Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[selek]

I would put him on "ignore" if I knew where the button was. As it is, I don't waste any more of my time reading his posts, only the replies to them.

Click on your name at the pull down menu at the top-right of your screen, then click on "Manage Ignored Users".

Scroll to the bottom of the list until you reach the entry form.

Type in the name of the offending zealot and the board will list the possible permutations.

Click on the person you wish to ignore and voila!

[LeSellers]

I would put him on "ignore" if I knew where the button was.

In the upper right-hand corner of any page, click your name and it will drop a menu down, the bottom item of which is "Manage Ignored Users". When the new screen appears, start typing "Hughes" in the obvious field (it's labeled "Member's Name"), and then select to ignore posts or messages or both. Finally, click "Saved Changes". Viol

[Hestia]

Interesting how far from Brant's initial post that the responses have wandered....

Agreed. Much of it has been derailed by Hughes who continues with the same mantra even after being warned "You continue to question evidence which others point out to you while failing to recognize the limitations of your evidence. Move on to something else or leave the thread."

I'm removing Hughes from the thread in hopes it gets back on track.

[Vance]

Selek and LeSellers,

Thanks!!!!!

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

I have your six-volume commentary series and recognize some of the arguments you mention in your opening post from other LDS studies. However, I am wondering if there are a few published or online works (or even one) that provides at least a summary of the points made here and gives references where the arguments are developed.

[coolrok7]

Not that is incorrect. Marvel Comics dug up a thousand years from now and whose authorship was presumed to be President Obama does not mean that Wolverine actually existed. Your logic is flawed. You presume that information is accurate but do not seem to undertand the context that the lack of verified authorship brings to the table. What if it wasn't Paul but an anti Roman Greek? Especially if different groups were contesting doctrinal questions and using false authorship in order to bolster their position (and perhaps even yours ). This means the historicity is not as strong as you may wish it to be. Your interpretation as to what is "historicity" is almost as incomplete as the Bible is.

Authorship of the Pauline Epistles

You can what if all day (what if's aren't valid when it comes to what is) and it doesn't change the facts as testified to by Mormon General Authorities (there are exceptions of course, like when they're "wrong" so is he?).

Elder Delbert L.Stapely, of the Council of the Twelve, had no problem with what he declared to be from the Apostle Paul and then proceeded to quote him- The Ensign, Nov. 1976, pp.91-94. under the heading of: Teachings of the Apostle Paul:

Brothers and sisters and friends, after a few introductory remarks my message today is taken from the writings of the apostle Paul, given over 1,900 years ago. Paul was born as Saul of Tarsus, being both a Jew and a Roman citizen. He became a powerful persecutor of those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and King. Saul was not motivated by malice, but by the belief that he was working against an enemy of his Jewish faith.

As he was en route to Damascus to pursue his persecutions, a bright heavenly light suddenly enveloped him and he fell helplessly to the ground. A voice asked,

[Jeff K.]

How often has a prophet quoted scripture that has been translated by Joseph Smith and yet still used the King James Version sans translation?

The incompleteness means we must approach such scriptures with a jaundiced eye.

[coolrok7]

How often has a prophet quoted scripture that has been translated by Joseph Smith and yet still used the King James Version sans translation?

The incompleteness means we must approach such scriptures with a jaundiced eye.

Not sure who that was to? Was he wrong? (if this was addressed to me)

[Jeff K.]

A question of context. Something can be quoted but still not be complete if the source material is questionable.

[Kevin Christensen]

Brant,

I have your six-volume commentary series and recognize some of the arguments you mention in your opening post from other LDS studies. However, I am wondering if there are a few published or online works (or even one) that provides at least a summary of the points made here and gives references where the arguments are developed.

Perhaps these will help. Brant makes several assertions in his list of evidences for which I am familiar with sources the supporting evidence and argument. Here are a few to start.

The Book of Mormon contains metastories that are absolutely parallel to Old Testament modes of writing scripture, but which tend to be lost on the more literal modern mind.

...

3) Nephi and David

Alan Goff here applies Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative to show allusiveness to the David story in Nephi's account.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=5&num=1&id=114

Ben McGuire shows something very interesting about the source of the David allusions in the Book of Mormon, relative to the Bible we now have.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html

Probable connections to pre-Josiahn Israelite religion

1) Emphasis on an atoning Messiah

2) Conceptual relationship between Jehovah and the Most High God

Brant treats this essay here, and later in his Second Witness commentary.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

And I deal with it here in my essay from Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=35

The Lehites entered the area during the middle of the Preclassic, a time when there were broad movements of change in the Maya area. At this time there was an increase in both city size and social complexity. The general trend is to greater social differentiation and the beginnings of kingship in Maya city-states. This general trend is mirrored in the conflicts witnessed as early as the book of Jacob. The twin evils against which Jacob preaches, acquisition of wealth leading to social differentiations, and polygamy, are both known for this time period in Mesoamerica. Interestingly, polygamy is directly linked to one of the mechanisms of accumulation of wealth at this time, and the function of wealth is to create social differentiation.

See Brant here on The Social History of the Early Nephites.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Social_History_of_the_Early_Nephites.html

Teotihuacan alters the political alliances and introduces a new and devastating mode of warfare at the same time as the Book of Mormon describes a group of northerners who alter the mode of warfare.

And Brant's FAIR presentation on the topic.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Gadianton_Robbers_in_Mormons_Theological_History.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[nosmelone]

e) The events surrounding the Anti-Lehi-Nephies are nonsensical in any context except Mesoamerica for that time period and the particular data supplied (including the reason for the associated attack on Ammonihah).

I hope that you can hear me applauding this comment from where ever your location is...to me this is one of the most telling evidences of the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Thanks. You'll understand that this will take me some time to process.

Perhaps these will help. Brant makes several assertions in his list of evidences for which I am familiar with sources the supporting evidence and argument. Here are a few to start.

Alan Goff here applies Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative to show allusiveness to the David story in Nephi's account.

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=1&id=114

Ben McGuire shows something very interesting about the source of the David allusions in the Book of Mormon, relative to the Bible we now have.

http://www.fairlds.o...nd_Goliath.html

Brant treats this essay here, and later in his Second Witness commentary.

http://www.fairlds.o...rmons_Book.html

And I deal with it here in my essay from Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem:

http://maxwellinstit...kid=2&chapid=35

See Brant here on The Social History of the Early Nephites.

http://www.fairlds.o...y_Nephites.html

And Brant's FAIR presentation on the topic.

http://www.fairlds.o...al_History.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ebeddoulos]

I was correct. I am amused and entertained.

What credible evidence do I rely on for 2 peter? I rely on the fact that, "As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine." Link to source

So you found out that there is no "credible 1st to mid-2nd century evidence" for 2 Peter, didn't you? Shucks, here it is almost 2000 years after Peter was called to the ministry and there is not yet a concensensus among the Biblical scholars as to which century that 2 Peter was written, let alone if Peter was the author. Therefore you are forced to rely on the church fathers testimony, which came after the mid-2nd century time period to buttress your beliefs. I, as a Latter-day Saint, have no issue with that because our own "great teachers and scholars as ..." Brigham Young, Parly Pratt, James Talmage, Hugh Nibley, Bruce McConkie, Daniel Peterson, etc. "... received it (the Book of Mormon) as genuine." However, I should like to trumpet the fact that, Latter-day Saints did not need to wait a century and a half before our "great teachers and scholars" testified.

Now, it must be noted that 2 peter doesn't compare to the issue with the BoM. Not in the least.

Actually all of the New Testament relies on the same "evidence" or testimony of the church fathers, as does 2 Peter, though most came before and with greater quantity than does the testimony of 2 Peter. This is the point I'm trying to drive home to you, bud. Testimony is the primary evidence. Everything else is secondary. There are other books that did not make it into the canon (such as Enoch which it should be noted that the New Testament actually quotes) because of the lack the testimony of the church fathers and the lack of testimony on the part of the early church.

All of christian teaching doesn't rest on 2 Peter, but all of Mormonism does rely on the BoM.

You are absolutely correct that Mormonism relies on the Book of Mormon. That is why we call it the keystone scripture. Didn't you know that?!!? My grandchildren have a saying they use when they hear a bone-headed obvious statement as yours. I think it is appropriate here: "Nooo DUUUHHH!!!" Yes I am amused and yes I am entertained.

All of the evidences you mentioned, "NHM..." etc. start with the assumption that the BoM was translated correctly and accurately from the Golden Plates. It is precisely this assumption that I'm seeing no credible evidence for. You even supported this by saying the only way to know it's true is to have a personal testimony concerning the accuracy of the book.

That you fail to accept the credible evidence when it is presented to you, does not negate its credibility. Sorry, but you are just not that important. Even though you are entitled to your petty opinion, the witness of the Holy Ghost and the scholarship underlaying the evidence will always trump it. But I do thank you for the entertainment value that your little opinion has provided.

[coolrok7]

A question of context. Something can be quoted but still not be complete if the source material is questionable.

A question of context? I don't understand your point here.

The issue as raised is not context but was Elder Sackley, as a General Authority, right or wrong in declaring the writings of Paul (a Biblical Apostle) and what he wrote as Scripture without bringing into question the validity of it as being Scripture (whether or not is is reliable as that as an issue was not even raised)?

[Pahoran]

A question of context? I don't understand your point here.

The issue as raised is not context but was Elder Sackley, as a General Authority, right or wrong in declaring the writings of Paul (a Biblical Apostle) and what he wrote as Scripture without bringing into question the validity of it as being Scripture (whether or not is is reliable as that as an issue was not even raised)?

You're talking past people, Coolrok.

Nobody is actually taking issue with Pauline authorship. The point is that a participant now banned from the thread was baiting people about "blind faith" when he himself had similarly "blind faith" in certain unprovable aspects of the Bible.

The scholarly questions about 2 Peter etc. were raised, not because anyone disputes them, but to show how inconsistent it is for a Bible believer to lecture anyone else about "blind faith."

And since Hughes can no longer participate in this thread, it seems a bit pointless to continue this part of the discussion, don't you agree?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Thanks. You'll understand that this will take me some time to process.

Of course. And there is a lot more. Brant was not just pulling his list out of a hat.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[rodheadlee]

rodheadlee,

No problem.

Brant's opening post is a lengthy outline of conclusions that he and others have reached regarding various types of evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. To reply in kind would mean to produce some "bullet points" without argumentation that assert contrary conclusions. What I think everyone would like to see is careful discussion of specific issues, such as we are doing in the thread David started in reply to my comment about Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Perhaps at some point I will be prepared to present a similar summary of conclusions regarding the evidence pertaining to the Book of Mormon, but at present I am engaged in researching these issues.

Thanks for the response.