The most correct book....

[deacon blues]

With the whole LDS world focusing on the Book of Mormon next year, I was wondering, "what does--or doesn't-- make the BOM the most correct book on earth?"

[Palerider]

For being so doctrinally accurate and boasting it contained the "plain and simple" things of the gospel, they sure had to make a ton of corrections to it. Especially considering that God oversaw the "translation".

Messed up:

Godhead-Trinity

White skin-dark skin curse

DNA- principle ancestors

So glad we have a bunch of prophets, seers and revelators to man-splain what was supposed to be the most easily understood book on earth.

[Mayan_Elephant]

With the whole LDS world focusing on the Book of Mormon next year, I was wondering, "what does--or doesn't-- make the BOM the most correct book on earth?"

Well. Obviously it is correct because.... mayan elephants... duh.

[Cnsl1]

The BofM was the last to go for me. For quite a while I could dismiss everything except that book. I'd had too many good experiences with it. I'd read it many times. I loved it. Sure, there were parts that were odd and that I'd tossed up on a shelf behind me, but overall I liked it. And there was that miraculous story my mother experienced with that book she found. I just couldn't dismiss it. The correctness or incorrectness of it didn't bother me. I knew there had been changes. That didn't bother me. It testified of Christ. I testified of the book. I gave it to friends. I marked a trail through it to help summarize the main and beautiful parts.

Then there was that day I was reading some early American literature. A George Washington story that... omg, I've read this before. This is Captain Moroni. More investigation... let's look at this DNA thing again. And the anachronisms! Holy shit. One thing that always bothered me was how quickly the population grew and how many thousands were killed in battles. Another thing that bothered me was the internal inconsistencies in "doctrine" , which I initially accredited to my lack of understanding. I thought I'd eventually figure this stuff out. I guess I did, just not in the way I originally anticipated.

I'd started my BofM journey with the child's story of the BofM , which helped a lot in giving me a big picture that I could understand, but also tainted my later readings because I was able to gloss over the discrepancies a bit easier. When I finally let myself consider an alternative explanation (maybe it's NOT true), the world righted itself and all the difficult pieces and goofy explanations came into place. The puzzle pieces fit.

Apologist explanations served to make it even more impossible to believe, but like a dutiful member, that's where I initially sought to rectify my misgivings. FAIR, FARMS, Gen Conf talks. All that. When it just ain't true, the explanations are only making it worse.

I still appreciate the book. I'm sure it helped me at some times in my life. I was never able to find "the fullness of the gospel" within it. And obviously that book had nothing or little to do with current Mormon day to day practices or temple stuff.

Is it the most correct book? Ha. If you had a contest between the books of the standard works and asked of these books: Old Testament, New Testament, BofM, and Pearl of Great Price; which is the most correct? The BofM probably wouldn't be last.

That's about as far as I'll go..

[moksha]

In terms of history, perhaps it is the most mistaken book. In terms of the fictional fantasy book genre, it is way down on the list.

[Gatorbait]

With the whole LDS world focusing on the Book of Mormon next year, I was wondering, "what does--or doesn't-- make the BOM the most correct book on earth?"

Over the years words have changed meanings, been miss-used, or become obsolete all together. Words like "perfect" for example. Meaningless now, as every checkout girl seems to have to weave it into every sentence. Same with "awesome". Same with the word "like". The word "wicked" used to be the same as saying naughty, not the sinister meaning it's used as today. We are all aware of these words, and used to groan inwardly when they were miss-used, but it is now mainstream so we live with it.

The word "correct". What the hell does that mean, at least today? Most true? Completely true? Sort of true? Partly true? I'd say, take your pick, but not in regard to the BOM. It's just a book, stories, and things made up along the way. If- if JS really "translated" the book, as most of us grew up being told, who were the original authors? Who knows if their accounts had any merit? Three people tell a story and they are all different. Even as a kid I wondered about that. "Circumcized of heart", and the like- totally meaningless nonsense. Stuff like that all the way through the thing. So much fluff and it "came to pass" drivel- what is correct about that?

To me, for the most part, the Book of Mormon is as Mark Twain said of it, "Chloroform in print." Not original, and not that interesting to me, and not at all believable if taken in its entirety. To answer DB's question, my opinion, the fact that there are so many flaws in the book make it incorrect.

To say anything, or any book is the most correct, of course is someone's silly ego talking. How the hell do they know about all the ga-zillions of books in the world to choose this one book as the most correct. Good grief.

[Dirty Bird]

With the whole LDS world focusing on the Book of Mormon next year, I was wondering, "what does--or doesn't-- make the BOM the most correct book on earth?"

There is just one word that needs to be answered to this question, and that word is FAITH! Not a single religion is based on the idea of being factually accurate. Not only should religion not rely on factual evidence to support its claims, but it has never done so in the past. Faith that cannot be questioned is essential to the continued existence of religion among successive generations. Joseph Smith gained an understanding of this notion as he was attempting to formulate a religious framework that would be believable to a small portion of the population during his time period. By building a new religion narrative that was compelling due to its distinctiveness, he knew that he could make money off of establishing a new religious narrative if he could write a tale that answered many of the issues that were being asked at the time while also providing people with a method to repent of previous misdeeds or a way to deal with mental trauma.

If I may inquire, what do you believe the purpose of religion is in reality? From my point of view, religion is the means by which people deal with a great deal of the challenging concerns that arise in life and for which there is no simple answer. In addition, religion provides a channel via which one can release themselves from many of the traumatic experiences and/or mistakes that they have undergone as a result of living a fxxxxx up life. It does bring relief via confession and the unloading of weights that hold one back from moving in life, and this is true regardless of whether or not one believes that repentance is genuinely a real phenomenon.

If what I've written above is, to some extent, accurate, then the material evidence that pertains to religion shouldn't be taken into consideration, right?

[Mayan_Elephant]

..... regardless of whether or not one believes that repentance is genuinely a real phenomenon.

Not sure whether you intended for that to be as loaded as it is. The way you wrote it may not stand up in court, but it is one hell of a loaded comment or inclusion in your argument.

I have played this comment out in a variety of scenarios. How does this apply if there is a god or if there ain't? How does this play out in isolation or in a relationship? For example, can there be repentance if one is alone on an island and there is nobody there to forgive a sorry bastard? Is repentance contractual or is it just a marker relative to the past?

The most obvious question from your comment is whether one can repent if there is no god to clean the logbook in heaven. Clearly, one can. And yet, I do see the value if repenting on earth is better achieved with some religious cannon or construct that facilitates the repentance.

In a world plagued by wars, I often believe that the cannons of war are these damn books. But, your comment has me thinking about that a bit deeper. Don't flatter yourself though.

[Dirty Bird]

..... regardless of whether or not one believes that repentance is genuinely a real phenomenon.

Not sure whether you intended for that to be as loaded as it is. The way you wrote it may not stand up in court, but it is one hell of a loaded comment or inclusion in your argument.

I have played this comment out in a variety of scenarios. How does this apply if there is a god or if there ain't? How does this play out in isolation or in a relationship? For example, can there be repentance if one is alone on an island and there is nobody there to forgive a sorry bastard? Is repentance contractual or is it just a marker relative to the past?

The most obvious question from your comment is whether one can repent if there is no god to clean the logbook in heaven. Clearly, one can. And yet, I do see the value if repenting on earth is better achieved with some religious cannon or construct that facilitates the repentance.

In a world plagued by wars, I often believe that the cannons of war are these damn books. But, your comment has me thinking about that a bit deeper. Don't flatter yourself though.

At the end of the day, the only way to properly appreciate the phenomenon of true repentance is to actually live through the experience of it. It is a phenomenon that is not only complex but also intensely emotional for each individual. Importantly, I did not imply that it is only an experience that can take place in a religious atmosphere. This is something that should be taken into consideration. Once a person has confessed their ""sins"" to either another person, God, or an oak tree for that matter, it is usual practice for them to participate in true repentance if they desire spiritual freedom. This is because repentance is a form of forgiveness. The change of heart that can be seen in one's behavior after the beginning of the process of repentance is more significant than the confession because it is more important. This is because the change of heart is more significant.

If an eighteen-year-old robs a bank but is never arrested, but feels so much guilt by the time he is 23 years old, then he decides to confess his wrongdoing and from that point on completely transforms his life around because he knows in his heart that stealing the bank was the wrong thing to do, then wouldn't you say that he is a repentant person? If he is of the opinion that he has been relieved from the enormous burden that he had been carrying about for the past five years prior to his confession, then I would say that he has been liberated.

Due to the fact that repentance is not a contractual obligation, it is not necessary for there to be another person engaged in order to honestly repent. When a person engages in the act of repentance, they are making an effort to lighten a burden that is stopping them from making progress in life or that is holding them back. In order to comprehend this, one must first come to the realization that they must perform a complete and total 180-degree turn in the manner in which they experience life, which may be opposed to the initial emotion that they had.

Through true repentance, an individual is able to access a greater portion of their brain, which in turn provides them with the potential to broaden their thinking beyond what they initially regarded to be desirable. It is not the only thing that has to be done; learning new behaviors to replace older habits that are less healthy is also something that needs to be done. Your brain is trained to become more creative in the manner that you conduct your life when you repent of the things that you have done.

The fact that we come from a Mormon culture has led many of us to believe that the only way to show God that we are sincerely sorry is to first confess our sins to a Mormon bishop and then demonstrate that we have done so via our actions. This is the only way that we believe we can show that we are truly sorry. The majority of the time, in my opinion, genuine repentance is carried out on an internal level, without the involvement of any other person or even a deity.

[Hagoth]

The "most correct book" claim points directly to the fact that the church makes specific real-world truth claims about people, places, and things, but not one of those physical, earthly claims can be supported by evidence. The best thing they have is the Semitic letters NHM carved on a stone in the Arabian desert. They have nothing in the Americas. At all.

If they made a claim about some ethereal realm beyond direct observation I would be perfectly happy with narrowing the required evidence to faith or belief, but the BoM does not fit that criterion. It claims to be a physical book written on physical gold plates, that talks about specific people, genetic lineages, animals, plants, cultures, wars, weapons, places, etc. etc. And it gets nothing right, when compared to the relevant scientific and archaeological evidence. It looks very much like it was made up. In that sense it is nothing like the most correct book.

As far as whether the book's spiritual claims are correct, who knows? You can't prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings and events. The biggest problem the church has is that it no longer believes the type of Christianity or godhead that is taught in the Book of Mormon. And the BoM forgets to mention just about all of the beloved doctrines of the modern LDS church. Is there a heaven with three degrees? Was there a preexistence? Is a temple sealing essential to eternal marriages? Was God once a man? Can your baptize dead people? Can I have an ordinance that will make my calling and election sure? Are there two types of priesthood? Is coffee unholy? The BoM can't help us with any of those kinds of things because it doesn't seem to know about them.

[RubinHighlander]

As far as whether the book's spiritual claims are correct, who knows? You can't prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings and events. The biggest problem the church has is that it no longer believes the type of Christianity or godhead that is taught in the Book of Mormon. And the BoM forgets to mention just about all of the beloved doctrines of the modern LDS church. Is there a heaven with three degrees? Was there a preexistence? Is a temple sealing essential to eternal marriages? Was God once a man? Can your baptize dead people? Can I have an ordinance that will make my calling and election sure? Are there two types of priesthood? Is coffee unholy? The BoM can't help us with any of those kinds of things because it doesn't seem to know about them.

Amen

As far a "True Repentance" I thank the FSM and the Cosmo I don't have to bother my meat computer with concepts like that anymore!

[moksha]

The best thing they have is the Semitic letters NHM carved on a stone in the Arabian desert.

The NHM was from an inscription on an altar in the Temple of Sheba. That is like passing through Salt Lake and only making mention of some lawyer from an advertisement at a bus stop.

[Hagoth]

The best thing they have is the Semitic letters NHM carved on a stone in the Arabian desert.

The NHM was from an inscription on an altar in the Temple of Sheba. That is like passing through Salt Lake and only making mention of some lawyer from an advertisement at a bus stop.

Here it is, the entire body of physical evidence purported to support the Book of Mormon. This stone block is about 18" tall:


Now consider that this is a tiny component of an entire temple complex covered with these writings. I bet among those thousands of characters I could find FSM or something else that suits my fancy. Here's someone pointing to some writing at that temple that, I believe, says WTF.



It's kind of like the Alma 36 chiasmus. You can sort find it in there if you look hard enough with one eye closed and your fingers crossed behind your back.

And just for the hell of it:


I always say I'll accept your claim that the Comore/Moroni thing is a coincidence if you'll do the same for NHM.

[deacon blues]

To paraphrase Gordon Hinkley, "people find what they're looking for."
The BOM is often presented as the "proof" for TCOJCOLDS and everything associated with it.
People who want it to be historical find evidence, slim though it is, for it. It really hasn't made inroads into mainstream History, or any other sciences, but then neither has the Bible (wait, parts of the Bible at least fits into a historical setting), though TBM's look real hard for it.
Doctrinally, as Hagoth pointed out, it really doesn't serve an all encompassing purpose. Mainly it's another prop for the authenticity of "Mormonism." It does deal with some doctrinal issues such as baptism, and includes derivative discussions of things like faith, hope and charity. But I am biased. TBM's seem to find more in it.
I think the King Benjamin address has some useful parts.
As I see it, the real purpose of the BOM is to serve as a circular logical prop for Joseph Smith- and that is it's main purpose. If it was verifiably historic-"correct" it would be much more useful.

[Gatorbait]

To paraphrase Gordon Hinkley, "people find what they're looking for."
The BOM is often presented as the "proof" for TCOJCOLDS and everything associated with it.
People who want it to be historical find evidence, slim though it is, for it. It really hasn't made inroads into mainstream History, or any other sciences, but then neither has the Bible (wait, parts of the Bible at least fits into a historical setting), though TBM's look real hard for it.
Doctrinally, as Hagoth pointed out, it really doesn't serve an all encompassing purpose. Mainly it's another prop for the authenticity of "Mormonism." It does deal with some doctrinal issues such as baptism, and includes derivative discussions of things like faith, hope and charity. But I am biased. TBM's seem to find more in it.
I think the King Benjamin address has some useful parts.
As I see it, the real purpose of the BOM is to serve as a circular logical prop for Joseph Smith- and that is it's main purpose. If it was verifiably historic-"correct" it would be much more useful.

Totally agree with you on this. Not sure where JS got the King Benjamin part, but it's the only part that I really feel is coming from an inspired source. I especially dislike first and second Nephi. Heads chopped off and the like, putting on someone's bloody clothes, lying and stealing books and calling it scripture. I don't think so. Parts in Mormon and Moroni I like as well, and a small part of Alma, apart from- again- chopping off arms hither and thither, gathering them up like fire wood and showing the king what a swell murderer you are because losing an arm like that in those days was a death sentence. Never believed that one the first time I heard it as a child. What? Over watering sheep?

The part of the BofM I really dislike the most is the part where it says that it's okay to murder someone, chop off their head, steal their belongings and justify it by you being told by an angel, of all things, that you had to do it so that others might not "dwindle" in unbelief. Dwindle? The hell is that?

[Hagoth]

Another interesting thing about NHM is that modern scholars translate it as Nihm, but on the maps in Joseph Smith's time it was Nehem. If Joseph examined one of these maps at his school or library he might have seen the word and riffed on it.

Or he might have been borrowing from the Bible, as he often did. The book of Nahum in the OT has a parallel to the Lehi story. The prophet Nahum is called to warn the people of Nineveh to repent or God will allow them to be conquered by the Babylonians. But they do not repent and they are conquered, just like Jerusalem was around the same time. Nahum > Nahom?

Here's D'Anville's 1794 map:
https://www.fullerconsideration.com/images/2310057.jpg
(click on the map to zoom in and then draw an imaginary line down from the B and I in ARABIA FOELIX to where you see an X-shaped mountain range)
Also note that these old maps show year-round rivers, something that apologists claim were unknown in Joseph's time.

[Hagoth]

The part of the BofM I really dislike the most is the part where it says that it's okay to murder someone, chop off their head, steal their belongings and justify it by you being told by an angel, of all things, that you had to do it so that others might not "dwindle" in unbelief. Dwindle? The hell is that?

Corianton visited prostitutes and was told that it was a sin second only to murder, so since murder is ok sometimes, I can only assume sexual promiscuity is as well, as long as you think the Holy Ghost is encouraging you to do it.

The dwindling thing is particularly funny because, according to the story, dwindling in unbelief is exactly what they did, despite Laban losing his head to prevent it. They started dwindling in the first generation when Laman and Lemual split off and they continued to dwindle until the final great dwindling when the last of the Nephite believers were forcibly dwindled out of existence. And then they even began to dwindle physically and genetically to the point that the church can't point at a single person (or their sequenced DNA) in the Americas today and say, "there's a Lamanite."

[Linked]

Corianton visited prostitutes and was told that it was a sin second only to murder, so since murder is ok sometimes, I can only assume sexual promiscuity is as well, as long as you think the Holy Ghost is encouraging you to do it.

Hmmm, Joseph Smith apparently assumed that as well. And Tim Ballard is on board too.

[RubinHighlander]

The dwindling thing is particularly funny because, according to the story, dwindling in unbelief is exactly what they did, despite Laban losing his head to prevent it. They started dwindling in the first generation when Laman and Lemual split off and they continued to dwindle until the final great dwindling when the last of the Nephite believers were forcibly dwindled out of existence. And then they even began to dwindle physically and genetically to the point that the church can't point at a single person (or their sequenced DNA) in the Americas today and say, "there's a Lamanite."

And in the Latter Daze, there is no shortage of people dwindling, with the exception of the lawyers, stocks and real estate investments.

[stuck]

Recently my mom wanted me to listen to the following podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rECiIc5Ctak. You will probably cringe alot throughout like I did if you listen to it. I told my mom that I would listen to that if she would listen to one of the Mormon stories episodes with Mike on the bom. After listening I told her that I didn't like how he said it doesn't matter how it came to be. The main thing he said, is that it helps convince people that Jesus is the Christ. I said that it's very important to know how it came to be, because that's how you know if it's fraudulent or not. And I also said that it doesn't do a very good job of convincing people about Jesus because it lacks archeological evidence and so forth. Besides it says Jesus destroyed many of the nephite and lamanite cities at his death. Why would he do that if he is supposed to be a loving and forgiving god? Finally he says we can know if it's true by the spirit. I told my mom that I disagreed with this also. She is about as tbm as they come and I told her that I respected her beliefs but felt like my beliefs are definitely valid based on the evidence. She concluded that we can choose our own paths and we need to respect that, which I agreed with. I also said that Jared Halverson has to be apologetic to keep his position. He's apparently a BYU religion professor.