BOM - NT Doctrines & Themes

[Wonderer]

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

[Fether]

8 hours ago, Wonderer said:

XplorationHi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

I believe that if you were to grow up without the Book of Mormon, your understanding If the Fall, Atonement, Resurection, and the Plan If Salvation in general would be greatly hindered. Chapters like 1 Nephi 8,11-15, 2 Nephi 9, Alma 5, Alma 11 Alma 39-42, Helaman 5, Ether 12, Moroni 8, Moroni 10 and so many more have such deep doctrinal truth that the New Testament just doesn’t have. I’m not saying that the New Testament doesn’t contain this, but not nearly to such a degree. I absolutely love the gospels, but the Book of Mormon teaches and expands on those topics so much more than the NT does.

You ask people outside of the the LDS church to explain the Atonement and you will find some of the most shallow answers. The Book of Mormon is such a treasure trove for understanding the Atonement. That, I believe, is the truth we have that others don’t. Not the “new” doctrine, but the old doctrine that is incorrectly understood.

As far as the history and physical proof is concerned, saying that it can’t be historical is like saying there is no such thing as aliens. There just isn’t enough physical proof the claim either and there hasn’t been enough exploration done. Think about it, just this last year we discovered a MASSIVE system of cities buried beneath the rain forest. It’s 2018 for crying out loud, why did it take us so long to find that!? ... well, because it’s all well hidden and not that much exploration is being done. There just isn’t enough proof to make a claim either way as to the truth fullness of the historical account.

Your decision to deny the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon will always be a thorn in your testimony.

[MrShorty]

My answer -- Yes, I can accept the BOM as "true" even if it turns out it is not "historical". I posted some of my thoughts here on scripture historicity:

Can the Holy Ghost testify of the truth of fiction? I am fairly convinced that Job and Jonah are fiction, but I still believe they are true. Christ's parables and other scripture allegories (Jacob 5) can be true and fiction. We have another thread about whether the flood story is historical or fictional, which can spill over into the rest of the creation accounts. From what I can see, there are many good Mormons (and Christians) who believe that at least parts of scripture can be both "fiction" and "true". I feel like I can believe the BoM is true, even if it turns out to be inspired fiction.

[Fether]

@Wonderer

Also, my brother thinks the exact same thing about the Bible as a whole. I’m sure  would be the first to claim he was wrong and show him all sorts of scientific proof.

There are people like that out there with the same evidence about the Book of Mormon. You are probably not an expert in any of the fields that provide the poor you are looking for, so you are relying on the words of others... or in other words, you have faith in the words of others more than faith in the words of the prophets.

There will always be someone smarter than you that can prove to you the Book of Mormon is true via evidence... then there will be another even smarter than him that could prove to you the Book of Mormon is not historically true. Will you hav faith in the smartest man or will you have faith in the prophets of God?

[Fether]

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

My answer -- Yes, I can accept the BOM as "true" even if it turns out it is not "historical". I posted some of my thoughts here on scripture historicity:

Can the Holy Ghost testify of the truth of fiction? I am fairly convinced that Job and Jonah are fiction, but I still believe they are true. Christ's parables and other scripture allegories (Jacob 5) can be true and fiction. We have another thread about whether the flood story is historical or fictional, which can spill over into the rest of the creation accounts. From what I can see, there are many good Mormons (and Christians) who believe that at least parts of scripture can be both "fiction" and "true". I feel like I can believe the BoM is true, even if it turns out to be inspired fiction.

How can you claim the Book of Mormon is true, but fiction???

what about the intro to the Book of Mormon?

”The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

That doesn’t sound fictional to me

what about Nephi’s words?

1 Nephi 1:3“And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.”

1 Nephi 14:30 “now I make an end of speaking concerning the things which I saw while I was carried away in the Spirit; and if all the things which I saw are not written, the things which I have written are true. And thus it is. Amen.”

How can you rely on a testimony of a fictional character?? We don’t hear president Nelson baring testimony of the truthfulness of Frodo’s decision to destroy the ring.

If the Book of Mormon is just fiction, than all we believe in must be too. The church stands or falls with the Book of Mormon.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Fether

[Just_A_Guy]

I concur with @Fether.  Joseph Smth claimed to have been visited by BoM characters, multiple times.  If they didn’t exist, then the book’s origin story is steeped in lies.  In that case the book may well have interesting insights—but would be no better a basis for my spiritual life than Gone with the Wind.

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, Wonderer said:

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

I think whether to accept or reject the LDS church is up to you.  Faith in the gospel is not something that is scientific or logical to many.  What it is, is faith.  Faith is more than a belief, and it is stronger.  Faith can lead us to do strange things, but it also can build us up.  LDS testimonies are not built upon fact or evidence or science, but rather testimony and the Spirit.

Depending on which scholar you talk to, the Bible is not a historical source.  It is unreliable.  It cannot be used as a historical record, though it MAY be used as a book that reflects the time it was written and hence a historical record of the views and ideas at the time each of it's different portions were written.  In the same light, the Book of Mormon is not a historical source.  It is considered unreliable.  It MAY be used as a book that reflects the thoughts and views of the early to mid 19th century America for some scholars, but that is vastly different than being considered a historical record.  Thus, the scientific and scholarly view are not going to bolster anyone's belief in the events or ideas that are propagated in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Yet, for centuries we've had millions who have sworn in their belief of the Bible, and in the past century millions of Mormons who would claim a strong belief in the Book of Mormon as well.  This is far beyond fact or evidence or anything scholarly.  Where does this idea come from and why do people believe in such things against the overwhelming amount of scholarly and scientific books that say they should not?

For Mormons it comes down to finding out the truth of the gospel through prayer and revelation.  Some who do not understand these feelings may consider it simple emotion, that it is our own emotions dictating what we should believe over what our own sense would tell us.  As a Mormon, I will say it is FAR more than that.  The feeling of the Holy Ghost testifying that something is true is something beyond your own emotions and is quite literally another being testifying of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

To gain such a testimony it requires one to actually have some hope and thought that the Book of Mormon may be true.  It takes humility.  In Mormon 10:3-5 it states...

Quote

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

In this, once we have studied and pondered it in our minds, we need to pray and ask to know if it is true.  We need to be open to recognize the speaking of the Holy Spirit and recognize that we are receiving something more beyond what we feel normally. 

This feeling is a very soft and gentle feeling that comes over you.  It normally is not something loud or immediately obvious, but more of a lulling peaceful feeling.  I'd put it similar to that feeling one may feel during sacrament meeting, where it may be almost imperceptible until you recognize what it is that you are feeling.  When you are alone and praying, it becomes more obvious as you see that it is the same type of feeling that you feel in sacrament, as you feel suddenly while you are praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true.

If you find out that the Book of Mormon is true, that does not mean you have to think that it is a historical record or scholarly work.  You may not be able to reconcile the testimony of the spirit and the evidence that you find in regards to it in the book itself or that the world tells you.  Regardless, at that point you KNOW that the Book of Mormon is true and that it brings with it the knowledge that the teachings found in it are true.  As such, Joseph Smith has to be a true prophet and the gospel he brought is also true.  This is a testimony that you can rely on and fall back upon when you have difficulties in regards to the gospel.  You don't need to have a perfect knowledge of all things, and you do not have to be able to see if the Book of Mormon is historically true or if the Bible is historically accurate, what is important is that you know that they are true and hence the doctrines and principles they teach (for example, the ten commandments in the Bible) are correct things that you should live your life by.

This is a testimony that will give you faith that you can grow by.  I have received this testimony.  I have prayed to know the truth of the Book of Mormon as we find in Moroni, and I have the Holy Ghost tell me that it is true.  I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was his prophet.  It is by this that I have faith in the things that he and the prophets after him have taught, and faith in the principles and ordinances of the gospel found in the LDS church.  I hope that you can also gain this testimony for yourself.

NOW, let's say you do NOT get an answer, and I've heard many that will say that they have not received an answer.  You have several options open to you.  I cannot list them all, but some would be, you could continue to read, pray, and exercise hope that some day you will receive that answer.  If you have not gotten an answer, this is the path I would hope you would try to travel. 

You could give up and do your own thing, or myriads of other choices.  In the end, it is about choice and free agency.  You are free to choose what you want, it is a great blessing to us to have this freedom of choice.  You must decide what you believe and how to proceed in that regards. 

I received my answer many years ago.  I continue to pray to have that testimony strengthened, and receive regular witnessing by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true and that the gospel found therein is also true.  I hope that you can find this testimony, or if not continue to have hope that you might be able to find what you are looking for.

I know this is probably not the definitive answer you were looking for, as it lays the choice back into your court and ultimately as your decision in how to proceed forward in life.  Hopefully though, it gives you a little guidance on what you ultimately decide to do in whether to accept or reject the gospel as taught in the LDS church.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Wonderer said:

Either 100% true or 100% false.

If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

These are actually two different questions.  I don't think that anyone believes the Church is 100% true simply because there are SO MANY doctrines with intricacies that we have yet to fully understand.  So, statements made by some prophets may not be 100% accurate.  Now, I know some people will try to scrutinize this statement because technically, if the individual belief happens to be incorrect, well, it isn't really a true doctrine of the Church...  Let's just stick a pin in that for now.  Speaking generally, the entire body of beliefs that we claim are "official doctrines" of the Church are possibly 99.9% correct.  But we come across some things that we may not really know -- at least, not as we currently understand them in a general sense. 

This does not mean the Church isn't true or that Jospeh Smith wasn't a prophet of God.  It is true. He was a prophet of God.

The second line that I quoted above is quite different.  We're talking about the foundation of why we believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church upon the face of the Earth with which the Lord is well pleased.  If the story that Joseph Smith provided about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is false, then the Church is FALSE.  It is still a "good" church.  It teaches faith in Jesus Christ, it has many good teachings about how people ought to behave.  We have great family values.  We have emphasis on many traits of character that are admired by all. Etc. Etc.  But it then becomes "just another church" among many.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

I believe that if you were to grow up without the Book of Mormon, your understanding If the Fall, Atonement, Resurection, and the Plan If Salvation in general would be greatly hindered. Chapters like 1 Nephi 8,11-15, 2 Nephi 9, Alma 5, Alma 11 Alma 39-42, Helaman 5, Ether 12, Moroni 8, Moroni 10 and so many more have such deep doctrinal truth that the New Testament just doesn’t have. 

I would add my two favorites:  2 Nephi 2 and Alma 32.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

13 hours ago, Wonderer said:

If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

That is for you to decide, preferably in consultation with your Heavenly Father.  

To me, as long as you continue reading the Book of Mormon and find it inspiring and useful in becoming like Christ, that will be great. Who knows, you might eventually come to believe as I do that the Book of Mormon speaks to us as if from the dust.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[askandanswer]

For me, the truthfulness of the church is not dependent on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is not dependent on the truthfulness of the church. I have seperate, independent testimonies of the truthfulness of the church and the truthfulness of the BOok of Mormon. I've always been somewhat puzzled by the not uncommon line of preaching that says if you know the Book of Mormon is true, then you must know that the church is true. If that was true, then the church known as the Community of Christ would not exist because they all believe in the BOok of Mormon so they should all believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For me, each truth stands on its own. For me, the idea that the Book of Mormon is the foundation stone or the keystone of the arch that holds the church up is based on the wrong kind of imagery, whereby one stone is laid on top of another, and everything depends on the one stone. I view my testimony more as lots of stones lain side by side, each close to, but independent of each other, rather than in an interdependent relationship one on top of the other with everything depending on every stone holding its place.

[zil]

IMO, if one is going to question the Book of Mormon, one should get seriously educated on the various evidences for its truth.  These posts will include a lot of redundancy, but am including links to multiple in case one mentions something the others don't.

... The only possibility left open is that the very real authors of the Book of Mormon collaborated to include, and maintain, lies in their stories.  For example, when they wrote "horse", they had in their minds the same creatures we have in our minds when we see the word "horse", yet there were no horses, they just said there were horses.  I find that more preposterous than that there were creatures they called horses - why would they bother?  Far more likely is either that there were horses, and we just haven't found proof of that yet, or there were creatures they called horses, but we wouldn't call them horses.

Dismissing the Book of Mormon due to lack of evidence is using ignorance (the absence of knowledge) as a foundation upon which to build.  This seems like a poor foundation upon which to build.  Better to believe despite the absence of discovery of physical evidence (the very definition of faith), trusting in Christ - the sure foundation - that all will be made clear eventually, and that in the meantime, faith in the truth of the Book of Mormon is what will yield positive results in one's life.

Science and history are full of one generation proving erroneous both the doubts and the certainties of a previous generation.  Physical evidence, science, and historical conclusions are not terribly trustworthy compared to the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

[Jane_Doe]

22 hours ago, Wonderer said:

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring men unto Christ.  It is not to be a history book.  Just like the Bible itself (on another thread right now we got a discussion gong on the historicity of Noah's flood).

For me: if a book's purpose is to bring men to Christ, and it does indeed bring me closer to Christ, then it is good.   I don't look to non-history books for learning of history, or biology, or other topics. 

[Rob Osborn]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:12 AM, Wonderer said:

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

If the Book of Mormon isnt true historically then our entire religion is a fraud and we should all walk away and reject the church as a complete fraud also. That said, Im not walking away. Why? Because the Book of Mormon is true, it is an actual historical record. Thus, our church is true.

[Guest]

I often wonder what the purpose of posts like this OP is really about.  He drops something like this asking a question when he's obviously already made up his mind.  So, why bother dropping a question, then bailing without even taking the time to read the responses?  Why do people do that?

Edited May 8, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:12 AM, Wonderer said:

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

 

If you have a more proven historical document of Ancient America – I would be most interested in reading, studying and researching it.  It is my personal understanding that whatever criticism has been made in the almost 200 years since it publication - that there has not been any archeological finding that definitively proved that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate.   And that all the archeological finding has shown that the Book of Mormon is more accurate than any other document created within 100 years of it publication.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:12 AM, Wonderer said:

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time.

OK, so you have a problem with prophets quoting prophets? Does it bother you when in general conference when our current prophets quote past prophets? The Book of Mormon was either translated from the plates that took an appearance of gold or not. The Book of Mormon doesn't even hide the fact that it is quoting prophets from previous generations. Anti-Mormons would like you to see this as an issue, it isn't.

Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc.

As @Jane_Doe mentioned from the Noah Flood thread, you are having a similar experience the other OP has of "it doesn't fit." You are basing your decision from "limited" knowledge, because current science says, "It doesn't fit within the current model," which could change anytime. Let me give you one I heard from the mission. The population described in the Book of Mormon never existed on the American continent. Then all of a sudden we have a new discovery, that a certain population only thought to be "this big" is now "bigger," even up to 3 times bigger than previously thought. When we place our knowledge on limited information, and then make that our "fact" we will miss the mark just like the children of Israel and others have.

Nothing is out of place, unless of course we only accept man's limited knowledge regarding what they can find and say, "This is fact."

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience.

This is wonderful! The first time I read the New Testament all the way through I was also blessed with life changing ideas and thoughts as provided by the Spirit. The Book of Mormon as its companion increased this experience as the Lord's Spirit would bring back to my remembrance other scriptures that highlighted and expounded aspects from the New Testament.

It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM.

Let's clarify this a little. Without the Doctrine and Covenants these "profound doctrines" would be no different than any other Christian religion. Through modern day revelation these doctrines have been clarified and expounded upon, and if you ask any Christian pastor the verses you are specifying would not be interpreted the same way as we Mormons interpret it. So when you say, not addressed in the Book of Mormon, they aren't even expounded upon in the New Testament without prophetic revelation.

Other people on here have expounded scriptures and topics which are not in the NT. I am not sure if mentioned, but to add if not (or give second witness) the concept of mercy and justice in such plainness is not in the New Testament. The concept of the correlation between faith and hope is not in our New Testament in such plainness. Reminds me of an investigator who once shared, although the NT doesn't specify or clarify in such plainness, that faith and hope are necessary for each other. When I shared with her the words of the Book of Mormon her eyes lit up with such gratitude it was awesome to witness. What she had believed was right there in the Book of Mormon.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is?

The Book of Mormon is literally what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. If not, Joseph would be a liar with regards to the Book of Mormon. He would be as anti-Mormon scholars would say, "A con man." The Book of Mormon was never meant to be a detailed "history" of the people of Nephi. As such, we have a small portion of what happened historically and how it happened.

Modern day revelation gives witness, "Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy ^afathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles." If Nephi and others did not exist historically, then why specify in modern revelation that laws were given unto them? I mean the Book of Mormon prophet Moroni visited Joseph letting him know where the plates were buried.

What is more shocking, and this is just me, is the thoughts I am entertaining if you are truly a member.  I only say this because your post is typical of all anti-Mormon rhetoric of why you appear to be struggling with Book of Mormon. The kicker for me is the NT and Paul.  I am more thrilled about the 4 gospels which share Christ's actual words, than Pauls; although, Paul's words are great, but a good majority of anti-Mormon rhetoric is within the words of Paul. If you are a member, then I would give counsel as a brother in Christ to stop listening to the world and what the world says (i.e. horses, doesn't fit), and allow God to teach you what is true.

If at this moment, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance regarding Book of Mormon, and saying it is an allegory will help, or a beautiful story by Joseph, then run with it until your heart is softened enough for the Spirit to bear witness of its truth. Do not allow the adversary to take you away from the gospel of Jesus Christ once again upon this earth.

 

[Guest]

@Wonderer,

You know the same scholars that question the Isaiah authorship also question the Pauline authorship to the point they think they need to throw out most of the Pauline epistles.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Guest

[CV75]

On 5/5/2018 at 11:12 AM, Wonderer said:

Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.

Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.

My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source?  This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church? 

What do you think the Book of Mormon says it is (I look to the Title Page for that)?

Just because ancient people prepared a good faith history that doesn't meet your understanding of what constitutes authentic history, doesn't mean the Book of Mormon, for all intents and purposes, isn't a legitimate testament. If you have a witness of the book per Moroni's Promise, then the book is what it says it is. If you have a witness of the truthfulness of the Church, then the Church is likewise.

Have you "concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isn't accurate"? What exactly do you mean by "accurate" and do you think that is what Moroni was alluding to?

Edited May 8, 2018 by CV75