For believers questions:

[Archaea]

It's not really for disbelievers, so, by believer, I mean somebody who believes the BoM is scripture or of divine origin.

1. Did you acquire your conviction instantly in a sudden flash of revelation, or gradually over time, or a third option, did you acquire an realization suddenly that had been acquired over time?

2. Is or was your belief holistic, in that you accept it completely, meaning it's all religiously true, all historically true from the perspectives told, and its "translation" true?

or is your belief that significant parts are of divine origin, significant enough that your doubts or uncertainties as to other parts can be suspended until more is discoverable?

3. Once you obtained a universal or partial conviction, do doubts enter your mind, or are you able to dismiss them, regardless of the nature?

4. Are there aspects of the historicity or "translation" that trouble or concern you, but you still after all is said and done are benefitted by the precepts to such an extent that you are willing to accept it as a package?

5. Have you ever been concerned by Ether? Does it make sense that anybody came "during the time of the Tower of Babel"?

[Rickomatic]

This is just my opinion and what I 'feel' in my simple heart and mind:

1. Mine is the third option, years of reading and study and then one day I realized that I know it is the true scripture.

2. I believe it to be of divine origin, cover to cover

3. I can say, I am a man of weakness and because of this doubts do arise and I must work on those doubts.

4. I am comfortable with the translation and I accept it as scripture. I believe these are words from people that lived in what we now call the Central and Northern American regions

5. Why would Ether seem any less 'authoritative or believable' than the rest of the translated work?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Rickomatic

This is just my opinion and what I 'feel' in my simple heart and mind:

1. Mine is the third option, years of reading and study and then one day I realized that I know it is the true scripture.

2. I believe it to be of divine origin, cover to cover

3. I can say, I am a man of weakness and because of this doubts do arise and I must work on those doubts.

4. I am comfortable with the translation and I accept it as scripture. I believe these are words from people that lived in what we now call the Central and Northern American regions

5. Why would Ether seem any less 'authoritative or believable' than the rest of the translated work?

as to five, it is solely my opinion that the story of the Tower of Babel is either myth built out of composite events, myth created solely for teaching the perils of man's arrogance, myth loosely based on some distant events. Even if you accept my interpretation of the Tower of Babel, I have an idea how to reconcile it being in the BoM, which is consistent with faith and one which is not.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

why don't you give us answers to your own questions? You have to answer them too.

I don't wish to steer discussion too much, and would enjoy learning the processes others use or used. Perhaps if discussion ensues.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not really for disbelievers, so, by believer, I mean somebody who believes the BoM is scripture or of divine origin.

1. Did you acquire your conviction instantly in a sudden flash of revelation, or gradually over time, or a third option, did you acquire an realization suddenly that had been acquired over time?

2. Is or was your belief holistic, in that you accept it completely, meaning it's all religiously true, all historically true from the perspectives told, and its "translation" true?

or is your belief that significant parts are of divine origin, significant enough that your doubts or uncertainties as to other parts can be suspended until more is discoverable?

3. Once you obtained a universal or partial conviction, do doubts enter your mind, or are you able to dismiss them, regardless of the nature?

4. Are there aspects of the historicity or "translation" that trouble or concern you, but you still after all is said and done are benefitted by the precepts to such an extent that you are willing to accept it as a package?

5. Have you ever been concerned by Ether? Does it make sense that anybody came "during the time of the Tower of Babel"?

1. option 2 maybe a little 3
2. holistic though maybe not as literal and historically perfect as others would feel
3. i don't dismiss them without thinking them through and putting them through a belief process of analyzing intellectually and seeking revelation spiritually but i've been able to reconcile all issues i've come across
4. yes
5. hasn't been a specific concern. i too have rid the nibley/nimrod thing and seemed to reconcile ok.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

as to five, it is solely my opinion that the story of the Tower of Babel is either myth built out of composite events, myth created solely for teaching the perils of man's arrogance, myth loosely based on some distant events. Even if you accept my interpretation of the Tower of Babel, I have an idea how to reconcile it being in the BoM, which is consistent with faith and one which is not.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses...

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not really for disbelievers, so, by believer, I mean somebody who believes the BoM is scripture or of divine origin.

1. Did you acquire your conviction instantly in a sudden flash of revelation, or gradually over time, or a third option, did you acquire an realization suddenly that had been acquired over time?

2. Is or was your belief holistic, in that you accept it completely, meaning it's all religiously true, all historically true from the perspectives told, and its "translation" true?

or is your belief that significant parts are of divine origin, significant enough that your doubts or uncertainties as to other parts can be suspended until more is discoverable?

3. Once you obtained a universal or partial conviction, do doubts enter your mind, or are you able to dismiss them, regardless of the nature?

4. Are there aspects of the historicity or "translation" that trouble or concern you, but you still after all is said and done are benefitted by the precepts to such an extent that you are willing to accept it as a package?

5. Have you ever been concerned by Ether? Does it make sense that anybody came "during the time of the Tower of Babel"?

1. I had never seriously questioned my beliefs until I was preparing to serve a mission. I was raised LDS and I just accepted it. Despite any doubts, I figured that my mission was a good way to see the world and get out of small-town Utah. Unlike many of my friends, I absolutely loved the MTC. Not necessarily the structure or rules, but the guys in my district. If I were to handpick a group of guys to spend two months with, it would have been them. Two of my closest friends today were MTC buddies. These friendships helped me ignore some of my doubts.

When I got into the field, my doubts resurged. I had never received a clear answer to the divine origins of the BOM, but I studied it intently and thoroughly examined my faith. My trainer was a dick and my Chinese sucked, so my frustrations were compounded. I wasn't happy with where I was. About four months into it, I finished the book for the second time and followed Moroni's admonition. Without going into too much detail, I received a witness that cannot be denied. For this witness, I will go to the grave as a Mormon. I knew then that the Book of Mormon was what it purported to be.

Sorry for the long answer, but I guess this is a mixture of 1 and 3.

2. I believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of the descendants of Lehi. I find that the relevance of the BOM's historicity is not as important as the doctrines taught therein.

3. On many church related issues, doubts/questions/misunderstandings regularly enter my mind. As I have grown in understanding, I'm able to directly address them and find the answers. Sometimes the answers aren't satisfactory and at that point I table them. I suspect that some won't be addressed for a while.

4. On the Book of Mormon, no. I will admit that I have trouble with the historicity and translation of the Book of Abraham, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

5. I haven't given this issue serious thought.

[fusnik11]

I've had distinct feelings that reading the BOM would bring me a better spiritual understanding of my true nature.

Never felt the book was true from a historicity point of view. Always seemed a little odd that a small family came to America and dominated an established aboriginal people. Seemed odd that from this dominance sprung possible peoples from Polynesia. Seemed odd these peoples, that were dominated had roots from the Tower of Babel. And seemed odd we've never really encovered anything tangible of their existence. (all assumptions made from suggestions made by the BOM)

Doubts enter frequently, but the BOM is best viewed, IMO, for what it is, a stepping stone for some to create relationships with their spiritual beings.

Horses, Reformed Egyptian, No proof whatsoever of Mayan, Aztec, Native peoples keeping records like kept in the BOM, no record of the fathers of the new world, namely Nephi, Lehi. Large portions of the book being taken straight from the Bible.

The Tower story is on par with the Flood, the creation, and Cain. Stories lifted from other mythology incorporated into Christianity.

[JohnnyLingo]

What part of "For believers" do you not understand, fus?

Go play with SU.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

What part of "For believers" do you not understand, fus?

Go play with SU.

Lingo, that's not necessary.