30 Things That Support The Book of Mormon

[GentlyHewStone]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real. The book's promise that God will testify to seekers of its truth is therefore reasonable to pursue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx9cs0syyQ[/url]

[RonE]

[Replying to post 1 by GentlyHewStone]

This is not really worth a reply... not interesting.

[no evidence no belief]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real.

And if Frodo truly owns a magic ring, then his ability to become invisible is real.

This is a somewhat serious debate forum. I don't necessarily mean to say you're out of your depth, but you may want to put a little more thought into your arguments.

[dianaiad]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real.

And if Frodo truly owns a magic ring, then his ability to become invisible is real.

This is a somewhat serious debate forum. I don't necessarily mean to say you're out of your depth, but you may want to put a little more thought into your arguments.

Did you watch the video to which the OP is referring?

I haven't had time to do so yet, I'll admit. I'm in a bit of a hurry. However, I'll watch it today and see what the arguments are.

Now, you guys KNOW that I'm a TBM, and that I do indeed believe that the Book of Mormon is really an 'ancient text.' However, I also know that some of the arguments for that can be, er....problematic, even as others are good and simply dismissed because NOT dismissing them is a problem for those who understand the implication of the BoM actually being an ancient text.

I would have preferred that some of those arguments be written here, rather than simply 'referred to,' ..and perhaps this isn't the correct sub-forum, but simply dismissing the OP with disdainful sideswipes?

That's not nice.

Let me look later today.

[Dantalion]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real. The book's promise that God will testify to seekers of its truth is therefore reasonable to pursue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx9cs0syyQ[/url]

*sigh*
Non sequitur.
It's not because we hypothetically prove that Jesus walked on water it therefore follows he's the son of God.
Same principle with other religious claims.

[Danmark]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real. The book's promise that God will testify to seekers of its truth is therefore reasonable to pursue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx9cs0syyQ[/url]

Anyone still taking Mormonism seriously after Joseph Smith's obvious fraud of the Book of Abraham was exposed ought to take a look at:
http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-01/ thru 5 [so far]
for a detailed look at the equally fraudulent origins of the Book of Mormon.

The silliness of this silliest of religions takes nothing away from the many good and sincere people who take meaning from this religion, but to actually try and argue for it rationally? You have to be kidding.

But if you DO want to make an argument here, make it. Simply posting a URL does not an argument make.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

Just a note to GentlyHewStone that it is better to clearly state what the question or questions for debate are in the opening post.

I will leave the thread here with the understanding that the question for debate is whether or not Mormonism is reasonable to pursue, and perhaps whether or not the given text is ancient or not.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[no evidence no belief]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real.

And if Frodo truly owns a magic ring, then his ability to become invisible is real.

This is a somewhat serious debate forum. I don't necessarily mean to say you're out of your depth, but you may want to put a little more thought into your arguments.

Did you watch the video to which the OP is referring?

I haven't had time to do so yet, I'll admit. I'm in a bit of a hurry. However, I'll watch it today and see what the arguments are.

Now, you guys KNOW that I'm a TBM, and that I do indeed believe that the Book of Mormon is really an 'ancient text.' However, I also know that some of the arguments for that can be, er....problematic, even as others are good and simply dismissed because NOT dismissing them is a problem for those who understand the implication of the BoM actually being an ancient text.

I would have preferred that some of those arguments be written here, rather than simply 'referred to,' ..and perhaps this isn't the correct sub-forum, but simply dismissing the OP with disdainful sideswipes?

That's not nice.

Let me look later today.

Hi Diane,
As much as we disagree on virtually everything, I'm pretty confident that we will agree that the linked video does not do justice to your beliefs.

I mean, ultimately it does do justice to them. They are wacky, false, laughable beliefs, and the video accurately portrays them as wacky, false and laughable, but there are several techniques of obfuscation and pseudo logic that can be used to camouflage bogus arguments, which the video simply fails to employ.

I much prefer to debate religion with people such as yourself, since you do sometimes make semi-cogent arguments which take a little bit of effort to decode and to locate the flaw.

[dianaiad]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real. The book's promise that God will testify to seekers of its truth is therefore reasonable to pursue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx9cs0syyQ[/url]

*sigh*
Non sequitur.
It's not because we hypothetically prove that Jesus walked on water it therefore follows he's the son of God.
Same principle with other religious claims.

Uhmn....in this case, that's not quite true.

The problem with the Book of Mormon is, well...the way we got it.
As well, if it is an ancient text, then it's mere existence causes a problem for those who dismiss the idea of God existing, given what is written IN it. Even if you dismiss all miracles, etc., described in it, the events themselves cause the 'this is just fantasy' folks problems.

In this case, I'm afraid that proving that the BoM is truly an ancient text would cause a great many cases of indigestion.

Now, I said that I'd look at the video, and I did. There really are thirty reasons listed (and since the video is 20 frenetic minutes long, I'll be willing to bet that I'm the only one who actually took the time to look at it).

Now me, being a TBM, rather liked all of 'em. Of course I would...they make sense to ME. However, from an objective POV, I guess that some of them are 'better' than others. I don't think we need to address the points that 'Joseph Smith would have done it this way if it were fraudulent" or "if he was doing it for this reason, he wasn't successful," or any of the other personal, speculative things, like how quickly it was written.

That still leaves a few that really ought to be looked at.

My personal favorites are linguistic, of course; the things that are found in the BoM that a: would have to be there if it really were an ancient text and b: would not have been there if it were fraudulent because JS would have literally had no way of knowing that they SHOULD be there, but c: are actually there.

Things like chiasmus, and an accurate rendition of middle eastern geography in the BoM that wasn't discovered until over a hundred years later, and accurate place names, knowledge of processes, etc., that JS could not possibly have known. Stuff like that.

None of these things prove that the BoM is 'true.'

But they are pretty strong evidence that JS either got hold of an honest to goodness ancient text, or he was one incredible genius. Given his later life, I don't think 'genius" works. Mind you, I do personally believe he was a prophet, but perfect and sky high IQ? Not so much.

Now the moderators have decided to leave this thread where it is. OK....and they have also asked that a specific question be addressed.

Here's a suggestion: I looked at the video, and have mentioned a couple of the reasons given, including a couple that I particularly like.

I'd go with linguistic evidence, and, oh, geography.

Specifically, chiasmus and literary stuff found in the BoM that should NOT be there...but is,

And the accurate portrayal of middle eastern geography/place names that JS simply could not have known about, since they were discovered and analyzed a century later, but which are consistent with...and do not in any way contradict...claims in the text.

Now, the questions that micatala suggest are 'is Mormonism reasonable to pursue," or 'Is the BoM an ancient text?"

I think that things like chiasmus and geographical accuracy indicate that the BoM may be worth looking at, or rather...not instantly dismissing. At least, I think the ball is in the court of the critics to explain such things away BEFORE simply dismissing it as a possible 'ancient text.'

As to whether Mormonism is 'worth pursuing,' well, of course I think it is. I'm a Mormon. My objectivity is very much in question there.

How about, someone explain AWAY the chiasmus and the geography of the part of the trek placed in the middle east, that turns out to be dead on accurate?

..................when there is no way that JS could have known either the path or the place names?

Now, I'm not saying that there can't BE explanations. I'm just interested in finding out what those might be, using Occam's razor. You know...the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions?

[no evidence no belief]

The nature of The Book of Mormon invites us to conclude that, if it actually is an ancient document, then God is real. The book's promise that God will testify to seekers of its truth is therefore reasonable to pursue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx9cs0syyQ[/url]

*sigh*
Non sequitur.
It's not because we hypothetically prove that Jesus walked on water it therefore follows he's the son of God.
Same principle with other religious claims.

Uhmn....in this case, that's not quite true.

The problem with the Book of Mormon is, well...the way we got it.
As well, if it is an ancient text, then it's mere existence causes a problem for those who dismiss the idea of God existing, given what is written IN it. Even if you dismiss all miracles, etc., described in it, the events themselves cause the 'this is just fantasy' folks problems.

In this case, I'm afraid that proving that the BoM is truly an ancient text would cause a great many cases of indigestion.

Now, I said that I'd look at the video, and I did. There really are thirty reasons listed (and since the video is 20 frenetic minutes long, I'll be willing to bet that I'm the only one who actually took the time to look at it).

Now me, being a TBM, rather liked all of 'em. Of course I would...they make sense to ME. However, from an objective POV, I guess that some of them are 'better' than others. I don't think we need to address the points that 'Joseph Smith would have done it this way if it were fraudulent" or "if he was doing it for this reason, he wasn't successful," or any of the other personal, speculative things, like how quickly it was written.

That still leaves a few that really ought to be looked at.

My personal favorites are linguistic, of course; the things that are found in the BoM that a: would have to be there if it really were an ancient text and b: would not have been there if it were fraudulent because JS would have literally had no way of knowing that they SHOULD be there, but c: are actually there.

Things like chiasmus, and an accurate rendition of middle eastern geography in the BoM that wasn't discovered until over a hundred years later, and accurate place names, knowledge of processes, etc., that JS could not possibly have known. Stuff like that.

None of these things prove that the BoM is 'true.'

But they are pretty strong evidence that JS either got hold of an honest to goodness ancient text, or he was one incredible genius. Given his later life, I don't think 'genius" works. Mind you, I do personally believe he was a prophet, but perfect and sky high IQ? Not so much.

Now the moderators have decided to leave this thread where it is. OK....and they have also asked that a specific question be addressed.

Here's a suggestion: I looked at the video, and have mentioned a couple of the reasons given, including a couple that I particularly like.

I'd go with linguistic evidence, and, oh, geography.

Specifically, chiasmus and literary stuff found in the BoM that should NOT be there...but is,

And the accurate portrayal of middle eastern geography/place names that JS simply could not have known about, since they were discovered and analyzed a century later, but which are consistent with...and do not in any way contradict...claims in the text.

Now, the questions that micatala suggest are 'is Mormonism reasonable to pursue," or 'Is the BoM an ancient text?"

I think that things like chiasmus and geographical accuracy indicate that the BoM may be worth looking at, or rather...not instantly dismissing. At least, I think the ball is in the court of the critics to explain such things away BEFORE simply dismissing it as a possible 'ancient text.'

As to whether Mormonism is 'worth pursuing,' well, of course I think it is. I'm a Mormon. My objectivity is very much in question there.

How about, someone explain AWAY the chiasmus and the geography of the part of the trek placed in the middle east, that turns out to be dead on accurate?

..................when there is no way that JS could have known either the path or the place names?

Now, I'm not saying that there can't BE explanations. I'm just interested in finding out what those might be, using Occam's razor. You know...the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions?

Can you please quote the specific text you're referring to?

I apologize, but I'm not as well versed in the BoM as I am in other religious texts.