Can The Bible Prove The Book Of Mormon Is The Word Of God?

[JAHS]

In short, although the Bible is an ancient document, none of the miracles depicted in its pages can be proven.  On the other hand, the Book of Mormon comes from implausible (or even preposterous) origins in the 19th century:  It cannot be true based on reasonable appraisals of its origins.  Yet the evidence for the Book of Mormon is too strong statistically to be mere happenstance, and that is not possible unless it comes via miraculous origins, as described.  It thus becomes an authentic second witness of the Bible, since it attests to the Bible.  See examples of my detailed arguments at FairMormon, http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

OK That I understood, but I still don't completely agree that the argument provides "proof" of it's truthfulness. It won't convince any non-believers, although it might help those that already believe.

[Robert F. Smith]

OK. So how about this. Can anyone who believes the Bible and believes in Jesus Christ use the Bible to KNOW from 1 John, chapter 4, verses 1-3 that the Book of Mormon is the word Of God?

 

As I stated in my OP, 1 John 4:1-3 states the criteria for knowing true prophets from false prophets; “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

 

The Book of Mormon is all about Jesus Christ coming to Earth, taking upon him flesh and blood, suffering and dying for the sins of man, and being resurrected on the third day, which means the Book of Mormon prophets clearly meet Johns criteria as stated in 1 John 4:1-3. The Book of Mormon states very clearly that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”

Sure.  Those are nice suggestions.  One might also do as Joseph Smith did, go directly to God in prayer in response to the promise in James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

Then too, one can consult Alma 32 in order to test any claim.

[Robert F. Smith]

OK That I understood, but I still don't completely agree that the argument provides "proof" of it's truthfulness. It won't convince any non-believers, although it might help those that already believe.

If and only if you require absolute proof of something, which does not exist anywhere in life.

I am discussing the sort of evidence ordinary people use every day to make ordinary decisions.  

In a jury, for example, one does not ever need absolute proof.  In a criminal trial, one only needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  If that cannot be obtained, then doubt prevails and a conviction cannot be achieved.  In a civil trial, only the preponderance of evidence is need to convince a jury -- and unanimity is not even needed among the jurors.  All "proof" is statistical.  What do you or I find likely?  Plausible?  If something which is preposterous and impossible actually has good evidence  on its behalf, it then might become plausible and believable.  One does not have to begin by believing, and in the case of a juror that is not even desirable.  We want jurors who will fairly weigh the evidence pro and con, and reach a reasonable decision.

 

Non-believers such as Margaret Barker (a Methodist preacher) have already declared in favor of the evidence.  She does not have to have an apriori belief in order to render fair secular judgment -- which she does as a scholar for publication.  Indeed, we are not discussing belief here at all, but rather convincing secular, scholarly evidence.

[JAHS]

If and only if you require absolute proof of something, which does not exist anywhere in life.

I am discussing the sort of evidence ordinary people use every day to make ordinary decisions.  

In a jury, for example, one does not ever need absolute proof.  In a criminal trial, one only needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  If that cannot be obtained, then doubt prevails and a conviction cannot be achieved.  In a civil trial, only the preponderance of evidence is need to convince a jury -- and unanimity is not even needed among the jurors.  All "proof" is statistical.  What do you or I find likely?  Plausible?  If something which is preposterous and impossible actually has good evidence  on its behalf, it then might become plausible and believable.  One does not have to begin by believing, and in the case of a juror that is not even desirable.  We want jurors who will fairly weigh the evidence pro and con, and reach a reasonable decision.

 

Non-believers such as Margaret Barker (a Methodist preacher) have already declared in favor of the evidence.  She does not have to have an apriori belief in order to render fair secular judgment -- which she does as a scholar for publication.  Indeed, we are not discussing belief here at all, but rather convincing secular, scholarly evidence.

 I admit that one of the things that struck me about the Book of Mormon was the complex nature of the narrative and how things were still able to be tied together without any contradictions. This alone made it hard to belive that someone just made it up out of their own imagination.   The problem is we don't have jurys out there deciding whether or not there is a preponderance of evidence for the Book of Mormon. We have regular people with their own beliefs and prejudices, with not much desire to do a lot of complex analysis. It's all we can do to at least get them to read it and pray for a testimony that it is of God.  And after all that is far more convincing that all the scientific analysis we can present.

[Robert F. Smith]

 I admit that one of the things that struck me about the Book of Mormon was the complex nature of the narrative and how things were still able to be tied together without any contradictions. This alone made it hard to belive that someone just made it up out of their own imagination.   The problem is we don't have jurys out there deciding whether or not there is a preponderance of evidence for the Book of Mormon. We have regular people with their own beliefs and prejudices, with not much desire to do a lot of complex analysis. It's all we can do to at least get them to read it and pray for a testimony that it is of God.  And after all that is far more convincing that all the scientific analysis we can present.

Well, of course, that is true.  But we are engaged in a serious discussion here of the secular, intellectual merits of the BofM.  The jury or juror is any of us willing to give it a go.  We don't have to be jurors, and we are not serving in a courtroom, but that need not stop us from examining it closely.  This isn't Sunday School.

[JAHS]

Well, of course, that is true.  But we are engaged in a serious discussion here of the secular, intellectual merits of the BofM.  The jury or juror is any of us willing to give it a go.  We don't have to be jurors, and we are not serving in a courtroom, but that need not stop us from examining it closely.  This isn't Sunday School.

I guess I'm still thinking in terms of the original OP. 

[Ahab]

If and only if you require absolute proof of something, which does not exist anywhere in life.

I am discussing the sort of evidence ordinary people use every day to make ordinary decisions.

In a jury, for example, one does not ever need absolute proof. In a criminal trial, one only needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. If that cannot be obtained, then doubt prevails and a conviction cannot be achieved. In a civil trial, only the preponderance of evidence is need to convince a jury -- and unanimity is not even needed among the jurors. All "proof" is statistical. What do you or I find likely? Plausible? If something which is preposterous and impossible actually has good evidence on its behalf, it then might become plausible and believable. One does not have to begin by believing, and in the case of a juror that is not even desirable. We want jurors who will fairly weigh the evidence pro and con, and reach a reasonable decision.

Non-believers such as Margaret Barker (a Methodist preacher) have already declared in favor of the evidence. She does not have to have an apriori belief in order to render fair secular judgment -- which she does as a scholar for publication. Indeed, we are not discussing belief here at all, but rather convincing secular, scholarly evidence.

I suggest we discuss the idea of what constitutes "proof" a little bit more.

How is that word understood in the world of photography, for example. Or when discussing texts, such as a proof text. A proof isn't necessarily a reference to some other thing. A proof is a proof in itself. And what makes it a proof? Simply that it is what it is, and what it represents.

Think of our canon as a proof that we use to compare with other texts to see if those other texts are in harmony with the proof we are comparing them to. That's how any proof is used as a standard of proof. You have to already have some standard of proof to use as a measure of proof to begin with. Something that you already accept as proof which you then use to compare other things to.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm just glad Tony isn't an apologist.

[Tony Frank]

 

Sure.  Those are nice suggestions.  One might also do as Joseph Smith did, go directly to God in prayer in response to the promise in James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

Then too, one can consult Alma 32 in order to test any claim.

 

 

Those, too, are good suggestions. I asked of God and He led me to the Church. I continued to ask of God as I began reading the Book. The Spirit told me to keep reading. Within two days, and being nowhere near Alma 32, I knew it was the word of God based on knowing the criteria for judging true prophets and false prophets as contained in 1 John 4:1-3. Maybe that would not work for everyone, but it worked for me. Continued reading only strengthened my testimony.

[JLHPROF]

I'm just glad Tony isn't an apologist.

 

I always hated that term.

I don't believe the restored gospel of Christ has ANYTHING to apologize for.

 

Also, I don't think Tony is attempting to be an apologist at all.  His very zealous posts are more of a blitzkrieg of scripture instead of references, analysis and discussion.  But if that is what strengthens his faith and keeps him following the restored gospel then more power to him.

It's not like the gospel needs to be apologized for.

[Calm]

"I don't believe the restored gospel of Christ has ANYTHING to apologize for."

Which has nothing to do with apologetics save having a similar root the word came from.

[JLHPROF]

"I don't believe the restored gospel of Christ has ANYTHING to apologize for."

Which has nothing to do with apologetics save having a similar root the word came from.

 

I know...

 

Just a fortunate coincidence to make a point.

Edited October 31, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

OK. So how about this. Can anyone who believes the Bible and believes in Jesus Christ use the Bible to KNOW from 1 John, chapter 4, verses 1-3 that the Book of Mormon is the word Of God?

 

As I stated in my OP, 1 John 4:1-3 states the criteria for knowing true prophets from false prophets; “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

 

The Book of Mormon is all about Jesus Christ coming to Earth, taking upon him flesh and blood, suffering and dying for the sins of man, and being resurrected on the third day, which means the Book of Mormon prophets clearly meet Johns criteria as stated in 1 John 4:1-3. The Book of Mormon states very clearly that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”

 

 

The Bible does in no way prove the BoM true. The BoM on the other hand could prove the Bible to be true.

 

To bad there is scant solid evidence to prove the BoM true.

[Teancum]

I always hated that term.

I don't believe the restored gospel of Christ has ANYTHING to apologize for.

 

Also, I don't think Tony is attempting to be an apologist at all.  His very zealous posts are more of a blitzkrieg of scripture instead of references, analysis and discussion.  But if that is what strengthens his faith and keeps him following the restored gospel then more power to him.

It's not like the gospel needs to be apologized for.

 

 

 

Uhhhhh the term apologist does not mean the same thing as apologize.

[Damien the Leper]

I like the way it is written in Greek much better. English just doesn't do it for me.

 

ἀπολογία

[canard78]

TL;DR

[Ahab]

The Bible does in no way prove the BoM true. The BoM on the other hand could prove the Bible to be true.

To bad there is scant solid evidence to prove the BoM true.

Free speech allows people to say things like that even if they are not true and do no good.

God bless America.

[theplains]

(Baha'i are pluralistic, and I could see them accepting the Book of Mormon as divine scripture, the same as the Bible, Quran, and the Baghavad Gita. All which of course, prove the revelations of Bahá'u'lláh.)

 

The Baha'i faith teaches that Jesus was a manifestation of God but not an incarnation.

http://bahai-library.com/stockman_jesus_bahai_writings

 

Regards,

Jim

[MiserereNobis]

Free speech allows people to say things like that even if they are not true and do no good.

God bless America.

 

And God bless all the other countries that have free speech, too.

 

In fact, God bless all countries, whether they have free speech or not.  The ones that don't probably need more of God's help, anyways

[Kyle Kenley Kopitke]

I have been Blessed with a love of The Holy Scriptures.  2015 was the 12th year in a row that I was Blessed to read the entire Book of Mormon, and 5th year in a row for the Holy Bible (6 times in my life). 

 

It is the Spirit, and Spiritual Light that shines around me as I read that confirms both are of God.  I keep copies of the five Standard Works in my car, and read one verse each time before I start my car.  I am Blessed for doing so; try it for a week and it will so Bless your life.