I got a copy of the Book of Mormon and read as much of it as I could take, which was only about 3 chapters. I don’t suppose I need to say more.
Actually, David, you probably do need to say more. Last time I checked, your ability (or lack thereof) to understand something did not constitute a test of that thing’s validity.
In other words: Who the heck are you to decide something’s valid when you can’t be bothered to read it through?
Or invalid for that matter?
Actually, Monty, I’ll simply state, as was done once before in this thread that the OP didn’t ask about the validity of anything. It asked what I thought about it. Just in case you need reminding, one more time, here is the OP which I also cited in my post.
**"My question is simple. I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I am merely curious as to what people out there think of when they hear about my faith… **
Now, have you got it, or does it have to be repeated one more time?
I wasn’t asking you your opinion about the OP, David. I was addressing your pathetic statement. Got that?
Why is it every time I check out this thread Monty is being nasty to someone?
I guess I misled you about how much of the Book of Mormon I read. I think I said “chapters” but I had forgotten how the book was segmented. I went back and looked again at my copy and the edges of the pages show evidence of having been read through Ch. 23 of the Book of Mosiah. This is about a quarter of the way through and I think that is a fair sample. What I read might not have been the most stupifyingly dull and pointless reading that I have had the misfortune to encounter, but it was a contender. Note that this says nothing about its validity. Valid and dull are not mutually exclusive.
And, Monty, since you obviously have a low opinion of me and my opinion, what possible difference does it make to you what I think of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? In your place I certainly wouldn’t waste any time on me.
I’m still waiting for my Mormon friend, who gave me my copy of the Book of Mormon, to show me all the historical evidence he says exists that proves its validity. Anyone want to help him out?
The Atheist are right! I know for a fact! My god ATHEI told me so himself.
(couldn’t resist 
)
Preface: What I have said below is my opinion and nothing more. Please do not assume that I am attacking anyone personally. These are just my own thoughts.
That said, regarding the OP, I think there is a requisite level of suspended disbelief and absurdity to all religious beliefs (the main ones, anyway). My personal bias is wondering how anyone can read the Bible, Talmud, Q’uran, BoM, etc., and think that the majority, if not all of it, is valid. Read objectively (to me) it seems like all of those texts read like science fiction. In fact the CoS doesn’t seem so different to the others, but it seems more universally derided (I include myself as one who doesn’t think very highly of the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard). But why should Xenu be any less valid than Jesus, or Mohammed? I think there is something to the fact (which someone else pointed out previously) that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all based on texts and culture that are extremely old. The BoM is the new kid on the block, and it’s easier to critique, since we don’t have to deal with hazing of history and dogma over millennia. That’s not to say that it isn’t already becoming hazy over time. And I think, like all successful religions, it fosters a certain level of apologist to keep it valid.
So, I am not critical of the BoM any more than I have for any mystical faith based dogma. I find it fascinating, however, that anyone actually chooses to follow any of those teachings. I also have trouble understand how anyone who believes in Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam can take swipes at the other guy. It seems like a situation where a whole lot of kettles are heckling a bunch of pots.
Getting back to the OP, I guess I would ask myself (if I were Mormon) why the CoS, or any other religion and/or cult is outlandish or wrong in comparison. It seems to me that, like Scientology, the BoM is based on a lot of things that just seem made up. The good news is that many people within these faiths are good people who do a lot of good for others. If the only reason that they do this is because they follow their particular belief, then it is all good. No harm, no foul. I suspect, however that they would have been pretty good people anyway.
Admittedly I may be missing the gene for being able to find unchallenged faith a reasonable alternative, and am likely missing out on a whole level of experience I might otherwise have. But if being spiritual and following a faith is just to lead a good life for yourself and others, and then go to heaven, I think I am just missing out on the heaven part at the end. And I can live with that. Which begs the question as to how many people follow their faith on the fear that if they don’t they will miss out on heaven, or worse be sent to hell. But I’m sure that’s another equally interesting thread going on as we speak.
Speaking of science fiction…
This essay covers exactly that, from the POV of an SF author. So you may find it interesting.
Thanks for the link genie. It’s a very interesting take on the whole thing. If I followed it correctly, Orson Scott Card is making the argument that if the BoM was a fabrication, it would be impossible for the writer (whether it was Joseph Smith or someone else) to not incorporate any bias of 1820 American ideals, mores, expressions, idioms, and sense of history into the text. It would be impossible for one person to write from the viewpoint of several different authors and not leave tell tale signs that it was really authored by one person. He then goes on to show many instances where he feels someone who would be trying to fake the BoM would go wrong. In his opinion, since none of these errors exist, it is strong evidence that the BoM was divinely inspired as translated by J. Smith. I think that sums it up in a nutshell.
Although Card makes some interesting points, his assumption that no one could write a book like that belies what people are capable of creating. I think he overestimates the skill required to forge a document as full as the BoM (I’m not saying it is forged, just that his argument falls short of showing that it is genuine as accepted). And what if J. Smith was not trying to create a document that was clearly a fabrication, rather he was convinced of the story he had devised (not unheard of in the realm of psychosis)? It seems perfectly reasonable to make the same arguments for and against the BoM being a divine document, depending on your interpretation of what someone is capable of creating, even in the 1820’s. Personally I seriously doubt that J. Smith was trying to pull one over on everyone, a la L. Ron Hubbard, but that doesn’t mean that he was writing from prophesy.
The other point I think the author ignores is that he seems to assume that all forgeries are eventually discovered through flaws in style, content, context, or any other number of methods. That would be assuming that there have never been any successful forgeries in history and that everything that is authentic is guaranteed as such. I think that is a bit reckless.
Regardless, he takes a lot of pains to point out the supporting evidence for his theory, and does nod to the fact that there are opposing points of view. I think the only problem is that Card makes a premature assumption (that no one can successfully forge a document like the BoM) and then uses it to bolster his argument. I would respectfully contend that someone could write the BoM just as it is, and do it without the hand of God. What do I have to support that theory? Alas, nothing but my own experience and intuition at this point.
Hello, here are some of my thoughts:
-
I’ve only known 3 mormon’s in my life, one of them a very close friend. I consider them all very good people – they have qualities that I appreciate. They don’t drink, they don’t swear, they don’t get hung up on looks or sex or drugs or other stupid things people my age like to talk about (I’m 22).
-
I think every person I’ve met that is religious has tried to convince me that their religion is right (I’m atheist). This may not be as obvious as knocking on my door, but it is certainly there.
-
Being atheist, I think every religion has strange teachings. But there are good values there – is a religion that restricts someone from having caffeine strange? Maybe. But if so, it’s only because society thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to smoke cigarettes and drink a litre of pop everyday.
-
I don’t mind people knocking at my door to spread their religion, I completely understand. Just don’t expect me to let you in.
At the end of the day, I’ve got no problems with people of faith. However, ultimately I do not understand them. Hopefully, as long as I keep that in mind, I will not dislike any of them.
–Chorus
WV: One of these days, I pray, you’ll actually post something that contributes.
Well, vertigo, that’s fine. It’s not really an essay meant to convince anyone of anything; more an exercise in fun than anything else. If you read the last few paragraphs closely, you’ll see that Card makes no claim that any of the essay has any real bearing on whether you should believe the BoM or not. It’s just his perspective on the job of writing such a document.
As for whether anyone could do such a thing as you describe, well, how’bout you give it a try? 
Really. Let me know how you do. Remember, no research allowed, and you have 8 weeks!
I agree, genie. Card was directing that essay to a group who already believed the genuineness of the BoM. But it does make a statement that purports to strengthen the validity of what J. Smith wrote. And rightly so, as there is nothing wrong with Card using his knowledge of writing and of the BoM to give support to its followers. I am not trying to criticize the intent of what Card wrote.
Still, since he wrote it, it seems fair game to challenge his thought process and see if there are any gaping holes in his logic. Though not gaping, I think I have accurately pointed out a few that might entertain the casual reader to ask a few more questions before taking what Card wrote as strong evidence for the validity of the BoM. I don’t feel like I have any agenda other than pointing out what seems inconsistent about religious texts (and the Bom in particular, since this is a discussion about Mormons) to me as an outsider with no religious affiliation. And granted, having no affiliation does not necessarily mean my objectiveness is any better than anyone here.
I, of course, note a bit of good natured facetiousness in that last comment, but it’s a fair question and I’ll try to address it. I would be the first to admit that I would fail miserably at trying to write a work like the BoH, no matter how much time you gave me. But as the old saying goes, “you don’t need to be a chicken to know a rotten egg”. In this case I think that means that it isn’t necessary for me to be capable of writing a book like the BoM, or the Bible for that matter, to be able to think that someone with the talent could. It could be that J. Smith was rather a savant when it came to writing religious texts. I have no way of testing that.
Also, I realize that he wrote out the BoH in a matter of weeks, but what makes you assume (if it isn’t actually translated from prophecy) that he hadn’t been thinking about all of this since he was 12? Give me a decade of my life to mull something over, and I don’t think I would have any problem cranking out something as prolific as the BoH in a few weeks, although I would prefer if you asked me to do it with something that I am more talented at than writing.
I guess it really boils down to deciding to have faith in a particular dogma, and then allowing that to carry the “weird and mystical” nature of a particular religious text. Again, I see no real difference in Mormons believing everything we have discussed on this thread and Scientologist believing in Thetans and Xenu, or Christians believing in the ascension of Christ, or any of his miracles. It’s all the same dynamic as far as I can tell. What I never really understood is why one group believes one set of implausible doctrine, while another believes a wholly different set. What makes you choose Mormonism over Christianity, or Islam, or Scientology? And when you are learning about your faith (in this case that of LDS) what do you think when you hear about certain “implausible” events? Or do you never question the validity of the information you are taught? If it centers around an original faith, is there any way to question your beliefs at all (this applies to any religion)?
I come from a Catholic background and I know that my relatives all have varying levels of belief in the Bible as a literal text. Is this common within the LDS? Do some people draw the line at what they think is real and what they think is a misinterpretation, or an outright mistake? And if so, how does one reconcile that and not challenge the basis for the whole religion in the first place?
Nertz. Please forgive the inadvertent replacement of ‘BoM’ with the less used and totally incorrect ‘BoH’. I don’t know what I was thinkin’.
Good question, with a long answer. (And first, let’s establish that the LDS Church is a Christian one. Thank you.) There are a lot of reasons. First, I was raised LDS (both my parents converted in their late teens, and the rest of my extended and eccentric family runs the gamut of beliefs). Being raised LDS, however, is not a good reason to stay. The Church is very demanding, and people who grow up Mormon but without their own convictions generally leave early on. It is very important to make up your own mind on this one.
So, how do you make up your own mind? For me, it was a long process. Study and prayer are always the major ingredients; the Holy Spirit’s influence is what converts people. Over the years (age 15+), I could see and feel Heavenly Father working in my life. I’ve been blessed many times, and have felt the Spirit tell me what is right.
So, the LDS gospel works for me. That’s why I believe it. Everyone has their own story (my husband’s is very different than mine), but it comes down to “I know this is true, because God told me so, and keeps on telling me.”
Sure, I’ve questioned information’s validity many times–and given some of the stupid things I’ve been told, good thing too. (We have a lay priesthood and lay teachers, and unfortunately, strict doctrine is not always taught.) As above, study and prayer are the answer here. Mormons are explicitly told to study issues out in their own minds and to pray about the answers–effort is expected.
Were someone to tell me something I wasn’t sure about, I’d keep the dicussion going for awhile to find out more. Then I’d look to see what the scriptures say. Then I might go to books written by prophets, apostles, or others that I like and respect. I’d pray about the conclusions I’m coming to, and I’d expect some kind of answer, though perhaps not immediately.
I think, too, that everyone has one or two ‘shelf issues’ that they don’t understand and take out every once in awhile to wrestle with.
Um, sort of. We’re much more literal than many of the liberal Christian sects, and less literal than the fundamentalists. We take the Bible to be an inspired text “as far as it is translated correctly”–we think there are mistakes and omissions. And we take the BoM very literally indeed.
You’ll notice that most of things people wonder whether to take literally are the events in the early OT, like the Creation, the Flood, etc. There is a spectrum of opinion on those things within the LDS Church, as there is anywhere, but we are probably more conservative. For example, we believe that Adam and Eve existed, but whether the forbidden fruit story is literal or a symbolic, archetypal telling is open to discussion. Some Mormons believe in a worldwide flood, and others think it was more local, but not many would say that it was just a story. However, ‘implausible’ stories become less so when you remember the central story of Christianity–that God’s son came to earth as a man, died, and then returned from the dead.
Issues like that, however, are secondary. The two important points in LDS doctrine are, first, the divinity and Messiahship of Jesus Christ, and second, the existence of modern prophets. It is necessary to have what we call a testimony of those two things to be LDS (well, nobody will throw you out, but you probably won’t stick around long). We depend on personal testimony for these things, on the witness of the Holy Ghost to us. So while someone might not yet have decided what they think about tithing, they will remember the witness they received about the Atonement, and stick with that while they work on tithing. While one issue or another may be questioned, the ‘basis’, as you say, is already established. One hopes, anyway.
Well, that novel was fairly rambling, hm? Sorry about length–I always have a hard time expressing how we work in a concise way. Hope this makes sense to you.
WV Woman it has always been my experience that Anytime you raise questions or show proof of the inconsistency or cultlikesness of Mormonism, they get nasty.
IRL too.
Any criticism comes as a total attack on them ITO.
Interesting story here. But first, I want to stress that I do consider the LDS to be Christian. They use the King James Bible and their religious beliefs are similar to those of Christian faiths, especially mainline Protestant churches. There are some idiosyncratic differences, but that doesn’t bother me. Their belief in additional revealed texts – the Book of M<ormon and the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenant and the Pearl of Great Price apparently upset a lot of people, however.
When I lived in Salt Lake City, I found myself Chairman of the Education Committee at a Catholic parish (and me an agnostic. long story) I had to line up speakers for regular lectures, and in the course of this I learned that Catholics and many Protestant groups did not classify Mormons as “Christian”. It bothered me, and I never got a good and complete answer.
CalMeacham, if you don’t mind, I’ll take a stab at the reasons that some Christians do not classify Mormons as Christians. Most Christians share a fairly large set of common beliefs; Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox share a very large set, with the mainstream Protestant groups sharing a somewhat smaller set with each other and with the Catholics and Orthodox. Often, this set of common beliefs is referred to as orthodox Christianity. The LDS, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian/Universalists, etc., all self-identify as Christian, yet deviate from this common set of orthodox beliefs in some significant way.
With regards to LDS, one major sticking point is the understanding of the Trinity and the nature of God, which certainly does differ greatly between LDS and other Christian churches. It is my understanding that Mormon teaching also points to this as a major point of contention with the older Churches, and as proof of the universal apostasy which made the LDS necessary. Monty, please correct me if I’m wrong here.
Addendum: There are many varieties of Unitarian/Universalist belief, and not all would self-identify as Christian.