...you really only need to satisfy yourself that:
1. The First Vision didn't happen
2. The Book of Mormon wasn't a real record, handed down by an Angel, and translated by Joseph Smith

If those two things aren't real events that the rest of the difficulties with Mormonism can be laid at the door of men, not God.

Everything I did in mormonism was because God told JS that I had to do it.

Once I found out that God didn't really come down and tell him, the rest didn't work at all.

I read it and it felt to me like an Autobiography about Smith alot of the time like it was written from him and his own search and experience of religion and of discussing religion with athiests like Korihor character he wrote in.

Having already had experienceof many Christian denominations and study I could spot where he plageurised the King James bible.

Much more convincing to me (I'm basically Athiest/Agnostic) are the three kids in Fatima, Portugal who claim to have seen and spoke with Mary the Mother Of Jesus. Two of them died young but the third one went on to be a nun and devote herself to the sacrificial way of life as she promised to the Virgin Mary who appeared to her and the other two.

http://www.culturalcatholic.com/LadyFatima.htm

In contrast Joseph Smith dedicated his life to sex, power, authority, money etc, basically he was an abuser of people.

Let us not forget, JS did read the bible with his family every night.

The Book of Mormon is pretty convincing. One of two things is true. Either the Book of Mormon is true, or JS was a very clever story writer.

which is a very real possibility.

edmarc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Book of Mormon is pretty convincing. One of
> two things is true. Either the Book of Mormon is
> true, or JS was a very clever story writer.

Huh?

I suppose Shakespeare is true, or he is a very clever story writer also.

Have to agree with voltaire.

JS copied lots of what is in the BoM. Then there were alterations as time has gone on and just look at how much of Isaiah he used from the bible.

Please don't try to wind us up. That's not nice

It is not convincing at all, period. It is a disgraceful fictional delusion directed against all indigenous peoples of the Americas.

You need to read more.

The Book of Mormon is juvenile, shallow, two dimensional, illogical and sad. I've tried to read it and it's boring, repetitious and contradicts itself. The Bible isn't much better but at least the Bible has fleshed out characters and even women worth noting.

The world is full of sacred texts. So what? Why accept some while rejecting the others as man-made hokum? Why be impressed that one guy can manufacture scripture while disbelieving another did the same thing? Perhaps because one is culturally predisposed to accept some things while rejecting others out of hand.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that could not be based on 1. ideas prevalent and available in Joseph Smith's days or 2. the creativity of the author.

Edmarc,

When you compare Moses and Nephi the following themes appear in both stories:
1. The main character lives a life of luxury and leaves it behind because their life is threatened
2. Each character is justified in killing someone
3. Both receive a divine warning to flee
4. God promises both characters He will lead them to a Promised Land
5. Both camp by the Red Sea
6. They are both provided with a divine means of navigation
7. Both groups lose faith and murmur
8. While camped at the Red Sea God arranges to have an opponent killed
9. Both groups have issues with hunger
10. Directions from the divine navigator solve the food problem
11. Both characters are murmured against because of their peoples strife
12. Both of their lives are threatened
13. God speaks to the people and starvation is prevented again
14. Despite miracles both sets of people don't keep their Faith for very long
15. Because of transgression both groups wander for extended periods
16. Both characters learn things 'on the mount'
17. The people rebel by dancing and singing
18. God threatens both groups with destruction but they repent and are saved

These events happen in the same chronological order in both stories...

Inspired or copied?

In 3rd Nephi 246 out of 490 verses contain recognisable KJV words or phrases - some of them contain exactly the same English wording despite being translations from supposedly different languages second or third hand...

Inspired or copied?

Read the Book of Mormon again and explain the word "Adieu"

Inspired or copied?

The only thing that is convincing about the BOM is that there are different voice prints and it could not have come directly from JS. He might have pladjerized some of it, but the stories are very convincing and that is why people join the church.

Which of your positions do you subscribe to?
a. The Book of Mormon is convincing because it's true or
b. JS was a good story writer?

The stories are rubbish. All archaeology and DNA studies have shown them to be fantasy. Those who are foolish enough to think that such stories are true will never be able to understand the true history of America's first inhabitants.

Even the apologist stylometry only concludes that there were multiple authors of the BOM. If JS had help from Sidney Rigdon and/or ripped off from other authors, there's nothing left to explain.

You might want to check out a few papers written by a Stanford prof on Book of Mormon authorship:
http://www.stanford.edu/~mjockers/pubs/LLCPreprintReassess.pdf
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon2.htm

And in any case, the Book of Mormon is poor even as fiction. The stories are boring, the prose stilted, and the events implausible. There's a reason TSCC has to encourage people to read that boring old hunk of pseudo-biblical ramblings.

The Book of Mormon is compelling only to those who have been raised to believe that it is compelling. To the rest of the world it is irrelevant and laughable.

People don't join churches because of the Bible either.

They join the church because they believe it will give them a support system that will meet their needs -- be they emotional, moral, physical or social needs.

Although I'll say a lot of people LEAVE the Mormon and Christian churches because of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

Voiceprints = Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph the conman.

The Book of Mormon is so easy to disprove i can't believe it still tricks some people into joining and/or staying in.

strip the stories of their faux King James language and it sounds even more stupid than it already is.

BTW Smith didn't write much of it -Rigdon and Spaulding did so be impressed with them.

Even if the BoM is a work of fiction, it is still pretty convincing.

It not only didn't convince me -- it convinced me that the whole thing is a farce.

Mormons would probably get more converts if they stopped asking investigators to read the stupid thing.

I agree that it is convincing...to you.

Since the restoration 180 or so years ago, how many people have had access to the Book of Mormon?
There are 6 Billion people resident on this planet, let's say only 10% have heard/had access to the Book of Mormon - how many people have been 'convinced' by it.

Like I said, it's convincing, but only to you and a very very small percentage of people that come into contact with it.

How can anyone believe that dark skin of the American indigenous people is a curse?

For real. I took literature from mormons and JW's pretty often, and when I sat down to try and read the book of mormon... well, it was because I had watched that episode of south park, and said "they must be getting something wrong. There is no way that is what it says." but nope, they did a pretty good job of getting the events right, and it told essentially the same story right at the beginning of the book.

edmark wrote:-

'Even if the BoM is a work of fiction, it is still pretty convincing'.

Convincing about what. Holes can be knocked into it so easily.

I believe you just like seeing people respond to a thread you have started. This is not unlike a so called profit called JS who liked to think he was important.

Grow up.

LDS Inc, is actually proven false by the BoM. In fact, whether LDS is true actually depends on the Book of Abraham and the King Follett Discourse and the D&C 121 onward.

Here's a pretty good layout of the BoM disproving the LDS:
http://packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm

And if you think the Book of Mormon proves the LDS, read here how literally the Temple Lot folks take it:
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/downloads.htm

The BoM has been debunked so often and so effectively that one hardly needs to bring up the point. But how does one prove that JS did NOT have the so-called First Vision? He may have been hallucinating, delusional, dreaming or perhaps, in his vivid imagination, he really believed the vision he conjured up. No matter that the story changed several times over the years. I don't think anyone can disprove someone else's subjective experience. All we can do is illuminate the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and argue the improbablity of such a thing happening.

The question is who did he see?
In 1832 he said he saw 'The Lord' in his own handwriting. No mention of God.
In 1842 he was able to articulate (via a newspaper) a much more detailed account and he also remembered seeing God.

Those are effectively the two versions.

If anybody here on the board had a vision of Christ and God, would you forget you'd seen God? And then ten years later remember again?

You are right, we cannot say with 100% certainty it did not happen, but we can say that Joseph has little credibility as a reliable witness.

Let's remember too that the 1832 vision is in perfect alignment with the teachings of thr Book of Mormon and the changes that JS made for the JST as well as the Book of Moses and ther Lectures on Faith.

This is the reason that the RLDS dropped the 1842 version from their beliefs and adopted the 1832 version which now simply states that Joseph had an experience with God.

The official version of 1842 is in line with his new theology developed in Nauvoo.

You can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't have the "subjective experience" they claim to have had.

First vision was a yarn made up way after the fact, after trying out several trial balloon versions. It's just a tarted up version of "God told me to tell you you have to listen to me."

You and I may be able to disprove another's subjective experience to OUR satisfaction but not to the other's satisfaction. In other words, you and I might be absolutely convinced that X did not and could not have happened. (JS did not and could not have seen God.) However, in JS's mind it did happen that he saw God. People claim to have had near-death experiences, been abducted by aliens, seen ghosts and so on and you could put a gun to their head and they would not deny their belief. Sure they may have been delusional, hallucinating or merely bat-shit crazy, nevertheless, in their mind it is real. That's what makes it subjective! You and I or the court may have a mountain of evidence to the contrary, yet, the person who had the subjective experience remains unmoved. Cognitive dissonance takes over and blinds them to anything that might contradict their subjective experience.

Whether or not it really happened or whether or not JS actually even believed it happened is open to debate.

Didn't JS join a church between when the vision supposedly happened and when he started his own church (as god supposedly commanded)? It isn't total evidence that he never had the vision, but it is pretty good evidence that he probably didn't. Someone who seriously had god visit them (or hallucinated it, whatever), and told them to start a church is unlikely to join up somewhere else as a response.

He tried to join up with the Methodists but they turned him down because of his reputation as a glass-looker.

Why would he try and join them if God had just barely told him that he shouldn't join with any sect as they were all corrupt?
Why would he do that?

Yeah, except your God created those men and then sat idle while they perpetrated their fraud in his name. Please! The blame is all his ultimately.