- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think that the Book of Mormon is absolutely inspired of God. Historically correct? I don’t know, I think that remains to be seen. However, the book is full of inspiration and while it may not be the most correct of any book on earth, I believe you can get nearer to God by studying it. I guess I would say I agree with number 2. Or SilentDawning’s option of a number 4. Mainly I just hate that everything has to be so black or white in the Church. All or nothing, is or isn’t, of God or Satan etc. cwald wrote:College football teams are not at war, and neither should be people from different faiths. (even though many people in history have killed, and died, because of religion, and in the name of god.) That’s stuff needs to end.
Agreed 100%. I long to hear messages of love and unity, even with examples of overcoming discord – or loving in spite of differences.
Please help me in my struggle to understand. What is in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible that will help me get nearer to God?
Thoreau, for me it’s not about exact content, so much as how it “speaks to me”. I really like it and it seems inspired, at least, to me – certainly every bit as much as the Bible. There are lots of passages I really like, content-wise, but that’s never been what it’s about for me. Having said that, I really do see some things as almost impossible to “fake” within the text itself. The dichotomy between the Book of Ether and the rest of it is just one example of this. It is amazingly compelling, if you have studied much of the cultural differences between the Middle East and Northeast Asia – and, if I am right, it basically solves the DNA issue on a theoretical level. I just can’t see it as an intentional fraud. Thus, to me, it is an “inspired” book, at the very least.
One really important thing to understand, imo, is that there really isn’t any more physical proof of most of the important claims in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) than there are for those in the Book of Mormon. Most people don’t realize how shaky the non-religious / non-spiritual “proof” for the Bible is, particularly when it comes to the accuracy of the New Testament teachings and just about everything in the Old Testament. Even most ardent Christian historians agree that the accounts in the New Testament were written LONG after the fact – and were taken from multiple, conflicting source materials. Hence, all the hoopla in the early centuries about which writings to include and which to exclude in the formal compilation we know now as the Bible.
For example, from a purely “historical” perspective (taking away all claims of source and method of discovery and translation), the Book of Mormon is MUCH easier to accept as scientifically plausible than the Bible – since there is FAR less of the miraculous chronicled in it than in the Bible (and those things that are presented as miraculous generally are much easier to explain as non-miraculous).
it’s interesting to realize that most of the truly unique “doctrines” in Mormonism are not found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are almost none in it. Nearly all of them are in the Bible and the D&C – and nearly all of the ones in the D&C are presented as revelations received as a result of contemplating Biblical passages or specific issues of the time.
Finally, Joseph’s words notwithstanding, the actual book itself DOESN’T claim to be something that should be read instead of the Bible – or even contrasted with it. Rather, it says explicitly, more than once, that one of its central purposes is to convince people to believe the Bible. Based on what it actually says, it’s supposed to be a supporting companion to the Bible, not a superior work. Thus, again, Joseph’s words notwithstanding, pitting it against the Bible simply isn’t consistent with its stated purpose – and I regularly go back and forth between it and the Bible in my own study.
(I’ve said more than once that I think Joseph didn’t really understand the Book of Mormon very well – at least not what it actually says in its pages. I think he simply didn’t care about it as a proof text, so he didn’t “study” it to understand doctrine. Ironically, that’s one reason I have a hard time accepting it as conscious fiction. Every author I’ve known understood their works MUCH better than Joseph appears to have known the Book of Mormon.)
None of the above proves anything regarding the nature of the Book of Mormon, but it’s important to keep in mind when comparing it with the Bible. We’ve inherited a lens through which we “naturally” see the Book of Mormon, and that lens, imo, is one of the “incorrect traditions of (our) fathers”. As a result, I think relatively few members understand the Book of Mormon really well.
One BYU professor, who I believe was disciplined or at least disadvantaged some way, made the comment that the BoM is not really a historical translation, but a record of 19th century revelation. I think that is an insightful way to look at it. hawkgrrrl wrote:There is a fascinating post about an obscure BOM theory that is on Wheat & Tares:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/04 … rt-1-of-4/
Thanks hawkgrrrl for the link. I have a latin/arabic heritage. My father spoke arabic and was a convert to the church. He was fascinated by the BOM so I’ve always enjoyed reading some of the parallels of the BOM to eastern cultures. Lehi’s travel through the arabian peninsula is particularly interesting. I am no expert but just a few of the interesting cultural points:
1. Lehi dwelt in a tent. Basically, Lehi was a bedouin. He was a man of wealth and probably familiar (or knew of) the ancient frankincense trail which made his travel through the desert possible. The descriptions of being directed to the more fertile parts of the land, where to hunt for food, not to use fire (perhaps due to the nomadic robbers in the area) and not cooking their meat. In the middle east you can eat meat that has been spiced and the blood removed. I think it is called “basterma”. Quite a think for JS to include in a narrative.
2. The burial place of Ismael at a place called Nahom. Arabic is an interpretive language and the vowels are interpreted and in arabic it could be called “nehhm, neahm, nehm” or other names. There is a place in arabia with a similar name and it is not too long of a stretch for a name like that.
3. Nephi talking about going in an south-southeastern route and then coming to a place called bountiful. The fact that there is a place similar in Oman with trees, dates, grapes, etc., is pretty amazing. The monsoon rains clip this particular part of arabia and make it quite fertile. If you live in the west, you know how when it rains, stuff seems to sprout everywhere. Just the fact that there is a place that fits bountiful in arabia is quite a coincidence.
5. An alternate theory on the “dark skin”. Nephi & Sam were faithful and Laman & Lemuel were not. They may have take “alien heathen” wives from that area. The arab wives would have been of a darker skin. Nephi accusation to his brothers of sexual immorality by marrying wives “outside of the covenant” would have made them upset enough to want to kill him. Nephi preaching to them about an atonement, on the other hand, probabably would have been ignored. This also could have accounted for why lamanites outnumbered nephites in the new land and why lamanites fell into disbelief so quickly (mother’s teaching their children arab believes vs Lehi’s teachings).
I have also read (some in Spanish/English) the writings of Cortez’s captains regarding the conquest of Mexico. What is interesting in this regard is that the Spanish priests that came with the conquistadores tried in vain to convert Montezuma. They were surprised that Montezuma had a knowledge of a garden with first parents and a flood. The tribes on the coast also believed that the land was settled by a people from the sea. Also, the priests destroyed thousands of records (they considered pagan). Who knows what they contained.
For me, JS making it all up would have to be one of the all time amazing coincidences. It seems unlikley JS spent time researching books from whatever limited sources he had availiable to construct a plausible narrative. I just think that life in the 1800’s for a family that was always trying to put food on the table would not give him that kind of time.
I think the BOM is amazing. Again, I’m left wondering/struggling about it’s origins. Where there actually some plates? Why don’t we have them now? Did JS translate or was it just amazing inspiration with a historical setting that he dictated. Maybe JS couldn’t what he was dictating himself at times … I mean ancient cities with roads, an economy and cities. That just wasn’t the going knowledge about indians at the time. Cortez descriped Tenochtitlan as rivaling any city he had seen in europe.
I just read that post for the first time, and it really is fascinating. My comment on the thread is: Quote:I’m late to this, but it truly is a fascinating read.
One thing only for now, and I hope I’m not getting ahead of the posts. If so, let me know, and I’ll shut up. {g}
Moroni had over 30 years to bury the record wherever it needed to be. Think about that for a moment. The Book of Mormon says it was over 30 years between the final battle and when Moroni wrote his last words and buried the plates. That is an incredible thing, in and of itself, and it gets ignored in almost every discussion I’ve read.
The final battle could have happened anywhere in the world without there being ANY difficulty in the plates being buried in New York. Even if Moroni had walked as close to the entire distance as is possible, perhaps building a canoe to cross from continent to continent at the Bering Strait (a distance of only 58 miles), 30+ years is plenty of time to do so.
In fact, the greater the distance traveled, the more plausible the time frame of his time alone becomes.“What is in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible that will help me get nearer to God?” If the Bible were clear, there would be no difference of opinion on how to interpret it. The BOM emphasizes some teachings over others and that provides a specific interpretation of the Bible. A few other things you get in the BOM but not the Bible: – Jesus doesn’t establish a church in the Bible. It’s written 70 years AD, by his followers. Instructions on how to form a church are not included there, but are in the BOM.
– Paul’s writings are often inconsistent with themselves, probably because he didn’t write all of them and others also copied them down emphasizing different points. The BOM gives a non-Pauline gospel. In particular, Paul is all over the map on the role of women.
– pre-Christ Christology. There is no evidence in the Bible that Jews before Jesus were Christians, but the BOM definitely shows them worshiping a future Christ. This could be because the OT was compiled by people who never accepted Christ as a messiah.
– Jesus’ mission as a spiritual messiah is more clear. In the NT, many viewed him as a physical savior from the oppressive Romans.
– Jesus’ spirit has the appearance of a physical body.
– a strong connection between fire and spiritual manifestation is made.
Those are some things that are unique. My own view on the darker skin theory is that Nephites were city dwellers and Lamanites were rural dwellers. A similar thing happens in India. My North Indian colleagues look down on the South Indian men who are very dark skinned and wear mustaches. They think they are not as sophisticated, mostly fit for construction work, not office work like they are.
Hawkgrrl’s covered most of the bases, but there are other things in the BoM. * Infant baptism, and how young children will not go to hell.
* Adam’s fall has not only been reversed, it’s been accounted for, and is part of the plan.
* God’s grace doesn’t just extend to a small ethnic group from the Middle East (a la OT) or only to people reached by Christian missionaries.
hawkgrrrl wrote:If the Bible were clear, there would be no difference of opinion on how to interpret it.
Though the idea of an underlying consistency is appealing, I doubt that the Bible was ever intended to be that way. And any book, for that matter, including the BoM, is subject to various interpretations.
Doug, I agree. And I don’t know if it would be so popular and so used over time if it was so straight forward and plain. It seems to me it is elusive enough to stand the test of times and generations, even able to morph to fit our needs, even if the original authors had no idea we would be interpreting it the way we do to make it meaningful to us. Did I post this link to KC Kern’s posts on the Malay theory of BOM geography? If not, it’s a pretty good read. Here’s part 2: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/11/the-legend-of-the-lost-book-of-gold-part-2-of-4/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/11/the-legend-of-the-lost-book-of-gold-part-2-of-4/ And part 1:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/04/the-legend-of-the-lost-book-of-gold-part-1-of-4/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/04/the-legend-of-the-lost-book-of-gold-part-1-of-4/ He’s got 2 more coming in the next 2 weeks. It’s an obscure theory by a Dr. Ralph Olsen, but very interesting.
Thoreau wrote:Please help me in my struggle to understand.
What is in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible that will help me get nearer to God?
1. Clear passages about how to handle suffering. Mosiah 24 talks about the role of faith and patience in overcoming trials. This might be in the bible, but it’s so clearly written and explained in the BoM, it’s far more accessible. It also entwines the role of cheerfulness in convincing the Lord to unlock the situation.
2. It gives the only explanation I’ve seen on the Law of Justice and Mercy leading to necessity of a savior. It wasn’t until I read that section in the BoM that I understood why a Savior was even necessary, which deepened my respect for his role in my eventual salvation.
3. Clarifies the nature of faith and works in one sentence “by grace we are saved after all we can do”.
4. It makes the case for ongoing revelation, which helps us get closer to God. The section on “A Bible, A Bible” provides some very compelling reasons why we shouldn’t be myopic and thinking the Bible is all that God has or will ever say to us. They are really good reasons.
5. I saw some of the clearest examples of how to change God’s mind to act on your behalf when the later prophet Nephi gave a prayer asking for a famine, and then after the people repented.
This is only a partial list, but overall, I have this feeling that I want to be better after I read the Book of Mormon. I don’t feel that way unless I read the Sermon on the Mount — the pages aren’t as packed with good spiritual advice as the Book of Mormon.
hawkgrrrl wrote:“What is in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible that will help me get nearer to God?” If the Bible were clear, there would be no difference of opinion on how to interpret it. The BOM emphasizes some teachings over others and that provides a specific interpretation of the Bible.
doug wrote:the idea of an underlying consistency is appealing
The Bible is not consistent. One major shift is the difference between the OT and the NT. It also doesn’t present any clear theological system, and thus needs interpretation to provide answers to fundamental questions (like the nature of God and our relationship to Him). The Bible and the BOM are further interpreted by the JST, footnotes, chapter headings, other books of scripture, study guides, manuals, and the words of the latter day prophets. Once the theological system is established it provides its own lens by which to interpret everything else.
Theological systems provide context, explanation, framework, boundaries…in short – they bring order and predictability to chaos and variability. For many people, theological systems are quite helpful in their pursuit of God.
I may not agree with some or even all of the “clarifications” but I do conclude that without any such clarifications much would be left to ambiguity. (FWIW other organized religions have theological systems without the aid of the BOM or living prophets, but we have the fairly unique faith tenet that our “interpreters” are themselves divine – thus providing a more “correct” interpretation.)
SD Quote:
1. Clear passages about how to handle suffering. Mosiah 24 talks about the role of faith and patience in overcoming trials.2. It gives the only explanation I’ve seen on the Law of Justice and Mercy leading to necessity of a savior.
3. Clarifies the nature of faith and works in one sentence “by grace we are saved after all we can do”.
4. It makes the case for ongoing revelation, which helps us get closer to God.
5. I saw some of the clearest examples of how to change God’s mind to act on your behalf when the later prophet Nephi gave a prayer asking for a famine, and then after the people repented.
I condensed these to try and save space and make my comments brief.
I’ve read more plain advice and counsel on suffering in “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”.
The reason you’ve not read anything else on “laws of justice and mercy” is that there’s nowhere else in scripture that they’re mentioned. There’s nothing in any scripture that I know of that says that God says that every law broken has a penalty and that every penalty has to be paid and that only a sinless sacrifice can do that. It says somewhere that no unclean thing can enter into god’s kingdom but I’m not sure that equates with either sinless or forgiven.
The grace thing to me is confusing since if grace is defined as a free gift how is it that it has to be purchased by our works. I know it’s been discussed ad nauseam but I don’t think the BoM clarified it, just added another opinion
As far as God’s mind changing it sounds a lot like Jonah and Ninevah.
To add another issue it does not in my mind settle the nature of the Godhead with the number of passages that refer to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one god, pretty much a direct quote from the Book of Common Prayer.
Someone at the time of the publishing of the BoM wrote that it set about settling every relgious controversy of the day. Its messages are inspiring but that doesn’t make the book inspired or an all or nothing translation of a historical document. What makes it that in peoples minds is the willingness to believe and to suspend judgement on the poor syntax, needlessly tangled phrasing, and all the anachronisms including the reference to machinery.
I know I’m beginning to rant here but if you want to help me believe it to be truly inspired and not just inspiring then you have to look at it with something more than a believer’s eye.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.