Book of Mormon at lds-mormon.com
|“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon
was the most correct of any book on earth,
and the keystone of our religion,…”
— Joseph Smith (as quoted in HC 4:461)
Book of Mormon
Concerns Book of Mormon culture, metallurgy, animals, crops, geography, script, races, witnesses, prophecies, style, and inconsistencies. Includes discussion and questions surrounding the influences of Joseph Smith’s background, happenings of early 19th century America, and the King James Version of the Bible on the Book of Mormon narrative.
An analysis of the book of Mormon with an examination of its internal and external evidences, and a refutation of its pretenses to divine authority
Before Nephi died, which was about fifty-five years from the flight of Lehi from Jerusalem, he had preached to his people every thing which is now preached in the state of New York,…
This book contains manuscripts of B.H. Roberts (who was a General Authority, author, and church historian) in which he expresses some serious doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and frankly admits that Joseph Smith had a vivid enough imagination and the source material available to produce the Book of Mormon.
The document reveals a Roberts whose dogmatic assertions of his New Witnesses for God had been replaced by pained and troubled doubts about the Book of Mormon, which he challenged his colleagues in the hierarchy to help resolve.
Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC copied Isaiah in Isaiah’s original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed ‘ancient record’, he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn’t copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible.
To make his earlier D&C 10 explanation seem consistent with his final Plan 4 Joseph has Nephi explain (1 Ne. 9) that both the large and small plates of Nephi were referred to ambiguously as just “the plates of Nephi.” Thus the phrase “plates of Nephi” which was used to mean the “one and only plates of Nephi” when Joseph first used it with D&C 10 to explain the lost manuscript solution to his close friends could be interpreted later as the small plates of Nephi. This solution worked in Joseph Smith’s day and has continued to work to the present. However, it contains one telltale flaw so subtle it has gone unnoticed even by Mormon scholars. It can be discovered by a careful reading of D&C 10 and Words of Mormon in the Book of Mormon. Can you find it?
Why would a loving god keep [the secret to a peaceful society] from his children? …what do we get from the Book of Mormon? War. And lots of it.
Mr. Ferguson devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and was considered by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He wrote at least three books on the subject.
He realized that the organization he had founded to establish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon was now actually disproving the Book of Mormon by its failure to turn up anything concerning a Christian culture existing in Mesoamerica prior to the time of Columbus.
Ferguson analyzed how the archaeological evidence compared with the claims of the Book of Mormon. This book provides up-to-date information on the status of the Book of Mormon.
The essay by James E. Lancaster is perhaps the best source you will ever find on the translation process of the Book of Mormon. He includes probably every reference made regarding the process by all of the contemporaries of Joseph Smith and Smith himself.
The skepticism Hullinger is talking about is a result of the enlightenment era and the mounting threat secularization of society was having on traditional religions. Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason is one example of the thoughts being expressed at the time that Joseph Smith may have been responding to when he wrote the Book of Mormon.
When Joseph Smith presented the Book of Mormon for sale in early 1830, questions surfaced regarding its claim to be an authentic ancient history of the Americas. In this much-anticipated ten-essay compilation, Brent Metcalfe outlines the broad contours of contemporary scholarship as it continues to examine issues of antiquity. Drawing from a variety of disciplines, contributors discuss historicity from the standpoint of physical and cultural anthropology, geography, linguistics, demographics, literary forms, liturgical context, theology, and evolution of the original manuscript to published work.
Most churches are invovled in some measure of magical belief and practice, and the Mormon church even today is no exception. Consider the use of sacred words–especially names–exorcisms, or the presumed power of set rituals. But such things are so commonplace and habitual that they are usually not seen as magical. Most Mormons have managed to live comfortably with the claims of a magical translation of the Book of Mormon by regarding it as revelation or inspiration, or something like that; and seer stones, which in Quinn’s account were not uncommon among early church members, have been kept at a bare minimum by the official histories.
Its contents will mean nothing to you (and probably bore you to death) unless you are very familiar with the Book of Mormon.
The most famous anti-Mormon work of the 20th Century features several chapters debunking the Book of Mormon.
This is the book that over 10 million people (myself included) at one time or another in their lives believe(d) to be scripture.
What did he look like, this Great White God? He was frequently described as a tall white man, bearded and with blue eyes. He wore loose, flowing robes. He came from the heavens and went back to the heavens.
Kindly point out where any non-LDS journal on ancient America specifically mentions the Book of Mormon as being vindicated. Nibley here is so damned short-sighted that he fails to mention that point after point of the Book of Mormon is specifically contradicted by archaeology.
I offer a brief summary of what we know of the Book of Mormon “translation” process.
In examining Josiah Priest’s The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed, we found a story which quotes the words of Shakespeare. In quoting these words, however, they are in the wrong order, and this makes the end of the quotation almost identical to that in the Book of Mormon.
Unfortunately [for believers in the Book of Mormon], close scrutiny of the [BYU Wordprint] study indicates that the encouraging conclusions of its authors may be premature and that several areas of the study seem vulnerable to criticism: basic assumptions made about the notion of wordprints, raw data used in the study, the experimental design used, and presentation of some results. By examining these weaknesses in detail and carefully avoiding them in the future, it may yet be possible to design a study of Book of Mormon author styles which yields conclusions less likely to be challenged.
The “hard evidence” is a stone inscription in ancient Hebrew located in Bat Creek Mound #3, Loudon County, Tennessee, and dating to Book of Mormon times.
The list is merely a possible answer to the question LDS proponents come up with when they try and prove the Book of Mormon’s authenticity by asking, “If the Book of Mormon isn’t of ancient origin, where did Joseph Smith come up with all of those names?”
It is clear that for decades at least LDS missionaries and other proselyters for the church have represented the Institution as having used the Book of Mormon to guide archaeological research it has conducted. I remember being told some version of this story as I was growing up many years ago. The tale is passed from missionary to missionary and Sunday School teacher to student in the classic process of all folklore. A new crop of discoverers of this “hidden truth” comes up every year, and no known means can staunch the process.
…it is difficult to understand why the Book of Mormon continually insists that the Nephites kept the Law of Moses. It seems strange that there is no actual, explicit mention of any of the particulars of the Law. Unless, of course, one asserts that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient history, but was rather made up by someone who had a good imagination, but very little understanding of ancient Jewish culture. Then it makes perfect sense.
The version of the Sermon on the Mount presented in 3 Nephi closely follows the form and arrangement given in Matthew 5-7. The claim on the part of 3 Nephi to represent an independent witness to this teaching of Jesus rests on the assumption that it was Jesus who organized the material into the form in which we now find it in both the gospel of Matthew and 3 Nephi. Current scholarship on Matthew, however, indicates that this is not the case, that indeed Matthew contributed significantly to the shaping of his version of the Sermon on the Mount. If this assessment is correct, it is no longer possible to regard 3 Nephi 12-14 as a record of an actual sermon that was delivered before first-century Nephites by the resurrected Jesus, since Nephi could not have known Matthew.
Nine of the 10 contributors are Mormon church members with varying degrees of participation. Three–Edward Ashment, Melodie Moench Charles and Stan Larson–formerly worked in the church’s Translation Services.
“Every one of us started as believing that the Book of Mormon was an ancient historical document translated from gold plates, and this is where we’ve come,” said Metcalfe, a technical editor in the computer industry.
Among many conclusions is that Smith’s extensive reliance on the King James version of the Bible peppered the text with anachronisms, and that existing geographical and archeological evidence in Mesoamerica does not “achieve even a partial fit” with Book of Mormon civilizations.
Psychiatrist Robert D. Anderson looks at how Joseph Smith’s early life made it into the Book of Mormon text.