7 "evidences" I Find Compelling

[Obiwan]

Anijen,

This link should work:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,18834

You should read the Hutchinson essay linked above, as well. We're not just talking about overlaps in language; we're talking about large portions of Joseph's translations that are actually structured around anachronistic Bible manuscripts and/or KJV textual features.

-Chris

I am well aware of that already.

My point is that the translation went through a man, according to his own language, and his own mind. If the Biblical text was already in his mind, then when he received the revealed text, the parts that coincided with the Biblical text would naturally simply show to him as the Biblical text. Or, it's even possible that God himself simply chose to use the Biblical text for the sake of consistency. Either way, it's really not a problem. Plenty of other evidence over-rides the likelihood that he simply copied the text directly, cause he was making up the BOM. So, without any evidence that he did this, the tons of other evidence related to the Truth claims of the restoration and the BOM, would indicate that it was simply part of the process, not something bad, faked, or whatever.

We all know that there is "missing information" when it comes to the FACTUAL answers to certain things, but what we faithful educated LDS know, is that there is TONS of other evidences in multiple streams of disciplines, which fully and unequivocally validate Restoration claims. The fact that we don't necessarily actually "know" why there is some exact matching text in the Book of Mormon compared with the Bible, doesn't somehow make the negative claim against.

[Chris Smith]

I am well aware of that already.

You're clearly not, because your argument does not apply.

[Chris Smith]

I find it extremely difficult to read the essay without moving the mouse, pushing page numbers, etc.

Outside the deutero-Isaiah issue, which is, for me personally, rather esoteric, could you give us specific examples of an anachronism taken from the Bible.

just curious.

I don't have my copy of the Wright essay here in Wheaton, so I can't help there. But I can provide a quick synopsis of Hutchinson. Basically, the Book of Moses resolves the contradicitions between Genesis 1 and 2 by making Genesis 1 a spiritual creation and Genesis 2 a physical creation, and putting this two-creation scheme into the mouth of Moses. But Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are documents from two different sources that were not joined until long after Moses. The reason for the discrepancies is their different authorship, not their different ontological referent. So the whole framework of a pre-creation creation is based on a duality that in the earliest versions of these creation stories simply didn't exist.

[Thinking]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

[consiglieri]

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

A test notoriously useful in rejecting true Christs and true prophets, as well.

[Thinking]

A test notoriously useful in rejecting true Christs and true prophets, as well.

Actually it's not a test. The purpose of Christ's statement is to help us understand that when judging a prophet, we should not focus on "wonders" because a true prophet and a false prophet both can provide signs and wonders, which makes them (signs and wonders) irrelevant. How many times have I heard from TBM's, "If JS wasn't a prophet could he have done X?" Our primary focus should be on the doctrine which is taught and his actions in his "prophetic capacity."

[Chris Smith]

The Didache provides an interesting test of true and false prophets. Basically, if they want your money, they're a false prophet. This has interesting applications to Joseph Smith. ;-)

[soren]

Actually it's not a test. The purpose of Christ's statement is to help us understand that when judging a prophet, we should not focus on "wonders" because a true prophet and a false prophet both can provide signs and wonders, which makes them (signs and wonders) irrelevant. How many times have I heard from TBM's, "If JS wasn't a prophet could he have done X?" Our primary focus should be on the doctrine which is taught and his actions in his "prophetic capacity."

I don't think that wonders can be written off as just irrelevant. Christ performed miracles in order to provoke belief. The resurrection itself is the ultimate miracle, and the New Testament lays weight on the fact that it was witnessed by many. In Luke's gospel, Christ even eats a fish, showing that he is not a spirit, but genuinely resurrected.

The verse does prove, however, that signs and wonders do not seal the deal automatically and a moderate skepticism is a prudent way to approach questions of miracle.

[consiglieri]

Actually it's not a test. The purpose of Christ's statement is to help us understand that when judging a prophet, we should not focus on "wonders" because a true prophet and a false prophet both can provide signs and wonders, which makes them (signs and wonders) irrelevant. How many times have I heard from TBM's, "If JS wasn't a prophet could he have done X?" Our primary focus should be on the doctrine which is taught and his actions in his "prophetic capacity."

All of which is quite interesting in light of Paul's frequent reference to signs and miracles he himself did as establishing his apostleship.

But then, when others (the "super apostles" of 2 Corinthians 10-13) do signs and miracles, Paul reverses himself and says that they really don't mean that much.

We have in the Book of Mormon a concrete text we can hold in our hands. We also have a version as it existed when it rolled off the press in 1830.

I readily admit I don't know everything about every religion, but I am unaware of any other religious text produced in modern times that, while claiming to be ancient, actually presents evidence after evidence that its claims to authenticity are genuine.

I believe the Book of Mormon is unique in this regard.

As I uncover evidence after evidence of such authenticity, I am led frequently to think, "What in the world was going on in upstate New York in 1829?"

I do not see these evidences as "signs" or "miracles." Rather, they seem to me to be the kind of evidences that scholars typically adduce and rely upon in determining the authenticity and provenance of any text, religious or secular.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Olavarria]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

Hey Ck, long time no see. One of the things I admire about you is that you are FAIR .

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

Donald parry wrote a paper on other hebreish peculiarities in the text.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...8&chapid=63

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

Ya, that is a big one for me. Though most of the witnesses left the Church(for various reasons) they never denied the BoM. The only attack "antis" have is the "spiritual eyes/spiritual power" language used by some of the witnesses but that can be explained by the Book of Moses understanding of such phraesiology

Moses 1: 11

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Might I add that this is one of the things that seems to bother some christians. For centuaries my fellow Christians have pointed to the original twelve and how they were seperated by time and space(one goes to egypt, another to rome, another to parthia etc) and how they never denied their testimonies etc. The plates are to the resurrected Christ what the 3,11 and joseph are to the original twelve. If their witnesses aren't evidence of the living,tangible, reality of the BoM then can we honestly say that the witnesses of the original twelve count as witnesses of the living Christ?

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

And lets not forget how he did it.

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

I remember, i started a thread about this. My man The Dude agreed that the chiasms were purposefull. We just all disagree as to the authorship. My favorite is Alma36.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mus+intentional

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

Jeremiah 38:6

6 Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire.

Is Mulek a hyposocratic(baby name) form of Malkiyahu, the way Baruch is for Barachyahu? Well, it is the case that the Melek(king) Zedekiah had such a son. A reader of hebrew can figure this out but a country bumpkin?

6) Nahom

For me its an issue of Nehem/Nahom in the proper time and its positioning south of jerusalem and nearly west of Wadi Sayq, plus Sayq's posession of small iron deposits, fruit, honey and a ship building tradition that dates to at least 500 bc.

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

...nice phraesiology.

I would add the earthy Mary as a type of Dea Nutrix, volcanism and sections of 3 Nephi and mesoamerican warfare compared to the BoM.

[consiglieri]

Though mentioned earlier in passing, I some time ago started a thread about the presence of the Egyptian name "Paanchi" in the Book of Mormon that won almost universal acceptance as of at least some significance.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[soren]

All of which is quite interesting in light of Paul's frequent reference to signs and miracles he himself did as establishing his apostleship.

But then, when others (the "super apostles" of 2 Corinthians 10-13) do signs and miracles, Paul reverses himself and says that they really don't mean that much.

We have in the Book of Mormon a concrete text we can hold in our hands. We also have a version as it existed when it rolled off the press in 1830.

I readily admit I don't know everything about every religion, but I am unaware of any other religious text produced in modern times that, while claiming to be ancient, actually presents evidence after evidence that its claims to authenticity are genuine.

I believe the Book of Mormon is unique in this regard.

As I uncover evidence after evidence of such authenticity, I am led frequently to think, "What in the world was going on in upstate New York in 1829?"

I do not see these evidences as "signs" or "miracles." Rather, they seem to me to be the kind of evidences that scholars typically adduce and rely upon in determining the authenticity and provenance of any text, religious or secular.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I can see how someone could consider certain links between the BOM and the ancient world to be reasonable, plausible, even faith-promoting, but can such a confident claim be made if problems with the Book of Mormon are also held in balance? Iâ??m probably familiar with a great deal of the evidences that persuade you, and have never taken a particular interest in debunking any of it. I think the theological aspects of Mormonism as compared to Catholicism are worth more attention. Overall, I prefer to just give the BOM the benefit of the doubt and stick to more profound matters. But I do take note of the BOM, and in thinking about the case for and against it, I see enough problems with it that when I read confident claims such as you are making I wonder how much attention you have really given to the other side. (Obviously I donâ??t know how much, I just wonder.)

For most of my academic life I have been a scholar of Shakespeare; Biblical studies is a relatively new obsession. I have seen theories linking Shakespeare to ancient Hebrew literature that were sometimes as striking on surface as much that I have read about the BOM. For instance, I know a zany Jewish scholar in Florida named Florence Amit who argued for all kinds Hebrew parallels in Shakespeareâ??s plays. Most impressively, she claimed that the riddle of the caskets in The Merchant of Venice is actually a three-fold Hebrew word-play in which the riddles on the caskets, when translated into Hebrew, reveal the contents of each. Better scholarship has since refuted Amit soundly: Shakespeare didnâ??t know Hebrew and thatâ??s all there is to it, but the theory is still brilliant and the coincidence is still striking.

For evidence to be compelling, it has to be strong enough to bewilder doubt, and the evidences for the BOM fall very short of this. For instance, it will always be reasonable to point out that the names Timothy and Lachoneus and the letters Alpha and Omega are entirely Greek and would not have meaning in an unhellenized culture. The apparent misreading of â??strait and narrowâ? in 2 Nephi 9:21 points to anachronism, not antiquity. Moving beyond the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham facsimiles, especially the pornographic Min in Fac. 3 are major problems.

Now, because I believe faith propositions get the benefit of the doubt, I can allow Latter-day Saints to propose solutions to the issues. But is it really possible to look at things like that in the BOM and just be blown away by how great the evidence is?

[consiglieri]

Now, because I believe faith propositions get the benefit of the doubt, I can allow Latter-day Saints to propose solutions to the issues. But is it really possible to look at things like that in the BOM and just be blown away by how great the evidence is?

For me, it is.

If we start from the proposition that the Book of Mormon either is, or is not, ancient, then we must look at the evidences for antiquity and the evidences for modernity. Evidences have been put forward on both sides of the coin.

I like using the "null hypothesis" proposed by Nibley in this regard: That we cannot prove the Book of Mormon is true; nor can we prove that it is ancient. What is susceptible to proof is that it is not a modern composition. If we are able to prove that the Book of Mormon is not a modern composition, then we have in effect proven its ancientness.

For me, the proofs of antiquity contained in the Book of Mormon demonstrate at least by a preponderance of the evidence (if not beyond a reasonable doubt) that it is not a modern composition and is, in fact, of ancient origin and provenance.

If the Book of Mormon is ancient, then it is authentic; i.e., "true."

Hence I would subscribe to the proposition that the Book of Mormon has been proven "true" by at least a preponderance of the evidence, in that it readily passes a number of tests that are used by scholars to confirm the authenticity of other purportedly ancient documents.

What, then, to make of the other evidences that argue for modernity?

For myself, at some point the evidence of antiquity is so overwhelming as to compel evidence of modernity to conform to an alternate hypothesis; one that is consistent with the multitudinous evidence of antiquity.

As Sherlock Holmes remarked concerning his process of elimination, "When you have eliminated all other possibilities, the only remaining possibility, however improbable, must be true."

I believe that, in this regard, the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is the only remaining possibility, however improbable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Calm]

See http://www.mormonfortress.com/gloss1.html

You need to add "countermo" to your list, Mike.

[cdowis]

"Chiasmus".

Just a personal thought. Seems to me that chiasmus and deuteroIsaiah pretty much cancel each other out. Both are rather esoteric, IMO, and difficult to put your hands on the argument.

Both are "interesting", but falls under the "not sure what it really means". Perhaps it has something to do with my lack of knowledge of Hebrew.

[why me]

From this discussion I can see that the book of mormon is rather unique. If individuals on this thread who share an immense intelligence can dialogue about the book of mormon as to its truth, I can from a bystanders perspective come to the conclusion that who ever wrote the book made a wonderful achievement.

That being said, I cannot claim that I would have faith that Joseph wrote this book. I think that it was beyond his grasp. Too much thought for a 'money digger' regardless of what Dan Vogel may speculate. That leaves only a couple of possiblities: either someone else wrote the book, an intelligent human being or Joseph's version of the events of its coming into being has truth.

I also believe that the early saints must have seen the similiarities with the KJV. Why did they accept the similiarity while individuals today, cannot? And I would also have to assume that someone asked JS about this. And if so, what answer could he have given? It would be wonderful to discover answers for these questions.

[Calm]

I remember when my wife and I went through the Engagement Encounter program before we were married and I was surprised at how one comes about getting G-d's guidance in discerning truth. The Mormon approach is 1st figure it out and then 2nd confirm w/ G-d if that is correct. So discernment then prayer. My wife was annoyed that Catholics seemed to have it backwards. Catholics ask for G-d's guidance and then discernment.

The "Mormon way" does sometime seem to be taught with this one size fits all mentality, but in reality we are open to more than one approach. Next time your wife gets annoyed with you not praying, point out how JS prayed first without having a clue as to what the "conclusions" were to be and apparently did not continually pray the First Vision to confirm its truthfulness or his path in general, etc.

Me, I use a multiple option approach depending on the situation. Some of my most important and spiritual experiences have started out with me going to the Lord with "I haven't a clue, I'll trust that you'll tell me if I need to know something, otherwise I'll just go with what I'm impressed to do in the moment...and if I make any major mistakes, I'll be looking for roadblocks from you". Other times, I will work out a idea beforehand but feel the need to 'doublecheck' with the Lord.

After a lot of reading (changing my thoughts more than once) I felt and feel that I side with the one author theory. Both arguments have merit but I tend still to side with Giliadi on this. I have to thank you all too because this has been an exercize I have thouroly enjoyed (probably because I have learned something, changing my mind occasionally etc).

It is from "The Literary Message Of Isa

Keep an eye on David Bokovoy. He's added some interesting ideas and info to the mix here and promises more.

The apparent misreading of â??strait and narrowâ? in 2 Nephi 9:21 points to anachronism, not antiquity.

Either I don't know of this problem or my brain is still asleep. How about a refresher paragraph or two summarizing the controversy. Thanks.

PS: I have very much enjoyed this thread. It's interesting to see what is viewed as 'compelling--at least sort of' from the 'other side'.

[Gervin]

Hence I would subscribe to the proposition that the Book of Mormon has been proven "true" by at least a preponderance of the evidence, in that it readily passes a number of tests that are used by scholars to confirm the authenticity of other purportedly ancient documents.

I'm curious to know more about these tests and whether scholars outside of the LDS community have applied these tests and replicated the findings confirming ancient authorship?

[soren]

For myself, at some point the evidence of antiquity is so overwhelming as to compel evidence of modernity to conform to an alternate hypothesis; one that is consistent with the multitudinous evidence of antiquity.

As Sherlock Holmes remarked concerning his process of elimination, "When you have eliminated all other possibilities, the only remaining possibility, however improbable, must be true."

I believe that, in this regard, the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is the only remaining possibility, however improbable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But what alternate hypothesis would you propose that is not more unlikely than the claim of coincidence to explain the BOM? For instance, how much coincidence dies it take for the five letter in the name Mulek to come together as opposed to the improbability of that 2 Nephi is using "straight" and "narrow" in a way not related to "strait and narrow," or that Lehi's speaking of death "from whence no traveller can return" is unrelated to Hamlet? I am fine with proposing alternate hypotheses for these things. In defending the Bible I indulge in scenario-speculation myself, but as far as mere probability is concerned, the coincidences between Smith and modern sources multiply as well.

At the same time, how necessary is it to attribute to antiquity features in the BOM that could as well have been influenced by later things? Chaismus, for instance, is found in the KJV, and was discovered in the Bible prior to Smith's time. As a mode of expression it is a feature of many cultures and not specifically Hebraic. It is even common in English, Shakespeare again being a good example, as well as the speeches of John F. Kennedy. The common thread of chaismus among these sources is evidence that it is an excellent manner of writing, not that the works themselves have specific connections. There are also things you would expect to find in ancient narratives not found in the BOM. I don't for instance recall any places in the BOM where anyone commemorates a great even by singing a song and recording the words.

If your method of inquiry begins by finding links with ancient sources and assuming that the ancient source is the more likely link that the modern one, you can make quite a good-looking case, but it will not be true that you have really ruled out the other options.

[cdowis]

And who was JS's audience for this book, that he went into so much authentic detail == egyptian and akkadian words, a geography that fits the Saudia Arabian peninsula in such detail, etc.

We are still looking at this book that was "an obvious fraud" 150 years later. Who were these extraordinary NY farmers that he was trying to deceive?

[Obiwan]

You're clearly not, because your argument does not apply.

Boy.... That really takes us a long way now doesn't it.

Just because you want to ignore (or not understand) my point, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Do you usually talk down to people.

[consiglieri]

I'm curious to know more about these tests and whether scholars outside of the LDS community have applied these tests and replicated the findings confirming ancient authorship?

I may not have been sufficiently clear; I was referring to tests common to checking authenticity in documents other than the Book of Mormon.

But even as to the Book of Mormon, it seems that an increasing number of non-LDS scholars are making not only replication of such tests, but adding their own discoveries; such as Margaret Barker.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

This

My point is that the translation went through a man, according to his own language, and his own mind. If the Biblical text was already in his mind, then when he received the revealed text, the parts that coincided with the Biblical text would naturally simply show to him as the Biblical text.

does not address this

I don't have my copy of the Wright essay here in Wheaton, so I can't help there. But I can provide a quick synopsis of Hutchinson. Basically, the Book of Moses resolves the contradicitions between Genesis 1 and 2 by making Genesis 1 a spiritual creation and Genesis 2 a physical creation, and putting this two-creation scheme into the mouth of Moses. But Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are documents from two different sources that were not joined until long after Moses. The reason for the discrepancies is their different authorship, not their different ontological referent. So the whole framework of a pre-creation creation is based on a duality that in the earliest versions of these creation stories simply didn't exist.

The issue goes much deeper "some matching text" between the Bible and Book of Mormon. The issue is that portions of Joseph's ancient revelations appear to be designed specifically as expansions and/or revisions of anachronistic biblical texts.

I'm not talking down to you. I'm just trying to get at the heart of the matter.

[consiglieri]

But what alternate hypothesis would you propose that is not more unlikely than the claim of coincidence to explain the BOM? For instance, how much coincidence dies it take for the five letter in the name Mulek to come together as opposed to the improbability of that 2 Nephi is using "straight" and "narrow" in a way not related to "strait and narrow," or that Lehi's speaking of death "from whence no traveller can return" is unrelated to Hamlet? I am fine with proposing alternate hypotheses for these things. In defending the Bible I indulge in scenario-speculation myself, but as far as mere probability is concerned, the coincidences between Smith and modern sources multiply as well.

At the same time, how necessary is it to attribute to antiquity features in the BOM that could as well have been influenced by later things? Chaismus, for instance, is found in the KJV, and was discovered in the Bible prior to Smith's time. As a mode of expression it is a feature of many cultures and not specifically Hebraic. It is even common in English, Shakespeare again being a good example, as well as the speeches of John F. Kennedy. The common thread of chaismus among these sources is evidence that it is an excellent manner of writing, not that the works themselves have specific connections. There are also things you would expect to find in ancient narratives not found in the BOM. I don't for instance recall any places in the BOM where anyone commemorates a great even by singing a song and recording the words.

If your method of inquiry begins by finding links with ancient sources and assuming that the ancient source is the more likely link that the modern one, you can make quite a good-looking case, but it will not be true that you have really ruled out the other options.

I appreciate your comments, Soren, but obviously you are opening up a BIG can of worms that is far too large and wriggly for this thread (or any one thread!).

I am just telling you how I view the evidence. I am happy to extend to you the liberty of viewing it differently.

For example, I see a difference between John F. Kennedy's speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," admittedly chiastic; and the entirety of Alma chapter 36.

I am also not persuaded that Joseph Smith is copying Hamlet in the Book of Mormon; it is a common enough expression; and we find it replicated in the Book of Job, to which both Shakespeare and Lehi had access. (Although I am having a tougher time accounting for the Queen Mab speech in the Book of Helaman.)

These are good examples of how meager, in my view, are the attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon's manifest connections with the ancient Near East, and hence do not detract substantially from the wealth of evidence amassed in favor of Book of Mormon authenticity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Williams]

For myself, at some point the evidence of antiquity is so overwhelming as to compel evidence of modernity to conform to an alternate hypothesis; one that is consistent with the multitudinous evidence of antiquity.

As Sherlock Holmes remarked concerning his process of elimination, "When you have eliminated all other possibilities, the only remaining possibility, however improbable, must be true."

I believe that, in this regard, the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is the only remaining possibility, however improbable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I guess I see it the other way. The Book of Mormon looks almost exactly like you would expect a 19th-century work to look. It incorporates common folk mythology, resolves the theological questions of the day, and adds anachronisms to the mix. Yes, there are interesting parallels and a few possible direct hits. But, I don't see anything that suggests that the antiquity of the book is the only remaining possibility.

Of course, we could go back and forth on this and never get a resolution. I honestly have no idea what turned the tide for me, but I've reached different conclusions than you have.