What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Terrywoodenpic]

So says the individual who offers no evidence, support, or even thought in his post. Pointing out truth is not bashing, unlike what you're doing.

As I was the one who wrote a majority of the current forum rules . I am well aware of their meaning.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

OR is it that it's not GOD that wants us to know those things but man that wants us to know those things under the guise of God?

For example you and I would probably agree a lot on morals and values as far as what they SHOULD be. Where we would differ is where they come from. So if you can for arguments sake say the entire BOM is practical fiction and I could for arguments sake agree the same for the Bible....then what we can equate them both to being are some good ideas and some bad ideas written by man.

If we start to say this is allegory and that is real, where do we draw the line? How or who gets to decide? If we can agree on the moral of the story is there any reason to attribute any of it to God or do we do that to help safeguard that people will obey the rules we agree upon and us something like hell as a device to scare them into shape if they won't bow to our will?

Possibly, though the premise I was focusing on was that God was somehow involved in the process of the making of the Bible and Book of Mormon. If that were the case there would arguably be a lot of value in the book, even if it means the history has to be viewed as allegory or metaphor. If the Book of Mormon were purely the work of Smith as some sort of well meant directive as to how one should see God/live one's life and so on, it would be more problematic for someone to try and discern if there was anything of value in the book. After all, it would just be one man's opinion (or some collusion of several people's opinions), and would have no more obvious value than our own independent ones.

So, if it were truly the history of an ancient people and their dealings with God, arguably the entire thing is quite valuable as a resource in understanding God and how He thinks we should live. If it were a metaphor in which God had a hand in developing, it arguably still has a great deal of value as a source for moral guidance and doctrine. We mustn't forget that although the Book of Mormon does recall historical stories, a significant portion deals with integral Christian doctrine that would not necessarily be undermined by the history of the people explaining them being a metaphor. If it is the work of a man, or men, then it is no more valuable to you or I than any other decent book exploring Christian doctrine.

 

[Autodidact]

And who has been able to validate the claims made in the Bible or Koran.

Ding! Ding! ding! Give that man a cigar.

But seriously, here's why I bash LDS in particular. Of the three, and even bringing in Judaism to make it 4, LDS is the silliest of the lot. Scientology beats it, but not by much. And as an atheist who retains some hope for human reason, it seems to be that if you can brainwash little children to believe LDS, then you can get people to believe anything. It's depressing.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nothing in that long non-answer indicated jesus qualified in any way as a messiah. In fact, as has already been proven on another thread, it's more apt to call jesus an anti-christ.

So as not to disrupt this thread and it's main topic of the oddities and falsities of the BoM, I'll provide you with the link to an ealier thread in which jesus has already been proven to be a false christ.



I suppose this is another oddity of the BoM, which implies jesus was the christ. Does it say why? If it doesn't add or contradict the bible in some way then Smith picked a false messiah to work into his religion. Understandable since he was targeting gullable christians who didn't even know what christ meant for his new religion.

CHRIST is coming back again. That part of the prophetic message has not been fulfilled. HE is returning to reign as KING for 1000 years. That comes after the time of Jacob's troubles (the 7 year Tribulation Period).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The existance of the Jew validates the Bible.

Which Jew.

If you mean Jesus, can you prove he ever existed with out referring to the Bible itself.

If you can, you will be the first, as no known, other evidence is known to exist.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Not my point. According to LDS theology, there are prophets who receive guidance from God. Those prophets say the BoM is fact, not fiction. So if you're right, that's another huge chunk of your religion you would have to discard.

The authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a historical record is integral to the LDS church as it stands. I would argue that as interesting it would be to consider the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, I would not personally be able to carry that opinion and maintain membership.

EDIT: I am speaking in terms of personal choice rather than being excommunicated, though I would be fairly sure that would probably happen if I were to be vocal about such an opinion.

 

[Autodidact]

CHRIST is coming back again. That part of the prophetic message has not been fulfilled. HE is returning to reign as KING for 1000 years. That comes after the time of Jacob's troubles (the 7 year Tribulation Period).

And your support for this assertion is...?

I think it's funny, and sad, when modern people who live surrounded by science still prefer magical thinking and tribal myths.

 

[Humanistheart]

CHRIST is coming back again. That part of the prophetic message has not been fulfilled. HE is returning to reign as KING for 1000 years. That comes after the time of Jacob's troubles (the 7 year Tribulation Period).

For christ to come back there'd have to be one to begin with, which clearly isn't the case as non have fullfilled the messianic prophicies.

And no, nothing in the hebrew prophicies says anything about a messiah returning from death. This has nothing to do with the definition of christ.

Now, back to the problems with the BoM...

 

[Autodidact]

The authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a historical record is integral to the LDS church as it stands. I would argue that as interesting it would be to consider the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, I would not personally be able to carry that opinion and maintain membership.

Watchmen?

 

[Autodidact]

CHRIST is coming back again. That part of the prophetic message has not been fulfilled. HE is returning to reign as KING for 1000 years. That comes after the time of Jacob's troubles (the 7 year Tribulation Period).

I take it back. Some versions of Christianity are every bit as silly as LDS.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Watchmen?

Yes, sorry. That was more directed at watchmen, I was just too lazy to go back and quote his post.

 

[Humanistheart]

As I was the one who wrote a majority of the current forum rules . I am well aware of their meaning.

There was nothing in my post to indicate I was reffering to forum rules so you did not have to make things up about about being involved with their creation.
My comment was aimed at your very poor debate style, as you offer nothing contructive or relevant at all but have no qualms about putting others down for theirs.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ding! Ding! ding! Give that man a cigar.

But seriously, here's why I bash LDS in particular. Of the three, and even bringing in Judaism to make it 4, LDS is the silliest of the lot. Scientology beats it, but not by much. And as an atheist who retains some hope for human reason, it seems to be that if you can brainwash little children to believe LDS, then you can get people to believe anything. It's depressing.

Why bash anyone. It simply shows a mean spirit towards other people.

From the theist point of view, the atheist is the least defensible of all.

 

[Humanistheart]

Which Jew.

If you mean Jesus, can you prove he ever existed with out referring to the Bible itself.

If you can, you will be the first, as no known, other evidence is known to exist.

While your assertion is correct, I can't help notice that in one post on this thread your insulting a group of people for offering evidence against the lds church, now your pointing out flaws in christianity. Not much for consistancy are you?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There was nothing in my post to indicate I was reffering to forum rules so you did not have to make things up about about being involved with their creation.
My comment was aimed at your very poor debate style, as you offer nothing contructive or relevant at all.

I have made nothing up.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

From the theist point of view, the atheist is the least defensible of all.

Not for me. I've skirted round the edges of atheism quite a lot. I can certainly appreciate it as a sane and rational opinion. I hold more respect for that world view than a fair few others.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

While your assertion is correct, I can't help notice that in one post on this thread your insulting a group of people for offering evidence against the lds church, now your pointing out flaws in christianity. Not much for consistancy are you?

There is no evidence I have seen against the LDS in this thread, simply rehashes of old ideas in previous threads.

I have pointed out no flaws in Christianity only factual observation about the availability of physical evidence.
The LDS and all other Christian dogma is based on Faith.

 

[LittleNipper]

Which Jew.

If you mean Jesus, can you prove he ever existed with out referring to the Bible itself.

If you can, you will be the first, as no known, other evidence is known to exist.

I mean the Jew as a nation ---- Israel...

 

[LittleNipper]

And your support for this assertion is...?

I think it's funny, and sad, when modern people who live surrounded by science still prefer magical thinking and tribal myths.

Ten little toes.

I think it is funny when people try to apply science to ignore GOD and HIS Revelations...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I mean the Jew as a nation ---- Israel...

So how does Israel validate the Bible? Please explain.