Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Libs]

You are correct about very intelligent people in other religions. I had a great conversation with some brilliant Muslim's the other day.

The Book of Mormon has a unique problem. One can accept the historicity of the Bible, without accepting God. In other words, one can believe there was a Jesus, a Peter, a Paul, and believe that they founded a new religion and believed in it. But that doesn't mean you have to believe in God. You only have to believe that they believed. There is no physical evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was given to Joseph Smith by an angel. Joseph did not have the capacity to translate it, and yet he did. So if you accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you are also accepting the existence of God and Angels.

As for evidences, there have been some unique and interesting discoveries in the old world that support the Book of Mormon. I happen to be a fan of Lehi's trail and of NHM. From everything I have read, I don't believe Joseph Smith could have known those things, and yet he got them right. There are several other things that Joseph Smith got right. Many of them have been debated on this message board. There is a bias not to believe them, because to accept one of the evidences is to say that God really does live.

It is quite an interesting problem.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I understand your reasoning (in regards to needing a belief in God in order to accept the Book of Mormon). But, if there were really good evidence for some parts of the book, wouldn't people have to believe in, at least, the parts that are showing evidence?...much like atheists know that parts of the Bible are true?

I still believe in God, whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.

On a personal note (and I have found this true for many ex-mormons) the Book of Mormon was the last thing to go. I had such strong feelings for it; feelings that didn't seem to have an explanation, if it really wasn't true. In retrospect, I think I just really loved the stories. I had favorites and spent a lot of time in the book. Some of those stories are just a part of me and I don't feel a need to try and erase that (as I did when I first left).

Thank you for response. I do understand that there are many things that one "might" consider proof, especially if you also have a spiritual testimony of the book.

[why me]

The book of mormon will never be proven true. But then again, neither will the bible. We have no other record of christ in judea besides the bible. It would be great to see other testimonies of christ that were written at that time and discovered in judea. But none exist. And certainly although the archeological evidence tends to support the bible but that only proves that the authors knew something about the geography of the area. But still no proof exists of christ outside the bible. All depends on faith.

And it will be the same for the book of mormon. Now it would be great that conclusive evidence would be discovered to confirm the existence of god and the book of mormon. But that is not going to happen. And we certainly have enough sign seekers who claim: show me a sign and I will believe! But it doesn't work that way.

[nicolasconnault]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I understand your reasoning (in regards to needing a belief in God in order to accept the Book of Mormon). But, if there were really good evidence for some parts of the book, wouldn't people have to believe in, at least, the parts that are showing evidence?...much like atheists know that parts of the Bible are true?

Scientific evidence forces me to believe that physical exercise is good for me and will reduce my risks of heart attack and cardiovascular disease in later life. Yet I often choose not to exercise and do something sedentary instead, even though I greatly value my health and well-being.

I think that God has intentionally left enough reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in order that there may be enough reasons to have faith in it despite the lack of conclusive evidence.

[Jon63]

You are correct about very intelligent people in other religions. I had a great conversation with some brilliant Muslim's the other day.

The Book of Mormon has a unique problem. One can accept the historicity of the Bible, without accepting God. In other words, one can believe there was a Jesus, a Peter, a Paul, and believe that they founded a new religion and believed in it. But that doesn't mean you have to believe in God. You only have to believe that they believed. There is no physical evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was given to Joseph Smith by an angel. Joseph did not have the capacity to translate it, and yet he did. So if you accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you are also accepting the existence of God and Angels.

As for evidences, there have been some unique and interesting discoveries in the old world that support the Book of Mormon. I happen to be a fan of Lehi's trail and of NHM. From everything I have read, I don't believe Joseph Smith could have known those things, and yet he got them right. There are several other things that Joseph Smith got right. Many of them have been debated on this message board. There is a bias not to believe them, because to accept one of the evidences is to say that God really does live.

It is quite an interesting problem.

If Joseph Smith was truly a Prophet of God why would he not get everything right?

As I understand it he also stated that people inhabited the moon...

People make predictions all the time, look at astrologers - they get some things right, does that make them true Prophets?

[why me]

If Joseph Smith was truly a Prophet of God why would he not get everything right?

As I understand it he also stated that people inhabited the moon...

People make predictions all the time, look at astrologers - they get some things right, does that make them true Prophets?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Moon_inhabited

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said.[1] Hyrum Smith[2] and Brigham Young[3] both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.

A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."[4]

Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.

He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style

Maybe after you have passed away, I will make a statement that you stated that there are men on the moon and that you firmly believed moon habitation. Such is the Joseph Smith explanation.

[why me]

If Joseph Smith was truly a Prophet of God why would he not get everything right?

As I understand it he also stated that people inhabited the moon...

People make predictions all the time, look at astrologers - they get some things right, does that make them true Prophets?

If I remember correctly when Paul would talk about the coming of christ, he believed that it would occur soon maybe in his own lifetime. If so, why did he get it wrong? Many early christians were expecting christ to return in their day. What happened....why didn't they get it right?

[Jon63]

http://en.fairmormon.../Moon_inhabited

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said.[1] Hyrum Smith[2] and Brigham Young[3] both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.

A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."[4]

Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.

He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style

Maybe after you have passed away, I will make a statement that you stated that there are men on the moon and that you firmly believed moon habitation. Such is the Joseph Smith explanation.

Fair point - I get let's of stuff wrong, but I'm not a Prophet.

However, did all of Joseph Smith's prophecies (ones undoubtedly attributed to him) come true? Or did he get a lot of stuff wrong?

And if he got a lot of stuff wrong (which he did) what does that say about the reliability of Prophetic prophesy?

[Brant Gardner]

The end of chapter VI in the 1830 BoM coincides with the end chapter 49 in KJV-Isaiah. This seems to undermine your thesis.

You would do well to understand the thesis before you suggest such a simple undermining of it. For more information, see John Gee,

[Kevin Christensen]

Fair point - I get let's of stuff wrong, but I'm not a Prophet.

However, did all of Joseph Smith's prophecies (ones undoubtedly attributed to him) come true? Or did he get a lot of stuff wrong?

And if he got a lot of stuff wrong (which he did) what does that say about the reliability of Prophetic prophecy?

One of the most important things to get right in deciding whether or not a Joseph Smith is a prophet might be understanding just what to expect from a prophet. Critics typically approach the question without doing any research on the central issue. What is a prophet? This should help.

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/prophettestsfv5.pdf

We should also consider the accuracy of Biblical prophets, and to not neglect the accuracy and reliability of their critics, both in terms of realistic versus arbitrary expectations, and specific cases. I once saw an "atheist's handbook" published around 1900, which for it's prime example of an unfulfilled Biblical prophesy, listed the fact that the Jews has not returned to Israel.

Regarding Joseph Smith's prophecies, you could read obtain and read Duane Crowther's The Prophecies of Joseph Smith. He got a lot of stuff right. You might check out John Clark's presentation at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference on the trends in Book of Mormon research. The overall trend is toward resolution of criticisms.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Brant Gardner]

If Joseph Smith was truly a Prophet of God why would he not get everything right?

That is a fascinating question, and one that is based on our human presumptions of what ought to be. The idea that we can dictate what God should do is an old one, an one that the Bible suggests is not fruitful:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8 - 9)

Fortunately we have the Bible which describes prophets and enough about them to understand that they were creatures of their times, and didn't always get everything right (Jonah seems to rather dwell on the foibles of a human prophet). So the only empirical evidence we have suggests that your thesis is wrong.

[Brant Gardner]

By the way, I notice that this thread is doing what may similar in the past have done. We stop discussing actual data and begin tossing around assumptions about what should or should not happen.

It would be more helpful if you could criticize the methodology I am suggesting, particularly if you see that methodology as any different from what secular ethnohistorians do when examining texts against contexts.

Secondly, although the points in the list are certainly brief, discussion related to them (as some here have done) is appreciated.

[Hughes]

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was given to Joseph Smith by an angel. Joseph did not have the capacity to translate it, and yet he did. So if you accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you are also accepting the existence of God and Angels.

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

[Kevin Christensen]

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

The "blind faith" charge is empty rhetoric. Among other things, the Book of Mormon text makes all sorts of testable predictions, most impressively predictions that can be tested on the basis of information to which no one hand access in 1829.

And as Kuhn says:

[Vance]

The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

You continue to repeat this as if it hasn't been addressed.

It has been addressed more than once.

It is beginning to sound like you are as much trying to convince yourself as others.

[Hughes]

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

The "blind faith" charge is empty rhetoric. Among other things, the Book of Mormon text makes all sorts of testable predictions, most impressively predictions that can be tested on the basis of information to which no one hand access in 1829.

And as Kuhn says:

[Vance]

"Blind faith" isn't a charge of empty rhetoric as it references the fact that the translation can't be verified or confirmed or tested as accurate or not.

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

If you can't trust the voice of God, who can you trust?

[Mortal Man]

Actually, the fact that there is an example of the chapter break confirms more than denies the hypothesis.

So if the chapter breaks don't line up it confirms your hypothesis and if they do line up it also confirms your hypothesis?

If Joseph were copying the text (which is indicated by the words and sentences) we would expect that he would also copy the chapter breaks.

We would?

There is no reason to suppose that Joseph would see those as malleable.

There isn't?

The fact that there is a chapter break tells us that he didn't avoid them intentionally.

It does?

The question is why there is whether that chapter break differs conceptually from the others, and the answer would be that it is.

If you say so.

In this case, the chapters in the KJV match the theme units.

Whose theme units? Yours? John Gee's? Stephen Langton's?

However, Joseph didn't use the other breaks that he might have seen for chapters, but made much longer sections that were based on the more literary considerations.

You mean Gee's literary considerations? I'm still trying to figure out why Nephi et al. were supposed to flee out of Babylon from the Chaldeans. Was Babylon on the way to Nahom?

I would encourage you to read Gee if you are really interested in this topic.

If you point me to a pdf, I'll take a look.

[why me]

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

Blind faith is a part of faith. You also have blind faith there is a god and there are angels. This is blind faith. Have you seen god? Have you seen angels? Probably not. And yet you believe. In terms of the translation, one must look at how the book was translated. Who are the witnesses to the translation and make a decision as to whether they are telling the truth. Then, when we have 11 witnesses who actually saw the plates and a few even actually handled the plates, we must decided as to whether they are lying or that they are telling the truth. And then if we decide that they are lying, we must come to terms with the understanding that some of these liars also lied on their deathbed by reaffirming their testimony about what they saw or felt with their hands as they were about to face their maker. And then we need to come to an understanding about why they would do that.

And this does not depend on blind faith but on understanding human nature. I would claim that the witnesses if they are fraudsters defied human nature by keeping the fraud hidden even on their deathbeds. For after all we have 11 men. And emmma who witnessed the translation even after the death of her husaband still believed in the book of mormon and to my understanding taught her children from it. How can that be explained by blind faith?

[mapman]

NHM constitutes credible physical evidence. The rest of the list could just have easily been made for The Hobbit, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island etc.

Hah! I want to see you try to demonstrate that.

[Brant Gardner]

So if the chapter breaks don't line up it confirms your hypothesis and if they do line up it also confirms your hypothesis?

This seems to be the only question that has any substance to it. No, you are mistating the issue. It is a fact that there are chapter breaks in the Bible. Some of those chapter breaks fall between theme units, whoever created the chapters did find logical breaking points, just more of them than were needed. If Joseph were copying, there is every reason to believe that he would copy the chapters as they were. The fact that it did happen at least suggests that. The question is why he didn't copy all of them. He copied the language, and there was no attempt to hide the fact that it came from the KJV--it is rather obvious. In that case, why not copy it just as it was? This requires some kind of decision.

So, we have a conundrum to explain. Joseph didn't do something that might have been expected if he were copying. Now the question is the reason. One might argue, if trying to maintain that Joseph were the author, that he was obfuscating his source. Maybe, but he did a poor job. When the locations of the breaks are examined, they fall into logical categories based on theme units rather than chapters. That gives us a reason for the break, but not one that Joseph should have understood. Take the same chapters in the current Book of Mormon, which now match the expected Bible chapters, and ask anyone to tell you how to divide them into three parts. See how well they do with finding the thematic breaking points. I suspect that the first question they would ask is "why?".

[nicolasconnault]

Is there another type of faith than "blind faith"? Please explain!

[nicolasconnault]

This seems to be the only question that has any substance to it. No, you are mistating the issue. It is a fact that there are chapter breaks in the Bible. Some of those chapter breaks fall between theme units, whoever created the chapters did find logical breaking points, just more of them than were needed. If Joseph were copying, there is every reason to believe that he would copy the chapters as they were. The fact that it did happen at least suggests that. The question is why he didn't copy all of them. He copied the language, and there was no attempt to hide the fact that it came from the KJV--it is rather obvious. In that case, why not copy it just as it was? This requires some kind of decision.

So, we have a conundrum to explain. Joseph didn't do something that might have been expected if he were copying. Now the question is the reason. One might argue, if trying to maintain that Joseph were the author, that he was obfuscating his source. Maybe, but he did a poor job. When the locations of the breaks are examined, they fall into logical categories based on theme units rather than chapters. That gives us a reason for the break, but not one that Joseph should have understood. Take the same chapters in the current Book of Mormon, which now match the expected Bible chapters, and ask anyone to tell you how to divide them into three parts. See how well they do with finding the thematic breaking points. I suspect that the first question they would ask is "why?".

Perhaps, for the Isaiah chapters, the plates just had this text:

"Insert Isaiah chapter 2 here."

[Kevin Christensen]

"Blind faith" isn't a charge of empty rhetoric as it references the fact that the translation can't be verified or confirmed or tested as accurate or not.

In 1828 the meaning of the word "translate" were these:

Translate

v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

If the English Book of Mormon "expresses the sense of one language" from "the words of another" that sense provides a wide range of tests. Those who don't make use any of the available tests on grounds we don't have the original plates won't see anything, and those who can't see are, by definition, blind. Those do make use of the tests, whether by looking for translation artifacts in the English language by comparing forms, patterns, idioms, et cetera, or by seeing whether the English conveys sense that makes sense when examined in the ancient context, or for that matter, those who simply see whether the English text offers sensible instruction, and who as consequence begin to see better, do in fact, see something, even if it not the inscribed golden plates. Seeing is, by definition, not blindness.

We have disagreements about what we see, to be sure. Say, comparing David Wright's take on the Isaiah passages, versus Tvedtnes or Skousen or Gardner, or comparing Welch and Larsen on the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon at the Temple. But even in such cases, we can compare perspectives and sources, and argue about who sees better, and Kuhn provides light on the criteria by which we can navigate such disagreements.

If you want to say that because we can't see everything we want, and cannot test things that we don't have at hand. We can't see there. But not seeing there does not mean we can't see anywhere, and cannot thereby examine and test anything as far as we can now see, or that by continuing to do see, we may not see further.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ELF1024]

Just ignore Hughes, it's a thread-jack. He's had his silly little "blind faith" mantra answered in several threads.

[maupayman]

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

LOL, because dead people flying around is much more believable than Joseph putting his head in a hat and reading words from God?