Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[trinity2359]

How does a modern English adaptation by someone with an agenda make your testimony go "poof"? Wouldn't the result be the same if you read a modern English Bible? How and why is it different?

Fair question. First, the Bible does not require a testimony to ascertain its truthfulness (history, archeology, 1000s years-old-established world faiths do that). Second, the Book of Mormon was translated into Old English despite its archiac use during the 1800s. KJV English was well established and could be rendered as the 'religious' language. So, by translating BoM into KJV English gave the BoM credibility by association. It 'sounds' like scripture, therefore it must 'be' scripture. I believe I feel for this falacy, for when I read the BoM in the venacular I was able to see things a little more clearly and more readily understand the author's intentions in the writing and those did not appear plausible to me. Therefore, since BoM is the cornerstone of the LDS faith, I was compelled to look elsewhere for truth. There are other areas in which my testimony was faltering and this was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Katzpur]

Fair question. First, the Bible does not require a testimony to ascertain its truthfulness (history, archeology, 1000s years-old-established world faiths do that).

Truth exists independently of a testimony, whether you're talking about the Bible or the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an.

Second, the Book of Mormon was translated into Old English despite its archiac use during the 1800s.

I don't think you know what "Old English" is, do you?

KJV English was well established and could be rendered as the 'religious' language. So, by translating BoM into KJV English gave the BoM credibility by association. It 'sounds' like scripture, therefore it must 'be' scripture. I believe I feel for this falacy, for when I read the BoM in the venacular I was able to see things a little more clearly and more readily understand the author's intentions in the writing and those did not appear plausible to me.

Could you give us a couple of examples? I'd be interested in seeing a few of the verses that helped you "see things a little more clearly."

 

[Troublemane]

How does a modern English adaptation by someone with an agenda make your testimony go "poof"? Wouldn't the result be the same if you read a modern English Bible? How and why is it different?

For those interested, here's a link to First Book of Nephi: http://www.mormonmyth.com/Images/PDFs/INephi.pdf

Sory but I have read the book of mormon before, and this translation makes it seem even more like science fiction. The original Bible never refers to the Jewish people as Jews, this word did not even exist back then.
The author of the book of Nephi speaks amazingly like a modern writer, and as you read each book (omni? ether?) its obvious the author of each of them is the same person--there is no difference in style. its boring, it tells nothing, there is no big morality lessons except maybe to learn each of the authors are evil---Nehi slays Laban with his own sword? in another tale there is a battle between two armies down to the last two men. so ridiculous i should try to make up my own religion----oh wait, thats what L.Ron Hubbard said.

 

[nutshell]

Sory but I have read the book of mormon before, and this translation makes it seem even more like science fiction. The original Bible never refers to the Jewish people as Jews, this word did not even exist back then.
The author of the book of Nephi speaks amazingly like a modern writer, and as you read each book (omni? ether?) its obvious the author of each of them is the same person--there is no difference in style. its boring, it tells nothing, there is no big morality lessons except maybe to learn each of the authors are evil---Nehi slays Laban with his own sword? in another tale there is a battle between two armies down to the last two men. so ridiculous i should try to make up my own religion----oh wait, thats what L.Ron Hubbard said.

Actually, there is evidence to show that the authors of each book are different. However, I'll let DeepShadow or another poster with more info than me take that up. As for the authors being evil: God telling a BoM author to kill someone is no different than him telling his people in the OT to kill others.

 

[Sola'lor]

First off, Jerusalem was destroyed not for wickedness (lest ye are a roman), it was destroyed by the Romans due to a Jewish revolt soon after the death of Christ. It has since been rebuilt, and you may not realize this but there are Christians living in Jerusalem today, and many holy places there relevant to Christians.

I believe it was because of their wickedness that God allowed the Romans to destroy them. If they had remained faithful perhaps they would have been protected from the Romans.

A promise not kept, remember 9-11?

God's promise would ofcourse be dependant on our righteousness. If America became wicked there would be no problem with God sending all sorts of plagues to humble us. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, etc. Personally I don't see America as all that righteous, especially considering what is on TV.

The pope is there to preserve the faith the way it was originally intended, not to provide new scripture. Its why the Bible has not had any new books added in the last two millennia.

No offense intended, but the Catholic church is FAR from what it originally was. If the Pope was supposed to keep the faith from changing, he has failed horribly.

An interesting take on the christian myth, but also still just myth. Mormonism if viewed like this, is just a commentary on the Bible. Take away all the scriptural commentary and its just Christianity but with "sacred underwear" as a free bonus.

I'd say your basically correct. The Book of Mormon provides explanation and expounds on what is in the Bible. It shows us the true intention of what the Bible says. So instead of the Bible standing alone, the Book of Mormon, as revealed scripture, shows us what Christianity is supposed to be as establish by Christ himself. This is why we say it is restored. Because it is basically Christ's church as he meant it to be. BUt your right without the Book of Mormon our church would be nothing but another in a long line of biblical interpretations. I'm not sure how I feel about your 'sacred underwear' quip.

And the big problem here is if the USA is Gods new Holy Land, and the Mormons are Gods new chosen people, how come y'all cant even get Mitt Romney nominated to run for president? Doesnt sound like Gods being too supportive there.

No it's not the USA that is 'God's new Holy Land'. America is. The United States of America is a government that exists in only part of America. OUr article of faith says the the New Jerusalem will be founded on teh American continent not in the United States of America. It just so happens that the place revealed as where New Jerusalem will be built is on land currently goverened by the United States of America. I didn't want Mitt Romney for President. He would have been just as bad as any of the others running for President. I think God was extremely supportive.

 

[Sola'lor]

Sory but I have read the book of mormon before, and this translation makes it seem even more like science fiction. The original Bible never refers to the Jewish people as Jews, this word did not even exist back then.

I'm supposing your right, but regardless. The word Jew in the Book of Mormon would be the English translation for whatever word the people and ancient America used to refer to those people. They wouldn't have been waling around saying the word Jew. But Jew is the word we use nowdays to describe them. So why not use that word in an English translation of an ancient word.

 

[Katzpur]

Sory but I have read the book of mormon before, and this translation makes it seem even more like science fiction.

Your link is to an anti-Mormon summary of the Book of Mormon, not to a legitimate translation of the book. Here's where I stopped taking your critic seriously.

The original Bible never refers to the Jewish people as Jews, this word did not even exist back then.

Which "original" Bible are you talking about? My KJV refers to the Jewish people as Jews more than 80 times in the Old Testament alone. You obviously weren't paying attention.

The author of the book of Nephi speaks amazingly like a modern writer...

Really? Would you mind giving me a couple of examples?

...and as you read each book (omni? ether?) its obvious the author of each of them is the same person--there is no difference in style.

Really. I guess you realize that scholars disagree with you on this, don't you? Even non-LDS scholars examining the Book of Mormon through wordprint studies have concluded that as many as twenty-four different individuals authored the Book of Mormon and that the book was definitely not authored in the nineteenth century. I can give you the details of the studies if you'd like.

...its boring

But you read it anyway, beginning to end. Right.

...it tells nothing, there is no big morality lessons...

You score really low on reading comprehension, don't you? You supposedly picked up on Nephi killing Laban, but found no other morality lessons in the book. Obviously you skipped Mosiah, Alma and 3 Nephi. Or maybe you just stopped at the end of page 1 and thought we were all big enough suckers to believe you. Tell me, what did you think of Nephi's vision of the white buffalo? How could that have not absolutely blown you away?

...so ridiculous i should try to make up my own religion

Great idea. And if, six generations after your death, it is still thriving and growing at a rate of 1 million converts every three years, maybe people will consider taking you seriously.

 

[DeepShadow]

Sory but I have read the book of mormon before, and this translation makes it seem even more like science fiction.

I'd expect so; that is the intention of this "translation," after all.

The original Bible never refers to the Jewish people as Jews, this word did not even exist back then.

Right, and besides, are we to believe that these ancient Israeli-Americans spoke English?

Er, you do understand the meaning of the word "translation," don't you? What would be the proper word in English for Judaic peoples in Jerusalem circa 700 BC? That would be...Jews. Whether they spoke of themselves this way is utterly irrelevant.

The author of the book of Nephi speaks amazingly like a modern writer, and as you read each book (omni? ether?) its obvious the author of each of them is the same person--there is no difference in style.

Funny you mention that, but the non-LDS "Berkeley Group" measured this using stylometry. They found a statistically significant difference in style in all 24 books they used, and rated the chance of Alma and Nephi having the same author as approximately one in 15 trillion.

Then again, perhaps your sample sizes were too small. This is how critics of the BoM find "duplicate passages" between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, while neglecting to mention that (at that small sample size) there's an even larger correlation to Walt Whiman's Leaves of Grass.

 

[Keila Jedrik]

Er, you do understand the meaning of the word "translation," don't you? What would be the proper word in English for Judaic peoples in Jerusalem circa 700 BC? That would be...Jews. Whether they spoke of themselves this way is utterly irrelevant.

This whole argument is moot. I believe the Book of Mormon starts in the lifetime of Jeremiah, and Jeremiah used the word "Jew" in chapter 32 verse 9. It says, "That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother."

 

[DeepShadow]

Good to know! Thanks!

 

[Jeremy Mason]

What about the Joseph Smith's so called witnesses recanting their testimony regarding the Golden Plates?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well for me the question is, with all of this supposed migration, settlement and battle has there been any conclusive archaeological digs and finds that give credence to the claims of mormons?

I can see how the egyptians lived, governed, worshiped and fought. I can do this with the Jews, muslims and other people back then but I haven't seen this with mormon history. So far, and I'm only speaking for me, I have seen just the words in books as to who was related to who.

 

[Katzpur]

What about the Joseph Smith's so called witnesses recanting their testimony regarding the Golden Plates?

They didn't. Not one of them ever did, even though several of them left the Church over personal issues with Joseph Smith.

 

[Troublemane]

Ya its really just my opinion, I admit, that its all phoney. I really did read the whole book and spent alot of time laughing. The compass that only points in the right direction when the people are being good, and such. The names Omni and Ether being Greek, many of the stories being such obvious mythologizing without apparent moral. I really wanted to find something in it to support a belief in it as a viable religion, but I couldnt, sorry.

In contrast, I have to say that I have known some very good people of the Mormon faith, and I respect them as people and as children of God generally. I would say y'all have an amazing capacity for charity, support for community and love for your neighbors, etc. Plus the Mormon church has been studied (I believe) for its financial structure. All good. I just can't read the BoM as a serious, scholarly work, sorry.

 

[Troublemane]

God's promise would ofcourse be dependant on our righteousness. If America became wicked there would be no problem with God sending all sorts of plagues to humble us. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, etc. Personally I don't see America as all that righteous, especially considering what is on TV.

Actually I have to agree with that. There was a time a few years ago , right after the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the media made a big deal out of peoples' opinons, and how the american people didnt care about the imeachment, they said all that mattered was the economy was good. WoW!---I recall saying to a friend back then, look out, its as if we just told God,"Ok, just blast away!"----Ya, so I totally agree with that assessment, there.:yes:

 

[trinity2359]

They didn't. Not one of them ever did, even though several of them left the Church over personal issues with Joseph Smith.

I find this bizarre. If they had true witness of the plates and understood that the Book of Mormon was indeed Scripture - how can they part ways with the prophet who gave it to them? I know, I know, the prophets of Old Testament weren't accepted either, but how many of them produced a tangible book or had visions that they accepted and then rejected the messenger? It was foretold in the BoM that there would be 13 witnesses, right? And the vast majority died apart from Joseph Smith's religion. This is a big discrepancy in my world.

 

[trinity2359]

Ya its really just my opinion, I admit, that its all phoney. I really did read the whole book and spent alot of time laughing. The compass that only points in the right direction when the people are being good, and such. The names Omni and Ether being Greek, many of the stories being such obvious mythologizing without apparent moral. I really wanted to find something in it to support a belief in it as a viable religion, but I couldnt, sorry.

In contrast, I have to say that I have known some very good people of the Mormon faith, and I respect them as people and as children of God generally. I would say y'all have an amazing capacity for charity, support for community and love for your neighbors, etc. Plus the Mormon church has been studied (I believe) for its financial structure. All good. I just can't read the BoM as a serious, scholarly work, sorry.

You want a funny name? In the book of Ether, I believe is a character called the 'brother of Jared'. He is not referenced in any other way, though he was given a name by revelation to J. Smith in the Doctrine and Convenants somewhere.

 

[trinity2359]

Well for me the question is, with all of this supposed migration, settlement and battle has there been any conclusive archaeological digs and finds that give credence to the claims of mormons?

I can see how the egyptians lived, governed, worshiped and fought. I can do this with the Jews, muslims and other people back then but I haven't seen this with mormon history. So far, and I'm only speaking for me, I have seen just the words in books as to who was related to who.

I actually asked this of a missionary pair I was taking the lessons with and they had this as an rationale: In 3 Nephi chapter 8 it tells of "tempests, earthquakes, fires, whirlwinds and physical upheavals attest the crucifixion of Christ - many people are destroyed..."Therefore the cities were destroyed and there were no artifacts to be discovered later. convenient, huh?

 

[Katzpur]

I find this bizarre. If they had true witness of the plates and understood that the Book of Mormon was indeed Scripture - how can they part ways with the prophet who gave it to them?

I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Several had a falling out with Joseph Smith and believed he was leading the Church in the wrong direction. Some went so far as calling him a "false prophet," but they knew the reality of what they'd testified to and even their personal feelings towards Joseph could not make them deny an experience they knew to have been real. They were human beings with all of the same failings other human beings have, including pride and stubbornness.

It was foretold in the BoM that there would be 13 witnesses, right? And the vast majority died apart from Joseph Smith's religion. This is a big discrepancy in my world.

The vast majority? I'm aware of four who left, of which two returned (i.e. were rebaptized). That leaves 11 who were LDS at the time of their deaths. Apparently the discrepancy lies more with inaccurate information than with the facts.

 

[Katzpur]

I really did read the whole book and spent alot of time laughing... I really wanted to find something in it to support a belief in it as a viable religion, but I couldnt, sorry.

See, I'm seeing a pretty big contradiction in these two statements. I suppose you could also say the same thing about the Bible. The bottom line is that I suspect you read it looking for a good laugh, and you found just what you were looking for. There really isn't anything any more outlandish in the Book of Mormon than in any other religious text.

The names Omni and Ether being Greek...

And that caused quite a fit of hysterical laughter, I would imagine. Did you know that there are approximately 200 proper nouns which appear in the Book of Mormon, which are not found in the Bible. Many of these have been found to have an ancient Semitic origin. Take the name Alma, for example. I'm surprised that you didn't mention such a huge anachronism as a Latin woman's name having been given to two semitic men. Maybe you knew better than to try to use that example, since Alma has been proven to be not only a Latin woman's name but a Semitic man's name dating from the 6th century B.C.

I just can't read the BoM as a serious, scholarly work, sorry.

Well, that okay, seeing as it was not written as a scholarly work at all, but as scripture.