Book of Mormon Notes– How deep can you dig?

2009, December 3

“Historicity of the Book of Mormon: Is the Book of Mormon Historical?” by grego

“Historicity of the Book of Mormon: Is the Book of Mormon Historical?”

grego
(c) 2009

Is the Book of Mormon “real”, “based on a true story”, “inspired”, or “made up”?

Real. That’s the simple answer.

Some argue otherwise. Not much evidence, though, just a lot of “theory”.

Some feel that since we don’t know quite how, it’s all open to speculation.

Not really.

Some things are–the use of the KJV of the Bible, how much of the record exactly was translated word-for-word vs. how much was slightly commented on for clarity, etc. (I wonder about how complicated, long sentence structure could hold up in translating straightforward, unless it was written exactly as in English (hard to believe), or if unless there were easy and clear markers that Joseph Smith quickly caught on to, similar to Japanese (and since we don’t have the first translation pages, that makes it much more difficult).)

That the Book of Mormon plates were real, and that prophets and others wrote real history and events on them (though strongly chosen and crafted), that Moroni was who he said he was and that other Book of Mormon prophets visited Joseph Smith and taught him; well, they are not.

Other than the typical and simple (but should have been sufficient) “God doesn’t lie”, etc., there are also a few things I wanted to point out (though others might have already done so).

One that particularly impressed me this morning was Doctrine and Covenants 10. In it, the Lord testifies of the reality of the Nephite prophets and disciples, their writings, and their faith.

It wasn’t just moving, or inspiring.

The Holy Ghost witnessed to me that it was true.

I guess everyone will have their own pet theories; they can keep them.

%d bloggers like this: