How True do you think the Book of Mormon is? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

All-American · 04-27-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I guess what I'm curious about is how many people here completely dismiss even the most basic historical outline of the Book of Mormon (exodus from the Old World, scattering from Babel, warring factions that killed off a major portion of the population, the appearance of Christ, etc., regardless of the more detailed items included like 240,000 Nephites killed at Cumorah.

Begs the question. I wonder what the general makeup of CG board members is.

Indy Coug · 04-27-2007, 08:13 PM

The spiritual doctrine is perfect, the basic historical outline is true, the more detailed historical items' veracity (eg. number of dead at Cumorah) are unknown.

YOhio · 04-27-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The spiritual doctrine is perfect, the basic historical outline is true, the more detailed historical items' veracity (eg. number of dead at Cumorah) are unknown.

I agree with this statement.

Indy Coug · 04-27-2007, 08:15 PM

P.S. As far as I can tell, "most correct" does not equate to "flawless" or "errorless".

Archaea · 04-27-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

P.S. As far as I can tell, "most correct" does not equate to "flawless" or "errorless".

And the emphasis of "following its precepts" is where I come down.

The text "could correlate to a plausible series" statement doesn't make logical sense to me. Either is entirely false, or has some truth, but correlating to a plausible series of events? Huh?

All-American · 04-27-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

And the emphasis of "following its precepts" is where I come down.

The text "could correlate to a plausible series" statement doesn't make logical sense to me. Either is entirely false, or has some truth, but correlating to a plausible series of events? Huh?

Meaning, it could have a (possibly coincidental) relationship to actual events. A group of immigrants may have sailed to America, and significant portions of their descendants may have died off in warfare, and that may have led to a highly extrapolated version of the tale we now have in the Book of Mormon.

Black Diamond Bay · 04-27-2007, 09:13 PM

IMO the historical accounts of the BofM are just as subjective as any other historical record. It relies on the perspective of the author. So I don't see why it would have to be right or wrong, just perhaps different then how someone else may have perceived the events.

SeattleUte · 04-27-2007, 09:59 PM

This is the goofiest "poll" I've ever seen. What does "true" mean here? True in a metaphysical/allegorical sense, like a parable? True in the sense that the stories really happened once upon a time in a place far away? If the latter, how in the sam hill could anyone know, since there's not a scintilla of evidence there were such thing as Nephites, etc.? I mean, at least with the Old Testament we know there were Egyptians, and can trace what befell the Hebrews/Jews as a people up to today (excluding the "Lost Tribes"). Okay, some of you may have a "testimony," the poll is still silly because it suggests there's some empirical basis, e.g., "the events are more or less true, but reported with an extreme historical bias." Does one get a "spiritual witness" of this nature? Somebody's not thinking too clearly here. LOL.

All-American · 04-27-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is the goofiest "poll" I've ever seen. What does "true" mean here? True in a metaphysical/allegorical sense, like a parable? True in the sense that the stories really happened once upon a time in a place far away? If the latter, how in the sam hill could anyone know, since there's not a scintilla of evidence there were such thing as Nephites, etc.? I mean, at least with the Old Testament we know there were Egyptians, and can trace what befell the Hebrews/Jews as a people up to today (excluding the "Lost Tribes"). Okay, some of you may have a "testimony," the poll is still silly because it suggests there's some empirical basis, e.g., "the events are more or less true, but reported with an extreme historical bias." Does one get a "spiritual witness" of this nature? Somebody's not thinking too clearly here. LOL.

Then mark the last option and move along, instead of being an asswipe.

I'm simply trying to find out how many people on this board think that the the names and characters spoken of in the Book of Mormon correspond to actual historical figures. As ridiculous as you believe such a prospect may be, at least two thirds of the people that responded to the question feel otherwise.

Goatnapper'96 · 04-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Then mark the last option and move along, instead of being an asswipe.

I'm simply trying to find out how many people on this board think that the the names and characters spoken of in the Book of Mormon correspond to actual historical figures. As ridiculous as you believe such a prospect may be, at least two thirds of the people that responded to the question feel otherwise.

Personally, I prefer he stay an asswipe. The world needs a few good asswipes and by golly, he is one of my favorites.

Personally, I think I agree with Indy.

View Poll Results: How True do you think the Book of Mormon is?
Every word of it is true.	8	22.86%
It's mostly true, but with a couple of errors.	11	31.43%
The events are more or less true, but reported with an extreme historical bias.	6	17.14%
The text could very roughly correlate to a plausible series of events.	3	8.57%
Some Joe pulled the thing out of his hat. It's false.	7	20.00%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

04-27-2007, 09:59 PM	#8
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	This is the goofiest "poll" I've ever seen. What does "true" mean here? True in a metaphysical/allegorical sense, like a parable? True in the sense that the stories really happened once upon a time in a place far away? If the latter, how in the sam hill could anyone know, since there's not a scintilla of evidence there were such thing as Nephites, etc.? I mean, at least with the Old Testament we know there were Egyptians, and can trace what befell the Hebrews/Jews as a people up to today (excluding the "Lost Tribes"). Okay, some of you may have a "testimony," the poll is still silly because it suggests there's some empirical basis, e.g., "the events are more or less true, but reported with an extreme historical bias." Does one get a "spiritual witness" of this nature? Somebody's not thinking too clearly here. LOL. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 04-27-2007 at 10:01 PM.

04-27-2007, 08:13 PM	#2
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	The spiritual doctrine is perfect, the basic historical outline is true, the more detailed historical items' veracity (eg. number of dead at Cumorah) are unknown.

04-27-2007, 08:15 PM	#4
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	P.S. As far as I can tell, "most correct" does not equate to "flawless" or "errorless".

04-27-2007, 09:13 PM	#7
Black Diamond Bay Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,000	IMO the historical accounts of the BofM are just as subjective as any other historical record. It relies on the perspective of the author. So I don't see why it would have to be right or wrong, just perhaps different then how someone else may have perceived the events.