Why I Find Mormonism Plausible

[Jason_J]

I am currently Catholic, and have been interested in the LDS faith for a number of years now, on and off. I think that many traditional Christians dismiss Mormonism for a number of reasons (whether valid or not): polygamy, priesthood ban, exaltation, Godhead, "new kid on the block", the Book of Mormon, etc. I think that a number of those issues do present "problems" for me at this time, but I think there is something that critics never really address.

When one reads the recent scholarship by LDS (and non-LDS) scholars on Mormon related topics, I find that I just have to wonder: how could Joseph Smith and his "associates" have known so much about ancient Christianity (including things not accepted by the early Church, perhaps due to an apostasy)? Moreso than any new religion, Mormonism seems to be able to reference the writings of people from ancient Judaism and Christianity in support of its own views. LDS on other forums frequently refer to modern scholarly works that I have recently purchased, such as "Origins of Biblical Monotheism" by Smith, and the works of Margaret Barker, especially "The Great Angel-A Study of Israel's Second God". Blake Ostler puts much of the work on the views of Deity in ancient Israel, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, creatio ex nihilo, etc. into a LDS context.

So, while critics are quick to say that Joseph Smith made it all up (with help from his associates, who they may see were familiar with the works of others), they don't realize how much work it must have taken to create such a complex belief system with so many ancient parallels. Joseph Smith and his associates must have had huge libraries and must have been so well read to do this. It simply doesn't make sense, which is why I am seriously considering the LDS church at this point.

[Tyler90AZ]

As a convert to the church I had many of the same questions that you have. I am sure they will all be answered better by other people then me so I will leave it at that. As far as the Book Of Mormon goes I suggest you watch Safety For The Soul a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland the holy spirit touched me deeply when I watched that and when he said "no bad man could write such a book and no good man could write it unless it be true". That is when I really started having faith that LDS is the true church and just like it states many times in Alma that once you gain a testimony you will be given things to strengthen it. God will assuredly reach out his hand to you that is a promise that is given in the Book Of Mormon and I can testify to that. I suggest you pick up the Book Of Mormon and read chapters 2-6 of Mosiah the message is so strong I am sure you will feel the spirit.

I testify to you that the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is the true restored church of Jesus Christ. That Joseph Smith did discover the Book Of Mormon as a BOY that Thomas S Monson is a true and living prophet that will guide you in the right direction that Jesus Christ is our savior. I promise you if you read the Book Of Mormon with a open heart you will see that is another testament of Jesus Christ

[pam]

[Jason_J]

Thanks Pam. I did see Elder Holland's talk in October (I watched the last two Conferences to see how they "work"). While I don't necessarily agree with his...delivery, and I'm not a huge fan of Elder Holland (yet), mostly because of his erroneous presentation of the Trinity in another talk, I fully agree with his argument. If the Book of Mormon was fabricated, it should have been deconstructed completely by now. Critics must come up with varying explanations to explain it away. The fact that it has complex literary structures is also interesting, especially because many if not most of these occur outside of the sections that supposedly were copied from the KJV.

I don't think any other recent scripture by any other group comes close. The JW version of the Bible has been shown to be false and simply made to support their own false views (that have no support in ancient Judaism and Christianity as the LDS faith does). Scientology's Dianetics does not produce the things it claims. In contrast, the Book of Mormon cannot be completely deconstructed, has very interesting literary structure, and more evidences are increasing its plausibility with time.

[Jason_J]

As a convert to the church I had many of the same questions that you have. I am sure they will all be answered better by other people then me so I will leave it at that. As far as the Book Of Mormon goes I suggest you watch Safety For The Soul a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland the holy spirit touched me deeply when I watched that and when he said "no bad man could write such a book and no good man could write it unless it be true". That is when I really started having faith that LDS is the true church and just like it states many times in Alma that once you gain a testimony you will be given things to strengthen it. God will assuredly reach out his hand to you that is a promise that is given in the Book Of Mormon and I can testify to that. I suggest you pick up the Book Of Mormon and read chapters 2-6 of Mosiah the message is so strong I am sure you will feel the spirit.

I testify to you that the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is the true restored church of Jesus Christ. That Joseph Smith did discover the Book Of Mormon as a BOY that Thomas S Monson is a true and living prophet that will guide you in the right direction that Jesus Christ is our savior. I promise you if you read the Book Of Mormon with a open heart you will see that is another testament of Jesus Christ

Thank you Tyler for sharing. I have my Book of Mormon out right now, I just need to start reading it I will read Mosiah 2-6 tonight.

[Tyler90AZ]

Enjoy! If you believe the Book Of Mormon which is hard to deny you have to accept all of it.

[Traveler]

I am currently Catholic, and have been interested in the LDS faith for a number of years now, on and off. I think that many traditional Christians dismiss Mormonism for a number of reasons (whether valid or not): polygamy, priesthood ban, exaltation, Godhead, "new kid on the block", the Book of Mormon, etc. I think that a number of those issues do present "problems" for me at this time, but I think there is something that critics never really address.

When one reads the recent scholarship by LDS (and non-LDS) scholars on Mormon related topics, I find that I just have to wonder: how could Joseph Smith and his "associates" have known so much about ancient Christianity (including things not accepted by the early Church, perhaps due to an apostasy)? Moreso than any new religion, Mormonism seems to be able to reference the writings of people from ancient Judaism and Christianity in support of its own views. LDS on other forums frequently refer to modern scholarly works that I have recently purchased, such as "Origins of Biblical Monotheism" by Smith, and the works of Margaret Barker, especially "The Great Angel-A Study of Israel's Second God". Blake Ostler puts much of the work on the views of Deity in ancient Israel, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, creatio ex nihilo, etc. into a LDS context.

So, while critics are quick to say that Joseph Smith made it all up (with help from his associates, who they may see were familiar with the works of others), they don't realize how much work it must have taken to create such a complex belief system with so many ancient parallels. Joseph Smith and his associates must have had huge libraries and must have been so well read to do this. It simply doesn't make sense, which is why I am seriously considering the LDS church at this point.

Jason:

There is a lot a talk about proof of the Book of Mormon. The problem is no one knows exactly where the Book of Mormon civilization existed in the Americas. There is a lot a speculation but there has not been an exact city named in the Book of Mormon found. But on the other hand only about 2% of the ancient sites known to exist throughout the Americas have been excavated.

However, the Book of Mormon began in the Middle East and we know exactly where - Jerusalem. Let me give an example of how Joseph Smith knew more about the Middle East that was even possible for his day and time. In 1985 a Mormon critic, Thomas Key wrote an article in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation. He said in essence that since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with “much fruit and also wild honey” (mentioned in 1 Nephi 17:5) and no timber that Nephi could use to build a ship (1 Nephi 18:1). The problem is that even as late as 1985 details about a place called Taqah/Khor Rori were not known of or documented in “the West”.

From individuals I have known that have lived and traveled places mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the Middle East – I have documented about 100 specific items that Joseph Smith could not have known about in America when the Book of Mormon was prepared for publication. In essence Joseph knew more about where Lehi traveled leaving Jerusalem than any western scholar in the last 150 years.

As a member of the LDS faith I have learned that despite my lack of formal education in ancient cultures and scripture text that I can easily participate in deep debates concerning doctrines and ancient meaning of things. I met a professor from Harvard – Dean of ancient archeology; at the Boston airport and was able to discuss with him concepts “discovered” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and ask questions about the Essens that he could not answer but that I understood quite well. We discussed some of his recent findings that had not been published that I could relate to but the Christianity seems to reject. He was quite impressed and we have kept in touch on occasions since our meeting. The LDS faith is so simple that I feel rather confident that I can hold my own with even the most educated on such matters.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

I am currently Catholic, and have been interested in the LDS faith for a number of years now, on and off. I think that many traditional Christians dismiss Mormonism for a number of reasons (whether valid or not): polygamy, priesthood ban, exaltation, Godhead, "new kid on the block", the Book of Mormon, etc. I think that a number of those issues do present "problems" for me at this time, but I think there is something that critics never really address.

When one reads the recent scholarship by LDS (and non-LDS) scholars on Mormon related topics, I find that I just have to wonder: how could Joseph Smith and his "associates" have known so much about ancient Christianity (including things not accepted by the early Church, perhaps due to an apostasy)? Moreso than any new religion, Mormonism seems to be able to reference the writings of people from ancient Judaism and Christianity in support of its own views. LDS on other forums frequently refer to modern scholarly works that I have recently purchased, such as "Origins of Biblical Monotheism" by Smith, and the works of Margaret Barker, especially "The Great Angel-A Study of Israel's Second God". Blake Ostler puts much of the work on the views of Deity in ancient Israel, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, creatio ex nihilo, etc. into a LDS context.

So, while critics are quick to say that Joseph Smith made it all up (with help from his associates, who they may see were familiar with the works of others), they don't realize how much work it must have taken to create such a complex belief system with so many ancient parallels. Joseph Smith and his associates must have had huge libraries and must have been so well read to do this. It simply doesn't make sense, which is why I am seriously considering the LDS church at this point.

Hehe I think I know a little of what you feel.. I think for most of us who seriously dig a little deeper in the book of mormon come to the conclusion that theres no way that Joseph smith could have known all that or have been so supremely lucky to be able to make all the paralells, and etc.. that can be found in the book of mormon... and eventually it comes down to a spiritual quandary: either it came from heavenly sources or it came from devilish ones- and such an answer can only be obtained from geoing to God in earnest prayer and soul searching.

My answer is that it is God's hand that has brought it forth.

[Tyler90AZ]

Since nobody has answered some of your questions I will explain why we practiced polygamy for awhile. There is polygamy all throughout the bible namely Abraham and Jacob so if you believe the bible to be true then you must understand that g-d gives polygamy and takes it away. It is not like a gift given it is done for righteous reasons when Joseph Smith was first given the doctrine of plural marriage many saints didn't even want to abide by it. A time when g-d didn't authorize polygamy is in the Book Of Mormon so you can find times scattered throughout all the scriptures where it was authorized and wasn't. So if you accept the Bible then you must accept that g-d does authorize polygamy at certain times for righteous reasons.

As far as LDS being the new kid on the block when a church is established should have no baring on the truth of it. The way this church is expanding is magnificent do you think g-d would let a false church rise like this?

Godhead is three separate beings all with one purpose to save and exalt us. Matthew 3 16-17 clearly show that they are separate beings.

We only know a little bit about g-d's plan for us there is more that we don't know then we do know. Researching information will not show you the truth of the gospel the holy spirit will do that to enable him to do that you need to open your heart, pray diligently, read the Book Of Mormon and attend church. You will feel the holy ghost and you will be so happy a joy that's incomprehensible I assure you of that.

[Justice]

You may find it plausible, but you will never come to know it's true by any of the things you mention. It's not about "being plausible." It's about truth.

You will never come to know whether or not it is true unless you read and pray about the Book of Mormon with a believing heart and a strong desire to know if it's true, not whether or not it's plausible.

If the Book of Mormon is true, and Elder Holland is an Apostle of the Lord, I'd guess his definition of the Godhead is more true than your definition of the trinity.

[Jason_J]

You may find it plausible, but you will never come to know it's true by any of the things you mention. It's not about "being plausible." It's about truth.

You will never come to know whether or not it is true unless you read and pray about the Book of Mormon with a believing heart and a strong desire to know if it's true, not whether or not it's plausible.

If the Book of Mormon is true, and Elder Holland is an Apostle of the Lord, I'd guess his definition of the Godhead is more true than your definition of the trinity.

Right, this thread was not necessarily about truth, but about how I, as a non-LDS, see Mormonism as plausible, in contrast to what many critics may typically say. The things that I mentioned in the OP are issues that I believe lead one to at least consider the LDS faith, and not simply dismiss it immediately as something invented by one or more men in the 1800s.

Also, my mentioning of what Elder Holland stated on the Trinity was not on his views of the Godhead. In a previous General Conference, he made references to the traditional/mainstream understanding of the Trinity that were erroneous (as did Elder Callister in another Conference, as well as in his book "The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration", which I have). Anyway, my point was just that, while I may not have agreed with Elder Holland's delivery of the talk in question (nor in his understanding of what Trinitarians believe on the Trinity), I do agree with his premise: that despite multiple attempted explanations, critics have been unable to dismantle the Book of Mormon, which also leads to its plausibility, it being what it claims to be.

[mlbrowninwa]

I converted to the LDS church last June. I have read the Book of Mormon and know through prayer that it is true and this is the true church. For personal reasons I have been inactive for the last couple months, but have continued to study the scriptures and dig deeper. I plan on returning to church this week. I read and listened to all of the anti statements out there before joining and can say they really didn't make much since to me if one really thinks about it. I find it unbelievable that some would say that Smith just made it all up. Many have tried to tear it apart, but have failed.

Just the other night I was watching a History channel show about the mysteries of the Bible. Archeologist were looking to explain and find the things that are in the Bible. At the time this show was made, only about 5% of the areas have been found and proven. The actual study of these places have only been going on for 100 years or so. The proof of things and our knowledge of these things will grow as part of Heavenly Father's plan for us and will be done in His time, not ours. Continue to study and read the Book of Mormon and I have no doubt that through prayer, you will gain a testimony of it's truth as well.

[john doe]

You'll find that most LDS don't understand the various versions of God as presented by many other churches, mainly because we focus more on studying and preaching what has been revealed to us by our prophets and scriptures. Part of it is because we find explanantions of God by other religions to be confusing and difficult to grasp when compared to what we believe. Part of the reason is that we concentrate much more time studying our own beliefs than what other churches believe. While Elder Holland may have misrepresented what the true Trinitarian belief is, my guess is that he was repeating what he was told by a few former Trinitarians, who may or may not have had the same understanding of it that you do. He's not an expert on the Trinity, and shouldn't be taken as such.

[Jason_J]

You'll find that most LDS don't understand the various versions of God as presented by many other churches, mainly because we focus more on studying and preaching what has been revealed to us by our prophets and scriptures. Part of it is because we find explanantions of God by other religions to be confusing and difficult to grasp when compared to what we believe. Part of the reason is that we concentrate much more time studying our own beliefs than what other churches believe. While Elder Holland may have misrepresented what the true Trinitarian belief is, my guess is that he was repeating what he was told by a few former Trinitarians, who may or may not have had the same understanding of it that you do. He's not an expert on the Trinity, and shouldn't be taken as such.

Oh yes, I fully agree (there was actually a similar discussion on this very topic over on MADB ). I also agree with Blake Ostler in that when many Trinitarians attempt to describe the Trinity, they end up in so-called heretical views, such as modalism or Arianism. Therefore when some non-Trinitarians, such as LDS, describe the Trinity as told to them by self-described Trinitarians, they may actually describe something that is not the Trinity (which is also why I tell Trinitarians to not use analogies, as that only confuses others (and themselves) even more). This is perhaps what happened with Elder Callister, who presents the Trinity in modalistic terms in his book.

But I digress.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Jason_J

[Jason_J]

You'll find that most LDS don't understand the various versions of God as presented by many other churches, mainly because we focus more on studying and preaching what has been revealed to us by our prophets and scriptures. Part of it is because we find explanantions of God by other religions to be confusing and difficult to grasp when compared to what we believe. Part of the reason is that we concentrate much more time studying our own beliefs than what other churches believe. While Elder Holland may have misrepresented what the true Trinitarian belief is, my guess is that he was repeating what he was told by a few former Trinitarians, who may or may not have had the same understanding of it that you do. He's not an expert on the Trinity, and shouldn't be taken as such.

Oh yes, I fully agree (there was actually a similar discussion on this very topic over on MADB ). I also agree with Blake Ostler in that when many Trinitarians attempt to describe the Trinity, they end up in so-called heretical views, such as modalism or Arianism. Therefore when some non-Trinitarians, such as LDS, describe the Trinity as told to them by self-described Trinitarians, they may actually describe something that is not the Trinity (which is also why I tell Trinitarians to not use analogies, as that only confuses others (and themselves) even more). This is perhaps what happened with Elder Callister, who presents the Trinity in modalistic terms in his book.

But I digress.

[Justice]

I affirm my comments about truth, but apologize for my comments about what Elder Holland said. I assumed it was different than it was. I know better.

You do have some good comments, and I hope you follow through with where this is leading you. All I'm trying to do by making a point about the difference between truth and plausibility is hoping you take the next step.

[vmackenzie]

You may find it plausible, but you will never come to know it's true by any of the things you mention. It's not about "being plausible." It's about truth.

You will never come to know whether or not it is true unless you read and pray about the Book of Mormon with a believing heart and a strong desire to know if it's true, not whether or not it's plausible.

If the Book of Mormon is true, and Elder Holland is an Apostle of the Lord, I'd guess his definition of the Godhead is more true than your definition of the trinity.

I know this post goes far back, but I just wanted to comment.

Who is to say that one religion is more right than the other ones? I see religion as worshiping the same God just a different way to go about it. Therefore, that makes no one region right, and no two religions wrong.

[john doe]

I know this post goes far back, but I just wanted to comment.

Who is to say that one religion is more right than the other ones? I see religion as worshiping the same God just a different way to go about it. Therefore, that makes no one region right, and no two religions wrong.

Uh, we LDS do. We claim to have a living Prophet who receives revelation from Christ currently. We're not saying there is no truth to be found in other churches, there is, but we believe that we are Christ's restored Church, with the fullness of the gospel.

[Justice]

Who is to say that one religion is more right than the other ones?

Quite frankly, God does.

When God has a covenant people on the earth that is the true religion.

[bytebear]

To the OP: Well, it sounds like you have an intellectual testimony, but just wait until you have a spiritual witness to the truth, then you will know, not just believe.

[JohnnyRudick]

I know this post goes far back, but I just wanted to comment.

Who is to say that one religion is more right than the other ones? I see religion as worshiping the same God just a different way to go about it. Therefore, that makes no one region right, and no two religions wrong.

Actually it is God.

He said that all the other churches are wrong and that this Church, His Church that He established is the True Church.

Joseph Smith History 1:18 My object in going to inquire of the

Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might

know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of

myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages

who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right

(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all

were wrong)--and which I should join.

Joseph Smith History 1:19 I was answered that I must join none of

them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me

said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that

those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me

with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for

doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,

but they deny the power thereof.

Joseph Smith History 1:20 He again forbade me to join with any of

them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot

write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself

lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had

departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree,

I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired

what the matter was. I replied, "Never mind, all is well--I am

well enough off." I then said to my mother, "I have learned for

myself that Presbyterianism is not true." It seems as though the

adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I

was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom;

else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why

the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in

my infancy?

"Doctrine and Covenants 1:29 And after having received the record

of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might

have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of

God, the Book of Mormon.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 And also those whom these

commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation

of this church, and to bring it out of obscurity and out of

darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the

whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, . . ."

Edited January 28, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought;-)

[Justice]

having a form of godliness,

but they deny the power thereof

This really is the key, isn't it?

This is the same power he bestowed on His Apostles in the New Testament. He told them that whatsoever they would bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they would loose on earth would be loosed in heaven. I don't know a better way to describe the power to act in God's name.

It's hard for people today to recognize a God'given power when they don't even see it being given to man in the Bible.

What's interesting is how much people's view of religion today affects their interpretation of what' s in the Bible, written 2,000 years ago. This goes for LDS and non-LDS.

[Faded]

While I don't necessarily agree with his...delivery, and I'm not a huge fan of Elder Holland (yet), mostly because of his erroneous presentation of the Trinity in another talk

I'm curious to know what you're referring to with this. I do find that Latter Day Saints almost universally don't understand the Trinity doctrine. Likewise, traditional Christians grossly misrepresent the LDS concept of the Godhead.

Did Elder Holland get the Trinity wrong perhaps? Or was it something else?

[Faded]

I know this post goes far back, but I just wanted to comment.

Who is to say that one religion is more right than the other ones? I see religion as worshiping the same God just a different way to go about it. Therefore, that makes no one region right, and no two religions wrong.

I often wonder where most of Christianity completely lost all interest in seeking for eternal truth. It used to be a core guiding principal to all Christians everywhere.

Christ himself rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees teachings with great vigor. Why would he do such a thing if having the right teachings was completely irrelevant?

I think that eternal truth should still be a guiding principal of Christians everywhere, just as long as they've finally learned their lesson: It is not worth waging wars and massacring masses of people. Seek eternal truth while maintaining peace on earth.

Knowing God as he really is and knowing what he expects of his children. Knowing his purpose for us in this life. Knowing what he expects of us. Knowing what we can expect in the next life. These things are worth knowing.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I find it very encouraging when people are willing to seriously consider the reality of what the Book of Mormon is, and what it represents.

The fact that you haven't let yourself become distracted by well-worn arguments is most encouraging of all. At the same time, those arguments do have answers. For the time being, though, I'd encourage you to keep your direction of study where it is...understanding what the Book of Mormon contains will go a long way to help you understand where it came from and how we have it today.

Glen Beck used a phrase to motivate his investigation into the LDS church; 'Question with boldness'.

One of the biggest misconceptions of the LDS Church is that we are spoon-fed what we are to believe, when the exact opposite is true. From Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson, the leaders of the LDS Church have always reminded us that it is our personal responsibility to discover for ourselves the truths that God has revealed to us. Each of us in the church has a testimony to one extent or another, but it is not something we were given one day, nor is it something we can just hand to someone else.

None of us ever gained any part of our testimony without first asking questions. We ask questions of our instructors at church. We ask questions of our local congregational leaders. We ask questions of our preisthood leaders. We ask questions of the General Authorities. We ask questions of the prophet of the Lord. And we ask questions of God. If we do not ask questions...if we do not seek...we will not find.

Knowlede of truth-whatever the discipline-requires personal effort on the part of the seeker. Continue seeking truth and God will give it to you as soon as you are ready for it. Keep questioning the LDS Church with boldness. The answers are there, and you will find them.

One more thing, thank you for an outstanding post.