When I was a kid, we had an hour of scripture study as a family every Sunday. There were times when we also did daily scripture study, but only for 15-30 minutes. This was in the 1970s and 1980s.

A lot has happened in the Mormon church in the 30 years since I was a boy. Simon Southerton's book has made it clear that Native Americans were not descended from Book of Mormon Lamanites, and it has convinced the Mormon church enough that they changed the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Mopologists have made dizzyingly asinine explanations for other problems such as horses and steel in the Americas. So, not only has the criticism of the Book of Mormon become more ironclad, but the Church's explanations have become weaker and sillier.

My TBM parents often used to talk about some scripture they'd been reading and how it relates to their Mormon world view. They still do this, but I've noticed that their quotes tend to come from the books of Mormon leaders. They quote from Monson a lot these days. I can't remember the last time they quoted from the Book of Mormon. My TBM brother isn't a reader, and I don't he and his wife read with their kids. Also, they have a Downs Syndrome boy, and that would make it hard for them. Knowing my brother, he probably would just avoid the issues by not reading the scriptures, and I would bet that is what has happened.

There doesn't seem to be the push to read the Book of Mormon like there used to be. It used to be important to read it 15 minutes a day. Do Mormon leaders still say that? Do many Mormons still read the Book of Mormon, or do they read the works and biographies of Mormon leaders like my TBM parents do?

It was when I was reading aloud to my kids that my biggest questions came to light. I was reading 3 Ne & 4 Ne, and I realized, there is no way that the great destruction of 15 cities and makeover of the face of the whole land could go unnoticed, even if in a limited region of a few hundred kilometers-squared. Likewise, a christian centered, highly populous, industrious, peaceful, non-racist utopian society that lasted short of 200 years would be like the Greek civilization on steroids.

I did a search online, at FARMS and in popular archeology trades. Not a sign of it.

It made me very worried.

Then I read about Southerton's work, a finishing nail.

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was reading 3
> Ne & 4 Ne, and I realized, there is no way that
> the great destruction of 15 cities and makeover of
> the face of the whole land could go unnoticed,
> even if in a limited region of a few hundred
> kilometers-squared. Likewise, a christian
> centered, highly populous, industrious, peaceful,
> non-racist utopian society that lasted short of
> 200 years would be like the Greek civilization on
> steroids.


This bothered me to no end when I began studying the ancient Greeks and Romans. How could there be so much of the Greeks and Romans left for us to discover and scantly anything at all of the BoM people? The answers I received were ludicrous. One answer was that the Mayan and the Inca remains were of the BofM. That sufficed for a while, until I looked it up that is. Then I was told that God prevents us from finding the remains so as to test our faith, and that I shouldn't have a problem with that since I had faith that God did the same to the Gold Plates for the same reasons. Well, that did work for a while, until I started to question the nature of such a God.

I like this by Packham:

http://packham.n4m.org/romans.htm

Interestingly enough, while it's impossible that the civilization described in the BoM was there, the sophisticated pre-colonial cultures in the present day US didn't leave a whole lot of large scale remains besides earth mounds and the like. Most of the people in the US prior to European colonization, numbering in the millions, died from plague after early contact with Europeans (they don't really talk about what was going on in North America between 1492 and 1620 In most history classes).

For this reason, settlers were often astonished at how ready to colonize the land was...sometimes as if it were a park or someonge had prepared it or something...

There is evidence that Joe seeing such remnants of the formerly numerous indigenous people, began to invent a history of the people he imagined once inhabited his own region. Thus the BoM was born.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2012 05:03AM by hexalm.

Its basically a war novel. Boring stories of conquests and alot of killings and murders between Lamanites and Nephites.
So much that I often get confused who the bad guys are.

Yeah, it made me pause and ask more questions
about Joseph Smith too,

and finally gettng the answers in RFM and the internet -

culminating in me throwing the BOM and C& D into the toilet
bowl (cant believe I did that) as a gesture that these books are bullshits. (someone who needed to use the toilet retrieved the books later and dump them into the trash bins LOL.)

Yes, it was that glorious youtube video made by a Mormon archeologist that confirmed beyond any doubt about the fact
that BOM is merely JS's fiction book.

It seems that church leaders encourage members to read the BoM, but they know that most members don't actually do it and will feel guilty about it.

Probably a good thing because if they did they might wonder why none of the major mormon doctrines and theology don't appear in or are contradicted by the BoM.

TBMs are still encouraged to read the BOM. My oldest reads the scriptures and I encourage that because it allows us to openly discuss the glaring issues. She's young enough that most questions revolve around why so and so killed so and so.

You don't need to read it to convince yourself that it's twoo, the profit already told you. Just read that one verse, pray, and if you aren't struck dead that means God revealed to you that it's twoo. And if that's twoo, then tithing is too. That's really all that matters.

What NormaRae says is twoo, indeed. But I think that directives to read the BoM is not about actually reading and knowing the book. I don't believe that GA's worry one way or the other about whether or not people know anything from the so-called "scriptures." I believe it is merely a tool to inflict guilt, and that is all.

A couple years ago our stake was asked to read the entire BOM prior to stake conference. I was in the EQ presidency and being an over achiever made sure I got through it twice before conference.

They still want personal and family reading daily, and emphasize the BOM. My DD that is home from college (off track at BYU-I) put the guilt trip on to start reading again as a family. DW knows I will cover the problems with it. DW and DD have read together a few times.

No. If only because no one can try to read it and stay awake. Verily, it has and it shall come to pass that sleep overcomes those who try.

Charlie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. If only because no one can try to read it and
> stay awake. Verily, it has and it shall come to
> pass that sleep overcomes those who try.
Read BoM. Don't drink coffee. That is a tough combination.

Maybe they were waiting for the movie. Is that out yet?

My SIL reads the BOM on her iPod. I had no idea you could even do that much less want to do it.

Didn't Hinkley command the faithful to read it before the end of the year a few years ago?

My dad says that he sits in High Priest group, and they're all dinking around on their smartphones where some of them have an enormous amount of searchable material. I think my folks recently made the change over from rotary.

I like how Mormons talk about reading the BoM. They say things like: "I'm reading the BoM, and my family is very supportive." It's as if they have a disease. The book is turgid and clumsily penned. Members have to be told to read it. No one can stay with it for long. I forced myself to read it so I could get a feel for it. The feeling resembles a headache. The BoM is awful. Why couldn't it be interesting? It's a piece of Shiz.

but it was incredibly boring and difficult to read. I've read all of the world's great religious texts (the Bible, Talmud, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Theogeny, etc) and I'd never read the Book of Mormon. It has misspellings "cimiter" instead of scimitar, "wo" instead of "woe" , the names of several people and places are clearly made up, and whole parts are copied from the Bible. I read the Cliff Notes instead (the summary presented in "Mormonism Unveiled"). BTW, What does "Mormon" mean anyway? I've never found a good etymology for this word.

That's one I couldn't get through. I only have the 2nd book though, not the first.

I think some of the names in the Book of Mormon are related to demons or evil spirits. Nephi seems a lot like Nephilim to me. Moroni in Smith's original story was the ghost of a pirate left to stand guard over the treasure. Mormon sounds a lot like Mormo, which is an evil spirit bogeyman that bites bad children like a vampire. I don't know if this is where these names have come from, but they sure sound like it to me.

Mormo is the demon also responsible for the dead in Anton Levays satanic bible according to google.

No wonder they do baptism for the dead anf have dead relatives coming to them

Spalding went to Dartmouth and would have studied Greek and Latin literature. If "Mormo" (like "Medusa") is the name of a banshee-type evil spirit, Nephites and Lamanites seem to come from the masons (i.e. "laymen" and "neophytes"). I know that Joseph Smith was a mason but he became a mason after the BOM was written. I think Spalding came up with the basic story (this much has been verified by statements from Spalding's family and neighbours) but Smith and Sidney Rigdon filled in the rest.

The only objective, first hand account that I've been able to find of what Smith was like is from the mummy and Greek psalter episodes in "Three Days at Nauvoo." Smith and company act more like grifters or carnival barkers at a sideshow on the midway...

You mean you never read Joseph Smith's explanation of the meaning of Mormon? Wellll, allow the expert in the Reformed Egyptian language to enlighten you.

Here it is:

""To the Editor of the Times and Seasons.

Sir: Through the medium of your paper, I wish to correct an error among men that profess to be learned, liberal and wise; and I do it the more cheerfully, because I hope sober-thinking and sound-reasoning people will sooner listen to the voice of truth, than be led astray by the vain pretentions [pretensions] of the self-wise. The error I speak of, is the definition of the
word "Mormon." It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God. translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. In the 523d page, of the fourth edition, it reads: "And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the Reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech; and if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew: but the Hebrew hath been altered by us, also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold ye would have had no imperfection in our record, but the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also, that none other people knoweth our language; therefore he that prepared means for the interpretation thereof."

Here then the subject is put to silence, for "none other people knoweth our language," therefore the Lord, and not man, had to interpret, after the people were all dead. And, as Paul said, "the world by wisdom know not God," so the world by speculation are destitute of revelation; and as God in his superior wisdom, has always given his saints, wherever he had any on the earth, the same spirit, and that spirit, is John says, is the true spirit of prophesy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent
of the learning and wisdom of this generation.-Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Savior says according to the gospel of John, "I am the good shepherd;" and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god,; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, of the
contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good.

Yours, Joseph Smith.""
--- Joseph Smith, 'Times and Seasons,' vol. 4. no. 13, May 15, 1843, pg. 194

Joseph Smith asserted in his letter that he had an understanding of the Egyptian (Reformed Egyptian) language from which he said the Book of Mormon was translated by which he claimed justification for the definition of the word "Mormon" that he presented. Using the standard tactic of claiming ignorance on the part of others, but special knowledge on the part of himself, he presented a convoluted and unbelievable definition of the term based only on his own words, without any validation by use of examples from the golden plates or use of the golden plates themselves, which had disappeared and conveniently been removed from the ability of any person of education to examine them. His basic premise was that the word Mormon consists of the union of two words: MOR and MON. The word MON is said to be an Egyptian word meaning GOOD. The word MOR is said to be a contraction of the English word MORE, the contraction being formed by removing the ending E. Placed together, the word MORMON is formed, meaning MORE GOOD. The problem is obvious, because the word MORE (MOR) is a Middle English word derived from the Old English word, MARA. So, Joseph Smith claimed that the Middle English word MORE was combined with the Reformed Egyptian word MON in circa. 330 A.D. to form the word MORMON. Since Old English did not come into existence until circa. 400 A.D. (MARA) and Middle English did not come into existence until circa. 1100 A.D. (MORE), the use of the word MORE (MOR) in the Book of Mormon would have been impossible, since the word MORE (MOR) did not come into existence until approximately 770 years after the Nephite prophet Mormon is said to have existed.

I personally suspect that Joe Smith was joking, to blow off the guy that asked what "Mormon" meant, with a long-winded answer that could have been answered in one sentence, just to be an "I'm so much smarter than you" a-hole.

If he was serious, well, if he was serious.....how could he be serious!!?

And fyi, "More Good" is a Masonic motto.

I've known about the Mormon church for about forty years, and I've noticed that people read the writings of whoever is profit at the time. When Benson was profit, everybody read his stuff including that book calling on everyone to read the BOM. When he passed on, everyone started reading the next guy. Then it was the Hinkster for so long. Now I guess it's Tommy and his widows. It's like when there's a new profit, all the old stuff doesn't matter any more.

Check out the two maps BoM map & a map of Smith county where he lived during his 'translation') Than scroll down for names in the BoM.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

What a swindler!

Interesting, but not surprising--see my response (way) above to Human.

JS conceived of the whole thing based on evidence of prior inhabitants he saw around him where he lived. Imagined wars and extinction of a flourishing civilization--it just happens that much of that destruction happened a few hundred years before Joe's time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2012 05:07AM by hexalm.

I think I read 1st and 2nd Nephi about 20 times over my life - the whole thing maybe twice. Just couldn't seem seem to get past those two before loosing interest lol

"Try and try, you can't get past 2nd Nephi"

It's a transparent fiction when you finally stand back and analyze it like a literary critic would instead of the faith-and-prayer method. It isn't even good fiction. Boring piece of crap.

Most of the ones I know who regularly read it, and had a good reading comprehension level, are no longer Mormons.

Reading comprehension seems to be the key. A lot of people can read all kinds of things, with never once being able to work out what it means for themselves. Such folk are the bread and butter of religion.

Isn't it true that JS and/or BY never even preached from the BOM? If true, why should anyone read it?

True, but understandable.

Joseph produced the Book of Mormon, tried to sell it, failed and so it became a redundant project to him.
He moved on to Polygamy after that.

We did off and on through the years until things got crazy with evening activities for the kids, then when things calmed down, we'd start up again. The last couple of years before my departure I'd really made an effort to be more consistent as a family and really made my own personal study a priority. I met some resistance from my DH, but how was I to know he was pretending to believe?

I wonder if they do. It is as if I have to teach some of them what it says just to get my points across to them. I think there has been a dumbing down.