiences, to believe.

[Seminarysnoozer]

... and who is your worst enemy... that is thoroughly honest.

"thoroughly consistent and honest in [his] approach" - meaning doesn't vary in the topic or reasoning to get to the conclusion. ...is Satan, he never gives up ... even though he has lost the war. He still tries to convince people that he is right.

I didn't make the statement, that was PC, ask him.

[Snow]

"thoroughly consistent and honest in [his] approach" - meaning doesn't vary in the topic or reasoning to get to the conclusion. ...is Satan,

I've never heard that before. What causes you to thing that Sant never varies the topic or reasoning? Is it scriptural?

[Dravin]

I've never heard that before. What causes you to thing that Sant never varies the topic or reasoning? Is it scriptural?

I'm not sure if it qualifies as a topic change, but if we are to believe the account of Jesus' temptation in the desert, Satan made an appeal to the natural man (hunger), pride/doubt (jump from a spire of the temple), and greed (tried to bribe him with glory and fame). I suppose the reason he was doing that was the same, he wanted Christ to fail but...

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

and

He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw call men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.

don't forget

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal elife of man.

... I'm not sure I would say focus and consistency are ungodly traits. God's reasoning and motivation are decidedly consistent and he is certainly focused.

P.S. I'm not sure Satan can be described as honest in his approach, possibly consistent depending on how you look at it, but not honest.

P.P.S. I realize Snow that such (Satan is consistent never changing reasoning or topic, and that consistency is an ungodly trait) is not your position. I was just using your post as a springboard.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Dravin

[Justice]

Yeah, it's interesting how the anti-Christ's we see in the Book of Mormon admitted they knew they were lying to deceive others before they died.

[skalenfehl]

Been a while since I've posted but this topic piqued my interest. I find this an interesting topic as I wonder how valiant each of us in our pre-mortal lives were in our battle against Lucifer, who tried to sway as many as he could before being cast down. How many were near to the fence or actually on the fence? How many were truly for the right plan that called for agency?

I do believe in the gift of faith and perhaps I am lucky. Blessed even, because I believe and have believed since I was a child, I have seen and experienced truly great miracles, some of which have literally saved my life or the life of someone else. Let he who hath ears hear and eyes see.

Christ taught in parables and it's not hard to understand why. Those who cannot see, though were given sight would still reject Him. How great to their condemnation would it be to have everything laid out clearly as day only to turn away and forfeit their probationary opportunity so easily. They might as well have sided with Lucifer.

If it were too easy to believe, maybe it would also be over quicker, the wheat would be all to easily separated from the tares and the end happen sooner. But then would we ever have really grown? Would we have endured no trials only to return to God as weaklings rather than spiritual giants worthy of Him and Christs atonement? This gives me something to ponder further.

Edited November 1, 2009 by skalenfehl

[prisonchaplain]

"thoroughly consistent and honest in [his] approach" - meaning doesn't vary in the topic or reasoning to get to the conclusion. ...is Satan, he never gives up ... even though he has lost the war. He still tries to convince people that he is right.

I didn't make the statement, that was PC, ask him.

Seminary, I'm not sure where you are going with this. My comment about Snow being honest and consistent was meant as a compliment to his sincerity and integrity. I also stated that I did not agree with the approach he took (believing that OT and BoM original writers were anonymous, and that their stories could not be taken as literal accounts of actual events--at least not with certainity). But, I hope you are not insinuating that I was comparing Satan with Snow??? That would be a bizarre and inaccurate take on my words.

Edited November 1, 2009 by prisonchaplain
added clarifying detail

[Seminarysnoozer]

I've never heard that before. What causes you to thing that Sant never varies the topic or reasoning? Is it scriptural?

Its the opposite of open minded, that's all. I don't know what PC's intention was by saying that, I am not trying to assume anything, it just struck me as funny that it came across as a compliment. I was just laughing at the subtlety of the joke as if those qualities were something to strive for, that's all. If you take the whole statement without picking words out of context it comes across as he was saying you are very consistent and leave no room for varying your reasoning or your approach. i.e. - your approach is very 'true', or 'honest' or 'pure.' In the sense that it is a straight line and always aiming at the same target. And, I think Satan has one purpose. He may take different routes to accomplish that, but the focus and purpose is the same, he wants to cause as much misery by disrupting the plan as he can, that is his single focus to the point that he cannot be convinced of anything else even if it was in his face. This is how we describe the sons of perdition even, they deny the Holy Ghost. How can someone deny the Holy Ghost? by being consistent and rigorous and honest in their approach to a single end, to close their heart after it was once open. A hardening of the heart occurs when a person becomes closed to learning. They either tell themselves they have all the answers or their focus on a single part is so strong they ignore everything else - i.e. thoroughly consistent and honest in their approach. The Holy Ghost is only heard with a broken, contrite heart, open to the promptings.

Religiously speaking both ends of the spectrum are thoroughly consistent and honest in their approach, i.e. single minded purposes. God wants immortality and eternal life for men. Satan purely wants eternal misery for men, and he is very intelligent and rigorous in his approach. All the rest of us fall into a category of being not consistent in our approaches to reasoning, and none of us are thoroughly consistent and honest in our approach because we are not perfectly good or perfectly evil. I think PC is just telling you what you want to hear, that's my opinion, but I am often and easily wrong in my interpretations, in any case, I thought it was funny. I thought he was joking as I don't think he would blaspheme and call you God and he isn't mean enough to call you Satan, so I took it as a joke, a very sly one.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary, I'm not sure where you are going with this. My comment about Snow being honest and consistent was meant as a compliment to his sincerity and integrity. I also stated that I did not agree with the approach he took (believing that OT and BoM original writers were anonymous, and that their stories could not be taken as literal accounts of actual events--at least not with certainity). But, I hope you are not insinuating that I was comparing Satan with Snow??? That would be a bizarre and inaccurate take on my words.

I apologize then, read above. I didn't think you were, that's why I laughed at that response. If I thought it was serious I wouldn't have laughed or said anything at all. I think it is important for you to know though, PC, that most Mormons are contrite of heart and would rather have the spirit testify to someone learning about the gospel as opposed to our mastery of argument and persistent, rigorous and honest approaches. I would think most of us that contribute to forums of this kind are a skewed sampling because we tend to be more 'vocally' insistent in our opinions (including myself).