The Real Book of Mormon

[JohnBirchSociety]

Some have questioned the historical literalness of the Book of Mormon.

This position is completely opposed to the clear statements that the work makes.

First, the BofM was brought forth through the instrumentality of an angel, Moroni. Moroni was / is therefore a real person, a literal person. Therefore, so is his family, and his ancestors. If this were not the logical conclusion, then where exactly did this "Moroni" being come from.

I can see questions about the accuracy of the accounts in the BofM. For example, the counts of how many people died may not be 100% accurate. Or the finer details of every event may not have been recorded precisely as they occurred (I think we see this in the Bible as well).

However, the central people, places, events in the Book of Mormon can only be taken as being literally true. If not, then the work is a fraud, because it claims to be true, literally true.

Comments!?

[NeuroTypical]

I'm thinking that the BoM loses a lot of its plausability once you start talking about how it is not a record of real people and real places.

I'm also thinking that some people may feel forced into considering such a position, due to misunderstanding the various archaeological and DNA-themed criticisms of the book.

The criticisms don't hold as much water as it may appear at first glance.

If anyone wants to know more about the DNA issue, FARMS is an excellent resource. Take a look.

LM

[sixpacktr]

Mother Smith tells of Joseph describing Nephite culture at times, in such a way that it seemed very clear to them. Hugh Nibley always stated that he thought it a waste of time trying to figure out exactly where the BoM takes place (finding Zarahemla, the Land Bountiful, etc), but then he would talk of how the Indians had folklore of the 'big red city' where their ancestors came from, etc.

I too am of the belief that these are real people, real events, real doctrine. I posted in another thread a while back the total ridiculousness of trying to state someone as illiterate as Joseph could have written such a complex book.

Besides, I can't wait to meet the Nephis, Moroni, Mormon, the Almas, Abinada, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Ammon, Omner, Himni, Aaron, Zeezrom, Amulek, etc., etc., etc. These guys stand out to me as true heroes that inspire me every time I read their story.

[Moksha]

I think all or nothing propositions tend to box us into a corrner when there is a very large territory outside the box.

Symbolic truths derived from allegory can enrich our lives.

[sixpacktr]

I think all or nothing propositions tend to box us into a corrner when there is a very large territory outside the box.

Symbolic truths derived from allegory can enrich our lives.

Which stories or people or events out of the BoM would you call 'allegory'?

[a-train]

The historic facts of World War II are debated. Many debate whether there is sufficient historical evidence to support the existance of Jesus of Nazareth. Many are debating Old Testament historicity and accuracy. History becomes more and more debated as it effects politics.

Many Americans are in complete denial of the U.S. government murder and plunder of Iraqi and Iranian citizens.

I certainly agree that Lehi and his sons were not characters in an allegory. This was not the claim of Joseph Smith. Attempts to claim that Joseph may have not understood the allegorical nature of the Book of Mormon suffer from the flawed and prideful notion that we know more about the Book of Mormon than the prophet to whom it was delivered by the hand of Moroni.

-a-train

[jjrogers]

we will get to meet them, at judgement day. I plan on asking them to autograph my Book Of Mormon.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I think all or nothing propositions tend to box us into a corrner when there is a very large territory outside the box.

Symbolic truths derived from allegory can enrich our lives.

But the Book of Mormon people were literally manifested to Joseph Smith, et. al., and therefore, are presented as literal, real people, with real families, who lived in real places, etc.

I don't think the people, places, or major events in the Book of Mormon can rationally be taken as allegorical. The Book itself handles these things as being literal and real. If they aren't literally real, then Joseph Smith did not really see Moroni, did not really heft ancient metal plates with writing on them, etc...

It really is all or nothing as to the literal nature of the people, places, events in the Book of Mormon.

Where we may have leeway is in the accuracy of accounts of events. All of the accounts of the events may not be 100% accurate. The Book of Mormon allows for this, but it doesn't allow for a conclusion that Lehi, et. al., never actually existed.

[tubaloth]

However, the central people, places, events in the Book of Mormon can only be taken as being literally true. If not, then the work is a fraud, because it claims to be true, literally true.

The argument is a little more then that. (Let me play the Devils advocate a little bit).

Okay Moroni was real, so maybe Moroni one more line is added at the end of the book of mormon which Moroni says, "Oh and then I woke up.

What if Moroni just had a DREAM of a family coming across the ocean, and find a compass to lead there way, and having the people split up (you always need a good vs bad in any story).

Whats the difference from Moroni Having some dream, and Lehi and Nephi having a dream of a Tree of life, and people walking towards it. Or even how Nephi saw what would happen on the Americas.

So is what Moroni wrote just something he made up, but the was told by God what to write, or was there a record actually kept for 1000 years.

I do agree, with what has been said, that Nephi really did build a ship, he really did break his Bow. But does that matter as much as what the lessons are that we learn? Maybe there was no Nephi that saw the Tree of life, does the hurt the tree of life story any more? We can still learn from it. The one thing that doesn't change is the book came from God!

[MorningStar]

I believe it is historical. :)

[JohnBirchSociety]

The argument is a little more then that. (Let me play the Devils advocate a little bit).

Okay Moroni was real, so maybe Moroni one more line is added at the end of the book of mormon which Moroni says, "Oh and then I woke up.

What if Moroni just had a DREAM of a family coming across the ocean, and find a compass to lead there way, and having the people split up (you always need a good vs bad in any story).

Whats the difference from Moroni Having some dream, and Lehi and Nephi having a dream of a Tree of life, and people walking towards it. Or even how Nephi saw what would happen on the Americas.

So is what Moroni wrote just something he made up, but the was told by God what to write, or was there a record actually kept for 1000 years.

I do agree, with what has been said, that Nephi really did build a ship, he really did break his Bow. But does that matter as much as what the lessons are that we learn? Maybe there was no Nephi that saw the Tree of life, does the hurt the tree of life story any more? We can still learn from it. The one thing that doesn't change is the book came from God!

Yes, the stories are actually worthless if just stories and not actual history. The reason is that the Book of Mormon clearly states that the people, places, events, were real. A real angel appeared to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith had real ancient metal plates, etc...

If it were just a dream of Moroni then he was lying as well in the manner in which he recorded his "dream"...

Again, I think there is room to discuss the accuracy of the particulars of specific events as recorded (and the Book of Mormon actually addresses this in a few places). What cannot honestly be debated is whether Moroni and the whole nine yards actually existed.

If the Book of Mormon is not a real history, then it is lying to us. We should not base our eternal salvation on a lie.

If the Book of Mormon is not real, how can we accept the First Vision as real, or even the Prophetic calling of Joseph Smith?

Of course the answer is that the Book of Mormon must be what it claims to be, a real history of a real people, who actually existed. It also claims to have errors of men in it, but to say those men never existed doesn't jive with the claims of the work.

I frankly wouldn't be LDS if the Book of Mormon is just fiction. Just as I wouldn't be Christian if the Christian claims of salvation are fiction.

[Dale]

If a meso-American text on paper turned up mentioning a lost city we could not find it. My hypo-thetical text would date to Book of Mormon times. The reason is that the place names are lost from Book of Mormon times. And only some place names that we do know date to late Book of Mormon times. And these are from paces not proposed as Nephite territory. So if you found a text we would not know if the city were fiction or fact based on the text alone.

With Bible cities we have civilizations that left clear records. So they mention Biblical places. But with Meso-America we have no such luxury. So at most until ancient names turn up all Dr. Sorenson can do is construct a careful proposed map. These maps are drawn from a careful study of the text. No next steps with the maps are possible, but to maybe improve them until lost city names turn up.

With the names being lost we have no absolute test of the truth of these maps.

I was watching Bible vs. The Book of Mormon , and reading Brant Gardners review of it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

The only thing which I query about the Book of Mormon is what they mean by "city" - we would think of something like London or New York but I'm sure they meant something much smaller, some sort of settlement maybe which wouldn't deserve the name "city" in our eyes.

If I didn't believe the Book of Mormon was true then what would be the point of it? If it was full of made up stuff how could we trust that the principles it teaches are correct? I accept that it is what it claims to be, another testament of Jesus Christ and an accurate account, as far as the writers are able, of the people who lived on the American continent who were descended from Lehi and his family and from the Jaredites and so on.

[Ray A]

Comments!?

I have one "weird" (?) advantage over you, Cog (?). I will never turn against Joseph Smith, even if the BoM is fiction. And let my critics laugh and question to scorn. I like to keep them in derision.

[Joette]

Remember that a lot of the accounts being written were made long years after the events.

It can be like family stories-there is a lot of truth there but you can't always separate fact from fiction & sometimes we apply our rational to explain events which may not fit what actually happened.

Joseph Smith saw these men of the Book of Mormon,He was a Prophet therefore they exsisted

[pam]

I find nothing in the BOM to be allegorical. I believe them to be complete truths, things that really happened. A history of the Americas.

[Latter Days Guy]

I also believe that the book of Mormon is true, a historically accurate document that gives us a detailed account of the people and events it contains. I cannot think of any examples where the Church has said anything other than that the BoM is a historical document either.

[skalenfehl]

When Christ was crucified and He died on the cross the world mourned and there were severe tempests, and massive natural disasters. We read in the Book of Mormon about cities collapsing, some being completely buried, covering up the sins of its inhabitants, others being swallowed up by the sea. If the Lord did not want to leave these cities standing in view, I believe He is entirely capable of concealing them from His eyes and ours.

That said, there are still signs of civilizations descended from the people of the Book of Mormon, but it seems the proof that they are connected is debatable. In my mind it is an issue of faith and that is the way the Lord will have it. Think about it. As it is the world is struggling with Christianity even with proof of biblical cities and artifacts still in existence! But that is not enough for many to believe that Christ walked the earth and if there are people that believe He did, well then, maybe He was just a great man. Had Jerusalem been destroyed like some cities of the Book of Mormon were and covered up forever I can imagine the unbelief of the world population today. But we need that anchor, that evidence that Christ did walk the Earth. Without that, perhaps the less valiant of the world would fall into Satan's grip given that they, in their ignorant state, would be left to their own devices.

If people have a hard enough time believing that Christ lived and that there is a God, then what difference would it really make if the city of Zarahemla really was found or if perhaps a gold plate or two had been discovered. There would still be something to criticize, something to doubt, something to dispute and something more to disbelieve to people's condemnation.

Just my two cents.

[Moksha]

I have one "weird" (?) advantage over you, Cog (?).

Wait a minute, are you saying JBS is actually Coggins?

[Ray A]

Wait a minute, are you saying JBS is actually Coggins?

I think so.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Who is Coggins?

[Ray A]

Who is Coggins?

I'm probably wrong, just some similarities. Coggins is a long time poster on LDS related boards, who likes to take on "antis".

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm probably wrong, just some similarities. Coggins is a long time poster on LDS related boards, who likes to take on "antis".

I'm not "Coggins". I've only posted using one other name: mcguirerod (though here I've only used JohnBirchSociety)

You are right about one thing, I do find it fascinating to engage in discussions with people who are against the LDS paradigm.

[Ray A]

I'm not "Coggins". I've only posted using one other name: mcguirerod (though here I've only used JohnBirchSociety)

You are right about one thing, I do find it fascinating to engage in discussions with people who are against the LDS paradigm.

Thanks for the clarification. Cogs must be your long lost twin.

(I like Cogs, btw.)

[COUNTRYBEAR]

I belive in the truth of the book of mormon, if you trust in christ then we must accept that the saviour would not wast his time or insult us with a fraudulant work. Too many saints ancient and modern have lost their lives defending its truth and principles it would be a base betrayal of their loyalty for the Saviour to use such a base deception.