The Authorship of the Book of Mormom

[JeffM]

Actually if you were serious you would ask of God, that is the only way to know the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Hello Lightbearer,

It seems to me that if this is the only way to know the truth of the Book of Mormon, then the truth of the Book of Mormon can't be known - because the whole approach is completely backwards.

The very concept of confirming spiritual testimony is only as reliable as the source from which it is derived. Joseph Smith is that source. He's the one who presented the relevant Bible interpretations, the Book of Mormon, and his other "scriptures" to the world. Since Joseph's interpretations and "scriptures" are the ones that teach that God will confirm Joseph's "scriptures", the reliability of Joseph as a vehicle for the delivery of new scripture and Bible interpretation is a prerequisite to the validity of the concept of spiritual confirmation. This means validity of spiritual confirmation can only follow from the legitimacy of Smith and his "scriptures" and interpretations. It cannot precede that legitimacy so as to be the means of determining it.

[Michael]

Michael,

You raise some enormously good points. It is apparent that you are well read on the subject. I have always subscribed to the theory that Joseph Smith used Witman's Leaves of Grass as one of his sources for writing the BOM. Jeff Lindsey proves this in his study on the parallels. I highly suggest you read this. At this point it cannot be more obvious that Spaulding's lost manuscript and Witman's works are the sources for the BOM.

http://www.jefflinds...bomsource.shtml

Actually, I am not well read on the subject. And, I find the link you have provided sensational and less than impressive. No offense. But, I tend to take apologetics seriously.

[bluebell]

Dan Barker? Just kidding.

No, i'm a history major who just got done studying ancient Mesopotamia where it is put forth that the epic of gilgamesh predates the hebrew story of the flood.

But you know what they say about those who have 'just enough knowledge...' and all that.

[Michael]

Actually if you were serious you would ask of God, that is the only way to know the truth of the Book of Mormon. As for the late Dr.? Walter Martin I would lend more credibility to a Gossip tabloid in a Supermarket checkout than I would to him. Oh and the Spaulding theory is very old and very wrong, in my personal family history my father discovered the truth of this claim first hand over 50 years ago. I have already shared that experience on this board today so I will refrain from doing so here, but needless to say he read it and determined that the claims are false. No comparison between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript. If you would like to check on this you could go to the Oberlin College Library in Oberlin Ohio as my father did in 1951 and discover the truth yourself. What made this more interesting was he was led there in a miraculous manner in answer to his humble prayer.

Firstly, I judge all claims of divine revelation by the text of scripture. I am reformed, and hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. I cannot in good conscience base my opinion of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on a subjective feeling. I am a fallen, inherently sinful person, and therefore my feelings are effected by my sin and are subsequently flawed. You asserted that the only way to know whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is if I ask God. God has spoken in His word, the 66 books of scripture. Therefore, if what I find in scripture contradicts what I find in the Book of Mormon, I then can rightly judge the truth, or lack therein of the work. My findings? I have found numerous contradictions between the two.

Dr. Martin's doctorate is indeed credible and genuine. Let us not attempt to discredit the dead with a bogus cheap shot that is certainly ill informed. Accredidation is not a requirement for genuine education, nor is it a testimony of one's own abilities and knowledge. Perhaps your opinion of Dr. Martin is predicated on a highly slanted presupposed set of doctrinal convictions, and not the facts of the matter. I ask you, upon what basis do you discredit Walter Martin in such a disrespectful manor?

Am I understanding you correctly when I say that your dismissal of the Spaulding theory is based upon the heresay of your father, rather than the objective evidence presented before your own eyes? And what of the similarities of the two works? Coincidence?

[bluebell]

Actually, I am not well read on the subject. And, I find the link you have provided sensational and less than impressive. No offense. But, I tend to take apologetics seriously.

Jeff lindsay is actually a fairly good source for the lay person to get started. He's definitely not where someone serious about the discussion should stop though.

He takes apologetics seriously, but he doesn't take himself seriously and therefore doesn't take his critics too seriously either. I'm sure that doesn't sit well with those who agree more with the critics than with him, since it seems like he's just making fun of people (which soemtimes he is).

[Michael]

No, i'm a history major who just got done studying ancient Mesopotamia where it is put forth that the epic of gilgamesh predates the hebrew story of the flood.

But you know what they say about those who have 'just enough knowledge...' and all that.

What is the date of the Epic that you believe true? And the book of Genesis? Did you also study sarcasm? How about satire? Or perhaps boasting? What school, wait lemme guess. . .

[bluebell]

Hello Lightbearer,

It seems to me that if this is the only way to know the truth of the Book of Mormon, then the truth of the Book of Mormon can't be known - because the whole approach is completely backwards.

The very concept of confirming spiritual testimony is only as reliable as the source from which it is derived. Joseph Smith is that source. He's the one who presented the relevant Bible interpretations, the Book of Mormon, and his other "scriptures" to the world. Since Joseph's interpretations and "scriptures" are the ones that teach that God will confirm Joseph's "scriptures", the reliability of Joseph as a vehicle for the delivery of new scripture and Bible interpretation is a prerequisite to the validity of the concept of spiritual confirmation. This means validity of spiritual confirmation can only follow from the legitimacy of Smith and his "scriptures" and interpretations. It cannot precede that legitimacy so as to be the means of determining it.

It could easily be argued though that the source is the bible, such as in James 1:5.

If the source is the bible and not joseph smith, does that mean that approach isn't backwards?

[bluebell]

What is the date of the Epic that you believe true? And the book of Genesis? Did you also study sarcasm? How about satire? Or perhaps boasting? What school, wait lemme guess. . .

You've lost me here. What does sarcasm, satire, and boasting have to do with anything?

What does it matter what school i'm attending?

[David T]

The period most cited by scholars for the authorship of the book of Genesis is about 1400BC.

Really? Do you have a reference for that? Most scholars I've seen date it MUCH, much later . . .

[Benjamin McGuire]

Michael writes:

What you have proposed between Homers works and narrative portions of the NT is problematic. Firstly, the paralells are not simply found in work, but a multiplicity of works. Secondly, being somewhat familiar with Homer's writings, the paralells are extremely general in nature. The paralells between the Book of Mormon and Spauliding's fictional work are between two works alone. These paralells seem to be relatively detailed in nature. For example:

Both works contain a messianic arrival

Both possess a war narrative between 2 civilized peoples that culminates into an armagedon like end

Both books contain a bit about the use of Elephants, and this prior to the known arrival of Elephants in North America

The fortification paralells

The bit about the lever

The paralells about the sea voyage and the mutual fear of sinking

Both books proport a prohibition on inter-racial mingling

The initial communal living arrangements; sharing of property, etc. . .

And the bit about the Sun's rotation.

The parallels are so extremely general between Homer and the New Testament that there have been several scholarly works published to document them. I don't believe that the parallels are significant (and apparently you agree with me), but until you read the works I mentioned, you won't understand that the parallels aren't all incredibly general. Just some of them are. Some are quite specific.

There is no "bit about the lever". While Spalding's manuscript found has him use a lever to uncover a cave (at the bottom of which is a door, and behind the door a small room, containing a box filled with parchment), the alleged parallel is to an account written of the discovery of the gold plates years after the translation. And while you suggest this might be significant, here is a bit from the Waverly Novels by Sir Walter Scott (published in 1814):

... he at length proceeded to a corner of the building where a fiat stone lay upon the ground, bearing upon its surface the effigy of an armed warrior in a recumbent posture carved in bas-relief. He muttered to Sir Arthur, " Mine patrons, it is here-Got save us all!" Sir Arthur, who, after the first moment of his superstitious fear was over, seemed to have bent up all his faculties to the pitch of resolution necessary to carry on the adventure, lent the adept his assistance to turn over the stone, which, by means of a lever that the adept had provided, their joint force with difficulty effected. No supernatural light burst forth from below to indicate the subterranean treasury, nor was there any apparition of spirits, earthly or infernal. But when Dousterswivel had, with great trepidation, struck a few strokes with a mattock, and as hastily thrown out a shovelful or two of earth (for they came provided with the tools necessary for digging,) something was heard to ring like the sound of a falling piece of metal, and Dousterswivel, hastily catching up the substance which produced it, and which his shovel had thrown out along with the earth, exclaimed, "On mine dear wort, mine patrons, dis is all

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, I am not well read on the subject. And, I find the link you have provided sensational and less than impressive. No offense. But, I tend to take apologetics seriously.

I am willingy to bet that you didn't even read much of what was linked to on that sight. I bet you do take apologetics seriously. Do you take them so serious that you can't look at anything that is pro mormon becuase it is biased?

[Vance]

The very concept of confirming spiritual testimony is only as reliable as the source from which it is derived.

So then, how do you know that what is in the Bible is true?

Joseph Smith is that source.

So, do you throw out the portions of the Bible that were written by Paul because Paul is the source?

How about Luke, Matthew, James, John, and Peter? Do their writings go because they are the source?

Since Joseph's interpretations and "scriptures" are the ones that teach that God will confirm Joseph's "scriptures", the reliability of Joseph as a vehicle for the delivery of new scripture and Bible interpretation is a prerequisite to the validity of the concept of spiritual confirmation.

Neglecting the teaching of Jesus are you?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Notice that Jesus didn't mention the Bible as the source of all truth.

This means validity of spiritual confirmation can only follow from the legitimacy of Smith and his "scriptures" and interpretations.

Again, neglecting the teachings of Jesus.

Oh and Paul

1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It cannot precede that legitimacy so as to be the means of determining it.

So, how do you know what is taught in the Bible is true?

[notHagoth7]

No offense. But, I tend to take apologetics seriously.

So do those who appreciate a sharp wit and a healthy sense of humor.

[bluebell]

What is the date of the Epic that you believe true? And the book of Genesis?

My sources give the estimated date for the writing of the epic of gilgamesh as after 2000 B.C. while the Hebrews did not write down any of their traditions until after 800 B.C. That's a fairly big gap.

I'm sure those dates are not set in stone however and that their is disagreement concerning them.

[notHagoth7]

But, I tend to take apologetics seriously.

Michael,

To clarify, there are a number of people who are quite good at using parody to make an effective point.

At times, humor can be a very effective instructional approach.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism. That is why I am here. I am a Reformed Baptist and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics. I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth. I do have some experience in apologetics, but not in the area of Mormonism. My focus has been primarily on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism;

If you are still interested in debating on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism;

Take a look

As far a Book of Mormon authorship

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dr. Martin's doctorate is indeed credible and genuine. Let us not attempt to discredit the dead with a bogus cheap shot that is certainly ill informed. Accredidation is not a requirement for genuine education, nor is it a testimony of one's own abilities and knowledge. Perhaps your opinion of Dr. Martin is predicated on a highly slanted presupposed set of doctrinal convictions, and not the facts of the matter. I ask you, upon what basis do you discredit Walter Martin in such a disrespectful manor?

mmmmm I think its pretty well established that Walter Martin did not have a legitimate PhD. If you want to make these kinds of assertions, you have really come to the wrong place. We aren't interested in your nonsense here. Anyone can get a PhD. I get the occasional offer for one in my e-mail periodically. Cheap too. You are, I assume, familiar with the controversy (hence the reference to accreditation), but, your say so certainly isn't going to convince me.

[Lightbearer]

Firstly, I judge all claims of divine revelation by the text of scripture. I am reformed, and hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. I cannot in good conscience base my opinion of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on a subjective feeling. I am a fallen, inherently sinful person, and therefore my feelings are effected by my sin and are subsequently flawed. You asserted that the only way to know whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is if I ask God. God has spoken in His word, the 66 books of scripture. Therefore, if what I find in scripture contradicts what I find in the Book of Mormon, I then can rightly judge the truth, or lack therein of the work. My findings? I have found numerous contradictions between the two.

How do you judge that the text of the Bible is true? If it is not possible for God to answer prayers then really all of this is academic. How for example could the people living in the days of Christ judge if He was the messiah or a false prophet? Did they use sola scriptura for that?

Dr. Martin's doctorate is indeed credible and genuine. Let us not attempt to discredit the dead with a bogus cheap shot that is certainly ill informed. Accredidation is not a requirement for genuine education, nor is it a testimony of one's own abilities and knowledge. Perhaps your opinion of Dr. Martin is predicated on a highly slanted presupposed set of doctrinal convictions, and not the facts of the matter. I ask you, upon what basis do you discredit Walter Martin in such a disrespectful manor?

As for Dr. Martin I am well acquainted with his works and I am not impressed by his "scholarly attainments" his writing showed him to be a vicious Anti-Mormon of the worst type, I never met him personally but I would put the Prophet Joseph Smith's credibility up against his any day.

Am I understanding you correctly when I say that your dismissal of the Spaulding theory is based upon the heresay of your father, rather than the objective evidence presented before your own eyes? And what of the similarities of the two works? Coincidence?

I am saying the Spaulding theory is false and it is based not only on the "heresay" testimony of my father, because I have seen it, in person myself. Oh and my father is still alive so I guess it is okay for you to give a cheap shot at his credibility. So you have the "heresay" eyewitness testimony of not only my father but myself as well. It does not resemble the Book of Mormon in the least, and in this day and time you can actually check yourself with Oberlin College. Back in my father's day he had to rely on faith and be guided to where it actually was for him to see it with his own eyes. I saw it on my way home from the Mission field, we especially stopped in Oberlin where I and my family could all see it. It seems at least according to the Bible that God often works from "heresay" testimony. That is really all the New Testament is, is the "heresay" testimony of the apostles and prophets who saw Jesus before and after His resurrection. So for someone who claims to be a Christian to demand "objective evidence presented before your own eyes" is somewhat like being a "doubting Thomas" don't you think? But if your God is unable to answer prayers then I doubt He is the God of the Bible (James 1:5).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Michael, what's your take on the Documentary Hypothesis and the Bible?

[Michael]

How do you judge that the text of the Bible is true? If it is not possible for God to answer prayers then really all of this is academic. How for example could the people living in the days of Christ judge if He was the messiah or a false prophet? Did they use sola scriptura for that?

The text of scripture is true based upon the historical accuracy of the work; it abounds. So too the authenticity of the book given by the over thirty thousand ancient witnesses. The fulfillment of prophecy, the coherency between the human authors, the testimony of the Lord Jesus verified by His irrefutable bodily resurrection, and the inescapable facts dealing with the nature of man, sin, creation, and last but not least the divine, all testify to the truthfulness of the text of scripture. His Messiahship was verified by His teaching, His passion and subsequent resurrection, His prophecy (the destruction of the temple in 70AD for example) and His miracles, etc.

As for Dr. Martin I am well acquainted with his works and I am not impressed by his "scholarly attainments" his writing showed him to be a vicious Anti-Mormon of the worst type, I never met him personally but I would put the Prophet Joseph Smith's credibility up against his any day.

Dr. Martin, from what I have heard and read hated Mormonism, but loved it's adherents. There is a difference.

I am saying the Spaulding theory is false and it is based not only on the "heresay" testimony of my father, because I have seen it, in person myself. Oh and my father is still alive so I guess it is okay for you to give a cheap shot at his credibility. So you have the "heresay" eyewitness testimony of not only my father but myself as well. It does not resemble the Book of Mormon in the least, and in this day and time you can actually check yourself with Oberlin College. Back in my father's day he had to rely on faith and be guided to where it actually was for him to see it with his own eyes. I saw it on my way home from the Mission field, we especially stopped in Oberlin where I and my family could all see it. It seems at least according to the Bible that God often works from "heresay" testimony. That is really all the New Testament is, is the "heresay" testimony of the apostles and prophets who saw Jesus before and after His resurrection. So for someone who claims to be a Christian to demand "objective evidence presented before your own eyes" is somewhat like being a "doubting Thomas" don't you think? But if your God is unable to answer prayers then I doubt He is the God of the Bible (James 1:5).

The text of the NT is authored mostly by individuals who experienced the events. Hardly heresay. I did not demand anything, so please don't place words in my mouth. My God is plenty able to answer prayers, but as that is not really the topic here, and I don't see your pleas to affirmation of truth via prayer relevant. What I am concerned about are the similarities between the two works. A topic, that you seem to be shrugging off, without really addressing.

[Michael]

mmmmm I think its pretty well established that Walter Martin did not have a legitimate PhD. If you want to make these kinds of assertions, you have really come to the wrong place. We aren't interested in your nonsense here. Anyone can get a PhD. I get the occasional offer for one in my e-mail periodically. Cheap too. You are, I assume, familiar with the controversy (hence the reference to accreditation), but, your say so certainly isn't going to convince me.

I did not bring up the accusation, I only responded to it. Secondly, I am familiar with the issue and I do not find that the facts related to Dr. Martin's education bear such accusations. Dr. Martin did not obtain a doctorate from an accredidted institution, but nor did he obtain it from a degree mill. Nonsense? Sure, that wasn't a baseless cheap shot. This type of argumentation seems to be common on this board.

What I am interested in is the LDS response to the factual similarities of the two works.

[Malc]

I've always found it interesting how critics try to discredit the authenticity of the BOM, yet at the time it came forth they certainly believed he had gold plates as they kept trying to steal them.

I suspect that you may be talking about two very different groups of people.

IIRC, the people who kept trying to steal the gold plates didn't much care about the content of the plates - they were after the gold that they believed JS might possible have, and were not necessarily critics of mormonism.

The critics (at least, most of the modern-day ones) who try to discredit the authenticity of the BOM don't believe that JS ever had gold plates at all.

[clairc829]

Dr. Martin, from what I have heard and read hated Mormonism, but loved it's adherents. There is a difference.

.

His kind of love I can do with out thank you

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The text of scripture is true based upon the historical accuracy of the work; it abounds.

So science has proven that a man can rise from the dead after 3 days? Archaeology has confirmed a global flood? And Archaeology as proved teh garden of eden?

So too the authenticity of the book given by the over thirty thousand ancient witnesses.

Who are these witnesses? What are there names? How can we know that there witness is true?

The fulfillment of prophecy, the coherency between the human authors, the testimony of the Lord Jesus verified by His irrefutable bodily resurrection, and the inescapable facts dealing with the nature of man, sin, creation, and last but not least the divine, all testify to the truthfulness of the text of scripture.

What irrefutable evidence? I think you are just asserting that it is irrefutable. I know that Christ rose form the grave not because science or archaeology had antyhing to do with. because if all I did was rely on that I would not be a memember of any religion. That stuff tends to lean more towards it all being just a myth.

Not to mention not every prophecy in the bible has come true. Ninevah was never destroyed in the 2 week time period that was given to the prophet.

I would say that you would need to beleive in the D&C as scripture for the same reason that you beleive the bible to be true. I am willing to bet that you reject the D&C as scripture though. That would mean that you are not consistant in your approach. For that matter I bet you do not beleive the Koran to be true either. I think that archaeology has proved a lot in the Koran to be true.

His Messiahship was verified by His teaching, His passion and subsequent resurrection, His prophecy (the destruction of the temple in 70AD for example) and His miracles, etc.

So by living the doctrines we can know if it is true? Or weather Christ just speaks of hims self? And the distruction of temple could be problematic as I believe that most scholars think that most of the NT was written well after 70 A.D. That does not lead much to prophecy sorry.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I did not bring up the accusation, I only responded to it. Secondly, I am familiar with the issue and I do not find that the facts related to Dr. Martin's education bear such accusations. Dr. Martin did not obtain a doctorate from an accredidted institution, but nor did he obtain it from a degree mill. Nonsense? Sure, that wasn't a baseless cheap shot. [b]This type of argumentation seems to be common on this board.

What I am interested in is the LDS response to the factual similarities of the two works.

Personally, I don't care what degree anyone has. It is just that if he ("Dr Martin") had a degree and then knowing how wrong he was about so many things, would not reflect well on the institution where he earned it.

BTW, the reason it goes on is because he (Dr Martin) did the same thing