Does the BoM contradict Mormonism?

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

We celebrate Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher as great leaders, yet both were thrown out of office.

Depends where you are. She’s loved in southern England, hated by the Scots and irish, and northern English. She left office because she tried to impose a tax on Scotland. Result was that Scotland got its own parliament, and the tax was thrown out, as was she.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Cadence wrote… But if it is all made up that explains it.

Yes it does Cadence, and IMO after looking at all the available evidence, its the only answer left!

f4h1

[Anonymous]

Brown, Sorry I havn’t been on the site for a few days. There are a lot of stage fiver’s on this site, I doubt I will ever leave stage 4 so..

GBH said something like, “This church is exactly what it claims to be or it is the biggest fraud ever” My answer, “this church is far from what it claims to be! Therefore …..

f4h1

[Anonymous]

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

GBH said something like, “This church is exactly what it claims to be or it is the biggest fraud ever” My answer, “this church is far from what it claims to be! Therefore …..

Therefore Brother Hinckley spoke out of turn when he said that, just like Joseph Smith spoke out of turn when he said, “I told those guys that the Book of Mormon was the best book on earth, and the hub of our religion, and that no other book would get you as close to God as it would.”

Hyperbole is human nature. Cheering for our team and our hero is human nature.

[Anonymous]

The irony of timing . . .

I posted something on my personal blog that appeared this morning. It relates directly to the last few comments, even though it is a broader post than just Pres. Hinckley’s statement:

“Exactly What Must be 100% True or 100% False?” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/03/exactly-what-must-be-100-true-or-100.html)

Nushell summary about President Hinckley’s statement is in my comment response to someone else’s comment. I said:

Quote:

Paul, the “somehow” is mine – since we call it the “First Vision”, NOT the “First Visitation”. It has been interpreted as a physical manifestation by many members and leaders throughout our history, but it wasn’t presented as such at the time and still isn’t worded as such in its “title”.

I’m fine with people believing it was a personal visitation (and, for all I know, it might have been) – but it doesn’t have to have been that type of experience, Pres. Hinckley’s belief notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

GBH said something like, “This church is exactly what it claims to be or it is the biggest fraud ever” My answer, “this church is far from what it claims to be! Therefore …..

Therefore Brother Hinckley spoke out of turn when he said that, just like Joseph Smith spoke out of turn when he said, “I told those guys that the Book of Mormon was the best book on earth, and the hub of our religion, and that no other book would get you as close to God as it would.”

Hyperbole is human nature. Cheering for our team and our hero is human nature.

I saw a commercial for Aaron’s rent to own centers. They had a female country singer singing the jingle that included, “nobody beats Aaron’s!” I remember thinking to myself, “What are they talking about? Not price as Aaron’s sales prices are generally not very competative, not stock performance, could it be friendly staff or cleanest restrooms?” In the end, it appears to be puffery or just their way or saying “We are the best” in a non-quantifyable way.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

“nobody beats Aaron’s!”

So, is greedy booster-ism also human nature? And is there a very heavy line between hyperbole, partisanship, and boosterism?

[Anonymous]

Brown wrote:

It just seems like at the core, the BoM has to be literally true or there is no point in the lds faith. what do we believe then? if it just self help book based on vague symbolism, well there’s a section of those at the library. if it is not divine text then it might as well be from oprah.

At my urging DW began reading “The Shack.” I had read the book and found it helpful and impactful at a hard time in my faith deconstruction. (there is a review of the book in the book review section) She was about 50 pages from the end and we began discussing some of the concepts in the book. It turns out that my wife had been reading the book as though it were a true story (or at least based on a true story). This is understandable because in the beginning of the book there is an intro or forward where it gives that impression. When I told her that it was fiction she stopped reading the book!

Later DW told me that she was actually really into the story line and would have experienced it as a dream or vision wherein God can be communicating. But now that she sees it as fiction (just something that somebody thought up) it is now seen as less reliable, As though the sub conscious mind is more in tune with God than the conscious mind.

Anyway, it is a clear example of greater value being placed on “true” events. I even told DW that the BOM would still have value even if the characters never actually existed. To which she countered, “Ahhh – but they did exist.”

[Author]

Posts