If you found out that the Golden Plates never existed, would you still be a Mormon?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

And they said . . .

"I [Joseph Smith] have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth" (DHC 5:372).

--From the Journal of William Clayton

People have disputed the validity of this statement, but only because Clayton wrote it and not Smith. But he was citing smith when he wrote it and we have no reason to think it was made up. I don't think any of this translation was ever published by the church though.

[Indy Coug]

Very quickly: do we have a solid time frame for the Jaredites? Certainly there is ample archaeological evidence of mammoths in the Americas.

Cumoms, cureloms?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/9/19#19

That's a very weak peg to hang your hat on as far as disputing historical issues with the Book of Mormon.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Someone posted an account here recently where one of the disaffected witnesses described the encounter in language that was unambiguously describing something perceived as literal and real. Not hazy, mystical, and probable. But physical, real, and definite.

That was my post. The account was from Hyrum Page.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

We have the words of the Book of Mormon, which are tremendously inspiring to me personally (and I believe the book to be inspired by God).

See, this is where you lose me. You describe a God that commands honesty yet uses deception to bring us His word.

I guess I'm just not ready to worship such an arbitrary being. Perhaps I will be someday, but not today.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Very quickly: do we have a solid time frame for the Jaredites? Certainly there is ample archaeological evidence of mammoths in the Americas.

Cumoms, cureloms?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/9/19#19

That's a very weak peg to hang your hat on as far as disputing historical issues with the Book of Mormon.

My understanding is that this evidence is definitively pre-Ice Age (none later than, what, something like 12,000 BC). And, uh, there are way more hooks in the closet. Trust me, I've been wrestling with these and dozens of other issues for years. And the side I was rooting for lost, go figure. I genuinely wanted the other side to win out.

[Black Diamond Bay]

If nothing else the church has pointed me into a lifestyle that I believe makes me a better person, so I doubt I'd just throw in the towel. I'd probably buy whatever explanation the church leaders came up with. Maybe that makes me a blind follower, but I would have a really hard time being convinced that the BofM isn't inspired text.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

See, this is where you lose me. You describe a God that commands honesty yet uses deception to bring us His word.

I guess I'm just not ready to worship such an arbitrary being. Perhaps I will be someday, but today.

I believe in a God who inspires people everywhere, but doesn't necessarily intervene a whole lot, other than through people. I believe in a very limited God.

I don't think it's dishonest to inspire people to believe in something that helps them treat each other better. And I think it's actually a problem for people when they feel like faith in the supernatural must rely on something tangible.

Religion is about the supernatural, not the tangible. No religion's scriptures would stand up to solid scrutiny.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Try the Bible and the Quran, and ask the same question to Christians and Muslims.

The Book of Mormon in its very introduction claims to be literal translation from gold plates of which 11 people testified actually existed. If you don't believe in the plates existence, do you believe that Joseph and the 11 witnesses are liars?

If you believe that Joseph and the 11 were liars, and it was a big conspiracy, do you ever ask what else Joseph lied about? Did he lie about the 1st vision? How can you believe in a church that was founded on what you believe are a pack of lies?

Point me to the introduction of the Bilble and the Quran that makes the claims that the intro to the Book of Mormon makes. Either the intro is a bunch of lies perpetuated to market the Book of Mormon and convert followers thorugh deception, or the plates actually did exist. Which is it?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

My understanding is that this evidence is definitively pre-Ice Age (none later than, what, something like 12,000 BC). And, uh, there are way more hooks in the closet. Trust me, I've been wrestling with these and dozens of other issues for years. And the side I was rooting for lost, go figure. I genuinely wanted the other side to win out.

I don't think there's anything that genuinely establishes the dates of things such as Noah, Babel, nor the Jaredites, other than the approximate time of their demise when Coriatumr stumbled onto the Mulekites.

There are ancient man-made structures in the Western Hemisphere which indicates that civilized man lived there extending well into the past, as far back as 10,000-13,000 BC.

There has been opinion offered that Adam predates us by 6,000 years, but I have yet to see definitive teachings on this from modern-day prophets.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

If nothing else the church has pointed me into a lifestyle that I believe makes me a better person, so I doubt I'd just throw in the towel. I'd probably buy whatever explanation the church leaders came up with. Maybe that makes me a blind follower, but I would have a really hard time being convinced that the BofM isn't inspired text.

I think that just means you're someone with faith (although I don't see a reason to reflexively buy into what leaders say). Sometimes the "any reasonable person should conclude that the BoM is the historical object it has been purported to be" position seems to be trying to compensate for an absence of faith.