O.k. Mormons.... the golden plates and seer stones.... do you really believe that?

Question

So, Joe Smith was visited by the angel Moroni (who was a native American with white skin -- native Americans later became red skinned because they had gone away from god so god made them red....), who told him to dig in Palmyra, NY and find some golden plates. Joe found the plates and along with them seer stones that he could use to translate them. He was prohibited from showing anybody the plates, and just translated them into the Book of Mormon. Then the plates went up to heaven.

You guys actually believe Joe Smith didn't just make it up?

I know that it's part of the Mormon tradition... I just find it hard to believe that anybody who really sits down to think about the story can possibly think that it makes any sense. It's kind of like people who actually believe Jesus "rose from the dead" and had dinner with his apostles......

G.C. I don't think my theology is more correct than the mormons. I don't think Moses parted an ocean magically, or that Jesus turned water into wine, literally.

Plastik punk - yes, I have a copy of the Book of Mormon and I read it, and what of what I wrote is a "half truth"? What's the real story, if my summary is wrong.

Coca Cola - yes, I read the Book of Mormon. It also says that a tribe of Israel sailed from the middle east to north American millenia ago and settled here and became the American Indians..... we know that didn't happen. American Indians have been genetically, and through paleontological data, to have come from east Asia across the land bridge that once existed between North America and Asia.

2. I know it's Joseph Smith -- I called him Joe for short.

3. They were trying to steal the plates? So why not make the plates well known to all instead of sending them to heaven where nobody could see them? Take them to a church or to a scientific institution and have others look at them..... or would that have allowed verification that they actually existed? Or, why not let someone else use the seer stones to translate the plates too and see if they came up with the same thing?

Answer 1

that is hard to believe...

But so is Jesus turning water into wine.

Moses parting the red sea

Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

The entire earth flooded...and Noah putting two of every animal on a boat

Think the writer's of the Bible...may have "made that stuff up too".

Why do you think your ideas or theology is more correct than the Mormon's?

Not that I agree with Mormon's either...but, it is so much fun watching the fundamentalists lose credibility in the world by showing their self-righteous judgement on such a national stage...fundies are being seen for exactly what they are....

Answer 2

Well.. I think it's kind of funny that people actually get their undies in a bundle over something like this. If I believed that a certain proxy baptism was invalid, or even a joke, I think it would probably go in one ear and out the other. Say for instance a group was baptizing people in the name of "Peter Pan", would I get all weirded out about it? Would I spend an inordinate amount of time fretting, worrying, and wondering that now God will not accept my true baptism. The concerns over something that has absolutely NO relevance at all (if you believe it is invalid), kind of make you wonder about the rationality of such persons. An LDS baptism is performed in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. There is not even anything mentioned about a membership IN the LDS Church. You also said harmless if not real.. and then you said why don't they see the harm? The only way that there could be any harm at all... is if it actually is legit, right? Again I must refer to the rationality of individuals who fret over such a subject.

Answer 3

Your first paragraph has the biggest mistake you made in it. There were a total of 13 other people besides Joseph Smith who saw the Golden Plates and the "Seer Stone". If you have read the Book of Mormon you should have known that.....

Answer 4

You are quite right in saying that believing the golden plates is the same as believing Jesus rose from the dead and ate with the apostles. As Paul would have said it is foolishness to the Greek and a stumbling block to the Jews.

Unfortunately I received a personal testimony that I can't deny, so I guess I am one that has to confess I believe.

Answer 5

The Book of Mormon and is it true?

Question

Lately there has been increasing controversy among various academics regarding the veracity of the Book of Mormon's historical accounts. Several efforts have been made to "prove" that what the Book of Mormon has to say about the history of the new world cannot possibly have been the case. I even have some LDS friends whose faith seems to be shaken by the idea that the Book of Mormon may not be, in all respects, literally true.

And now my question: Does it really matter? Does the Church actually have some doctrine that requires its members to believe in the literalness of every word in the Book of Mormon? Other Christian religions, it seems to me, make room for members who see, for example, the creation story of Adam and Eve as a profound metaphor, a way of explaining the ultimate truth of the creation without requiring any definite belief in the literalness of the story as it comes down to us in Genesis.

Answer

There is a fundamental difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon that influences how we look at this issue. The Bible is a religious library that comes from many different sources, many different places and times. So you might disagree with a literal understanding of the portrayal of the creation from Genesis, but you might accept other events as reported in the Bible, such as the Assyrian conquest or the Babylonian captivity. In the case of the Book of Mormon, it all funnels through Joseph Smith, so if it is simply Joseph's creation, then none of it is historical.

Beyond this, the same issues are shared between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The Book of Mormon discusses in places the process by which it was compiled. Some parts of the text (those books found at the beginning of the published Book of Mormon) claim to have been written by their authors without editing or copying by others. Other portions claim to be compilations of earlier sources and records, often hundreds and even thousands of years after the original accounts had been written. Some of these are not just compilations, but translations of earlier records. In this fashion, the Book of Mormon is no different than the Bible, and when taken as a literary text, can be viewed and read with the same kinds of literary criticism to which the Bible is exposed. Parts of the text of the Book of Mormon can be viewed as more literally accurate than other parts. To use the example from the question, the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, discusses Adam and Eve. Members who feel that the Adam and Eve narrative is more metaphorical as it is portrayed in the Bible will probably also approach the text of the Book of Mormon in the same fashion.

Does that ultimately matter? Some people have tried to make the case that historicity doesn’t matter at all, analogizing for instance to the parables of Jesus. Of course, the parables were put forward as parables, not as actual history, so that analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

Most Latter-day Saints have taken the view that the power of the message of the Book of Mormon would be lost if it were not in fact an historical document. If it is just a long, ahistorical allegory, then its influence would be severely truncated. If the Book of Mormon isn't what it claims to be, then we may as well close up shop and go home.

The Lord went to extreme lengths to show the Book of Mormon was indeed historical. In his first written account of Moroni's visits, Joseph said as clearly as he possibly could that

an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and...revealed unto me that in the town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Moroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days and deposited by the commandments of God and kept by the power thereof and that I should go and get them.
This is the foundation of the Restoration, important enough that the Lord called eleven witnesses of the plates, with "historicity" being a key element of their testimonies. Considering the fact that three of the standard works proclaim the Book of Mormon to be historical, this can hardly be considered a side issue. Some would argue that denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon is denying a fundamental doctrine of the Church.

LDS members may disagree in the details. Some may well believe that certain narratives are present to serve a rhetorical purpose and were not intended to portray a literal and completely accurate historical presentation. And usually, differences in opinion at this level have little impact (if any at all) on a person's membership and ability to function at any level within the Church.

If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net.

Answer 6

Let's see you or anyone else make up such a credible detail. Any you don't quite have all your facts straight, but yeah that's what we know happened. Except in a lot more detail and without the biased half-truths. Have you actually taken the time to research the book of Mormon yourself or are you just taking the word on another? I'm sure the latter.

Answer 7

It takes no greater faith to believe this which I did not personally witness, than to believe in Christ, which I did not personally see either. It is called "faith." I do believe in Christ, and I do believe that Joseph Smith was led to, and translated the Book of Mormon, by the gift and power of God.

Further, Joseph Smith was not the only one to see the plates. Eleven other people saw and hefted them, and bore witness that they did so.

Answer 8

They believe it because they were raised in that religion. Though, Smith wasn't a prophet for you or me it is to the Mormons. They believe he restored God's true church on Earth. Is kooky what they believe but they get offended if you question it. When asked what they believe in they tell you general things: believe in Jesus, modern day prophets, and eternal life. They don't get into specifics because they know you will mock them. They think they're right, they don't want to question it. The solution for this is to just let them believe what they want to believe.

Answer 9

It is the Holy spirit of confirmation that reveal to us the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Just something for you to ponder:

Why would Joseph Smith make up something, so he can be persecuted for it, mocked by many, and then murdered by mobs?

Joseph Smith certainly did not get any money for what he accomplished. He could have said I made it all up and walk away, but he did not.
Why? Why would someone want to suffered so much for no gain.

Answer 10

It doesn't matter what I say. You're not going to believe it anyway. I could tell you exactly what you want to hear, but because you aren't looking for answers you're going to take exception with everything I say. So why even bother trying to answer your question.
BIG, HUGE hint that you aren't looking for answers...you called him "Joe". He never went by that name. There are other clues in your question as well, but that is by far the biggest.