"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng

It hit me today that in reading The Book of Mormon I always wondered why these prophets named their people after themselves. When I learned about Israelites I looked up what that meant and found out it meant the people of Jacob I think? Anyway it struck me as odd that Book of Mormon peoples were always named in this pattern yet there were few Biblical examples of this happening.

Today I realized that the reason it might be so common in the Book of Mormon to call different people after prophet was because it was all there was. The Book of Mormon has people multipying and replenishing like rabbits and the easiest way to name all these minions is by their prophets' names, yet The Bible has almost none of that.

So I am able to find a way to crawl over or under or around the Book of Mormon by grabbing a hold of one of these prophets and using him (probably Nephi The Laban Slayer) to see how the Book of Mormon is a total 19th Century creation.

And it came to pass that damn the chiasmus I found a way through the wormholy Book of Mormon!

A lot of specious arguments get pumped up through the use of language that carries a lot of emotional, but very little intellectual, weight. I find it helpful to pare down such statements to their basic structure in order to more clearly see what the content is.

Elder Holland's statment thus becomes:

"If anyone rejects [or accepts, for that matter] an unknown text without attempting to account for the origin of that text — then that person has been deceived. If anybody leaves the Church, it must be done by explaining the Book of Mormon."

Seems pretty sensible to me. That's what tens of thousands of people have done and are doing every day. Once they've accounted for the origin of the text, they realized that they've been deceived and they leave the church.

Nice sweeping but it is still too sweeping.

There are lots of Mormon books I don't have to account for so Holland's statement is irrelevant.

I believe one could be "Mormon" and come to the same conclusion I did in regards to the Book of Mormon.

This is one of the strongest reasons I have for Mormonism being a cult - its "holy book" isn't adhered to and "modern prophets" are to be followed blindly (well Holy Ghost helped blindly.)

I don't need to explain the Book of Mormon, or prove anything. The Church is the one proclaiming it to be a historical text. The church should explain where the plates are, and where the evidence of these civilizations are. They are the ones that need to come up with evidence that native americans fought with steel swords and wrote in egyptian. Until then, there is a giant hole right in the middle of the book of mormon through which anyone can walk.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and warm feeling don't count.

This is my view as well. I don't need to account for the origin of the text. Maybe Joey made it all up, maybe he stole someone else's manuscript, maybe he copied bits and pieces from here and there and pasted them all into one story, and maybe Rigdon or somebody helped. Who cares!

The fact of the matter is, there is ZERO archaeological evidence that the events described in the book ever happened. There is significant archaeological evidence that they didn't happen. That being the case, it can safely and very easily be dismissed as a hoax.

In fact, the Book of Mormon being so obviously false, I was able to use it as one of my firmest stepping stones on my way out of the pit that is Mormonism. It was one of the things I fell back on whenever I was paralyzed by the fear that maybe I was wrong and Mormonism was all true.

The Book of Mormon was my rock as a kid. I hate to admit it now, but back then I read it a dozen times and loved the preachy stuff and the war stories. Alma The Younger and The cons of Heleman were one of my favs.

Fast forward till now. The Book of Mormon is my rock in a hat and the truest reason not to believe after having Joseph's rocks getting off with other people's wives land in my lap.

It is the truest book to show Mormonism is false in my opinion.

Pagag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Book of Mormon was my rock as a kid. I hate to
> admit it now, but back then I read it a dozen
> times and loved the preachy stuff and the war
> stories. Alma The Younger and The cons of Heleman
> were one of my favs.
>
> Fast forward till now. The Book of Mormon is my
> rock in a hat and the truest reason not to believe
> after having Joseph's rocks getting off with other
> people's wives land in my lap.
>
> It is the truest book to show Mormonism is false
.> in my opinion.

Cons of Helaman is priceless!!

I used to skim through the rest just to read the wars. Shows you how boring it was, even to a missionary

The Book of Mormon is consumed through and through by rot. All you have to do is walk upright through one of the giant worm holes.

And when someone takes Holland up on his challene and deconstructs the book Holland cries foul and labels you an embittered apostate who cant leave the church alone.

And has Elder Holland accounted for the semetic and literary complexity of the Koran? I mean how could an illiterate merchant create such an internally complex document. Has he crawled over and under and around the Bagavad Gita? Has he accounted for the undeniable witness of Ahura Mazda in the Avesta?

Wikipedia article re: "Real Presence" of Christ's body in Catholic Sacrament: "Lutherans agree with them in a real eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ except that Lutherans say it is by sacramental union: "in, with and under the forms" of bread and wine."

So... Did Holland steal his idea of "over, under, or around" from the Lutherans and edit it for the sake of Mormonism? Holland: "it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."

Crawl? I'll just walk through any one of the giant holes in the middle.

"531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity" is pretty rich.

It's indisputably a 19th Century document presented as something else. It was indeed unknown before the 19th century; it hadn't been written yet. Its "literary and Semitic complexity" may indeed be dazzling but of course its authenticity is the real issue. It's not what it claims to be.

I do have to give credit to LDS for skill at changing the subject.

Chris and Duane Johnson have pretty much blown Holland out of the water by showing that the language used in the Book of Mormon is so similar to a number of other early 19th Century books as to arouse strong suspicion of plagiarism.

http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/

At the very least, the extremely similar language shows that the Hebraisms, and "literary and Semitic complexity" is exactly what you would expect of a 19th Century author attempting to write history in Jacobean English.

Then Rick Grunder has found more and better Hebraisms, chiasmus included, in the books identified by the Johnsons as the most likely source for the Book of Mormon.

Throughout the world (outside of BYU) there are thousands of highly respected experts in the fields of linguistics, archaeology, and history. Many of them hold faculty positions at highly esteemed universities. None of them are excited about the Book of Mormon. Not one. They all consider the book to be a work of fiction.

Nothing in the book checks out, whereas if it was authentic, everything would check out. Experts in the various fields would be astonished at its contents.

So those who have a vested interest in believing the book to be true can rant about this and that.

Those in the real world have a very different opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 05:35PM by canadianfriend.

"Teeming"---I do not think it means what he thinks it means....

Just like a magician, Holland draws your attention to the things you don't need to consider. Crawl? Climb? Just look into the Book of Mormon and walk right though. It's an open enough exit as it is!

The TSCC has really painted itself into a corner by relying on emotion-based reasoning to back up claims that the BOM is a historical document. Science has steadily eroded their position past the tipping point and will just keep eroding it until the believers are a small fringe group.

It's the classic "bend or break" choice. They chose not to bend, so they will break.

AMEN to you all! Holland's BoM comments were downright offensive to those of us who have recognized the book for what it is.