Do you actually *appreciate* the Book of Mormon?

[Autodidact]

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

It's concise. It just says what it is, directly and cleanly, without a lot of:
in the course of my days
in all my days
in my days

I mean, like yeah, Nephi, we get it. This stuff happened in your days. When else would it have happened? Did you really need to say that three times in three lines?

Also, the NT thing has a nice rhythm to it. It may not be glorious, but it's good writing. The BoM is just BAD WRITING.

But no, I haven't read much of it. Once I realized that it's horribly written, completely derivative and factually incorrect, I didn't waste a lot of time just for the comic relief. I mean, what the heck is a curelom?

 

[Caladan]

Will you explain "not a worthy copy of the Hebrew Bible, the new..."
I just don't want to assume that you think it's a copy, or in other words, supposed to be the same.

it leans on an ancient traditions, only it writes crap about them. it stains Jewish and Israelite heritage, that the so called Lamanites have anything to do with Jewish heritage is to spit on thousands of years of Jewish history in the near east and in the diaspora. its a delusional departure from the New Testament which actually brings content to the reader, actual wisdom, actual interesting scenes, actual juicy stories about life in ancient Jerusalem, of the first century, whether it happened as told or not.

 

[tomato1236]

it leans on an ancient traditions, only it writes crap about them. it stains Jewish and Israelite heritage, that the so called Lamanites have anything to do with Jewish heritage is to spit on thousands of years of Jewish history in the near east and in the diaspora. its a delusional departure from the New Testament which actually brings content to the reader, actual wisdom, actual interesting scenes, actual juicy stories about life in ancient Jerusalem, of the first century, whether it happened as told or not.

Oh ok. It sounds like you don't think it's a copy then. Fair enough.

 

[Caladan]

It's concise. It just says what it is, directly and cleanly, without a lot of:
in the course of my days
in all my days
in my days

I mean, like yeah, Nephi, we get it. This stuff happened in your days. When else would it have happened? Did you really need to say that three times in three lines?

Also, the NT thing has a nice rhythm to it. It may not be glorious, but it's good writing. The BoM is just BAD WRITING.

But no, I haven't read much of it. Once I realized that it's horribly written, completely derivative and factually incorrect, I didn't waste a lot of time just for the comic relief. I mean, what the heck is a curelom?

Honestly, all the good stuff has been written centuries ago, why would a 19th century American try to come up with something new is beyond me, and do such a horrible job at it. Abrahamic people already have their rooted tradition, havent they suffered enough to keep them without someone coming and abusing your tradition and telling tales about your people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's concise. It just says what it is, directly and cleanly, without a lot of:
in the course of my days
in all my days
in my days

I mean, like yeah, Nephi, we get it. This stuff happened in your days. When else would it have happened? Did you really need to say that three times in three lines?

Like I said before, the beginning of the Book of Mormon reminds me a lot of the beginning of Luke. The main difference that I notice is that the BoM tends to have longer "verses".

Also, the NT thing has a nice rhythm to it. It may not be glorious, but it's good writing. The BoM is just BAD WRITING.

Almost like when you read subtitles for a foreign movie that were written by a not-too-skilled translator? Maybe it would flow a lot better in the original "Reformed Egyptian".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly, all the good stuff has been written centuries ago, why would a 19th century American try to come up with something new is beyond me, and do such a horrible job at it. Abrahamic people already have their rooted tradition, havent they suffered enough to keep them without someone coming and abusing your tradition and telling tales about your people?

Christianity has been abusing Jewish tradition and telling tales about the Jewish people for nearly 2000 years. Why is it only a problem when Joseph Smith does it?

IMO, the Book of Mormon doesn't co-opt Jewish culture any more than the New Testament did.

 

[Caladan]

Christianity has been abusing Jewish tradition and telling tales about the Jewish people for nearly 2000 years. Why is it only a problem when Joseph Smith does it?

This is quite an irrelevant question, should Jews simply accept it as a reality? of course not. to European Christianity and its interaction with Jews we are already familiar with.

IMO, the Book of Mormon doesn't co-opt Jewish culture any more than the New Testament did.

The New Testament is much more reasonable than claiming Jews have arrived to the New World and now wear feathers on their heads and dear skin to cover their behinds.

 

[Katzpur]

Why, because I believe the Bible?

But the Bible doesn't say God had nothing more to tell us after Revelation, Pete. It just doesn't. So saying that you disregard the Book of Mormon because you believe the Bible makes no logical sense. Why don't you just say that you disregard it because someone told you to (your minister, your parents, your spouse, a friend, etc.). Wouldn't that be a more honest answer?

No, I don't presume any kind of power. I don't presume myself to be a prophet nor do I presume myself to be endowed with special knowledge from God.

And yet you do claim to know that something is false without having read it. Could you explain why that is?

I have no magic plates.

Huh? Are you saying that you think we Latter-day Saints believe the plates to have been magic? Or were you just being sarcastic for the hell of it?

I am not a messiah.

Well, clearly. But then none of us are.

 

[Katzpur]

Israelites in the New World?

And this is impossible why?

Golden tablets?

Not strange in the slightest, although completely unknown in Joseph Smith's day. Today you can see quite a number of these in museums around the world.

19th century pseudo-sci fi?

How about an example or two? I'm trying to think of anything relating to science fiction in the Book of Mormon.

it is very remote from any Abrahamic religion I know which is based in thousands of years of tradition.

Remote in terms of location, yes. But remote in what other ways? Seriously, I'd appreciate an answer to this one, because everywhere I look in the Book of Mormon, I can see themes, customs, culture and linguistic evidence that it is, in fact, an ancient semitic document.

One of the fantastic aspects of the book of Mormon is supposedly convincing the Jews of the Christhood of Jesus, at least the New Testament was more realistic and fully spelled out the rejection of the messianic aspects of the Jewish man from Galilee. any modern Christian who believes that Jewish men and women as a whole community and society would accept another Jewish man as God is still stuck somewhere in the past, for Joseph Smith to bring it up again shows how out there his Book is.

You really didn't read very far, did you?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't appreciate the BOM because I'm not a Mormon.

That's the best answer you've come up with yet, Pete. Honest, straightforward and to the point. I don't appreciate the Quran because I'm not a Muslim. Still, I've always wanted to read it. I'm sure I could probably find something in it that's worthwhile. And if you've ever read any of the passages from the Baha'i scriptures that members of the Baha'i faith have posted, they are absolutely beautiful.

 

[tomato1236]

And this is impossible why?
How about an example or two? I'm trying to think of anything relating to science fiction in the Book of Mormon.

Oh. They're probably talking about the part where the Nephites built that supercomputer that later became self-aware and threatened to take over the Americas with a robot army. Thank goodness those aliens came and put a stop to it or we'd all be speaking binary right now.

 

[Katzpur]

I would appreciate if you didn't try to convert me. Nothing personal.

Come on, Pete. Tomato wasn't proseltyizing. He was just bringing up some valid points.

Could you give me a link for an online BOM resource? Just because I don't want to be converted doesn't mean I'm not curious.

There is an online Book of Mormon on the Church's official website, but it contains so many footnotes, etc. that unless I am trying to do some serious research on any particular topic, I find it difficult to read online. The online version I find most "readable" is The Book of Mormon (online) on the University of Michigan's website.

 

[Katzpur]

The New Testament has very remarkable passages, wisdom parables, and interesting political exploits of Jesus in Jerusalem with spice and passion, the BoM has nothing on the root text of Christianity.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "root text."

 

[Caladan]

And this is impossible why?

Because no one before Colombus or the Vikings arrival to the outskirts of North America have reached the New World, certainly not many centuries ago. if you cannot understand that, no historian will help you, these kind of fantasies will be ripped to shreds in a historical debate.

Not strange in the slightest, although completely unknown in Joseph Smith's day. Today you can see quite a number of these in museums around the world.

LOL. no, what you see are actual artifacts, based on actual history and labored to be found by actual archaeologists.

How about an example or two? I'm trying to think of anything relating to science fiction in the Book of Mormon.

Jesus visiting in America is a nice dose of Sci Fi.

Remote in terms of location, yes. But remote in what other ways? Seriously, I'd appreciate an answer to this one, because everywhere I look in the Book of Mormon, I can see themes, customs, culture and linguistic evidence that it is, in fact, an ancient semitic document.

Really? do share them with us. a book written in the 19th century cannot have much in common with ancient Hebrew texts written in the centuries before the Christian savior, and the Hebrew text about the Christian savior 2000 years ago, it is linguistically impossible and culturally impossible, a 19th century American can have no comprehension of Semitic sacred literature, unless he went to the best universities and studied by Jewish rabbies and scholars, and even then he will have to take his knowledge with a grain of salt.

You really didn't read very far, did you?

Far enough to get a good Jewish giggle.

 

[Caladan]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "root text."

The Hebrew Bible and the 'New Testament' are the root texts of Christianity along side ancient apocrypha. 19th century tales about Jesus, Israelites, and the New World are worlds apart.

 

[Katzpur]

it leans on an ancient traditions, only it writes crap about them. it stains Jewish and Israelite heritage, that the so called Lamanites have anything to do with Jewish heritage is to spit on thousands of years of Jewish history in the near east and in the diaspora. its a delusional departure from the New Testament which actually brings content to the reader, actual wisdom, actual interesting scenes, actual juicy stories about life in ancient Jerusalem, of the first century, whether it happened as told or not.

That's a very poor assessment of the book, Caladan -- probably because a couple of dozen pages out of a 530 or so page book really isn't going to give you all that much to go on. Parts of the Book of Mormon are pretty dry. Parts of the Bible are pretty dry. There are numerous things in the Book of Mormon that are clearly Jewish, things that a non-Mormon scholar of ancient Judaism would pick up on pretty quickly. You can generalize, as you've done, but you really haven't provided any evidence that the book "spits on thousands of years of Jewish history."

 

[Caladan]

That's a very poor assessment of the book, Caladan -- probably because a couple of dozen pages out of a 530 or so page book really isn't going to give you all that much to go on. Parts of the Book of Mormon are pretty dry. Parts of the Bible are pretty dry. There are numerous things in the Book of Mormon that are clearly Jewish, things that a non-Mormon scholar of ancient Judaism would pick up on pretty quickly. You can generalize, as you've done, but you really haven't provided any evidence that the book "spits on thousands of years of Jewish history."

The Hebrew Bible is a masterpiece, the BoM doesn't even scratch it, further more there is NOTHING Jewish about the BoM.
pseudo history about Jewish men is enough material to claim it spits on Jewish history. fantasies about Jewish men living as native American tribes until a white man came for them is to spit on Jewish heritage. Jewish culture has thrived despite white gentiles, and has only reached the New World in the modern era.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because no one before Colombus or the Vikings arrival to the outskirts of North America have reached the New World, certainly not many centuries ago. if you cannot understand that, no historian will help you, these kind of fantasies will be ripped to shreds in a historical debate.

LOL. no, what you see are actual artifacts, based on actual history and labored to be found by actual archaeologists.

Before 1960 or so, that would've been the general consensus about the Vikings as well. Yet today, look what we have: L'Anse aux Meadows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus visiting in America is a nice dose of Sci Fi.

As is Jesus rising from the dead, or Jesus appearing before the disciples.

The ten plagues of Egypt would probably work well in a sci-fi story, too.

Really? do share them with us. a book written in the 19th century cannot have much in common with ancient Hebrew texts written in the centuries before the Christian savior, and the Hebrew text about the Christian savior 2000 years ago, it is linguistically impossible and culturally impossible, a 19th century American can have no comprehension of Semitic sacred literature, unless he went to the best universities and studied by Jewish rabbies and scholars, and even then he will have to take his knowledge with a grain of salt.

Out of curiosity, what details did Joseph Smith get wrong?

 

[Katzpur]

The New Testament focuses on Jesus, its starting verse is perfect in this context and most appropriate. it doesn't need to be fancy, its going for the core issue, according to Jewish tradition the messiah is to come from the line of David, therefore it begins there.

And Jesus Christ is mentioned on practically every page of the Book of Mormon. When you say that "the New Testament focuses on Jesus," I really have to laugh. What else would you expect it to focus on? Look how much of the Old Testament sets the scene for what is found in the New Testament. Why wouldn't the first verse of the New Testament be "perfect in this context"? Jesus Christ isn't even born until well over half of the time span in the Book of Mormon has passed. But His coming is prophesied of as early as on page 2. You are trying to draw comparisons where there is no reason for comparisons to exist.

 

[Katzpur]

The New Testament is much more reasonable than claiming Jews have arrived to the New World and now wear feathers on their heads and dear skin to cover their behinds.

And that is not what the Book of Mormon claims, Caladan. As a moderator, you should have better taste and more self-control than to post ludicrous comments like that one.