Evidence That Bom Was Written By Js Or Some Other 19Th C Per

[why me]

The problem with this thread is: no one can prove the book true. And no one can prove the book false. It is all up to interpretation and speculation. However here is what we know: there is a book called the book of mormon. Someone wrote it. If it is a collection of writings by ancient prophets, enough said about that subject. However, if it were a fraud, what would be the reason to write it? What would it accomplish? Why would the witnesses lie and take their lie to their grave? Why sacrifice a life for a fraud? Why suffer persecution for a fraud?

Here is the bottomline: if JS was a fraudster, he was a poor fraudster. He would have been much more successful forming his own church within protestantism and he would have lead a nice peaceful life. And if Rigdon was in on the fraud, both would have gained from forming another protestant sect together. Both had the charisma is succeed. The book of mormon was a dismall failure if a fraud for both Joseph and Sidney.

Edited February 24, 2012 by why me

[altersteve]

Bob,

Amazing post. I could not have said it any better myself.

[why me]

robuchan:

It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith and/or potential modern day writers wrote the Book of Mormon.

Just hanging on to all the rough drafts would have been difficult. How to keep track of all the rough drafts written on paper, crossed out and thrown on the floor? The fraudster needed to be extremely careful. When we consider the book of mormon being written on a manuscript by Joseph or Sidney, in secret, the amount of wasted paper needed to be destroyed would be enormous. People tend to forget just what it meant to write a long book back then: ink, blotter, paper, ink cleaner, feathered pens etc. The idea that a work could be kept under lock and key without key figures in that person's life knowing...would be a real trick.

Edited February 24, 2012 by why me

[altersteve]

I think it's clear that the critics' theories about how the Book of Mormon came forth simply are not logical enough to convince any honest person. The only one that really makes sense, that is truly consistent and coherent, is the one Joseph Smith himself gave. Until the critics can show otherwise, they're stuck with giving an explanation that has holes and inconsistencies that sometimes even they fail to notice.

[Buzzard]

I disagree with your assumption.

Openly acknowledging that he conspired with Smith to lie and defraud others would likely have led to his disbarment for moral turpitude. It absolutely would not have helped his political career.

Characterizing Smith as a fallen prophet was a much better way for him to discredit Smith, while seeking to preserve his own reputation.

However, I am open minded. If you have an example of a politician or a lawyer, openly confessing to having committed a crime or a lie, without having first been caught committing said crime, then do share.

I would suggest that your bias is fueling your criticism of my analysis, and your suggestion that my bias has clouded my reasoning. Unless you can provide some concrete example to support your supposition, I am quite confident that my reasoning is clear.

All he would have had to say was: "I was deluded, led astray by Joseph Smith, I can't believe that I let myself be fooled like that". If someone made that statement, they would be received with open arms by society. In fact, many apostates did say exactly that. Only problem was that Oliver, as well as the other witnesses, knew what had happened, and whatever their dispositions towards Joseph and the church, dared not recant what they had no doubt of.

[ebeddoulos]

Rob,

You are partially correct but as you are wont to do, you contort the evidence in the hope that no one notices that you are also partially incorrect. And just to make sure, over and over again, you repeat the same contortions Yes, “The labourer is worthy of his hire” is a adage found in Luke 10:7, and yes, many attribute the passage to Jesus. It is also found in a slightly altered form (τροφης instead of μισθοῦ) in Matthew 10:10. It also appears in Diache 13:1-2. And yes, as you have noted, it appears in 1 Timothy 5:18. It is alluded to elsewhere in the New Testament. The theme is actually quite common. However, (and it is a one big however) Paul was NOT quoting Jesus. Paul was reciting (as was Jesus) what some have called “a common proverb” of the day. Personally, I believe that "The labourer is worthy of his reward" is the converse of Sirach 34:22. Both Paul and Jesus - via Luke and Matthew - independently, without corroborating knowledge, used a common aphorism. That is understandable. It sounds biblical. Just as many people think that "God helps those who help themselves" is biblical, Paul apparently thought that “The labourer is worthy of his hire” was biblical as well. In both instances, people who think so are wrong. You, too, are wrong if you think that proverbial phrase is original to Christ. But somehow I suspect that you do not really believe it. I suspect that it is just a convenient argument for you to use.

For others unfamiliar with Rob's ways, I offer the following:

“And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire (ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ). Go not from house to house.” (Luke 10:7 – KJV+TR)

“Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. (ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ)” (Matthew 10:10 – KJV+TR)

“For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ)” (1 Timothy 5:18 – KJV+TR)

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.” (Sirach 34:22 – KJV)

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder. (ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις σου γίνου ἐντρεχής, καὶ πᾶν ἀρρώστημα οὐ μή σοι ἀπαντήσῃ)” (Sirach 34:22 – Br+LXX)

“But every genuine prophet who wishes to settle among you ‘is worthy of his food.’ Likewise, every genuine teacher is, like ‘the worker, worthy of his food.’” (Didache 13:1-2)

“Jesus’ remark that the labourer is worthy of his hire, or of his meat (Lk10:7, cf. Mt10:10), probably a quotation of a common proverb, is of a different order. It is an encouragement to His disciples to accept hospitality, in their missionary journeys, from those to whom they have ministered in spiritual enlightenment.” (James Hastings, et al, ed., “A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels”, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, [1908], pg. 811)

“for the workman is worthy of his meat; which seems to be a proverbial expression” (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

[Darth_Bill]

I think it's clear that the critics' theories about how the Book of Mormon came forth simply are not logical enough to convince any honest person. The only one that really makes sense, that is truly consistent and coherent, is the one Joseph Smith himself gave. Until the critics can show otherwise, they're stuck with giving an explanation that has holes and inconsistencies that sometimes even they fail to notice.

No, if it was logical, then we wouldn't have to have people pray about the issue. You need to have faith in the book and it's origins. Angels just don't give gold books away every day and I don't know too many people who would call it logical, let alone honest. JS was an amazing person. You can't put forward that JS was an amazing person from ages 25-39 but before then he was just an ignorant farmboy. He was amazing all the years of his life, and there are some theories of natural origins. It is up to others to see if those are more logical than angels appearing and giving gold books. Angels may have done exactly that, but it isn't logical. It is completely out of the realm of human experience.

[Storm Rider]

No, if it was logical, then we wouldn't have to have people pray about the issue. You need to have faith in the book and it's origins. Angels just don't give gold books away every day and I don't know too many people who would call it logical, let alone honest. JS was an amazing person. You can't put forward that JS was an amazing person from ages 25-39 but before then he was just an ignorant farmboy. He was amazing all the years of his life, and there are some theories of natural origins. It is up to others to see if those are more logical than angels appearing and giving gold books. Angels may have done exactly that, but it isn't logical. It is completely out of the realm of human experience.

Einstein was rather common in his youth. He could not enter Zurich's Polytechnic University because he could not pass enough of the subjects of his entrance exams. He was bring in math, but everything else he was average or below. In fact, there have been a lot of people that were quite common in their youth and then as they matured became great people or heros. It seems like Joseph could have been similar. Under the right tutelage and timing he could be remarkable, but the world just did not see that part until later in his short life.

Critics cannot have it both ways either; a lazy, stupid con man that was able to hoodwink everyone born of the roughest stock of all humanity. Or he was amazingly charismatic, brillant orator as to con the very smartest of people over and over again.

Joseph was just a man. He was simple in so many ways and was coarse; certainly not refined or scholarly. He had a deep faith in God and in his weakness tried to serve him as best he could.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Jaybear]

All he would have had to say was: "I was deluded, led astray by Joseph Smith, I can't believe that I let myself be fooled like that". If someone made that statement, they would be received with open arms by society. In fact, many apostates did say exactly that. Only problem was that Oliver, as well as the other witnesses, knew what had happened, and whatever their dispositions towards Joseph and the church, dared not recant what they had no doubt of.

I don't think that Cowdery could have convinced people that when he claimed to have been visited and baptized by resurrected beings, by an angel, handled the plates, or when he claimed God spoke to him he was duped by Smith.

Sorry, but that is simply not a credible explanation.

Those events either happened, or Cowdery knowingly and willingly lied about them. The mere fact that he did not later publicly confess to having lied, is not proof that he was telling the truth, as you seem to believe.

[Jaybear]

Critics cannot have it both ways either; a lazy, stupid con man that was able to hoodwink everyone born of the roughest stock of all humanity. Or he was amazingly charismatic, brillant orator as to con the very smartest of people over and over again.

Joseph was just a man. He was simple in so many ways and was coarse; certainly not refined or scholarly. He had a deep faith in God and in his weakness tried to serve him as best he could.

I don't know that any critic has ever called Smith stupid. Nor was he just any man. Anyone who can convince adults that he could find treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a rock in his hat, has a special talent.

Even today, there are grown well educated adults on this forum who would admit that its not possible to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in a hat, simply because Smith claimed to have had the ability to do so. I don't find Smith to be least bit credible, but he does impress me.

[cdowis]

Would you find Smith's explanation for the absence of the plates to be "credible" or "incredible" if had said that a leprechaun took them back to the forest?

My point is not what I personally believe, but what conclusions one must draw from a purely secular/rational examination of the facts.

I get it. You are an athiest and do not believe in God and angels. The point is that repeating this argument is a tautology. It is merely repeating the fact that you are an athiest.

Yawn.

If you accept supernatural explanations as rational, then no explanation becomes irrational.

And any supernatural argument is automatically irrational to an atheist.

Yawn.

The witness are only relevant because they needed to fill the void created by the plates having supposedly taken back to heaven.

If you actually had plates, which were confirmed to be ancient, then the world would be impressed.

When Christ was resurrected, it would have been very impressive if He had appeared to Pilot, the Sanhedran, even Caesar. Why don't you read what Christ told Satan about such demonstrations. As an atheist, you clearly do not understand how God works. He does not want to "impress" the world, satisfy your idle curiosity -- that is not His intention.

There were witnesses who saw and handled the kinderhook plates. Consirators, dupes, both?

The eight witnesses testified that the plates were a physical reality. The three witnesses testified of a supernatural event as well.

Faith is personal. Logic is universal. There is no flaw in my logic.

Logical flaws are also universal, as you yourself have demonstrated several times.

Belief in god, and angels is not driven by reason, but by faith.

I have see not logic which had disproved the existence of God, only faith. As discussed in other threads, for example, the absolute accecptance of evolution is partially based on facts, but also on faith, on a belief system.

I would be happy to discuss this point in another thread. Both the atheist and the believer are ultimately driven by faith, by a belief system.

[wenglund]

1- The passage is not quoted exactly.

1 Tim 5:18 reads: aksios o ergatēs.

Luke 10:7 reads: aksios gar o ergatēs

Luke has the gar which is not quoted in Timothy.

2- In fact the passage has two statements. The first is clearly from scripture. The second phrase could be, but does not have to be from scripture for Paul's statement that he is quoting scripture to be accurate.

3- I still find it astonishing that, assuming all your dating claims are accurate, Paul would only quote this innocuous passage from the Gospel of Luke which he supposedly had read. Wouldn't he find something more significant and important in Luke to quote?

Speaking of anachronisms, wasn't Luke first canonized as scripture some 3 centuries after Timothy was written?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Those events either happened, or Cowdery knowingly and willingly lied about them. The mere fact that he did not later publicly confess to having lied, is not proof that he was telling the truth, as you seem to believe.

Perhaps, but this is a statement of faith.

My faith tells me that it is unlikely we have a cloud of witnesses to specific supernatural events surrounding the prophetic ministry of JS, and none recanted that testimony for decades after the death of JS, none of them admitted deception.

Very unlikely, indeed.

Edited February 24, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

As I see it, you can’t see any relationship between the way the Bible was put together and the way the Book of Mormon came to be. True, they are two different works from two different epochs. But they have some important similarities and differences.

They do indeed have some important similarities and differences. I'll try to post something on this fact later. For now let's look at your statements.

They both purport to attest to some pretty remarkable things. Angels, God speaking to man, resurrected beings and the like. The sort of things most of the world would laugh at for believing, I suppose.

So does the Qur'an, but it isn't inspired by God.

But, the attestation for and the provenance of the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible, and Mormons believe God intended that to be so, making the Book of Mormon the most perfect book in the world.

If we consider what historians and other scholars generally mean by attestation and provenance, your statement will have to be deemed wildly false. The evidence that the books of the Bible originated from the ancient world is overwhelming, such that no scholar of any religious or non-religious or anti-religious point of view disputed the Bible's antiquity. Not everything about the Bible can be verified, of course, and in many cases we have little information about the authors and dates of Old Testament books, but much of the Bible is considered fact by the vast majority of scholars irrespective of their religious views. By contrast, the evidence convinces no one but Mormons that the Book of Mormon existed prior to the late 1820s. If God wanted the evidence for the Book of Mormon's origins to outshine the Bible, he has so far not succeeded. Of course, I don't think God is to be blamed here.

You wrote:

As far as the Bible goes, there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence of Christ’s ministry except for the Gospels themselves. There is nothing in written Roman history, which is pretty remarkable when you know that the Romans were a highly literate society. There is no evidence that the Gospels are what they purport to be, eyewitnesses of Jesus. There is no evidence that the Gospels were an oral tradition of the truth. There are no original autographs, nor do the earliest surviving manuscripts claim to be copies of the original autographs.

Once again, the lack of autographs has absolutely nothing to do with the historical, factual credibility and reliability of the Gospels. Serious agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman insist the lack of autographs kills the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a claim that depends on defining biblical inerrancy in a way contrary to what biblical inerrantists actually mean by it. But even Ehrman and others like him don't associate the lack of autographs with the issue of the historical value of the writings. When they dispute the most important claims of the Gospels about Jesus Christ it is not because we lack the autographs but because those claims assume the reality of the supernatural.

The events of Jesus' life took place on the fringe of the Roman Empire. For the first century or so of its existence, Christianity was from the Roman perspective a Jewish sect that made some rather outlandish claims about a crucified Jew being a god. It was not "newsworthy" from a Roman political or intellectual perspective until Christians became so numerous throughout the Empire that their presence started to have an impact on society at large. Hence one starts to see references to Christ and the Christians in non-Christian writings toward the end of the first century and in the first decades of the second century.

I realize you are trying to score polemical points by running down the reliability of the Gospels in order to bring them down as far as you can evidentially to the level of the Book of Mormon, but those truly informed about Gospel scholarship will know that your characterization is over the top. While non-conservative scholars don't view the Gospels as "true," they do agree that at least a fair amount of the Gospels is historically accurate. Non-Christian scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew from Nazareth in Galilee, that Joseph was not his biological father, that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, that he functioned as an itinerant preacher, healer, and exorcist (even if the scholars are skeptical about the miraculous elements of those activities), that he had a group of disciples that included Simon Peter, James, John, and others, that he went to Jerusalem for the Passover and was arrested, tried, and executed by crucifixion on the order of Pontius Pilate, and that shortly after his death his disciples began proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. Skeptical scholars such as those in the Jesus Seminar agree that at least some of the sayings of Jesus found in the Gospels stem from oral traditions that went back to Jesus himself. The debate between conservative Christian and other scholars over the dates of the Gospels is a debate about a couple of decades: were the Synoptic Gospels written in the 60s or in the 70s and 80s? Big deal. By contrast, non-Mormon scholars uniformly deny the historicity of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Alma, and all of the other major figures in the Book of Mormon besides Jesus Christ, and they all deny the historicity of Christ's appearance to the Nephites in AD 34. The debate between Mormon and non-Mormon scholars over the date of the Book of Mormon is a debate about fourteen centuries: was it written in 421 or 1829? No non-Mormon scholar thinks there was an original Book of Mormon written in a reformed Egyptian script.

You will notice that I'm not basing my arguments here on the assumption that conservative scholars are correct. I could easily build a case for more conservative conclusions using the work of such scholars as Richard Bauckham, Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, and many, many others. But I don't need to do that to debunk your attempt to elevate the Book of Mormon's credibility at the expense of the Bible's.

You wrote:

Christian apologists argue that the Gospels are, at a minimum, a recitation of an oral tradition. Yet, we find no evidence of a circulating oral tradition in Paul’s writings.

This statement just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Most biblical scholars see at least some evidence of Paul knowing sayings of Jesus in such passages as Romans 12, which contains several echoes of Synoptic sayings of Jesus. Paul's appeal to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding divorce is often understood to refer to the Lord's historical teaching on the subject recorded in the Synoptics.

You wrote:

When Paul writes of Jesus, it is limited to his sacrifice;....

I have already shown that this is simply not so in post #32 of this thread, where I listed 15 things that Paul shows he knew about the historical Jesus.

You wrote:

Paul does not quote one word of his sayings except for Acts 20:35, which contains a saying nowhere in the Gospels.

Hmm, that would then have to be based on an oral tradition, wouldn't it? You have just refuted your own claim that Paul did not know of any such oral tradition.

You wrote:

Your singular cite to Timothy and the use of the word “Scriptures” for one rather ordinary saying is not very convincing, as elsewhere when the New Testament refers to the “Scriptures” it is referring to the Hebrew Bible. (Luke 24:27.)

Take a look at 2 Peter 3:15-16, where the epistle of 2 Peter includes Paul's writings among "the Scriptures."

You wrote:

I have cited my authorities to you where NT scholars doubt whether Paul was intending to quote Jesus in Timothy.

I recall one citation, and it gave no reasons for this doubt.

You wrote:

Thus, the Christian is forced to treat the Bible as self-attesting. The Bible itself is its own witness.

The one doing the forcing here is you.

You wrote:

By contrast, the Book of Mormon is supported by eyewitnesses on a number of fronts. The Gold Plates, the angel, and the like. There are recanting and apostate witnesses who can’t quote recant that they really saw and handled the plates. Is there proof that the Book of Mormon is an ancient history of the Americas? No, no more than the Bible is proof that Moses ever lived. But there is real, hard evidence of the way the Book of Mormon came forward. Multiple witnesses who have never been impeached. And, certainly, it isn’t for want of trying. Reporters tried for decades to impeach David Whitmer and never laid a glove on him.

This is really all you've got. You have no eyewitness testimony within a thousand years of any event mentioned in the Book of Mormon other than events already mentioned in the Bible. What you have are a dozen guys, mostly from two families, who claimed to have seen the gold plates. Four of them also said they saw an angel. I'm sure you know there are many reasons to doubt the testimonies of these twelve men. This is hardly "hard evidence" of anything concerning the Book of Mormon.

You wrote:

And, of course, the text of the Book of Mormon is what is truly remarkable. It takes a two-by-four to the evangelical doctrine of grace, paints it for what it is, and shows that free will and obedience are paramount to meriting God’s grace. Somehow I just don’t see an ignorant farm boy grasping the significance of the debate between Pelagius and St. Augustine, the latter who won only because he was better connected politically. The rest is history. A false system of doctrines leading to indulgences and the teaching that authority in the Church was unnecessary as long as you had your Bible.

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon of any knowledge of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine. The position taken in the Book of Mormon is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian; it is, broadly speaking, Methodist. I wonder how that happened.

[Jeff K.]

I don't think that Cowdery could have convinced people that when he claimed to have been visited and baptized by resurrected beings, by an angel, handled the plates, or when he claimed God spoke to him he was duped by Smith.

Sorry, but that is simply not a credible explanation.

Those events either happened, or Cowdery knowingly and willingly lied about them. The mere fact that he did not later publicly confess to having lied, is not proof that he was telling the truth, as you seem to believe.

I suppose if one were myopic enough the statement would be true. But, lets think about how society would have welcomed him back as a reformed individual, how much he could have profited monetarily from speaking fees as he railed against the insidious falsity of the Book of Mormon. He would have been celebrated as someone who "saw the light" and came forth to battle against these horrible people.

Of course we might be asked to believe that none of this occurred to him, or was even offerred to him when he left. But, given the anger towards Mormons by others, that is almost more incredible than a book of gold plates found in North America.

[ERayR]

So does the Qur'an, but it isn't inspired by God.

A very dogmatic assertion. On what authority do you profess to proclaim what is or is not inspired by God?

[Darth_Bill]

A very dogmatic assertion. On what authority do you profess to proclaim what is or is not inspired by God?

And with this, apologetics is now useless. We can't even have dogmatic assertions, which is really at the root of apologetics. I don't even know what to do with a statement like this in this context. All of those who believe the bible and/or BoM to be inspired, you evidently don't have the authority, so would you all please stop writing all this nonsense?

See ya. Have a nice day.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You began:

I take offense at this implicit swipe at me.

You wrote:

Just as many people think that "God helps those who help themselves" is biblical, Paul apparently thought that “The labourer is worthy of his hire” was biblical as well. In both instances, people who think so are wrong.

Paul thought he was quoting a statement in Scripture, but he was wrong! That's your explanation?

We actually have a book of Scripture, which can be shown was probably written before 1 Timothy, with the exact statement that Paul says he was quoting from Scripture. But instead of simply accepting that Paul was quoting that book of Scripture, you hypothesize that Paul was quoting an aphorism that he got from some other source (though you have not provided a single example of this aphorism in the same wording found in 1 Timothy 5:18) under the mistaken belief that he was quoting it from Scripture! This, with regard to Paul, who trained in the study of the Scriptures under Gamaliel, and whose writings exhibit a wide-ranging and sophisticated knowledge of the Scriptures.

To buttress your objection to my view, you quoted the following:

“Jesus’ remark that the labourer is worthy of his hire, or of his meat (Lk10:7, cf. Mt10:10), probably a quotation of a common proverb, is of a different order. It is an encouragement to His disciples to accept hospitality, in their missionary journeys, from those to whom they have ministered in spiritual enlightenment.” (James Hastings, et al, ed., “A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels”, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, [1908], pg. 811)

The above statement is about Jesus' saying, not about Paul's quotation. Paul explicitly says he was quoting Scripture. If we could not find a book of Scripture in which Paul's quotation could be found, that would be one thing. But there is such a book, and it was written by one of Paul's closest associates!

You also quoted John Gill:

“for the workman is worthy of his meat; which seems to be a proverbial expression” (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

Gill here was commenting on the parallel text in Matthew 10, not on Luke 10:7 and not on 1 Timothy 5:18. Here is what Gill says about 1 Timothy 5:18:

"The ox, for its strength and labour, is a fit emblem of a Gospel minister; and its treading the corn out of the husk and ear aptly represents the beating out, as it were, of Gospel truths, by the ministers of it, their making the doctrines of the Gospel clear, plain, and evident to the understandings of men; wherefore, as the ox was not muzzled when it trod out the corn, but might freely and largely feed upon it, so such who labour in the preaching of the Gospel ought to have a sufficient and competent maintenance: for which purpose this citation is made, as also the following:and the labourer is worthy of his reward; which seems to be taken from Lu 10:7 which Gospel was now written, and in the hands of the apostle; who here, by two testimonies, the one from Moses, and the other from Christ, supports the right of the honourable maintenance of the ministers of the Gospel."

Surprise, surprise.

What is it with you guys? Why are so many of you seemingly desperate to deny that Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke? What sacred belief of the Mormon religion are you worried would be decimated if you were to grant that Paul quoted Luke?

You wrote:

You, too, are wrong if you think that proverbial phrase is original to Christ. But somehow I suspect that you do not really believe it. I suspect that it is just a convenient argument for you to use.

You are absolutely wrong, and again, I take offense at your remark. It is inexcusable.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

Regarding my statement that the Qur'an is not inspired by God, you wrote:

A very dogmatic assertion. On what authority do you profess to proclaim what is or is not inspired by God?

This is a frivolous objection. The Qur'an denies that Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead, and it denies that Jesus is the Son of God. If Christianity is true -- and if Mormonism is true -- then the Qur'an cannot possibly be inspired by God.

[Jeff K.]

The events of Jesus' life took place on the fringe of the Roman Empire. For the first century or so of its existence, Christianity was from the Roman perspective a Jewish sect that made some rather outlandish claims about a crucified Jew being a god. It was not "newsworthy" from a Roman political or intellectual perspective until Christians became so numerous throughout the Empire that their presence started to have an impact on society at large. Hence one starts to see references to Christ and the Christians in non-Christian writings toward the end of the first century and in the first decades of the second century.

This is not accurate in the least. Consider that Egypt was a Roman province specific to providing food for Rome (the city) itself. Consider that the levant as a whole was considerd a link to trade routes by Romans. It was not a "frontier", indeed what happened in Palestine was often important news to Rome. Important enough for them to send legions to keep it under control. Why didn't the "map" of Rome go further than Palestine? It could be due to the lack of anything of worth on the Arabian Peninsula other than sand. Palestine was both Hellenized and Romanized, in fact Hadrian was going to rebuild the city to be completely Roman, as a later emperor. The Caspian Sea perhaps was a frontier, the lower cataracts of the Nile. But Palestine was only a single shipping poing away from Rome, in a sea the Romans considered their lake. Indeed its conquest was the forefront not the rear of the Mithridatic wars which added that territory and thousands of more miles all the way to the Caspian Sea. It is the equivalent of invading Canada and calling Montreal an isolated frontier town.

[Jeff K.]

ERayR,

Regarding my statement that the Qur'an is not inspired by God, you wrote:

This is a frivolous objection. The Qur'an denies that Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead, and it denies that Jesus is the Son of God. If Christianity is true -- and if Mormonism is true -- then the Qur'an cannot possibly be inspired by God.

So on what authority? It isn't a frivolous objection, it is a question that you haven't answered.

[Bob Crockett]

Rob:I don’t pretend to champion Pelagius, but the struggle between Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo is very much the struggle between the Book of Mormon and Evangelicalism. Quoting from B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge, 1991: The Boydell Press): “But one thing is certain: The relationship of human freedom to divine grace was the crucial issue on which Augustine and Pelagius differed.” (54). Pelagius argued that original sin is not an article of the true Christian faith (58) nor was infant baptism. (76). Through the assertion of free will, it was possible to become perfect in this life. (94.)

The Book of Mormon recognizes and champions the idea of free will and a merits-based theology of obedience as a means for God’s grace; Evangelicalism denies this even to the point of saying that the sacraments are not essential (something Augustine couldn’t do).

You say that the Book of Mormon is Methodism, but I really can’t for the life of me grasp whether you mean Calvinism or Arminianism soteriology. But, Book of Mormon theology only roughly approximates Arminianism. There are many differences, including the belief in the anthropomorphic God But I really wonder if Joseph Smith could have grasped the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism as a young man in his early 20s, to write a book championing a highly modified view of Arminianism?

The evidence that the books of the Bible originated from the ancient world is overwhelming, such that no scholar of any religious or non-religious or anti-religious point of view disputed the Bible's antiquity.

I have not said otherwise. I merely offer the observation that the crucial link between proof of Jesus' ministry and a contemporaneous writing is missing. Again, there is no evidence of an oral tradition in circulation equivalent to the Gospels at the time of Paul. Did Paul know who Jesus was? Of course. DId he quote from him? Yes, once, in Acts. Did he know of his sacrifice? Yes. But missing is evidence that the Gospels existed.

Once again, the lack of autographs has absolutely nothing to do with the historical, factual credibility and reliability of the Gospels.

To hardened Christian apologists, yes I would agree. But I look at it as a lawyer, and I look at it from the requirements of Jewish and Roman law. The lack of autographs implies that the event did not occur. Now, to the faithful Christian, the proof is not in the presence or absence of actual autographs. As Paul wrote in 1 Thes 1:5, the Gospel is learned from the word, from "power" [meaning, authority or priesthod] and in the "Holy Ghost." Evangelicals generally deny Paul's formulation for learning the Gospel with proper authority and by revelation. But the Book of Mormon does not.

I realize you are trying to score polemical points by running down the reliability of the Gospels in order to bring them down as far as you can evidentially to the level of the Book of Mormon, but those truly informed about Gospel scholarship will know that your characterization is over the top.

That is the second time you've branded me as a polemicist. I've never insulted you. Don't confuse me with the anonymous posters around here who have a lot of courage to insult people.

While non-conservative scholars don't view the Gospels as "true," they do agree that at least a fair amount of the Gospels is historically accurate. Non-Christian scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew from Nazareth in Galilee, that Joseph was not his biological father, that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, that he functioned as an itinerant preacher, healer, and exorcist (even if the scholars are skeptical about the miraculous elements of those activities), that he had a group of disciples that included Simon Peter, James, John, and others, that he went to Jerusalem for the Passover and was arrested, tried, and executed by crucifixion on the order of Pontius Pilate, and that shortly after his death his disciples began proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. Skeptical scholars such as those in the Jesus Seminar agree that at least some of the sayings of Jesus found in the Gospels stem from oral traditions that went back to Jesus himself.

This seems to be an accurate statement, but many New Testament scholars simply assume the truth of some of the non-miraculous events, which you identify. There isn't contemporaneous proof of such.

By contrast, non-Mormon scholars uniformly deny the historicity of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Alma, and all of the other major figures in the Book of Mormon besides Jesus Christ, and they all deny the historicity of Christ's appearance to the Nephites in AD 34. The debate between Mormon and non-Mormon scholars over the date of the Book of Mormon is a debate about fourteen centuries: was it written in 421 or 1829? No non-Mormon scholar thinks there was an original Book of Mormon written in a reformed Egyptian script.

And, I hope you have read my repeated concession that there is no proof of the historical events described in the Book of Mormon except, I would say, in the most collateral sense.

But I don't need to do that to debunk your attempt to elevate the Book of Mormon's credibility at the expense of the Bible's.

I'm a Bible believer, much more so than many Latter-day Saints, in my opinion. My argument has simply been that when it comes to matters of the proof of metaphysics. the Book of Mormon has better proofs.

This statement just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Most biblical scholars see at least some evidence of Paul knowing sayings of Jesus in such passages as Romans 12, which contains several echoes of Synoptic sayings of Jesus. Paul's appeal to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding divorce is often understood to refer to the Lord's historical teaching on the subject recorded in the Synoptics.

I really do think I know what I'm talking about. Well, as much as I can without studying it in college. Eisenman and Ehrman, of course, would say that Paul invented Christianity and that his version of Christianity is just derivative of Jewish sayings and philosophies melded with a whole new concept of God, a mortal who became immortal -- a sort of Hellenized Yahweh or Mithras.

This is really all you've got. You have no eyewitness testimony within a thousand years of any event mentioned in the Book of Mormon other than events already mentioned in the Bible. What you have are a dozen guys, mostly from two families, who claimed to have seen the gold plates. Four of them also said they saw an angel. I'm sure you know there are many reasons to doubt the testimonies of these twelve men. This is hardly "hard evidence" of anything concerning the Book of Mormon.

I've given some more thought to this point. Game theory strategists would teach that the more complex and extensive the conspiracy, the more likely it would break down, as the first to leave the conspiracy is the one to benefit the most. For example, one of Bernie Madoff's sons was the first to break.

But that just never happened with the way the Book of Mormon came together. Remarkable.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[altersteve]

ERayR,

Regarding my statement that the Qur'an is not inspired by God, you wrote:

This is a frivolous objection. The Qur'an denies that Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead, and it denies that Jesus is the Son of God. If Christianity is true -- and if Mormonism is true -- then the Qur'an cannot possibly be inspired by God.

Sure it can. Just not all of it.

[Jaybear]

I suppose if one were myopic enough the statement would be true. But, lets think about how society would have welcomed him back as a reformed individual, how much he could have profited monetarily from speaking fees as he railed against the insidious falsity of the Book of Mormon. He would have been celebrated as someone who "saw the light" and came forth to battle against these horrible people.

Of course we might be asked to believe that none of this occurred to him, or was even offerred to him when he left. But, given the anger towards Mormons by others, that is almost more incredible than a book of gold plates found in North America.

Jeff, the world that your are describing is a "myopic" fantasy.

In the real world, people don't ordinarily publicly confess to having lied and committed fraud, unless and until they have been caught. At that point, they will express regret, remorse and seek forgiveness, and then seek to gain profit.

Since you seem to believe just the opposite, please provide some examples to think about. I am willing to revisit my assumption of human nature.

Perhaps, but this is a statement of faith.

My faith tells me that it is unlikely we have a cloud of witnesses to specific supernatural events surrounding the prophetic ministry of JS, and none recanted that testimony for decades after the death of JS, none of them admitted deception.

Very unlikely, indeed.

You believe the plates were real and genuine, independent of the witness statement. The statements serve to confirm your preexisting belief. I get it.

I don't believe that the plates were real because they were purportedly delivered to Smith by an angel, kept hidden from the world, translated by use of a seer stone, and then taken back to heaven. Common sense tells me that screams of fraud. Produce the plates for examination, and I will gladly reconsider.

What people here don't seem to understand is that the witness statement are only necessary because the plates could not or would not be produced publicly for inspection. They are a very poor substitute for the absence of the plates.

[wenglund]

I am inclined to agree with Rob that from a secular perspective, on balance the evidence in relation to non-spiritual elements of the Bible weigh more favorably than the Book of Mormon. The Bible has greater net secular value and support than does the Book of Mormon.

This is significant to those, like Rob, for whom the secular is so important, if not paramount.

In this secular respect the Book of Mormon takes more faith to believe than do certain aspects of the Bible--which is not problematic for those of us for whom the spiritual aspects of the scriptures, and trust in God, are paramount.

However, from a secular perspective, I suspect that the Qur'an would fare better than the Bible. And, for that matter, it seems self-evident that the D&C would fare far better than all of them.

What do those, like Rob, with strong secular leanings, make of this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 24, 2012 by wenglund