The Real Book of Mormon

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have had my doubts with the different Latter-Day Saint truths. I think we argue in our minds sometimes too much over small details. I believe the following statement made by Wilford Woodruff with my whole heart:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, page 2.)"

If we stay close to the counsel of the prophet we will not be led astray. If you have confusion and doubt in your mind pray to your Heavenly Father and ask Him if the Thomas Monson is the living prophet of God and if His counsel is the word of the Lord.

I also know the following statement by Ezra Taft Benson is true:

"There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony. The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. …"

"[it] broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. The Book of Mormon … was written for our day. In [it] we find a pattern for preparing for the Second Coming. …

"The Book of Mormon teaches us truth [and] bears testimony of Jesus Christ. … But there is something more. There is a power in the book which will begin to flow into your lives the moment you begin a serious study of the book. You will find greater power to resist temptation. You will find the power to avoid deception. You will find the power to stay on the strait and narrow path. The scriptures are called ‘the words of life,’ and nowhere is that more true than it is of the Book of Mormon. … ‘Every Latter-day Saint should make the study of this book a lifetime pursuit’ " (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, pages 4–7; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, pages 5–7).

[Elgama]

The problem is, friend, that the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth. There's no way around it.

If it were a myth, then the Book of Mormon is lying to us.

Of course, it isn't lying to us. What it says, in all respects, is true.h

The whole point of this post is that IT HAS TO BE REAL, or it is a fraud.

As far I can gather it is Joseph Smith's testimony that it is historically accurate - there is nothing wrong with someone holding that testimony I do myself but what I am saying is my testimony is based on the whisperings of the Holy Ghost not on the Book of Mormon, I am very happy to change my testimony as I learn and grow and understand more - as I am sure Joseph Smith or President Monson would like President Hinckley said in his 90s he was still an investigator. It does not have to be 100% historical truth for me to believe it is essential for my eternal progression.

The Godhead is the sure foundation to rest our testimony on - anything that has human influences and understandings connected to it is a sandy foundation and that includes the Book of Mormon several times we are told the writings are only mighty because God makes them so He is the author of the Book no matter who actually penned it. If God bothered to author something we can trust it is worthwhile to our soul whether it has its origins in historical facts or is a series of myths and legends that contain symbols to help us understand. Books like Isaiah, Hebrew, Revelation are all full of symbols and very sacred - I would not call them worthless to the soul

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

ALL - the BOM is accurate as the authors condensed the materials from other plates. Then we have a latter day translation to scribe issue and last, printer accuracy.

Our own history books have erroneous facts and contain at times biased viewpoints. Those of the teaching profession we maintain this non-fictional novel as truth in our days.

[Hemidakota]

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.

excellent response.

[Elphaba]

The same with any reading material.

No, it is not.

A book is not a sentient being, aware of itself. As I said, it is an inanimate object.

So when JBS said “the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth,“ that is impossible. It has no consciousness and cannot state anything. It cannot state it is not lying because it cannot lie.

The correct way to say it would be “___________ (person JBS is referencing in the BoM) states the Book of Mormon is not a myth, and therefore I believe the Book is not a myth.

But the book itself cannot make a statement.

For example, here are JBS’s words: “The problem is, friend, that the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth. There's no way around it.”

This is impossible, as the BoM cannot state anything. A person in the BoM made the statement, NOT the book.

I do not know the scriptures JBS is referring to, so I am winging this, but the most likely construct would be:

The problem is, friend, that ______________ in the Book of Mormon clearly states it is not a myth. There is no way around it.

If it were a myth, then ______________ in the BoM is lying to us.

Of course, _________ isn’t lying to us. What _______________says, in all respects, is true.

The whole point of this post is that it has to be real, or it is a fraud. (This sentence is appropriate as the identity of the person(s) giving the information has already been named.)

The bottom line, a book is an inanimate object and cannot “state” anything. A character in the book is the one who should be referenced.

Elphaba

[THIRDpersonviewer]

No, it is not.

A book is not a sentient being, aware of itself. As I said, it is an inanimate object.

So when JBS said “the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth,“ that is impossible. It has no consciousness and cannot state anything. It cannot state it is not lying because it cannot lie.

The correct way to say it would be “___________ (person JBS is referencing in the BoM) states the Book of Mormon is not a myth, and therefore I believe the Book is not a myth.

But the book itself cannot make a statement.

For example, here are JBS’s words: “The problem is, friend, that the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth. There's no way around it.”

This is impossible, as the BoM cannot state anything. A person in the BoM made the statement, NOT the book.

I do not know the scriptures JBS is referring to, so I am winging this, but the most likely construct would be:

The problem is, friend, that ______________ in the Book of Mormon clearly states it is not a myth. There is no way around it.

If it were a myth, then ______________ in the BoM is lying to us.

Of course, _________ isn’t lying to us. What _______________says, in all respects, is true.

The whole point of this post is that it has to be real, or it is a fraud. (This sentence is appropriate as the identity of the person(s) giving the information has already been named.)

The bottom line, a book is an inanimate object and cannot “state” anything. A character in the book is the one who should be referenced.

Elphaba

The problem with that whole argument is that your pointing out the specific grammatical errors(correct possession) in speaking in such tones. Those are the words of God. Does that mean a voice lifts them up off the page and speaks to me vocally? No. As the Book of Mormon states a truth, So does God.

[Elphaba]

The problem with that whole argument is that your pointing out the specific grammatical errors(correct possession) in speaking in such tones. Those are the words of God. Does that mean a voice lifts them up off the page and speaks to me vocally? No. As the Book of Mormon states a truth, So does God.

Then God is the speaker, not the book.

Elphaba

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Then God is the speaker, not the book.

Elphaba

I agree but when we talk of "original sources," places we look to, to find truth. We speak of Scripture, Apostles and Prophets, and the Spirit(in direct manifestations). So President Monson stated truth, the word of God, God speaks to us in that way but it was stated by President Monson. Just as the scriptures state something. But it is still God speaking.

I guess what I am saying is that it is understood that God is the speaker in the Book of Mormon(inherently), but the Book of Mormon is the unified source of validity to a person's own statements in conversations relating to the revealed word, or truth. So it would be referred to as the source and not God because that fact is an implication. The Bible works in the same way.

Read that carefully, it is easy to be misinterpreted. That also is a signifier of the fact that it doesn't matter. Truth is not a delicate balance. It can easily be said without fear of contradiction, because it stands on its own as a self-existent principle. But in details, such as this, we start to draw in human analysis and don't let it stand on its own reason.

[Hemidakota]

No, it is not.

A book is not a sentient being, aware of itself. As I said, it is an inanimate object.

So when JBS said “the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth,“ that is impossible. It has no consciousness and cannot state anything. It cannot state it is not lying because it cannot lie.

The correct way to say it would be “___________ (person JBS is referencing in the BoM) states the Book of Mormon is not a myth, and therefore I believe the Book is not a myth.

But the book itself cannot make a statement.

For example, here are JBS’s words: “The problem is, friend, that the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is not a myth. There's no way around it.”

This is impossible, as the BoM cannot state anything. A person in the BoM made the statement, NOT the book.

I do not know the scriptures JBS is referring to, so I am winging this, but the most likely construct would be:

The problem is, friend, that ______________ in the Book of Mormon clearly states it is not a myth. There is no way around it.

If it were a myth, then ______________ in the BoM is lying to us.

Of course, _________ isn’t lying to us. What _______________says, in all respects, is true.

The whole point of this post is that it has to be real, or it is a fraud. (This sentence is appropriate as the identity of the person(s) giving the information has already been named.)

The bottom line, a book is an inanimate object and cannot “state” anything. A character in the book is the one who should be referenced.

Elphaba

If you say so....

[Hemidakota]

The problem with that whole argument is that your pointing out the specific grammatical errors(correct possession) in speaking in such tones. Those are the words of God. Does that mean a voice lifts them up off the page and speaks to me vocally? No. As the Book of Mormon states a truth, So does God.

Same here...reading the book becomes alive for me. Actors, stage, location, and dialog.

[Maya]

We cannot prove the Book of Mormon to be true. But the Holy Ghost does. It is true. But to every person who knows it's true, it is because the Holy Ghost has witnessed and testified to them that it is true. That is what we all have in common, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is not because President Hinckley said it is true. Not because Elder McConkie said it is true. Not because my Dad says it is true. Not because your bishop says it is true. It is because you know individually and independent of any other person that it is true.

Could someone explain HOW COME it is so diffficult for some to even think that when we find arceolocigal findings they WONT bear the lable of Nephities or Lamanitise...or... but something else, but they stil are from them... some of them. Why should they read Nephis people build this or made this, in an old israelit language?

It is interesting that by Usmachita river the lowland Maya moved north around 350 AD leaving many cities unhabited... Not mentoining that many of the cities around there were started around 600BC. Also Maya have a history that tells about a man coming to the land with a boat. He had many sons who all had their tribe that was called by their fathers name, except for one that had no sons. Also there is the story of the tree of life... This was conclutions from Maya conferance...

Some people are stil waiting for a thing written about in the BoM, that bears a name from the BoM... they would prefere finding a note with the thing in English: owned by Nephi!

[Hemidakota]

There are two cities if my memory serves me right with my last study in this field, have close spelling to those presented in the BOM.

Remember also, some of these cities were given names by those who founded the area. Strange but nothing in relation to the last owners. Others, were taken from what ever artifacts found. This doesn't mean, when the Lamanites took over those cities didn't change the name and wiped away all traces of the original builders. This had happen throughout civilizations and history.

Now, that was not his intention, it is mere testimony of what is, is the key; not to rely or borrow light from others.

[Moksha]

I ran across this post by philosopher Bill on the LDS forum at Beliefnet and I thought back to the "literal-or-else-worthless" argument on this thread. This is so well written, it is worthy of consideration:

There's a lot of cool stuff in the Bible, stuff that gets cooler when you're not trying to argue its historicity. Did God really rain all those plagues down on Egypt? For that matter, was Moses even there? Did Moses even exist? Were the Jews ever really slaves in Egypt? I think there's a solid argument for the idea that the whole book of Exodus was written after the Babylonian Captivity and was, in fact, a coded text against the Babylonians. I won't go into all the arguments here, but the story plays better when you think of it in operatic terms. This is the story of oppression, of people who feel helpless, and of the idea that oppression can end. Was Jehovah for real, or was he just a literary device - a figure representing the power to effect change?

I don't know and frankly I don't care.

I get more out of the story as an allegory. Even the greatest oppression, by the greatest oppressors, can be turned around. And if it could work for Moses and the Children of Israel, why couldn't it work in your life and mine?

We talk about true prophets and false ones, but the conventional view of prophets - as soothsayers and foretellers of future events - is overrated. The prophets of the Old Testament predicted the future, but only within stories we can never validate in the first place. Did they see the future or were they merely written that way? While the Bible has plenty of prophecies which have yet to come true, most of what it has to say belongs to the ever-present here and now. It's always better to honor your parents, love your neighbor, keep your hands to yourself, watch your lusts and look out for others. To me, the most beneficial parts are those which guide and direct. It's as if some earlier generation had passed down some great wisdom: "Do this and this will happen. Don't do this and that will happen."

If there's a heaven, I'll be happy to stand in line for the buffet. But my focus is on the here and now. I'm really trying to find happiness in the only world I know anything about. I don't necessarily believe that the heavens weep whenever a can of beer is opened, but I'm contented to avoid something that depletes paychecks, causes drunk-driving deaths and leads people to wake up in strange homes, next to strange people and say, "Did you and I, uh . . . ?"

I wish there were less emphasis on God weeping, like an Indian in the littering ads, and more emphasis on basic cause and effect. If God really is tearing up, I hopes it's for the things we do to each other, not the rules we managed to break. If there's any great virtue that has made itself known to me, it's the virtue of balance, what Aristotle called The Golden Mean. The difference between medicine and poison is in the application. Everything good is capable of being turned and twisted against us. True wisdom is to see the folly behind every opportunity and to have the agility to walk carefully around the snake pits. Pimps and politicians pander to our every passion, ever-ready to lead us down the primrose path. But the safety of ascetics is not a solution, either. We can't shut out the world and crawl back into our caves. The trick is to balance boldness with vigilance, so that we're always seeing from more than one angle.

Whatever Mormonism was - and there are always folks at the ready to tell us - for a great many others, Mormonism is a lifestyle in which children grow up believing they're the sons and daughters of God. They are raised by parents who feel no less burdened than Mary and Joseph were in raising the baby Jesus. These children hopefully grow up in homes where the parents don't drink, where every Monday is Family Home Evening night, where Daddy baptized the kids and gave them blessings when they skinned their knees, where Junior learns about manhood from home-teaching with Dad while his sister learns the lessons of womanhood from someone who doesn't hang around in bars or crack houses. By the time and LDS child reaches adulthood, he or she will have learned countless lessons in public speaking, organizational behavior, textual analysis, campfire management and politics. At about the time he might otherwise be in college, getting drunk and laid with his fraternity pals, the average 19-year-old male is serving a mission.

What's so wrong with wanting to be married in a temple, with hoping your relationship lasts forever, with wanting to bring up clean kids in a clean environment? What's so bad about giving of your time and talents to the community? What's so bad about looking at the world from the perspective of something bigger than yourself?

This is, in my opinion, what the religion is really about.

[skalenfehl]

Please watch the video in my profile about scientific proof and the Book of Mormon.

[manxman]

Moska-Is that what you believe? going hopefully through the motions is not going to get you far-working through with faith would be much more productive-and there is a marked difference,particularly in our ability to endure the hardships when we have the faith to hang in with. Your apparently off handed manner worries me-yes, these things are good for people,but of no benefit without the faith to power their operations, and the close contact with the living God to guide them. the church welfare system has had many try to copy it, but none are so successful as we with it, because it is spirit driven, not man driven. Ditto our volunteer missionary program, there's nothing else like it in the world, because it is the Lord's, and he will see it succeed.

[Moksha]

Moska-Is that what you believe?

I think Bill makes some very good points about the value of the Mormon Church without demanding a need for historicity.

[Elgama]

I love what Bill writes - it echos some of what I feel that even if I do believe the Church is true I find the idea that if the scriptures were not historical they would be worthless weird - whether something is allegory or not it is the Word of God

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps, historicity is an eternal principle that we will come to discover requires great diligence with record accuracy.