I can't believe I didn't even think of this! Everyone tries to disprove what the BoM claims to have been in the Americas, yet so few people have thought about what it DIDN'T claim to be in the Americas! Think about it! Chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, and manioc were never mentioned and all sorts of animals that existed! I think a more startling proof of falsehood is the immense LACK of details that existed in that time.

Chocolate. Yes, who wouldn't mention chocolate if they had ever tasted it?

Very good point indeed.

Chocolate as well as the coca leave used for over 3000 years in South America.

You would think a magic substance that eliminated fatigue and hunger would deserve a mention in the BoM, no? How else were those million man battles fought day after day?

Oh wait. Coca wasn't introduced to Europe until the 1500's and didn't become popular until the 1850's when they figured out how to derive cocaine from the leaf.

Missed Joe and his book by ~25 years...

I think most people miss the point: The book is not literal, neither is the Bible. It's a religious book of teachings of mythological people taught symbolically.

That reasoning surprises me.

In all my years in the church the BoM was always presented as a sacred book. It was translated by a 'prophet' of God directly from the holy one himself. As missionaries we spoke of it's holiness and accuracy in glowing terms and were encouraged to call it a witness to Christ--not a mythological fairy tale.

It was so important that it lay buried and guarded by angels for centuries and no one was allowed to see it until someone as 'pure' as Joseph Smith was found to be worthy enough not only to have God and Jesus flash him in the woods, but to translate this most important book which was delivered to Joseph by the Angel Moroni himself hovering in the air while glowing like a Klieg light.

It is not presented as mythological by any Mormons I know. My family are Bishops, Stake Presidents, Patriarchs and Area Seventies and they all take it very seriously as the word of God, literally.

In addition, the veracity of the book has spawned non-stop Mormon apologetics to at least attempt to prove it was possible even as any hope of proving it true slides through their fingers. They don't have apologetics for religious symbolism. You just label it that in the first place.

As far as any teachings, there is only one I can find: OBEY--or else you are going to get a tan like you never dreamt possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2013 12:18AM by blueorchid.

Have you considered the source?

Par for the course, ifin' ya axe me.

Timothy

I'm fairly new here. Does Susie work for LDS Corp? Why all the apologetics/inflammatory statements from her?

Sorry I'm asking you T...I'll direct the next question to her, but you seem to have a history...

I've been a regular round these parts since 1998. There are a handful (I won't mention any names) who tend to regurgitate the same nonsense so, no, its nothing new.

I've mentioned this on numerous occasions. Until one completely disconnects, one cannot begin to recover. If, for example, you "live with and love mormons" there can be no middle ground. Despite claims to the contrary, those who co-habitat under such circumstances always cave-in to mormon demands.

I'll just leave it at that as the evidence speaks for itself.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2013 03:14PM by Timothy.

So true. I tried unsuccessfully for 5+ years to make it work with my TBM spouse after I discovered the truth. Because there is no middle ground in LDS culture, it was either cave back in or walk away. I chose the authentic path.

DH was still TBM for a while after I discovered the truth and it was a very strange place to be. Almost like being "double-minded". I really had to do some cog-dis juggling. Thankfully DH eventually left.

Although when pressed she is critical, Susie always plays "devil's advocate" in support of Mormonism it seems- always finding the "silver lining" even when there isn't much.

For me it goes beyond just the obvious apologetics stance.

It is about giving all the responsibility to the victim instead of rightfully placing it on the perpetrator. The church lied to you, defrauded you and hurt you but you should understand that you should just shrug your shoulders and say that's life. It's just a harmless God Myth, you know?

You know those shelves we used to put things on and now we're here because they finally caved in? My interpretation of her apologetic remarks is that we should all get a new shelf.

The mormon church ruined your self esteem? They took your money? They lied to you and tricked you into lying to your kids as well? They took away your civil rights?

Well...

Turn it off, like a light switch
just go click!
It\'s a cool little Mormon trick!
We do it all the time
When your feeling certain feels that just don\'t feel right
Treat those pesky feelings like a reading light
and turn em off,
Like a light switch just go bap!
Really whats so hard about that?
Turn it off! (Turn it off!)

The scales are beginning to be lifted from my eyes. Thanks Timothy and blue!

Hahaha YES! I want to see that live sooooo bad!!!! +10000000!!

... the civilizations that actually did exist in the Americas during BoM times?

No mention at all.

Dead giveaway, ifin' ya axe me!

Timothy

Blue - you provided my giggle of the day:

"...to have God and Jesus flash him in the woods..."

I am so glad you got that.

Hi SusieQ. Hope you're taking care of yourself. I'm with blueorchid on this: As a tolerant outsider, you see the Book of Mormon as book of religious teachings. However, Mormons use it as *historical proof* that Smith was a prophet and expect it to be taken literally as such. Smith expected that as well; otherwise he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of dummying up plates to impress his marks. I for one am happy to have them present the Book of Mormon as actual history, since it makes it easier to disprove. Quite a bit of the Bible *is* grounded in actual history. At least we can locate Jerusalem; the same can't be said for Zarahemla. Again, take care of yourself and my good wishes for you.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi SusieQ. Hope you're taking care of yourself.
> I'm with blueorchid on this: As a tolerant
> outsider, you see the Book of Mormon as book of
> religious teachings. However, Mormons use it as
> *historical proof* that Smith was a prophet and
> expect it to be taken literally as such. Smith
> expected that as well; otherwise he wouldn't have
> gone to all the trouble of dummying up plates to
> impress his marks. I for one am happy to have them
> present the Book of Mormon as actual history,
> since it makes it easier to disprove. Quite a bit
> of the Bible *is* grounded in actual history. At
> least we can locate Jerusalem; the same can't be
> said for Zarahemla. Again, take care of yourself
> and my good wishes for you.


I know that Mormons as well as other religious believers accept and believe their religious sacred books are literal and true. I used to think that way also. Now I know that is not the case.

I don't have to accept any universal religious teaching/truth as literal to find value in it. Religion in general is mythology and very good mythology, in my view.
I would refer anyone to: The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.
Religion is human mythology complete with their rituals.

To all, re literal v metaphorical:

To me, it all boils down to one sentence, and that is:

"Be good my way." The rest is just details.

And I would continue shortening the message twice more:

"Be good."

and

"Be."

With a PS: "Make sure you have FUN while you're at it!"

But the devil is in the 'my way' part of that sentence. Every religion goes off on that tangent at some point or another because they know best.

My church is going to have one commandment: Don't be an a**hole.

Susie I see how viewing things the way you seem to can brindg you peace. That is all good and fine. I tried to adopt that point of view myself. Joseph Campbell makes some good points regarding mythology, especially how he points to its development and ability to move through cultures. I tried to view the BOM as a tool to bring myths based in a far awaw place closer to the homes and lives of Joseph Smiths followers. But while the myth served me for a time it ceased to function for me once its status as literal truth eroded.I still believe that many continue to be attracted to the book and its religion because it brings the myths of the bible closer to their place in time and often location.

I guess my point is that while the BOM and much of the Bible arent literally true, many who adhere to the associated myths don't see that. They need to believe it's all literal or the purpose of the myth in their lives disappears.

But many people here are dealing with coming to terms with being duped and I think many folks find statements like yours dismissive of what is bothering them. I don't think that your intent was to dismiss, I just wanted to illustrate the difference in understanding taking place for those who don't know how long you have been here and want to think you are an apologist troll.

Of course, you can see about anything metaphorically. The concern I have is whether or not focusing on metaphor ignores real-life poltical, social, psychological, and economic consequences of such teachings and practices. Using tithing as an example: You can see tithing as a demonstration of dedication to the sacred. However, you may also see it is as religious tax that is particularly unfair the less well-off that has the real consequences of depriving some families of needed food, clothing, medical care, etc.. I believe that interpreting metaphorically while failing to grapple with the painful real consequences of some church teachings and practices is avoidance of uncomfortable emotions (such as anger) rather than the practice of a higher spirituality.

You are full of it Susie. It isn't taught symbolically anywhere and you know it. Why do you say stuff like this?

None of the BoM is true as history. But some of the stories of the bible are both literally and historically true. Some are not meant to be literally true and that is obvious. The dynamic development of Judaic understanding of God is shown in the Bible. The stories of Genesis are just that, stories. Only the BoM forces one to take the Tower of Babel literally, for example, because of the Jaredites. Historical matters of the Bible include King David and King Solomon as being kings. But there is absolutely nothing historical about King Benjamin. Zilch. Nil.

The problem is that the people who follow it don't see it that way.

If the Mormons looked at it that way there wouldn't be an issue. However as long as they try to say that it is true history, Houston we have a problem.

According to Gordon B. Hinckley, the church rises or falls on the literal history in the BoM.

So, even if it is supposed to be religious writ told by a series of stories, TMCC teaches that it is a literal history, and the president of the church teaches that if it is not literal, the church is not true.

Not sure why you think otherwise.

I love this take on the BoM. It's like Hercule Poirot gathered everyone in a room and said," It's not what you see mes ami, it's what you don't see."

Where are the jaguar skins on the king and the parrot feather headdress on the queen as they sip their hot cocoa and their pet sloths snuggle up?

You wouldn't expect a lot, but in a history that covers a couple thousand years, you would think there could be just one death by rattlesnake or maybe a toucan spotted riding an iguana.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2013 12:17AM by blueorchid.

And while you're at it, where are the sprinklings of gay love, like the Bible gives us? (e.g., David & Jonathan) Surely at least one or two of those warriors were "light in the sandal."

I used to fantasize about being one of those 2,000 stripping warriors..... but I guess JS never wanted us to know about what happened to them once they got back from battle, all tired and in need of a bath & a post-battle rub-down..... (ahem).

It goes on at great length about fine linen (made from flax, a European import) and silk (a Chinese fabric, the secret for which not known until way late in the game), but says nothing about the fabric that was known among indigenous Americans--cotton. Is cotton mentioned even once in the BoM?

I always thought maybe Jesus would have stuck around a little longer if they'd served him a couple of chile rellenos with some nice guacamole on the side....

LMAO I am sure he could have done wonders for a few weddings turning blue agave into a festive drink as well.

All excellent points. So many things you would expect at least a mention coupled with so many things that absolutely should not have been included.

I'm continually amazed at how disconnected my brain was not to see this stuff!

Well, I knew not to read it because just a page or two was enough to create real doubt. Took over 25 years to read it ONE time. I told the council that it was one of the three worst-written books I had ever read - and I never finished the other two beyond a couple of pages. That last point of not finishing the other two was not told to the council. In fact, the BoM is the WORST book I ever had to finish. BTW, to even do it ONCE required me to use the original printing which was reproduced.

I felt the same way every time I picked up the Bible as well. What's funny is the older I got, the easier it was to swallow this crap. When I heard the story of Noah's Ark at age 6 or whatever, I vividly remember thinking, "No one can build a ship big enough for all the animals."

Same for Adam and Eve: "Who did the kids marry?"

I used to be a lot smarter. Religion dumbed me down:(



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 02:26PM by iflewover.

If I wrote about the history of the Planet earth, would it be reasonable to reject my book based on my not mentioning a 8 million plus, then not mentioning every species that has gone extinct?

The fact that they did not mention something isn't really a good tact to tract.

The BoM is written about a narrow slice of geography/culture, not Planet Earth.

You wouldn't make a very good detective. That being said, neither did I when investigating the BoM. I should have trusted my gut after the missionaries hemmed and hawed over my first question: "Where are the plates now?"

God, I was an idiot.

My point and ANALOGY still stand.

I am not defending the BoM, I am saying that, if you are going to be critical of something, use reasons that can be defended not ones that can be dismissed because they do not prove anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 02:49PM by MJ.