The Authorship of the Book of Mormom

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

It almost approaches plaid.

[volgadon]

Basically, the only things proven to be true 9well, somewhat proven) are some of the places and some of the people, never anything at all divine, or anything that, say, the Illiad doesn't have.

Michael, how did people in Reformation know that the Bible was true?

[volgadon]

Also, doesn't the bible appear contradictory in places and has to be reconciled? Why haven't you extended the same courtesy to the BoM?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Let's get it back on topic, shall we?

Still waiting, Michael, for you to provide us with some of the parallels between Spalding and the Book of Mormon along with the textual passages that show these parallels.

Ben M.

[sweetpotatoh]

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. . .

Terms like "gut goose" and "liver quiver" are designed to denigrate and dismiss. It is sad that a Christian, such as yourself, would use such terms to describe a witness from the Holy Ghost. The bible talks about knownig through spiritual witness. There are several examples in this thread alone. Is it fair to say that you have not received a witness of the truth of the Bible through the Holy Ghost? Relying on the learnings of man alone to determine truth is not wise. How much better to rely on the Holy Ghost to lead and direct. How much better when we receive a witness to the truth of scripture and prophecy through the promptings of the Holy Ghost. How much better is it when the Holy Ghost prompts us to listen to the Prophet! As a Christian it is comforting to be able to get on my knees and pray for answers to questions and receive the answers!

You are here to ask us to provide you with proof. How can we provide you with proof, when our knowledge is a witness from the Holy Ghost? You have been advised to seek the answers through prayer. The way many of us have received answers and you dismiss this as backwards.

Psalms 143

1 Hear my prayer, O Lord, give ear to my supplications: in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness.

2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

3 For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath smitten my life down to the ground; he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead.

4 Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate.

5 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

6 I stretch forth my hands unto thee: my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land. Selah.

7 Hear me speedily, O Lord: my spirit faileth: hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.

8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.

9 Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies: I flee unto thee to hide me.

10 Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.

11 Quicken me, O Lord, for thy name

[Luigi]

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.

As others have pointed out Michael I'm an atheist. And most scholars,critical or otherwise, to my knowledge acknowledge that the manuscripts of the Bible cannot be shown to pre-date the events they allegedly predict. Acceptance of the Bible, just like the Book of Mormon, ultimately relies on accepting key premises on faith and both books have parts that archeology and observable science either fails to confirm or even contradicts.

[Bsix]

Not if the bible can be proven to be divine in origin; and it has been.

Well, there is a whopper. I love the Bible. I accept the Bible as the word of God. But, my love and trust of the Bible as the divine word of God is based on a spiritual witness.

I do not believe that the Bible can be proven to be divine in origin based scholarly empirical logic or evidence.

I'd like to see some examples of how the Bible has been proven to be divine. On what basis? Who is the judge of this proof? Is the proven nature of the Bible generally accepted by scientists, scholars, and authoratitive bodies?

I will also make another observation.

Isn't it funny that many who claim that salvation is the product of faith in Jesus Christ, and the Bible from whence the teachings of the Gospel spring...have so little faith? They only trust the Bible because they believe that is can be 'proven' to be divine. They will not trust the promptings of the Holy Ghost to witness the truth of the Bible or the Savior. They only seem to trust those things that can be proven through the wisdom and logic of men.

I am reminded of a passage from the Bible.

1 Cor2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

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.

Six

[Vance]

Well, there is a whopper. I love the Bible. I accept the Bible as the word of God. But, my love and trust of the Bible as the divine word of God is based on a spiritual witness.

I do not believe that the Bible can be proven to be divine in origin based scholarly empirical logic or evidence.

I'd like to see some examples of how the Bible has been proven to be divine. On what basis? Who is the judge of this proof? Is the proven nature of the Bible generally accepted by scientists, scholars, and authoratitive bodies?

I will also make another observation.

Isn't it funny that many who claim that salvation is the product of faith in Jesus Christ, and the Bible from whence the teachings of the Gospel spring...have so little faith? They only trust the Bible because they believe that is can be 'proven' to be divine. They will not trust the promptings of the Holy Ghost to witness the truth of the Bible or the Savior. They only seem to trust those things that can be proven through the wisdom and logic of men.

I am reminded of a passage from the Bible.

Six

Dittos and Amen!

[selek]

It almost approaches plaid.

No......

Michael's "arguments" are so far beyond plaid as to give Bob Marley traumatic flashbacks to his wilder chemical trips.

Isn't interesting that Michael came here pretending to be a noob?

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism.

For someone who "has yet to delve into Mormonism", he's got all of the CARM talking points and UTLM cut-and-pastes down cold....

That is why I am here.

Really? Then why are you automagically arguing that every point we make is wrong?

If you are here to seriously delve into what we believe and why we believe it, why do you reflexively dismiss everything we have to say?

Contrary to the standard Evangelical mindset, "understanding" is a two-way street, not a force-feeding process.

I am a Reformed Baptist

....ah. That explains it.

and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses

How can you move past the common Evangelical responses when you are attempting so assiduously to flog us with them?

to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics.

And yet you automagically, dogmatically, and reflexively REJECT each of our answers in favor of "edumacating" us as to what the Bible really says.

I rather suspect your less interested in hearing what we believe than in telling us why what you believe is correct. You're not here to learn, you're hear to proseletyze and cry repentence. That is not what these boards are for.

I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth.

Your behavior suggests that there are three lies in the preceding sentence.

Occam's Razor being what it is, I cannot help but suspect you've been lying to us from the git-go, and that we're looking at another sockpuppet.

[Vance]

No......

Michael's "arguments" are so far beyond plaid as to give Bob Marley traumatic flashbacks to his wilder chemical trips.

Isn't interesting that Michael came here pretending to be a noob?

For someone who "has yet to delve into Mormonism", he's got all of the CARM talking points and UTLM cut-and-pastes down cold....

Really? Then why are you automagically arguing that every point we make is wrong?

If you are here to seriously delve into what we believe and why we believe it, why do you reflexively dismiss everything we have to say?

Contrary to the standard Evangelical mindset, "understanding" is a two-way street, not a force-feeding process.

....ah. That explains it.

How can you move past the common Evangelical responses when you are attempting so assiduously to flog us with them?

And yet you automagically, dogmatically, and reflexively REJECT each of our answers in favor of "edumacating" us as to what the Bible really says.

I rather suspect your less interested in hearing what we believe than in telling us why what you believe is correct. You're not here to learn, you're hear to proseletyze and cry repentence. That is not what these boards are for.

Your behavior suggests that there are three lies in the preceding sentence.

Occam's Razor being what it is, I cannot help but suspect you've been lying to us from the git-go, and that we're looking at another sockpuppet.

What would make you say stuff like that?

It wouldn't be that his ACTIONS spoke louder than his words?

Oh well, it appears that he has run away. More evidence of a suckpuppet. No?

[caudicus]

Michael,

You seem to be getting it from all sides.

Perhaps there are some commonalities with the Spaulding script, but there are commonalities with "View of Hebrews," as well. You can even take a look at Swedenborg's works to see beliefs that many wrongly consider to be unique to Mormonism. That being said, I think the view expressed by Mighty Curelom is going to be your best bet if you are going to contend the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Like any book, it likely has more than one work that directly influenced it, and ultimately was a product of the culture of the time and place it was written. If you are able to take a closer look at LDS theology, you can see that Joseph Smith did a pretty good job of reconciling many problems with the Christianity of the time.

The main problem you have is that you are going to have to maintain a double standard of evidence in order to "disprove" the Book of Mormon while still believing in the Bible.

I won't bother addressing your claims about the Bible, since that is really a whole other subject and wasn't your original question, but you can check out www.jesusneverexisted.com to look at a point of view that starkly contrasts your own and has plenty of evidence to back it up.

Ultimately, you don't need to prove the Book of Mormon's origins to prove it wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite what many apologists claim, it is unreasonable to believe in the Book of Mormon. Even some noted LDS apologists have admitted this. Out of curiosity, what motivates your desire to discredit the Saints?