LDS Freedom Forum

It has been a long time since I studied anti-Mormon material. I used to study it heavily, and then figured out the enemy, and have since had no need to look at it.

Then Aussie brings in some information I have never heard before about the potential for the Book of Mormon being plagiarized from The Late War/first book of Napoleon. So for the sake of research, and the fact that this is spreading around supposedly damaging people's testimonies, I started to look into it. (plus if you have a solid testimony no anti stuff should effect it anyway)

I am embarrassed for the utter ignorance of the Anti's. I have spent several hours comparing all the dozens of supposed parallels and plagiarisms from these books to the Book of Mormon. This is how I do it:

I look up each verse from both the Late war for example, and then the Book of Mormon. I compare them. Then I read several versus in both back and in front of each verse in both books to get a feel for the structure and meaning of the whole page.

My wife also was there, and we started busting up laughing at the absolute stupidity of these supposed parallels. I admit there are a few places that seem close, but the overwhelming majority is non-sense. Most of the comparisons are not even talking about the same things, same structures, etc. Even taken together as a whole they are non-sense. The depth of the BOM is crazy deep in comparison to the other works.

One of my favorite laughs came from this supposed parallel: The association of whales with light (p. 139, 38:14) Ether 2:23-25; 6:10

I could not stop laughing. Why? because the late war mentions using whale oil for light in their ships and for shielding the skin against the sun, and the Book of Ether mentions whales in the context of needing a tight ship (like a submarine) to be like a whale, and of course the light in the boats of the jaradites contains light from stones. This is a ridiculous stretch to suppose Joseph ripped of the Late War for the use of whales and light. Especially considering none of the surrounding versus compare between the Late War and the BOM.

Here are the parallels, look them up for yourself and compare not only the versus, but the material surrounding each verse. I think it will give all those who read it from a neutral standpoint a good laugh. This article i linked to below is anti, so his conclusion is anti in that he believes taken as a whole the BOM heavily relied on the Late War and for me it is just pure stupidity (not even close)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here is an online copy of 'Late War' so you can do your own comparisons.

https://archive.org/stream/latewarbetwe ... 5/mode/2up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sounds like a teachable moment for you.
so..next time the latest anti claim be it intriguing even a salmanner letter ..what are you gonna do going forward ?

Slowly I start to ponder how many books are out there that Jospeh supposedly used for writing the book of mormon.. First we have "View of the Hebrews", than we have the writings of Napoleon, and I just read a book which claimed that he stole his ideas from the travel of Marc O,Polo... I must say, when reading and looking at it it may sound pretty convincing.

But, do you know how many convincing theorys are out there? Let's take for examle the bible code. I read that book and tought "wow, that has to be true" ... it all made sense.. But shortly after I read another book prooving that you can find such codes in pretty much any texts and I thought "well, seems convincing"

Years back I watched a film that prooved that the Nasa never landed on the moon, man, it was so convincing that I startedtt believe it... Couple months later I saw another documentary which disprooved that, and I thought, man, that sounds so plausible.

The same you can do with any other topic, may that be "ancient aliens" or "september 11" ... It's often hard or even impossible to really know what "prooves" are right, and which ones are wrong.

"Science" can seem pretty convincing, but I think that what is way more imporant is "God's science"... I am really one of those who wants to understand and know things, I really like facts and things that make things plausible.. Nevertheless, I have read all such stuff and still know without any doubt that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. It's the only Book I want to completely trust in.

"I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." Joseph Smith

right simon, each side will make there case. God vs Devil and everything in-between. All I can do is utilize an equal comparison of all available evidence being claimed, and then compare…..usually the truth shines through pretty easily. Then of course after I study it out and compare I of course use prayer with the Lord who knows all things. (i believe he expects us to labor and compare many things before receiving an answer from him)

notjamesbond….as for your question I have no idea I know for sure the BOM is true, that I came to know after a severe battle with the opposition. I also love to research things... if anything to help others who may be struggling like I once was.

When I started 'investigating' LDS the first place both my wife and I went to are the anti website, including forums to read what people had to say. Honestly, most of the arguments were very light on any material and huge connections were made that frankly were weak at best and outright imaginary as the ordinary. Mind you at this time I had no particular care or interest about LDS. In fact I was looking for a reason to sink my wifes interest in it as my previous experience with some LDS members was memorable for what lousy people these two guys became after converting. I was in college at the time and saw the world entirely different. Now reflecting back, I realize they were just young fellows that didn't have the tools to social integrate with people different from their new found beliefs.

I read "plagiarism" thread and there wasn't much there that led me to be interested in doing research. Just a quick sentence here or there really, nothing truly motivating for me to explore. I've seen it before with other supposed "plagiarized" books. Pretty much what I witnessed during my previous heavy ingestion of anti literature. A whole lot of words based off a sentence to try and swing emotion to trump logic. Personally, I feel bad for the people that are feel angry that they feel they must go correct the world for their new found opinions. I guess it's good in a way that they believed so deeply that they feel hurt by their changing nature, but sad that they forget what it's all about. Belief. Much of what is in the Bible as well is really based on belief and faith. For someone to lose those things is sad, sad indeed.

I at one point was largely interested in finding archaeological match-ups, DNA, the list goes on. Bit by bit the answers were shown to me, or found by me. Some require being able to step outside the mind-frame we have nowadays, with a world of information at our fingertips and many intelligent people making sense of things, and look through the eyes of less learned people. How they would describe the world, things within it, without our ego of intelligence being presumptuous. Oddly, since I have done that more intellectual and precise explanations and discoveries have come across my lap.

I feel I am where I am suppose to be, and don't have any true desire to attempt to tell someone else where they should be...Their doubts are theirs and when someone is heart set on having doubts they will discard truths that don't reconcile their doubts. They'll just cling and cling and not understand why others don't agree with them, often feeling intellectually superior because they believe they have solved some riddle. When in reality they may have figured out something else entirely that their mind won't let them see clearly. If pride kicks in they paint themselves into a self destructive corner that leads them away from where they should be, pride before the fall.

I certainly don't believe LDS is for everyone, but it is right for many, just as other churches are right for other folks. My final point to be made is when I was doing my research I wanted to know what other Christian churches thought of LDS and read some articles about that. Under the articles there were often comment fields, the LDS that posted were very loving in their comments. The other faiths were often outright hostile. I was impressed by the nature of LDS people, even in the face of blatant hostility. Good folks, a worthy model to follow for sure.

Thanks Lion for your well thought out response. I do disagree with one statement, however....LDS IS for everyone...at some time or another...and by that I REALLY mean, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The sooner people can embark on that journey, the better prepared they will be for the hereafter. The gospel is certainly the answer to what ails our world right now!

natasha wrote:Thanks Lion for your well thought out response. I do disagree with one statement, however....LDS IS for everyone...at some time or another...and by that I REALLY mean, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The sooner people can embark on that journey, the better prepared they will be for the hereafter. The gospel is certainly the answer to what ails our world right now!

I won't disagree with your point. My point is that some people are early on in their relationship with God and need churches that resonate with where they are emotionally. Once they have done so I believe they are more open to truer words ;)

Emotion is a strong thing, that can interfere with reality. We all have to take a first step up the ladder. Speaking from a converts perspective, I can tell you that I needed the other churches to be able to transition into LDS. Without them I would not have been able to be where I am today. Society is charged with emotion, it's in everything. Advertising is emotion, picking one thing over another. Different churches appeal to different people based off how they feel about the church, A.K.A. emotion. Once they take that emotional first step they can start learning.

One of the reasons why I chose the LDS church, as already mentioned, is that by-and-large, I have witnessed LDS people deal with others very lovingly and respectfully (moreso than other churches) which emotionally is where I want to be, not in an angry church.

Granted I am over simplifying it, but I believe my point is more illustrated.

I understand your explanation, Lion....thank you for taking the time to do so more fully. By the way, I am also a convert to the Church...when I was 16. Later on in life I was inactive for a short period. That particular period did confirm to me that I needed to "come back" into full activity. I sincerely hope you will find much joy rubbing shoulders with the Saints...and that you will be able to help others with your testimony. God bless.

" The other faiths were often outright hostile. I was impressed by the nature of LDS people, even in the face of blatant hostility. Good folks, a worthy model to follow for sure."

And this is one of my #1 reasons for appreciating the LDS church. We are the most exclusive, yet inclusive, religion I know of. Attacks on us are the norm, yet, I find being on the bottom is far better than being on the top (e.g. like wealth).

Persecution against our church has never ceased. It only changed from physical violence to the intellectual type.

Just in case anyone is interested.
The US literacy rate in 1820 was 12%.

Think about that.

To have been able to plagerize, or use others works as source material, the access to these sources was extremely limited given today's widespread access.

Books were valuable and costly. Libraries were not in every community, but were adjunct to Universities and other urban population centers.

One of the traits of rich people were to have a wall of books.

Joseph Smith Sr. was a poor dirt farmer. The family bible had to do for familiar reading material.

JK4Woods wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 2:47 pm Just in case anyone is interested.
The US literacy rate in 1820 was 12%....

Joseph Smith Sr. was a poor dirt farmer. The family bible had to do for familiar reading material.

Awesome how far we’ve come when you think of the literacy rate change!

It seems that in the Smith home, the family Bible was used not just for spiritual study and answers to curious religious drama in the area, but also part of how the children excelled in reading. Still, even after lots of “anti-Mormon” (some true, some lies) information I’ve come across, I still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. To me, it is undeniable - I mean, I have grown up in the church & see some of the fruit of his efforts in leading people to his visions of being closer to God. He wasn’t perfect & likely did some immoral things, but that doesn’t discount the good and truth he brought about.

Regarding “anti-Mormon” info.,

• “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” - J Reuben Clark

It’s probable that we each will be tested. Personally, I don’t want to be afraid of truth, wherever it’s found. I want a rock solid foundation of faith that the most critical atheist couldn’t even harm. I want to be able to reach and love everyone who God presents to me - including “anti-Mormons.” I want to be able to meet them where they are, build on common ground and be a good instrument for God, as others have been for me. So far, this path has been hard at times. I have had major doubts, and relationships have been strained, partly because I wasn’t thinking about others as much as myself. But I also have felt God support me and guide me, for which I am very grateful.