The Authorship of the Book of Mormom

[volgadon]

His prophecy (the destruction of the temple in 70AD for example)

From when is the earliest extant copy or reference to this?

The text of the NT is authored mostly by individuals who experienced the events. Hardly heresay.

So do you believe the Doctrine and Covenants?

[Deborah]

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.

Which is the point. His contemporaries certainly believed it, whether they cared about the contents or not. Yet over a hundred years later people who are very far removed from the events of the day somehow know more.

[bluebell]

From when is the earliest extant copy or reference to this?

From what i understand, all the extant copies of that prophecy were written down AFTER the temple was destroyed.

So do you believe the Doctrine and Covenants?

It's a good point. If michael gives the NT credence based largely on the testimony of Jesus's contemporaries, then the Doctrine and Covenants is a problem for him.

[Lightbearer]

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.

Thirty thousand witnesses who are all dead (or translated) and none of whom you or your Church has claimed to have seen (the witnesses). For the record I am not denying the Bible or the Lord Jesus Christ or anything you have said concerning the Bible. But please show me how that the events contained in this holy book of scripture is not heresay witnesses if you have not personally seen it? Or have been told by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true? Does science or history or archeology prove the resurrection? It still is a matter of faith and subject to the revelations of the Holy Ghost or you cannot say you KNOW these things are true. I am saying that you or I can pray to find the truth and God can answer that prayer so that there is no doubt as to the authenticity. I am saying that the day of revelation and miracles is not past. I am saying that Joseph Smith is one of these witnesses, He saw God and Christ and the Book of Mormon is a witness from God that this is true, that Jesus visited His sheep of another fold and that we can know by the power of the Holy Ghost if this is true.

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

We will leave it at that, yes he hated Mormonism, as for it's adherents I cannot say, God will be his judge. But I must say, he that hates the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ hates me, just as ironically they hate the Lord who restored it.

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.

The text of the NT is authored mostly by individuals who experienced the events, the same as my father's experience and mine. Also the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon were experienced by their authors. Now the things that Joseph Smith experienced were not heresay either, that is my point. The only way any of these witnesses are not "heresay" is if they are witnessed to us personally by the power of the Holy Ghost and that is my whole point. The purpose of this thread I assumed was to determine the authorship of the Book of Mormon, as it related to the Spaulding Manuscript. I was providing my personal experience and that of my father, and in addition explaining how you could know these things for yourself. Finding out the truth of God and religion is not a science experiment, it can only be had by those who "Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you."

[Luigi]

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

Some archeology confirms the Biblical account, some doesn't. Certainly it doesn't testify to the alleged miracles in the work.

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

It's easy to pencil in witnesses years and years after the fact.

The fulfillment of prophecy,

Most Biblical prophecy is symbolic and can easily be interpreted to prophesy of events. Similar interpretation is often done with the works of Nostradamus or the Quran. The prophecies that are more explicit and clear cannot be shown to be written before the events they prophesied of.

the coherency between the human authors,

Multiple reasons that could have occured that don't require accepting the Bible as literal truth.

the testimony of the Lord Jesus verified by His irrefutable bodily resurrection,

Requires faith, just like Mormon claims.

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.

Huh? I think this could be said of any scripture. Your belief that the divine testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible probably says more about your upbringing than anything else since if you had been brought up in Islam you'd probably say the same of the Quran and if you'd been brought up Mormon you'd say the same of the Book of Mormon. Social interaction and upbringing seems to be responsible to how we attribute the 'divine'.

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.

There are plenty of scholars who don't find the evidence of those prophecies at all compelling. The Gospels cannot be shown to have been written down before 70 AD.

The text of the NT is authored mostly by individuals who experienced the events. Hardly heresay.

Really, you can prove this?

[Vance]

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

Both have the ubiquitous use of "and" and "the". So OBVIOUSLY one was the source for the other.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Michael writes

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

Alrighty then. Here is what you should do. Rather than simply suggesting that there are factual similarities between the two works, provide us with the text of the Book of Mormon and the text of the Spalding manuscript where the alleged similarities occur, and explain them to us.

Ben M.

[bluebell]

Michael writesAlrighty then. Here is what you should do. Rather than simply suggesting that there are factual similarities between the two works, provide us with the text of the Book of Mormon and the text of the Spalding manuscript where the alleged similarities occur, and explain them to us.

Ben M.

At least the ones that michael believes are the strongest at showing a connection. That would be helpful.

[Vance]

At least the ones that michael believes are the strongest at showing a connection. That would be helpful.

PLEASE!! Start with your strongest argument.

That way we don't have to waste time debunking with the weaker stuff first.

[Malc]

Which is the point. His contemporaries certainly believed it, whether they cared about the contents or not. Yet over a hundred years later people who are very far removed from the events of the day somehow know more.

Are you not talking about the people who, with JS, were involved in digging for gold, slippery treasures etc? Are they credible as "witnesses" to or believers in JS's gold plates?

[Michael]

Some archeology confirms the Biblical account, some doesn't. Certainly it doesn't testify to the alleged miracles in the work.

It's easy to pencil in witnesses years and years after the fact.

Most Biblical prophecy is symbolic and can easily be interpreted to prophesy of events. Similar interpretation is often done with the works of Nostradamus or the Quran. The prophecies that are more explicit and clear cannot be shown to be written before the events they prophesied of.

Multiple reasons that could have occured that don't require accepting the Bible as literal truth.

Requires faith, just like Mormon claims.

Huh? I think this could be said of any scripture. Your belief that the divine testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible probably says more about your upbringing than anything else since if you had been brought up in Islam you'd probably say the same of the Quran and if you'd been brought up Mormon you'd say the same of the Book of Mormon. Social interaction and upbringing seems to be responsible to how we attribute the 'divine'.

There are plenty of scholars who don't find the evidence of those prophecies at all compelling. The Gospels cannot be shown to have been written down before 70 AD.

Really, you can prove this?

The old "plenty of scholars" line eh? I see. So liberal sources tend to be the party line eh? How nice. I love how you will abandon the bible, but the Book of Mormon, with all the valid criticisms that exist, is just fine. Wow. May the scales fall.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The old "plenty of scholars" line eh? I see. So liberal sources tend to be the party line eh? How nice. I love how you will abandon the bible, but the Book of Mormon, with all the valid criticisms that exist, is just fine. Wow. May the scales fall.

It probably helps to know more about what some one believes before you start asserting things.

Any way it sure would be nice if you would address what that non believers views of the bible are instead of waving your hand.

[Doctor Steuss]

I did not bring up the accusation, I only responded to it.

In making a response (and a seemingly incorrect one at that), one shouldn

[LifeOnaPlate]

The old "plenty of scholars" line eh? I see. So liberal sources tend to be the party line eh? How nice. I love how you will abandon the bible, but the Book of Mormon, with all the valid criticisms that exist, is just fine. Wow. May the scales fall.

Luigi doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon either. Even if he did your response is irrelevant to what he said.

[Deborah]

Are you not talking about the people who, with JS, were involved in digging for gold, slippery treasures etc? Are they credible as "witnesses" to or believers in JS's gold plates?

Your sneering shows your smallness compared to the men and women who were honorable and faithful, many who became leaders of the church themselves and even prophets. Your puerile remarks can be contrasted with those of the humble and faithful people who sacrificed so much to follow what they knew what was right.

[bluebell]

The old "plenty of scholars" line eh? I see. So liberal sources tend to be the party line eh? How nice. I love how you will abandon the bible, but the Book of Mormon, with all the valid criticisms that exist, is just fine. Wow. May the scales fall.

Luigi isn't a mormon michael, he's an atheist i believe.

He's simply pointing out that your arguements are a double edged sword because they can be used to wound what you hold sacred just as easily as they can be used to wound what we hold sacred.

He's saying that you are cutting of your nose to spite your face, basically.

[Malc]

Your sneering shows your smallness compared to the men and women who were honorable and faithful, many who became leaders of the church themselves and even prophets. Your puerile remarks can be contrasted with those of the humble and faithful people who sacrificed so much to follow what they knew what was right.

Wow! Thanks. That put me in my place all right.

[bluebell]

Wow! Thanks. That put me in my place all right.

Way to be a big man and admit when you've been schooled.

[Malc]

Way to be a big man and admit when you've been schooled.

Yep - I'm not sure how my personal characteristics, or those of the humble, honorable, and faithful come into it - I thought the topic of discussion was the credibility of money diggers concerning the existence of the gold plates.

Just shows what I know (or don't, as the case may be).

[Vance]

The old "plenty of scholars" line eh? I see. So liberal sources tend to be the party line eh? How nice. I love how you will abandon the bible, but the Book of Mormon, with all the valid criticisms that exist, is just fine. Wow.

. . .

MUST . . .

. . .

IGNORE . . .

. . .

CONTRARY . . .

. . .

SCHOLARSHIP . . .

[bluebell]

Just shows what I know (or don't, as the case may be).

Exactly.

[Pahoran]

Firstly, I judge all claims of divine revelation by the text of scripture.

And by "scripture" you mean "The Bible." By what standard do you judge the Bible's claims? By appeal to the Bible, of course. Circular argument at its best.

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.

And so are your rational thought processes, and for exactly the same reasons.

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.

So you start by assuming that "Scripture" == "The Bible." Ergo, The Book of Mormon <> "Scripture." Then, any statement in the Book of Mormon that you can interpret as disagreeing with any interpretation you have of any passage in the Bible, you triumphantly announce as "a contradiction!!"

We know how the game is played, Michael. Especially by bibliolaters.

Dr. Martin's doctorate is indeed credible and genuine.

And whatever credibility you had by virtue of your newbie status just went screaming down in flames. Walter Martin was a notorious charlatan and impresario. His "doctorate" was purchased from a mail-order diploma mill. He lied when he claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young. He lied about his lawsuit against the Church, when he tried to sue the Church because a Church member caught him lying about a non-existent reference for his anti-Mormon falsehoods. He lied about his connection with Cowdrey, Davis and Scales, the "researchers" who tried to resuscitate the Spaulding theory, the most thoroughly debunked theory of origins since the "dirty shirt" theory of abiogenesis. He lied just about every time his lips were moving.

Just so you know.

Still, as you say, it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead. So I will say, if it is any comfort to you, that Mister Martin is now a good anti-Mormon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

Still, as you say, it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead. So I will say, if it is any comfort to you, that Mister Martin is now a good anti-Mormon.

INDEED!

He is one of the best ones I have ever heard of.

[Michael]

And by "scripture" you mean "The Bible." By what standard do you judge the Bible's claims? By appeal to the Bible, of course. Circular argument at its best.

And so are your rational thought processes, and for exactly the same reasons.

So you start by assuming that "Scripture" == "The Bible." Ergo, The Book of Mormon <> "Scripture." Then, any statement in the Book of Mormon that you can interpret as disagreeing with any interpretation you have of any passage in the Bible, you triumphantly announce as "a contradiction!!"

We know how the game is played, Michael. Especially by bibliolaters.

And whatever credibility you had by virtue of your newbie status just went screaming down in flames. Walter Martin was a notorious charlatan and impresario. His "doctorate" was purchased from a mail-order diploma mill. He lied when he claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young. He lied about his lawsuit against the Church, when he tried to sue the Church because a Church member caught him lying about a non-existent reference for his anti-Mormon falsehoods. He lied about his connection with Cowdrey, Davis and Scales, the "researchers" who tried to resuscitate the Spaulding theory, the most thoroughly debunked theory of origins since the "dirty shirt" theory of abiogenesis. He lied just about every time his lips were moving.

Just so you know.

Still, as you say, it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead. So I will say, if it is any comfort to you, that Mister Martin is now a good anti-Mormon.

Regards,

Pahoran

Circular argument? Not if the bible can be proven to be divine in origin; and it has been. I suppose you don't believe that the scriptures are God's word, is that right? Upon what do you base that notion on? And, I don't worship the bible, only the God of the bible, who exists eternally in three distinct, co equal persons. You know, historic Christianity. Upon what basis do you believe the book of Mormon is divine in origin? A liver quiver? A burning bosom? A gut goose? I cannot base the truthfulness of a work on subjective notions. The text of scripture has been absolutley proven to be historically accurate and flawless. Has the Book of Mormon been proven as such? I don't think it has, at least so far as I have researched. You would think that God's word would be consistent. Therefore, why does the Book of Mormon contradict the bible? Why have a multiplicity of corrections been made to the work? Even though it's translator(?) said it is "the most correct of any book on the earth," and JF Smith said "every letter was given to Smith by the gift and power of God." I think the old swap between the names "Benjamin" and "Mosiah" is a good example, you? The fact that KJV English is present in the work, in my view, lessens the possibility of divine origin. Neither Tyndale nor the Textus Receptus existed for quite some time if in fact the Book of Mormon was written so very long ago. But, I am new to the claims of Mormonsim, and am still learning the basics, so I'll hear the arguments for it's credibility and the authenticity of it's gospel; and then I will test these claims with scripture. . .

[Deborah]

Not if the bible can be proven to be divine in origin; and it has been. I suppose you don't believe that the scriptures are God's word, is that right? Upon what do you base that notion on?

Seriously? How has the Bible been proven to be divine in origin except in the minds and hearts of believers? And I am a believer and love the Bible as do other LDS. We do believe the scriptures to be God's word and that includes the Book of Mormon and our other volumes of scripture. How do I know? The same way I have always known the Bible is the word of God: in my mind and heart after study and prayer. But to say that the Bible "can be proven" is ludicrous considering how many people don't believe and how much of the historical context is still being debated by historians and scholars.