Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Objective Truth of the Book of Mormon


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 119 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 14, 2013 1:29:33 PM PDT
What its the best way to know whether the Book of Mormon is true? I've heard LDS missionaries say, "pray about it." If people pray about it and feel nothing, is there a more objective way of knowing whether it's true?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 2:05:41 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
I've heard that if you stand in front of your bathroom mirror holding a Book of Mormon at exactly midnight and say Joseph Smith's full name three times in rapid succession without getting spittle on the glass, then the Angel Moroni will appear before you bringing divine assurance that everything in the Book is true.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 2:16:03 PM PDT
Ronald:

Have you tried this? :-)

Hows the Arabic? Is it hard? I started picking it up a few years back, but didn't follow up when the expected job didn't go through.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 2:25:48 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Well... it's definitely easier than the Navajo. ;)

I honestly haven't done much with it since returning to the States in mid-2011. I have been thinking about getting back into it here lately, though. For me, the morphology was the really interesting aspect.

And, no, I don't have a copy of the Book of Mormon, so no midnight experiments [yet?]. Although my uncle did give me a copy of a collection of writings from that Warren Jeffs sect, that someone recently left in the mailbox at their church over in Kentucky. I haven't really looked through it yet but am hoping it contains selections from, or even the whole of, the BoM. :)

Posted on Mar 14, 2013 4:28:20 PM PDT
It's interesting you would bring this up. I was reading just the other day about the Book of Mormon having been edited, citing "revelations from God." I guess this brings up the possibility that the "inerrant and immutable" God would be changing its mind. So was the Book of Mormon fundamentally wrong prior to the 1978 editing?

By Joanna Brooks

Mormon Church Rewrites Its Racist History
The edited Book of Mormon includes 1978 revelations from God that reversed the Church's position on banning black priests.
March 11, 2013 |

A newly released digital edition of the four books of LDS or Mormon scripture-the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price-includes editorial changes that reflect a shifting official view on issues like polygamy, the Church's history of racism, and the historicity of LDS scripture.

Perhaps the most significant is the inclusion of a new heading to precede the now-canonized 1978 announcement of the end of the LDS Church's ban on black priesthood ordination:

The Book of Mormon teaches that "all are alike unto God," including "black and white, bond and free, male and female" (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith's lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Church leaders have long maintained public ambiguity about the history of the ban and its end; they have rarely acknowledged the ordination of early African-American Mormons nor have they cited anti-racist teaching in the Book of Mormon in connection with the Church's own troubled history on race. The new heading historicizes the ban (suggesting the influence of a robust Church History department) and depicts it as a contradiction to the original impulses of the faith, not corrected until 1978. The heading does, some commentators have noted, offer continuing cover to Brigham Young, whose on-the-record racist statements to the Utah legislature suggest his influence in the evolution of a non-ordination policy. Commentators also note the absence of reference to the fact that black women were not historically admitted to LDS temple worship until the 1978 announcement.

Another significant change is to the introduction to the Pearl of Great Price, a book of scripture long presented as a direct translation of Egyptian papyri obtained by Joseph Smith but shown by Egyptologists to have no connection to their source material. The new edition now characterizes the Book of Abraham as an "inspired translation" of the papyri. Changes to the introduction to the now-canonized official announcement of the end of institutionally-sanctioned polygamy also suggest an effort to historicize polygamy and connect it with Book of Mormon teachers that teach monogamy as "God's standard."

These are the most significant changes made to Mormon scripture since 1981.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/mormon-church-rewrites-its-racist-history?akid=10167.127314.PU-2FV&rd=1&src=newsletter807453&t=5

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 5:03:45 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 5:04:41 PM PDT
but what about all the sulfur and brimstone odor he emits ?

why is he dressed in red
why does his tail have a sharp trident on it

what about the horns on his head

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 5:23:59 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 8:13:25 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Keep reading better books.
You will know that a lot of your Bible is false as well. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 8:26:37 PM PDT
Why do you care? Your OWN Lutheran church puts out a dirty list- A list of religions who aren't qualified to call themselves 'Christian' but do anyway. Somehow the authority to undertake this action was given to ya'll by the Heavens.

So why the hell do you care then what the Mormons believe or don't believe to be true?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 9:40:21 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 10:23:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2013 10:25:33 PM PDT
How precious! You actually link to a post by William Dampier. His post contains no citations or sourcing. We had a conversation about the Book of Abraham and the Pearl of Great Price (the so-called Joseph Smith papyri) back when you took me to task for calling Kolob a planet, when you insisted it was a star.

When you can show through an objective (i.e., non-LDS) Egyptologist that Smith's translations are accurate, I'll accept that. But citing another poster on the Amazon forums is pretty feeble, Niv. Wikipedia has this to say about the papyri:

"The Book of Abraham papyri were thought lost in the 1871 Great Chicago Fire. However, in 1966 several fragments of the papyri were found in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and in the LDS Church archives. They are now referred to as the Joseph Smith Papyri. Upon examination by professional Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists, the papyri were found to bear no resemblance to Joseph Smith's interpretation, and were common Egyptian funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC. As a result, the Book of Abraham has been the source of significant controversy, with Mormon apologists offering a variety of explanations as to the reason for the differences."

Apparently you have nothing to say about the editing of the Book of Mormon. How telling.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 10:34:46 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 10:37:44 PM PDT
Settle down, Niv.

What are you objecting to? The phrase "a book of scripture long presented as a direct translation of Egyptian papyri obtained by Joseph Smith but shown by Egyptologists to have no connection to their source material." Are you saying that it's inaccurate? Are you saying that the Pearl of Great Price was never presented as a direct translation of Egyptian papyri? Where are the lies?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 10:57:02 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 10:59:54 PM PDT
What is wrong with you? Why is it SO difficult to give a simple question a simple answer? For the record, I "actual" read his post. So what?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:09:32 PM PDT
QUOTE
Ancient copyists attempting to raise the price of the hypocephalus would include random illustrations to raise the price of the book. These illlustrations are NOT the text. They are thought to have been taken from ancient records unrelated to the text of the Books of Breathing on the hypocephalus, to impress the purchaser.

The people criticizing Joseph Smith because the illustrations don't match the text are not complaining about that any more. What you have read is dated. Critics generally mocked Joseph (in fact they said this was a great howler) for Joseph's saying that two obviously female characters on the woodcut represented Pharaoh and his wife. Only recently have they learned that Pharaoh often had himself drawn as a female to show he had the royal maternal lineage permitting him to be King. Female pharaohs sometimes had themselves drawn as males and wore false beards.
END QUOTE

William has knowledge about the Egyptian language, hence I quote him, I couldn't answer any better by far. You want an answer from me, a relative ignoramus so you can chew and spit me out.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:11:28 PM PDT
Amy Hall says:
That's an evasion if I ever heard one.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:20:19 PM PDT
Rachel Rebecca Riordan's post:
So was the Book of Mormon fundamentally wrong prior to the 1978 editing?
===============================
Is the Bible fundamental wrong before each of it's re-translations or corrections?

The LDS also, made minor word edits in the KJV of the Bible as well. So, is your statement about the book of Mormon equally applicable to the Bible?

Also, most of Joanna Brooks critics pertain to the chapter headings only, which are NOT canon.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:20:29 PM PDT
Niv: William has knowledge about the Egyptian language, hence I quote him, I couldn't answer any better by far. You want an answer from me, a relative ignoramus so you can chew and spit me out.

Rachel: Dampier claims knowledge of Egyptian, but since his post is unsourced, I have to question that and it doesn't address the point in the article I cited. I think it's ridiculous to cite a fellow poster when I specifically requested a non-LDS Egyptologist. I don't have any intention of "chewing and spitting you out." I'm trying to understand your hysterical reaction. Since you can't explain it, I conclude that you like complaining about anyone and anything you think says even the slightest think negative about your church. If you must have outrage, Niv, try to explain it rationally. This attempt of yours was just a mess from start to finish.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:20:41 PM PDT
I agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 11:23:37 PM PDT
Niv: Is the Bible fundamental wrong before each of it's re-translations or corrections?

RRR: Diversion. The Bible is not the subject under discussion. You have evaded answering the question.

Niv: The LDS also, made minor word edits in the KJV of the Bible as well. So, is your statement about the book of Mormon equally applicable to the Bible?

RRR: More evasion. I have to wonder about an apologist who waves shiny objects as a distraction.

Niv: Also, most of Joanna Brooks critics pertain to the chapter headings only, which are NOT canon.

RRR: That makes no sense and doesn't relate to the material. Final grade: F-

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2013 6:31:32 AM PDT
Mrs. Riordan:

I also read the Joanna Brooks article. She's a rarity. A very honest introspective LDS. I love her columns.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2013 6:37:39 AM PDT
King's Men:

Re: "why the [heck] do you care then what the Mormons believe or don't believe to be true?"

A fair question. And in truth, as you obviously suspect, I don't much care about WHAT they care to be true. However, I am deeply interested in WHY they believe things to be true. The reason is that when I speak to people, I don't want to misrepresent people's position on things and thus make a straw man argument. I don't want to misrepresent the LDS position on the subject. From where I stand I can se NO objective reason why anyone would believe the BoM to be true. All the arguments I've heard in favor of its claims are 100% SUBJECTIVE. I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

No need to get excited. If there is no objective basis for the BoM claims to truth, just admit it and move on. I will accept silence on the subject as tacit admission.

Posted on Mar 15, 2013 8:03:18 AM PDT
the book of mormon should be stocked in book stores with the novels
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xa35ed63c)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  119
Initial post:  Mar 14, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions