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

[Tepui]

If Joseph Smith had been a money-digger, why did he mention it took 4 years to get them?

"Look what I found from being a money-digger? And it took 4 years!" Why didn't he mention he found them on his first try?

Because he planned to dupe people in advance-including his own family members?

"Hey Mom & Dad. An angel appeared to me and told me I would get some gold 4 years from now!"

And if hadn't produced them from merely money-digging, then what?

No. Angels of God are smart.

[Mortal Man]

To assume that he would be slaving away somewhere writing a book to dupe people is quite a stretch. I see no clear goal in writing a book, establishing a faith and being persecuted by mobs.

Why would Christopher Nemelka slave away somewhere writing a book to dupe people? Why is he persecuted for translating the sealed portion?

[Tepui]

They later gave contradictory accounts. Sometime before 19 March 1831, David Whitmer reported that "the back part remained stationary and immovable and in this manner remained to him and the other witnesses a sealed book". However, Martin Harris disputed reports that any of the plates were sealed; he claimed that "the leaves or pages of the book are not cut, and a part of them sealed, but that it opens like any other book, from the edge to the back, the rings operating in the place of common binding. " In 1835, Oliver Cowdery said the plates were "sealed by the prayer of faith". Second Nephi 27 and JST-Isaiah 29 speak of a metaphorical sealing in the same sense that the records of John were "sealed up to come forth in their purity". Joseph Smith never claimed that the plates were physically sealed nor described the sealing in any way.

So we are left with the unpleasant fact that no two witnesses agree on the nature of the sealing.

This mirrors the situation with the Gospels, where no two authors agree on the story of the empty tomb (who was there, what was said etc.)

There is only one explanation for the sealed plates which expains the differing accounts.

Likewise, there is only one explanation for the empty tomb which explains the differing accounts.

Ever heard of the concept of collusion? It's sort of illegal.

The Witnesses weren't colluding. Martin Harris wasn't even with the other two.

The authors of the four gospels weren't colluding either. What would be suspect if they all said something exactly identical.

Your observation has been noted by Nephi:

1 Nephi 15:27 "And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water."

Lehi & Nephi weren't colluding.

This is why there are different comments in Sunday School. This is why attendees at meetings from Sacrament to General Conference get a different message specific to themselves.

But from your quotes, it appears they all observed the portion of the plates being sealed.

In JSH, Joseph Smith mentions Martin Harris "claiming" to Dr. Anthon that a portion of the plates were sealed. This was before Martin Harris saw them, so Harris learned this from the Prophet.

"I cannot read a sealed book.."

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal,

You wrote:

So we are left with the unpleasant fact that no two witnesses agree on the nature of the sealing.

This mirrors the situation with the Gospels, where no two authors agree on the story of the empty tomb (who was there, what was said etc.)

There is a very good explanation for the sealed plates, which expains the differing accounts.

Likewise, there is a very good explanation for the empty tomb, which explains the differing accounts.

This isn't a good analogy. There were several visits by different individuals and groups to the empty tomb the morning it was found empty, making it not surprising to find differences in these different visits as to who was there, what was said, and so forth. Even where parallel accounts of the same event appear to have discrepancies, they are at most differences, not contradictions (e.g., an account mentioning "an angel" is not contradicting an account that mentions "two angels"). In uncontrolled experiences for which the witnesses were unprepared and even caught by surprise, it isn't odd that their descriptions would vary somewhat on minor details. By contrast, when the three and eight witnesses were shown the gold plates (just taking the accounts at face value), they were told ahead of time what they would see and when, and they knew what they were supposed to see before they saw it.

[Tepui]

Mortal,

You wrote:

This isn't a good analogy. There were several visits by different individuals and groups to the empty tomb the morning it was found empty, making it not surprising to find differences in these different visits as to who was there, what was said, and so forth. Even where parallel accounts of the same event appear to have discrepancies, they are at most differences, not contradictions (e.g., an account mentioning "an angel" is not contradicting an account that mentions "two angels"). In uncontrolled experiences for which the witnesses were unprepared and even caught by surprise, it isn't odd that their descriptions would vary somewhat on minor details. By contrast, when the three and eight witnesses were shown the gold plates (just taking the accounts at face value), they were told ahead of time what they would see and when, and they knew what they were supposed to see before they saw it.

And I suppose the the witnesses had a perfect image in their minds beforehand of what they were supposed to see when they saw what they saw. And what they saw matched up perfectly to what they were supposed to see because they were told what they were to see. Even the visitation of an Angel of God and the voice of God - because anyone knows what that should be like if they're told in advance - it's then a controlled experience?

Are you a Christian Scientist?

Martin Harris wasn't with the other two witnesses, just as there were different visits to the tomb of the Savior.

[Mortal Man]

There were several visits by different individuals and groups to the empty tomb the morning it was found empty, making it not surprising to find differences in these different visits as to who was there, what was said, and so forth.

Then I suppose there were several visits by different members of the Godhead to the Sacred Grove the morning it was found occupied, making it not surprising to find differences in these different visits as to who was there, what was said, and so forth?

Even where parallel accounts of the same event appear to have discrepancies, they are at most differences, not contradictions (e.g., an account mentioning "an angel" is not contradicting an account that mentions "two angels").

Did Mary Magdalene witness the stone door being rolled away or was it already gone when she got there?

In uncontrolled experiences for which the witnesses were unprepared and even caught by surprise, it isn't odd that their descriptions would vary somewhat on minor details.

Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples "by surprise"?

Are the locations of the appearances minor details?

Are the identities of the winesses minor details?

Are the words Jesus spoke minor details?

What do you consider to be major details?

By contrast, when the three and eight witnesses were shown the gold plates (just taking the accounts at face value), they were told ahead of time what they would see and when, and they knew what they were supposed to see before they saw it.

Likewise, John knew ahead of time what he would see, how he would beat Peter to the tomb, how he would harmonize his victory with Luke's account and how Jesus would have granted him quasi-immortality to explain how he could be writing about his experience ~70 years after the fact.

[ERayR]

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.

You are at least consistant. When you don't want to or can't answer you dismiss it with a wave of your hand and a dismissive statement. The Qur'an may or may not be inspired but that isn't the question. The question was by what authority do you pronounce it so? Why should I or anyone else accept your pronouncement?

Edited February 25, 2012 by ERayR

[altersteve]

Rob,

So you believe that absolutely no part of the Qur'an is inspired, even the true and good statements within it? Don't you believe that God is the source of all that is true and good? If so, how can you deny that any true or good statement in the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon or anywhere else comes from Him?

[Jeff K.]

The issue is, and remains "by what authority". Rob has no authority, certainly not the authority to act or pronounce in Gods name. I can claim to be an American, but I cannot speak for the President. In the same sense Rob as a christian has no place in judging any book as being inspired by God or not, he has no authority to speak of it. His acts of dismissal are based on an authority that even he must admit he does not have.

[why me]

Why would Christopher Nemelka slave away somewhere writing a book to dupe people? Why is he persecuted for translating the sealed portion?

To copy Joseph Smith. Here is the problem as I see it. Joseph decides to write a book called the book of mormon. He sees himself as the leader of a new church based on that book. He has no idea at the time that the book would begin years of persecution. So, he continues on. He thinks up a story to tell about the book and how it came about. He is still writing the book as he plots his new leadership of a new christian religion. He needs plates. So, he makes plates which he will claim the book of mormon came from. Then, he plots to find some dupes, mainly among his friends. Either he needs to fool them into believing in the plates and arrange a supernatural vision or he needs these people to lie for him. But he continues writing. Then he develops the idea of putting his head in a hat and reciting off the book from memory. So, here he is writing the book; planning to stick his head in a hat, finding some dupes and convincing them so that they will never question what they saw or felt with their hands etc.

Now if you were Joseph and you were a betting man, what would you be thinking your chances of success would be?

[Tepui]

"Why would Christopher Nemelka slave away somewhere writing a book to dupe people? Why is he persecuted for translating the sealed portion?"

If it helps, the little I know of Nemelka, he stated he's the reincarnated Hyrum Smith. Reincarnation isn't a doctrine taught as being correct by Hyrum's brother Joseph nor his successors in the First Presidency.

Aye, the rub.

[ebeddoulos]

You began:

I take offense at this implicit swipe at me.

Imagine that! ~ ~ Once again (For how many times now?) you find yourself offended. It must be a convenient card for you to play, since you lay it down so often.

You wrote:

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.

Actually it is a very good explanation and I like it even though it was not original with me:

“It was a pardonable error if the writer of 1 Timothy thought that it came from the Old Testament.” (James and Leslie J Francis, “Tentmaking: Perspectives on Self-Supporting Ministry”, Herfordshire, Gracewing, [1998], pg 28)

The reason I like it is because it renders the rest of your arguments moot. It reinforces my argument that this was a common aphorism of the day, largely built on teachings from the Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.” (Leviticus 19:13)

“Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.” (Deuteronomy 24:15)

“Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work” (Jeremiah 22:13)

If additional reinforcement is required, perhaps John Calvin can provide it:

“The laborer is worthy of his hire He does not quote this as a passage of Scripture, but as a proverbial saying, which common sense teaches to all. In like manner, when Christ said the same thing to the Apostles, (Matthew 10:10,) he brought forward nothing else than a statement approved by universal consent.” (John Calvin Commentary – 1 Timothy 5:18)

Paul was not the only New Testament writer who wrote on the subject. He paraphrased it differently than Paul and his amanuensis:

“Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.” (James 5:4)

Nor is “the labourer worthy of his hire” the only way the proverb was stated. The Latin version is: “Dignis Canis Pabulo” which is the “The dog is worthy of his bone.”

… and again, I take offense at your remark. It is inexcusable.

You repeated yourself yet again, and yes, you proving my point does make me snicker ~ ~. Sorry 'bout that, but it does.

[Bob Crockett]

Imagine that! ~ ~ Once again (For how many times now?) you find yourself offended. It must be a convenient card for you to play, since you lay it down so often.

You repeated yourself yet again, and yes, you proving my point does make me snicker ~ ~. Sorry 'bout that, but it does.

This is being rude. I doubt this is what the Brethren intend when they ask us to contend for the Church online. But, I am far and away the wrong person to criticize you as there are many similar sins of my own for which I must repent.

[Gervin]

This is being rude. I doubt this is what the Brethren intend when they ask us to contend for the Church online. But, I am far and away the wrong person to criticize you as there are many similar sins of my own for which I must repent.

True dat. By and large, LDS posters are more inclined to find "anti-Mormon" than "pro-Jesus" inclinations.

[ebeddoulos]

This is being rude. I doubt this is what the Brethren intend when they ask us to contend for the Church online. But, I am far and away the wrong person to criticize you as there are many similar sins of my own for which I must repent.

True dat. By and large, LDS posters are more inclined to find "anti-Mormon" than "pro-Jesus" inclinations.

In all honesty, your personal opinion as to the intentions of the brethren or my inclinations, carry little weight with me against the examples of Christ and his disciples. That said, in your self-proclaimed, superior and enlightened state you will perhaps find the following unimpressive:

Jesus, himself, often was "rude" to those who opposed him. A quick read of chapter 23 of the Gospel of Matthew reveals several examples. A few examples of Jesus being "rude" are his use of: “hypocrites” (v.13), “blind guides” (v.16), “fools” (v.17), “whited sepulchres” (v.27), “serpents”, “generation of vipers” (v.33).

“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matthew 23:13)

“Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!” (Matthew 23:16)

“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?” (Matthew 23:17)

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.” (Matthew 23:27)

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)

Christ’s followers also were also quite "rude":

Stephen, newly appointed to the leadership of the church, called the council of a synagogue “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51). Talk about "rude"!

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51)

The scriptures say Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost when he called Elymas the sorcerer a “child of the devil” (Acts 13:10)

“But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:8-10)

Paul called Ananias the High Priest a “whited wall” prior to knowing he was the High Priest. (Acts 23:1-5) Liked Jesus’ reference to a “whited sepulchre”, this was a very harsh name to call someone because it signified that what was beneath the attractive exterior was an unappealing soul. Wow! Paul Could be "rude", too!

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (Acts 23:1-5)

At absolute worst, the implication I made was that that Rob was shedding the tears of a crocodile. If telling the truth about a professional anti-Mormon is rude, I can live with that appellation.

Edited February 26, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[Gervin]

I could delve deeper about why you think Rob is a scribe or Pharisee, but I'm inclined to think you simply use them for effect. Your words do a good job of defining who you are. You don't need my input.

[Calm]

Why is he persecuted for translating the sealed portion?

From what I've seen it is not the fact he claims to have translated the sealed portion that has gotten him in trouble, but how he has treated people.

IIRC, there is someone else who claims to have done the same thing and has even formed a community, but no one has 'persecuted' the translator or the community last I heard (years ago, a believer came on the ZLMB for awhile to discuss their group's beliefs, very civil and intelligent)

Also, JS never recanted his status as a prophet or admitted to fraud:

http://www.cityweekl...e-believer.html

Speaking by phone from the Salt Lake County Metropolitan Jail, Nemelka comes across as a friendly, amiable man, but he also sounds frustrated. Never did he try to persuade Marie that he was a prophet of God, translating the sealed portion, he said. Never did he once ask or press Marie for money. It was Marie who projected a divine image onto him, convincing herself of his status as a prophet and man of God, he said. He ran with it and played on it, he admits. For that, he is sorry. And any money she gave him was money she volunteered, almost forced on him. He accepted it only after she told him her business was thriving and her children were being provided for.

“What I did do was I deceived her religiously. I played with her religious beliefs and mind, which I do not think a person should do,” Nemelka said.

One thing is certain: The sealed portion as written by Nemelka exists. Nemelka admitted he wrote it, not translated it....“My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market....

I set about in my own mischievous and arrogant way, of which I’m not proud of now, to prove that a person could actually write scripture and present it to people who were looking for certain scripture,” Nemelka said. “I was playing on the belief that LDS people have that one day the gold plates would be returned and the sealed portion would be translated. Basically, I set about to write a fictitious version of the sealed portion as I thought Joseph Smith would have written it had he continued to perpetuate his translation of the gold plates. Much to the chagrin of the LDS church and others, what I wrote was indeed well versed and quite appropriate for the scripture I was trying to portray. Anybody who reads it would just be totally amazed.”

Edited February 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Why would Christopher Nemelka slave away somewhere writing a book to dupe people? Why is he persecuted for translating the sealed portion?

The reason Chris Nemelka was tarred and feathered, repeatedly harassed with vexatious lawsuits, driven from his various homes in the dead of winter, causing him immense financial difficulty, and had angry mobs torture and kill his family and friends, and also had extermination orders issued against him, and was eventually murdered, is because his gospel message was confirmed by the spirit to so many people that it inflamed his opponents and enemies with jealousy and bigotry. It is also because so many of his former members had turned from humility to pride, and from love to hate, and placed their trust in man rather than God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Darth_Bill]

The reason Chris Nemelka was tarred and feathered, repeatedly harassed with vexatious lawsuits, driven from his various homes in the dead of winter, causing him immense financial difficulty, and had angry mobs torture and kill his family and friends, and also had extermination orders issued against him, and was eventually murdered, is because his gospel message was confirmed by the spirit to so many people that it inflamed his opponents and enemies with jealousy and bigotry. It is also because so many of his former members had turned from humility to pride, and from love to hate, and placed their trust in man rather than God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We all know the reasons JS was persecuted can be very mundane. CN, whom I had never before heard, wasn't persecuted because of his book but the fact that he holds no power. JS had power, real or imagined, and that invites attention. That and he kept moving his people to the frontiers where the more uncivilized tend to congregate. I'm not sure he would have had as many problems if he centered the church in Boston.

[wenglund]

We all know the reasons JS was persecuted can be very mundane. CN, whom I had never before heard, wasn't persecuted because of his book but the fact that he holds no power. JS had power, real or imagined, and that invites attention. That and he kept moving his people to the frontiers where the more uncivilized tend to congregate. I'm not sure he would have had as many problems if he centered the church in Boston.

Of course I was being facetious about Chris Nemelka. It was my way of ribbing Mortal Man over his strained comparison.

However, who knows if Boston would have been a more tolerant environment for the restoration of the gospel? After all, it wasn't that far from the witch trial epicenter,

Whatever the case, I am not even sure if the church growing up in a more tolerant environment would have been a good thing. Some things tend to survive and thrive better over the long run when subjected to certain levels of opposition and harsh conditions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think that Mr. Bowman believes believes that if he repeats the same old tired, faulty arguments enough times they will magically become true. They were wrong the first time they were muttered and they will be wrong no matter how many times you say them or write them. The Book of Mormon is true- always has been, always will be- get used to it.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

You are at least consistant. When you don't want to or can't answer you dismiss it with a wave of your hand and a dismissive statement. The Qur'an may or may not be inspired but that isn't the question. The question was by what authority do you pronounce it so? Why should I or anyone else accept your pronouncement?

I'm not asking YOU to accept MY "pronouncement" on the subject at all. You should not accept something as true because I say it, nor should you reject something as true because I say it. I shall illustrate.

Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Uh, oh, Rob Bowman just said that. But Rob Bowman doesn't have any authority that "ERayR" (whoever he is) recognizes. Does this make the statement problematic? Should you reject it or even question it because that unauthorized fellow Rob Bowman said it? Is a statement suspect if Rob Bowman says it? No, of course not. Whether I have any "authority" to say something is totally, absolutely, and obviously irrelevant to whether what I say is true.

The statement that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is either true or false. I am not asking you to accept that statement on my authority. I assume, actually, that you already accept it, assuming you are a Mormon. This is one of those truths that you and I both accept. In a sense, I ask you to accept that statement on your own "authority," if you like. Accept it because you already agree with it, if for no other reason.

My argument regarding the Qur'an is a simple one, really. It may be stated deductively as follows:

1. Any text that denies a fundamental of the gospel is not inspired.
   
2. That Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead is a fundamental of the gospel.
   
3. Thus, any text that denies that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead is not inspired (from #1 and #2).
   
4. The Qur'an denies that Jesus dies on the cross and rose from the dead.
   
5. Therefore, the Qur'an is not inspired (from #3 and #4).
   

As you can see, Rob Bowman is not in any way, shape, or form part of the argument. I don't come into the picture at all. My authority or lack of authority has absolutely zero relevance to the argument. If Rob Bowman never existed (perish the thought!), the argument would still be what it is.

What are you doing, then, when you ask on what authority I say that the Qur'an is not inspired? That's an easy question to answer. You are changing the subject. You are engaging in a diversionary tactic. Your question is irrelevant. I do not need any "authority" to express the conclusion to the above argument. Furthermore, anyone who claims to have "authority" to deny the conclusion is simply confused. To refute the conclusion, you must refute one of the premises (statements #1, #2, or #4) or show that the argument makes a fallacious misstep in reasoning. A Muslim imam who claims to speak with authority from Allah can bellow all day long about his authority and the argument will be left untouched. Human authority is irrelevant to assessing the argument.

The answer to your question, then, is that you should accept what I say if you agree with the premises and you perceive that the reasoning is valid, nothing more. You should accept a conclusion based on a reasoned consideration of the argument, not based on the authority or lack of authority you perceive the person presenting the argument to have. I should not come into the picture at all. I am not part of the argument. Likewise, if you present a sound argument for the truth of the Book of Mormon, it would be irrational for me to try to get around your argument by stomping my feet and demanding to know why I should accept your conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true. You would have already told me why.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

So you believe that absolutely no part of the Qur'an is inspired, even the true and good statements within it? Don't you believe that God is the source of all that is true and good? If so, how can you deny that any true or good statement in the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon or anywhere else comes from Him?

You are changing the subject.

Yes, all truth comes from God. There is some truth in the Qur'an. There is some truth in the Book of Mormon. There is some truth in Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. There is some truth in your posts and (dare I claim!) even some truth in mine. But that doesn't make any of these texts inspired by God. If any text that contains some truth is inspired by God, then practically all texts are inspired by God, making the concept of divine inspiration rather useless.

I happen to believe there is a lot of truth in the Book of Mormon. There are even inspired texts within the Book of Mormon because, of course, it quotes inspired texts from the Bible. The Book of Mormon also contains other true statements that are not simply quoted from the Bible. But I don't regard the Book of Mormon as a whole as inspired by God.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff wrote:

The issue is, and remains "by what authority". Rob has no authority, certainly not the authority to act or pronounce in Gods name. I can claim to be an American, but I cannot speak for the President. In the same sense Rob as a christian has no place in judging any book as being inspired by God or not, he has no authority to speak of it. His acts of dismissal are based on an authority that even he must admit he does not have.

I believe Jeff will find a thorough answer to his criticism in my response to ERayR.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

You are changing the subject.

Yes, all truth comes from God. There is some truth in the Qur'an. There is some truth in the Book of Mormon. There is some truth in Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. There is some truth in your posts and (dare I claim!) even some truth in mine. But that doesn't make any of these texts inspired by God. If any text that contains some truth is inspired by God, then practically all texts are inspired by God, making the concept of divine inspiration rather useless.

I happen to believe there is a lot of truth in the Book of Mormon. There are even inspired texts within the Book of Mormon because, of course, it quotes inspired texts from the Bible. The Book of Mormon also contains other true statements that are not simply quoted from the Bible. But I don't regard the Book of Mormon as a whole as inspired by God.

It seems like you're avoiding the question.

I wasn't trying to change the subject deliberately, I was simply curious about your statement that "the Qur'an cannot be inspired by God," giving the implication that none of it can possibly be inspired. I agree that the Qur'an, as a whole, is not inspired, but what I meant was that at least parts of Qur'an and other texts must be inspired by God if He is the source of all truth. If you believe God is the source of truth, then is it really possible for you to honestly deny this? For example, the Qur'an teaches that God created the world. Since this is in harmony with what God has revealed in the Bible, how can we deny that God also revealed this same truth to Muhammad? Likewise, the Buddha taught, for example, about the importance of kindness; this, obviously, is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, so can we honestly deny that the Buddha, regardless of his false teachings, was teaching some of the words of Christ to his followers?