At the request of our Mormon friends here at Mormon Coffee, today’s topic for discussion is, The Book of Mormon: True or False? Before the discussion starts, however, I need to lay down some ground rules.
- It is understood by all here that Mormons ultimately believe the Book of Mormon is true due to personal revelation. For this discussion, possession of LDS testimonies will be assumed. Therefore, the bearing of these testimonies in the following comments is not permitted.
- When making evidentiary statements of fact, please provide supporting source references.
- Please dialog here in your own words; do not fill your comments with lengthy quotes from others.
- Remember (and follow) the Mormon Coffee comment policy that calls for the summation of main points (in your own words) before linking to another source.
On a recent Mormon Coffee thread, after being asked about external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, an LDS commenter wrote:
“[Y]ou said, ‘What is the most compelling piece if archeological evidence that proves to you that the Book of Mormon is true?’ I will responde with, ‘Oh you of little faith’. If we needed scientific/archeological proof to mandate and coincide our beliefs, we would be cast into the same category as the pharisees and saducees.”
That opinion notwithstanding, this discussion will focus on evidence outside of testimony for the Book of Mormon. Another Latter-day Saint who participates in the conversations at Mormon Coffee has made this argument (taken from a few different comments of his):
“[T]he question of the Book of Mormon is absolutely black and white- it is either what it claims to be, or it is not. If it is not what it claims, the whole religion falls. If it is true, the church stands as THE Church of Christ.”
“If it [the Book of Mormon] is true (an ancient record of scripture), JS was a prophet. If he was a prophet, the church is what it claims to be, etc., etc.”
“Your claim that there is no evidence for the BOM is certainly persistent. I await the thread that allows us to discuss the book straight up….the whole of the LDS church depends on the Book of Mormon being true- every claim depends on it, so I would think that would be a natural center of debate.”
Okay. To get us started, Michael Coe, Yale University’s renowned Professor of Anthropology emeritus, was interviewed for PBS’s Frontline program The Mormons. After describing some of the major problems facing Mormon archeologists who are seeking to find evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, Dr. Coe said,
“I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up — how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together. …”
Apart from personal revelation, how do the readers of Mormon Coffee (both Mormons and non-Mormons) cope with the “non-evidence” spoken of by Dr. Coe?
—
For an interesting look at issues surrounding the historicity of the Book of Mormon see the Sunstone article, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates – Part 1, A Guide for the Overwhelmed,” by John-Charles Duffy.
Consider this a “tag line” to MichaelP’s question above. Could Joseph have recognized something he thot “cool” in the Bible and done a knock-off of it ?? How hard would this be to do ? I’m NOT saying it’s easy, I’ve never done it, and don’t know the difficulty.
Second: has anyone done a rigorous comparison of the chiastic structures in the D & C, PofGP, and/or his diary ?? Do the Tanners have a point here, or making much ado about zilch ??
From GB’s favorite source: THe U.Lighthouse.Min (I can feel the eye-balls rolling…..)
First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.
Second, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph’s diary exhibit similar patterns.
GB: sounds like you don’t much care for the TAnners; feel free to pick apart ANY of my sources at any time, but loud whining is not rebuttal. Have at it.
FoF: it makes perfect sense that JS would have no problem giving attribution to Isaiah and other known biblical writers, he would have everything to gain by doing so; the same could NOT be said if he decided to lift something extra-biblical. This seems kind of obvious to me. Seems like you have another playuh in VOOK: is he VIKING ?? Hang in there. GERMIT
There have been many excellent comments on this subject. I have been waiting for any evidence that would give someone reason to believe the BOM is true. Now we are moving towards chiasmus, how it is written, etc. Why? Just come forth with the evidence. If you cannot provide the evidence I would suggest maybe taking the same approach to the Bible as you do the BOM and apply Moroni 10:4,5 in the same way. I do not believe God would create a path back into His loving arms through a religion. Especially where you have so many controls on your life and have to make it to the temple, learns signs, tokens, etc. and be able to present them to get into the celestial kingdom. The straight path back to our Father is through Jesus and not through a given church. Please believe this and pray about it. God bless.
truthseeker
LDS member for 23 years.
Germit- have not seen this written anywhere, but a thought! I have known about the chiastic structures in the POGP and D&C in addition to the BOM for some time. I know one LDS linguist with a background in ancient scripture that believes God communicates to the human mind and soul often times through principles and doctrines presented in just such a pattern and format. Of course, this proves nothing and is not intended to prove anything. I find it interesting to think about. Also, I have yet to hear anything on my claim that the JS translation of the NT restored this chiastic structure in several places. Hmmm!
What Ed and others are arguing is that Joseph had access to several books with cutting edge research on Hebraisms, chiasmus, ancient manuscripts and their translations (both Hebrew and Greek), extra-biblical analyses of translations, and in addition, just happened to get a whole lot of other stuff right (like Nahom, Bountiful, Mulek) just out of chance. Not to even mention Enallage, Hebrew simile curses, and a host of other ancient literary patterns. And he created Hebrew names that fit the time period by chance. And we are to dismiss the archeological evidences- yes, not complete yet- but they are there (Mesoamerican language connections to Egyptian, Hebrew; transoceanic travel; local legends matching the Jaredite history very well; and others). And create the 530 page text within 2 months with no notes or books. By the way, Ed’s criticism on word pattern frequencies fails as explained above.
This all adds up, and if you look at it statistically, becomes very improbable. Ed often asks, which do you believe- the “chance” option, or the “revelation” option. Someone who does not believe in revelation will of course choose “chance.” My argument is that the BOM is very plausible after looking at the evidences, and becoming more so with time. I quoted Owens and Mosser and agree with their point.
Truthseeker,
Have you read any of Joseph Smith’s early writings? Even Emma, who firmly believed in the Book of Mormon, having handled it while covered and moved it around while cleaning, said Joseph Could not compose a cogent sentence, though he is said to have been a passable religious exhorter. The point of the Wordprint material affirmatively demonstrates that he did NOT write the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. That is the point you seem to miss. Even if Joseph Smith thought this unidentified writing technique of broad reflective writing was neat, which we now describe as Chiasmus, Joseph Smith DID NOT WRITE those sections claimed by Welch and FoF to contain them.
So here is the problem for those antagonists of Mormonism: Since you acknowledge dictated the text of the Book of Mormon with his head in the hat, you must show us who did write the materials, and then explain how he was able to read it at a distance of one-inch in a pitch black hat. I am sure this should be easy. Oh, and Joseph, Oliver and Spaulding cannot be included in the list of writers, since they have been eliminated by Wordprint testing. So who wrote the text and how did he read it in the dark?
Also, how do we explain away the more than a dozen folks who handled the plates? I have seen some pretty absurd videos online by folks who don’t deal with the statements of the original witnesses, but if you want to go the simplest explanation, Hilton’s group determined there was a single translator (based on vocabulary) translating multiple original authors. Those are real, scientific methods to determine truth (scientific method and eye witnesses). If this portion is true, all assertions about plagiarism, unknown locations of runes, etc., are wholly irrelevant. And we didn’t even need a burning in the bosom to create plausibility.
FOF,
Thanks for your response. I think I’m the only guy who finds that reference to synagogues as important. I didn’t expect a Mormon to agree.
I notice that you enjoy getting into all the research which, for me personally, is really not worth my time. I mean, I admire what has been exchanged in the fray, but I guess I’m just simple-minded and want to stick to what is actually being said in the BOM, because I think it reveals itself as a fictional writing created by JS and OC.
Let’s look at 3 Nephi 15:23: “…they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice–that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
How then does one explain the fact that Jesus spoke to Gentiles, and healed them, during His earthly ministry. I’m interested and curious to see what kind of response you have–if you choose to respond. Perhaps my question doesn’t merit your time. This just doesn’t make sense to me as something Jesus would say.
So, carry on with the debating and the resources, and I’ll stick to the text of the BOM which reveals itself as a fictional tale. Sometimes, it pays to be simple-minded and to trust in the illumination of the Holy Spirit. 🙂
Grace and Peace!
VooK: I would be happy to let a statistics buff correct me on this , but it’s a stretch, I’d say, to say that the Wordprint material tells us JS did… or that such and such theory has been ELEMINATED by …. I know this sounds nitpicky, but the best you have (and it’s certainly nothing to sneeze at) is a very educated guess based on PROBABILITY. Unless you want to assert that the probablility for these alternate theories is ridiculously small. Is that your claim ?? I’m not making light of the work you site, but you treat the results like statements of what happened, or didn’t happen. KUDOS, tho , for making more headway with Wordsmith, so far, than most LDS apologetic efforts, I grant you that.
I’m unclear about the face-in-the-hat process of translating: you seem to hold that in doubt, is that right ?? You have to be aware of J.Bushman and others who have upheld that scenario based on testimony by the figures involved? You are then disagreeing with Bushman ?? I’ll let you flesh that out.
NO ONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE DEBATE HAS TO ACCEPT THAT JS DID THIS OR THAT BY CHANCE. To say that he did NOT do something, or write something by chance means he had SOME kind of plan, but I fail to see why WE have to know what that plan is. I’ll accept that MAnY items in the BofM are certainly NOT random, but getting at HOW they happened may be impossible for us. Not quitting on the effort to do so, but that’s just a fact. Come to think of it, what kind of writing would be RANDOM anyway ???
Here’s another probability question for the stats geeks: what is the probability that JS would get caught as the author if he used something extant, like the bible, and made alterations. Would it depend on how many alterations and how skillfully done ?? I’m not a stats geek, so these are real questions.
THe authorship stuff is interesting for some, esp. me, but all we HAVE to show you, Mr.Vook is that the content of said book comprises a DIFFERENT GOSPEL, and that’s another thread.
jackg- you bring up a great point about the content of the Book of Mormon. The passage you quote from 3 Nephi: you are right that Jesus physically spoke to Gentiles during His ministry.
But it is generally accepted that the gospel was to be preached to those of Israel followed by the gentiles. “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matt 10:5-6.
When approached by the woman of Canaan and asked to cast out a devil from her daughter he said “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” The “children” are those of Israel.
The gentiles were not to receive the gospel while He was on the earth. Rather, he commissioned his Apostles to preach to them after the children of Israel had first been offered His gospel.
So- to answer you- while He physically spoke to them, He never preached His gospel to the gentiles during His ministry. Hope this helps!
Germit- a word on the BOM prophecies. Reading over a brief list like I provided- it is easy to not see how profound many of these are. For example, the role of America and Israel in the events leading up to the second coming of Christ- huge place in the BOM. In 1829, America was not “lifted up above all other nations.” There were very few Jews in America. To say Jews and Gentiles (Caucasians) in America would be mixed together and be lifted up above all nations was not exactly “in the cards.” The role of Jerusalem and Zion (America) in the latter days is outlined in a powerful way.
The idea of those in America “nursing” Israel is profound. Think about this- if it were not for the U.S., what do you think would happen to the nation of Israel? These are things that do not jump out at first time readers of the BOM. I cannot tell you the powerful and prophetic guide the BOM is to a person who is diligent.
FOF,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It helps me understand your perspective and why you don’t think it has any bearing on the validity of the BOM. I still think it does, though. 🙂 Have a blessed rest of your day. I have to go and vote!
Grace and Peace!
Jackg,
I think you are really on to something here. Comparing the message of the BoM with the Bible is a great idea. Let’s try this in response to your BoM 3 Nephi 15 issue:
Matt 10:5 ¶ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Matt 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
But we could argue he changed his mind. But then he would contradict himself:
Matt 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matt 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Matt 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Matt 15:27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
Matt 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
“Gentiles” means “The nations”. The tribes outside of Israel and Judah. This woman was “a” gentile, but Jesus did not go to the nations to preach. The nations did not hear his voice or see his image. This woman came to him, in faith, and since he doesn’t listen to TULIP drinkers and discriminate against anyone, he helped her. But he seems pretty emphatic in his statements about to whom he was sent to personally preach to. A Gentile does not make The Gentiles, anymore than a Utahn makes Utah.
Studying the words of the New Testament and the BoM have always helped me when I have questions like this. So I would encourage you to continue studying, as the meaning of the words is critical to actually understanding the words of scripture. If you don’t know the meanings, you aren’t really reading the scriptures.
Hey Germit,
Thanks for the kudos. I find the gentle chastisement about stating something as a fact when it is not known for sure a little bit fun, since LDS critics routinely say “JS did this” or “JS taught that”. Your point is taken, and I think you will find I was not dogmatic about stating evidence as facts. But here is the problem for you: The evidence is, from a scientific standpoint, overwhelming in support of Joseph Smith not being the author, but rather a translator, of the BoM. It is not even close. So when I hear someone say JS wrote such or thus in the BoM, I figure turnabout is fair play. He didn’t write it. He translated it. That was his claim, and that is what the best evidence supports. Critics lack any viable alternative to what JS claimed, in light of the best current evidence, which I believe was the purpose of this thread.
He had witnesses to support the claim, who made dozens of supporting statements, and never a single retraction, even when offered money after leaving the faith. This is the sort of stuff that travels from evidence to proof.
I wanted to add a thought which is routinely attacked about the BoM. The BoM states it was written in Reformed Egyptian, a language they cobbled together using Egyptian characters and Hebrew words, which evolved over time into a very unique language. When JS recovered the gold plates, there was no evidence anywhere for Hebrew words being transliterated into any foreign language in any long form. We now have many such examples, including the Shema in Greek letters, and Biblical prayers written in an Egyptian temple, as well as many copper scrolls. This will probably be described as luck, but it appears to have been a far more common practice than LDS critics have acknowledged in the past.
I am done for today. Peace.
Germit, Yes, that’s the page, and in answer to your question “Ralph, how do you find these guys ??” I was searching the internet to find some references to white people depicted in ancient Amerindian art and came across his page. Where Cluff got his quote from I don’t know, but it’s referenced and cited on the page I sent you to.
Why I was searching for that topic is because I know there are art pieces that have white/fair-skinned people in them as well as dark-skinned people, which does tend to validate these ‘legends’ that you say the stories are. But then again, some people have explained that the pictures are similar to the Egyptian ones which depict the social stratum a person belongs to by the colour of their skin rather than the actual colour of the skin. Yes, it’s plausible but so is the explanation that there were white/fair-skinned people living in the community.
If you think about it, another explanation is albinism, which is rare but it happens. I have seen an old photo (black and white) on the internet which shows an albino koori (Australian aboriginal) and his parents who are non-albino. The difference was…, well…, black and white. Being recessive, if 2 people like this breed then their children will be albinos and so on creating a sub-population within the culture. So maybe the ‘legends’ are referring to people like this.
Like I said with other things, it does not prove the BoM true as it can be explained by a number of different things – but one of the possible explanations does add some veracity to the claim of the BoM. It’s up to you which one you wish to believe in.
It’s the same with Crutcher’s page – he makes a very logical and interesting argument from the Bible about the generation of the differing skin colours of humans. But is it correct? I don’t believe so, but obviously he and others do.
Vook…welcome to the conversation…I checked out your linked blog but I didn’t see any of the conversations with famous critics…maybe that is a coming attraction…
As for “translator” vs. “author” I think the title page of the original BoM (1830) speaks for itself
http://www.inephi.com/1.htm
I’ll ask you this question since noone else on the planet seems to have an answer…since the BoM was translated into English for “understanding,” what exactly are cureloms and cumoms (Ether 9)?
Busy week at work…hope everyone VOTED! Blessings
Life just got extremely busy for me the past few days so I don’t know how frequently I am going to be able to participate here in the near future. I will try to check back in a few days. The word print analysis issue, for example, is much more complicated the simpleton responses given. The claims that Smith has been eliminated as the author are thoroughly false and based on poor methodology, but this will have to wait until another post. I did want to respond to some things though:
FoF –
I do love it when the Mormons faun over Margaret Baker considering that it is only tunnel vision of her research that allows them to feel cozy with her conclusions. One of the other contentions of Baker’s research is that Deutero and Trito Isaiah exist and are written post-exile. This would very problematic for the BofM as these Isaiah passages appear in the BofM text and would have to be pre-exile. I doubt, though, that this will affect you. Your modus operandi this entire post has been to ignore problems while clinging to “evidences” that require huge stretches of imagination. I have already shown how so many of these fail and how the methodology fails in general, but alas. I used the same once upon time when defending Mormonism, and so I know that there is hope for you.
I still stand by the fact that Benjamin more closely parallels Methodist revivals. A very large segment of the Mormon population has even signed on to this because the parallels are far too close to ignore.
I also see that you continue to straw man my argument after having been corrected, which I find pretty pathetic. I have already stated twice that Smith doesn’t need cutting edge material — living in the 1820s and being involved in the religious community gives him everything that he needs to produce his book. While you accuse me of bias, the fact that you ignore its many problems while clinging to three letters on a rock speaks volumes.
Happy election day, everyone!
cureloms and cumoms: see entry for definitions under:
Nephilim and Gopherwood, cross referenced to the location of the 4 rivers in the garden of Eden.
NY state law in 1829 did not allow a work to be copyrighted unless it was done so by its author. I suppose I could read the legaleez section of the BoM inserted for compliance to the Laws of the land, but then I would have missed the stuff above it where it says, in about 18 point letters “An account written by the hand of Mormon…”, or the 10 point type in the 1st paragraph on the same page stating “Written, and sealed up, and hid up unto the LORD…to come forth by the gift and power of GOD unto the interpretation thereof;”.
Or the next page, where the copyright office acknowledges the Title page’s receipt as proof of the existence of the text, which quotes from the Congressional Copyright Act: “An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies…”
Does that last phrase sound familiar? Do you note to whom the act secures those rights?
Or I guess you could read the first sentence of the preface to the 1830 first edition of the BoM: “As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work…I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred sixteen pages…[and]the plates of Nephi…” [signed] The Author. Or I could read the statement of the 3 witnesses on page 589 where they noted it was translated, or on page 590 where the 8 witnesses call him the author and proprietor.
Is it just me, or is JS really crummy at keeping a secret that he was the translator and not the author in the sense of composition?
Or I guess we could just read the definition of Author in the 1828 Webster: “1. One who produces, creates, or brings into being…” I think JS brought it into being, right?
Vook…I will agree with your last statement anyways…I believe he brought it into being in the sense that when there was a curtain between him and his scribe he could have used all kinds of good sources (he seems to have had a KJV Bible handy at the least). Created out of whole cloth I seriously doubt. He seemed to be a syncretiser (ala Freemasonic rituals) rather than a complete fabricator.
I still don’t get why the plates were even needed…nor the waiting period…if it was all to be accomplished by the rock in the hat trick…could have gotten the ball rolling years earlier.
I guess you are conceding that there are no such things as cureloms and cumoms…I feel the same way…
Lautensack,
Your attempt to explain away the clear and obvious support that 1 John 4 1-3 gives to the BoM is weak and unconvincing. In fact it can be argued, that because the doctrine of the trinity rejects the physical (flesh) nature of Jesus Christ, those who preach such doctrine are in league with antichrist. Did you ever think about that.
I am glad you mention John 1 1-2,14. Let’s go through them. And I will add the definite article “the” from the original Greek in the proper locations.
1 IN the beginning was the Word (Jesus, the Son), and the Word (Jesus, the Son, this makes one) was with (the) God (the Eternal Father, this makes two), and the Word (Jesus, the Son) was God. (this makes two Gods)
2 The same (the Word, Jesus, the Son) was in the beginning with (the) God.
14 And the Word (Jesus, the Son) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So when you misrepresent our beliefs with statements like “Therefore while it appears that Mormonism affirms that “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” this is actually denied by them since by nature God is flesh for God to become flesh is redundant. (John 1:1-2;14)” when you know better, it calls into question your honesty.
Also when it says that Jesus “was made flesh” it means it and those who reject that Jesus has a body of flesh and bones are in league with antichrist.
Germit: I think it’s been shown that having an apocrypha within a KJV bible was NOT that unusual at the time.
GB: You are correct. The Apocrypha was removed from the KJV in 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was originally written in Greek not Hebrew, which is why it wasn’t accepted as scripture.
Germit: You spend more time mocking our motives and methods than giving rebuttal, . . .
GB: I doubt that claim. But as far as mocking goes, I will work on removing my mote if the critics will work on removing their beams, ok?
Germit: . . . you could gain greater credibility if you just show us where we’ve erred:
GB: This I do. It changes little.
JackG: Your last response to me really humbled me. I was thinking the same thing when I didn’t get a response–that the truth hurt. Now, I realize that people are obviously scrolling past my posts as I scroll past yours.
GB: Good point, Although, I usually read yours. Actually there are just a few that I scroll past. Like falcon, and Rick B. Theirs, I have found to be a total waste of time.
J: I mean, to think that the truth is hurting someone like me when I’m not even reading what you post 95% of the time, obviously the reason can’t be that what you’re saying is truth and that that you’re hitting some spot.
GB: Your logic is flawed! The truth in my posts is independent of your actions or inactions as the case may be.
J: . . . the difference between you and me is that you peddle what you think is truth, and that is the BOM.
GB: Not correct. You are forgetting that I am “peddling” the truth that is also found in the Bible, but that is a different topic.
J: I remember growing up being taught that part of the purpose of the BOM was to convince the Jews as well as the Gentiles. So, here’s a simple question: has the BOM convinced the Jews?
GB: Yes, I know several Jews that have joined the church.
J: I mean, are they joining the Church in throngs?
GB: Obviously not. Remember the BoM also says, 1 Neph1 13:42 And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles; and after he has manifested himself unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles, then he shall manifest himself unto the Gentiles and also unto the Jews, and the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.
It is the Gentiles turn to be first in hearing the Gospel. The time for the Jews (as a nation) will come later.
VOOK: I’ll try to summarize the point you are trying to make above, I’m not sure I ‘get it’. Joseph Smith believed and testified to the fact that he TRANSLATED, not authored, the BofM from heaven sent plates by the power and commission of God Himself. This account is testified to as true by the 11 witnesses. This constitutes strong evidence that these things are so. I’m kind of tired tonight, am I doing OK so far ?? I’ll respond to that when I’m sure I’ve got it right.
An aside to SHARON: would the testimony of the 11 fall within the confines of this thread ?? Don’t want to feed any more trolls, the food bill is, well, I can’t use the word here…..
[The BOM witnesses testimonies (etc.), are pertinent and admissible in this discussion. Thanks for checking on this, germit. -Sharon]
The choices for JS seem to include MORE than 1)author or 2)translator there could also be 3)syncretizer (thanks TITANIC) or 4)syncretizer & translator & author: some translated from the seer stone; some borrowed outright; some borrowed and modified; some authored. These choices are just off the top of flat-headed GERMIT, there could be others. I do NOT lean toward a JS as the only author, the book is too varied and ‘rich’, and of course there’s the 20K or so words from the KJV. IF you must borrow, borrow from the best. More tomorrow; GERmIT
J: I see that the great majority of Gentiles are not convinced, either. I just think it’s another argument against the BOM.
GB: Nowhere is there a claim that the majority will be convinced. In fact Jesus Himself said “13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (lipservice anyone?)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
This turns your argument against the BoM on its head.
jack wrote ” I think I’m the only guy who finds that reference to synagogues as important. ”
Not quite – I refer you to my previous posts…
…and I’m still waiting for someone to dig up a pile of 2000 year old stones in North America and say “hey look, a synagogue!”
The Bible is engaged with its historical context because the God of the Bible is engaged with humanity. The BOM exists in a void. What does that tell us about its god?
Lautensack, Thank you for your utterly fair and substantial
response to my chiastic arrangement of Alma 36.
You say: I’ve taken a look over your version of the Chiasmus and
have noticed that yours differs from both the version of Jeff
Lindsay and of John Welch, as well as my own but we won’t count
mine here to be fair. What I have to wonder is how the three of you
can break the passage up differently and all logically claim it to
be the same chiasmus. It seems Mr. Lindsay looked for specific
words or phrases to break up the passage.
You go on to note that Lindsay seems to base the chiastic form on “specific words or phrases” (lexical items), while Welch recognizes “large theological (ideological?) categories.” I agree. Only I think it’s a tad more accurate to say that Welch recognizes these broader ideological “categories” on top of the simple lexical discrimination we see more purely demonstrated by Lindsay. From what I know of Welch, I think it’s accurate to say that his analysis of chiasmus has evolved over time away from the more purely lexical analysis of the text we find in Lindsay (who may essentially be following an arrangement of Alma 36 by Welch published earlier than the one you’re following). One reason for Welch’s change of procedure, no doubt, is his influence by biblical scholarship, which has many chiasm aficionados doing the same thing with the biblical text (and they all know Welch, whatever their religious affiliation; his early 80s book on chiasmus (an editorial collection of many scholars, if you didn’t know) was quite popular among academics). Another likely reason for Welch’s evolution is that he’s had problems reconciling in full the BoM’s longer textual units (notably, Alma 36) that plainly feature chiastic correspondence between the beginning and end portions, and clearly demonstrate a chiastic center, but get rough and murky at points between.
(Continued)
Again, it’s a “problem” biblical scholars have had to deal with as well. It’s the reason why you see multiple chiastic solutions for the same text—which, as you noted, begs to challenge the legitimacy of the whole enterprise. But it’s an enterprise that will likely go on because it’s not difficult to see why the same texts have everyone so interested in taking a stab at them. Despite their “failings” as neatly holistic chiasmus, they demonstrate a chiastic complexity that is best explained as deliberate literary invention.
Leaving aside the apologetic agendas in BoM study, if we can accept these complex arrangements as something more than the result of subconscious reflexes by the author, I think it’s fair to conclude that the author of the text either deliberately veered from the chiastic ideal (1) because he wanted to toy with those who might discover his “hidden” arrangement, (2) because the ideal was only intended to be a rough ideal with no artistic or meaningful purpose (in other words, he didn’t intend for anyone to make anything of it), or (3) because he had a deeper literary agenda that saw the chiastic ideal as a pattern to be broken for dynamic, meaningful purposes.
In my own dealings with the lengthy, choppy chiastic structures we find in BoM narrative, I’ve come to accept the third explanation. Really, it’s the explanation that any good literary critic would test.
Laut, the arrangement I presented earlier was rather hastily thrown together off of memory (as I couldn’t find an old arrangement I had made that’s somewhere still hiding on my hard drive or a CD). Anyways, on further reflection (& what I recall as conforming to my past analysis), here’s two small (but significant) emendations to my previous posting of the text (the italics indicating re-categorized text):
From the pericope’s first half:
“And it came to pass that I fell to the earth….that I could not open my mouth;” belonging in /H/ rather than /I1/.
(Continued)
And from the pericope’s second half:
“therefore they do know of these things of which I have spoken, as I do know;” belonging in /H/ rather than /G/.
To summarize the Alma 36 arrangement (// indicating a neat lexical repetition):
/A/: Alma’s words / God’s word
/B/: keeping the commandments of God leads to prospering in the land //
/C/: “do as I have done” / “know as I do know”
/D/: remembrance of their fathers’ captivity //
/E/: God’s deliverance of their fathers’ from bondage & captivity //
/F1/: trusting in God leads to support in trials and troubles //
/F2/: and trusting in God ultimately leads to being lifted/raised up to His glory //
/G/: Alma’s knowledge is not his own, but from God directly //
/H/: Angel’s speech (“by the mouth”) & Alma’s silenced “mouth” / Alma’s speech
/I1/: Alma’s use of limbs taken / Alma’s use of limbs restored
/I2/: *Alma loses his ability to “hear” & can’t hear the angel’s continued message
VS *Alma “labors” to bring people to experience the same joy of redemption.
/J1/: Alma suffers the extremities of Hell & is tortured by the memory of all his sins / Alma’s extreme suffering replaced with extreme joy.
/J2/: Alma wishes he could be denied God’s presence / Alma sees God’s presence & longs to be there.
/K1/: Alma suffers the extremities of Hell / Alma cries for mercy from the extremities of Hell.
/K2/: Alma tortured by the memory of his many sins / Alma no longer suffers for the memory of his sins.
/L/: Alma remember Jesus Christ, the Son of God / Alma cries to Jesus, Son of God, for mercy.
/M/: Jesus’ mission to “atone for the sins of the world” (the unrepeated center).
Laut, the one clearly non-corresponding part is found in /I2/. Reconciling these distinct parts to their common, parallel correspondent, /I1/–and additionally to the rest of the piece—reveals the deeper literary intent of the author, I believe. These two parallel disruptions come at key, complementary transitions in piece.
Sincerely, mutu.
Here is my (non-spiritual) short list of why the BoM is plausibly true:
1. No firm evidence AGAINST it. All attacks on geography issues require external assumptions not made by the book itself. I point to the location of Cummorah as a prime example. The internal distances of the BoM makes it clear that Cumorah of the great battles is NOT Cumorah of 1830.
By contrast, there is definite evidence showing the Bible contains factual errors. Example: The Walls of Jericho and the existence of the city of Ai (Joshua 6:20; 7:2). It is not just an absence of evidence here. The evidence decisively goes against the Bible story. The walls were already down, and the city of Ai did not yet exist.
So for me, on the issue of evidence, the BoM is easier to believe, because I don’t have to explain why it is contradicted by evidence.
2. There is some great Old World evidence for the BoM, such as Nahom and the potential locations of Bountiful, or the route taken from Jerusalem. Of course there are also lots of Biblical sites supported by archeology, too, so both are in my mind equally faith promoting.
3. The doctrines of the BoM are more consistent with Biblical doctrine than the post Biblical doctrines of Traditional Christianity. Radical monotheism, grace only salvation are two examples.
4. The text of the BoM, especially as Royal Skousen’s research demonstrates, is very, very worthy of respect.
5. The work by Hilton’s Berkley group on Wordprints/stylometry of the BoM authors pegs the chance at 1 chance in 15 TRILLION the same author wrote Nephi and Alma. So attacks on JS, for me, are irrelevant when they detail his supposed copying of then current themes, literary styles or anachronisms into the BoM. Such arguments fail to address the real issue of WHO wrote these things, if not as JS claims. To date I have seen no plausible alternative to the evidence of JS as a translator, and the authors as claimed within the book.
I think those are all tangible reasons
GB,
Thanks for reading my posts. Actually, yours were better recently, but the example of style I was talking about was this:
GB: Good point, Although, I usually read yours. Actually there are just a few that I scroll past. Like falcon, and Rick B. Theirs, I have found to be a total waste of time.
J: I mean, to think that the truth is hurting someone like me when I’m not even reading what you post 95% of the time, obviously the reason can’t be that what you’re saying is truth and that that you’re hitting some spot.
GB: Your logic is flawed! The truth in my posts is independent of your actions or inactions as the case may be.
J: . . . the difference between you and me is that you peddle what you think is truth, and that is the BOM.
GB: Not correct. You are forgetting that I am “peddling” the truth that is also found in the Bible, but that is a different topic.
It’s this style of dialogue to which I am referring. It’s just my personal preference, I guess.
But, to respond to one of your comments, I don’t think that “a few” of the Jewish people converting to Mormonism really fulfills what the BOM should be doing, especially since JS purportedly ushered in the “last dispensation.” But, that’s just my view and opinion.
Vook,
Thank you for your response. I need more time than I have right now to respond to it; also, I want to do a word study on “Gentiles” to verify your explanation. I think there’s some eisegesis going on in your explanation. But, I do respect your explanation.
Grace and Peace!
Germit:
I want to respond to a very responsible comment you make, but why I think you miss your own point a little:
“I would be happy to let a statistics buff correct me on this , but it’s a stretch, I’d say, to say that the Wordprint material tells us JS did… or that such and such theory has been ELEMINATED by …. I know this sounds nitpicky, but the best you have (and it’s certainly nothing to sneeze at) is a very educated guess based on PROBABILITY.”(Germit, above)
The reality is there is no such thing as PROOF in a physical world sense. Evidence only rises to the level of proof based upon probabilistic conclusions drawn by people observing evidence, and assigning levels of certainty to what they observe.
While Wordprints rely upon measurements of a real-world thing (words), by the nature of statistical analysis it is humans who set the standard for proof. Thus criminal courts have “beyond a reasonable doubt” as opposed to civil courts’ “a preponderance of evidence”.
The point is a 1.5 TRILLION to 1 chance that Nephi and Alma were written by the same author is a probability. But you and I won’t have 1.5 trillion interactions with gravity in our lives, but we accept gravity as a fact, even though we see people float in space. Based on that, Ed’s statements attributing supposed BoM plagerisms to JS are non sequitors without supplying us with WHO and HOW they found their way into the BOM. Otherwise I am accepting the weaker argument simply because I refuse to properly weigh evidence favoring conclusions I have already rejected. That is called pre-judging. At least, that is how I see it.
Vook wrote “By contrast, there is definite evidence showing the Bible contains factual errors. Example: The Walls of Jericho and the existence of the city of Ai (Joshua 6:20; 7:2). It is not just an absence of evidence here. The evidence decisively goes against the Bible story. The walls were already down, and the city of Ai did not yet exist.”
Vook, I take some interest in Biblical Archaeology and I’m quite familiar with the controversies surrounding the Conquest of Israel. I prefer the earlier date (mid 15th Century BC) because it fits better with the surrounding evidence than the traditional (mid 12th Century) date, namely the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and much evidence of civic turmoil in the region. In contrast, the 12th Century seems to have calmed down into a more settled agricultural existence. I am also familiar with apparent anachronisms in the text (where were the Philistines at the time, for example?), which may be attributed to redaction, but that’s a bigger discussion than this thread allows.
However, you miss the point. The very fact we can talk about Ai, Egypt, the Philistines etc. is because we have actually found physical evidence of their existence. I lived in Israel for 6 months before going to University, and I’ll be visiting again briefly over Christmas, and there are places where you literally have to step over the evidence just to buy a loaf of bread. Where is the evidence for the BOM stories in North America?
You appear to prefer BOM because it is unsullied by that awkward thing called evidence. Without any connection to reality, you can project whatever interpretation you like into it, secure in the knowledge that you will not be contradicted.
Please feel free to dream on in your splendid isolation. I will continue to ponder how God engages in the messy business of our humanity and why it is important that he does so.
VooK: thank you for the post above. I stepped on your slight reach in how you stated the Wordprint study, but let me be clear, I don’t mind operating in the world of Probable or Plausible when it comes to evidence. And I certainly do NOT mind mixing physical kinds of evidences for matters that are at their core spiritual. I understand that a condition for PROOF is slippery, even in the spiritual realm, so I THINK we have some similar expectations in these areas, as far as I can tell. You are rare, in my very limited experience with LDS, in showing a willingness to interact more than cosmetically with these physical fields of study. The same could be said for many ev. christians, so it’s not like I haven’t seen such truncated thinking closer to home/church.
I’m at a disadvantage in knowing with confidence how sensitive the testing instrument was for the Nephi/Alma comparison and here is why that hurts me: I am not exactly claiming that JS was the AUTHOR of the two books, my claim is that he probably used a variety of sources AND his own writing , in varying amounts throughout the BofM. Add to that a very real demonic influence thru the seer stone, and I’m not sure what THAT does to the stats on any of this (who could know THAT?) because I’m not really sure EXACTLY what he saw in the hat, and how much of what he wrote was ‘hat material’ and how much was other stuff. I do NOT think JS was an author in the conventional use of the term. I’m very unclear as to whether the Wordsmith instrument is built to deal with the situation I’m talking about. If you say “sure it is”, you may well be right, but (ever the skeptic) I’m going to have to ask some pointed questions to stats guys, LDS and non-LDS included. I would expect, and welcome, the same rigor when I quote the Tanners, Southerton, or Bushman. You SEEM to be telling me that the Wordprint measure rulesout JS as originator, but using a variety of sources, is that the case ??
MOre tomorrow, esp. reg. your short list.
GB:
I am going to assume you don’t read Greek from analysis of John 1:1-3;14. You seem to be applying English grammatical rules to the Greek language, as seen through your use of the article to conclude that there are two gods.
The first thing this part of the passage, και(and) ο(the) λογος(word) ην(to be, continuous action from the past) προς(with, intimate and relational sense) τον(the) θεον(God), tells us is is that the Word had an eternal face to face, that is intimate relationship with God, of a the highest level. I think at least here we would agree.
Then John writes, και(and) θεος(God) ην(to be, continuous action from the past) ο(the) λογος(word), most often translated “and the Word was God.” Please note that in Greek the order of the words is far less important than English, I will get to the English word order later. Now here you note that the greek article is not before the word God, I agree. John would be contradicting himself if he inserted the article prior to the word θεος. Such an insertion would make the equation ‘All of “The Word” = All of “God”‘ Thus the “Word” could never be with “God” since the terms would be interchangeable, clearly not what John was trying to do, since at best it would create a form of modalism. The order of the words as noted above appears backwards, however that little word o(the) in greek is attached to the subject if there are two nouns in a sentence and only one of them has the article.
Now you would hold to a translation of “and the Word was a God” if I am understanding you correctly, however to defend this rendering of the Greek text one must allow for John to have written the alternative, eg. “and the Word was God.” As demonstrated above if John inserts the article prior to the word θεος he would be equating the two in a modalistic way. Also if such a standard is applied then many places in the rest of the passage should be translated “a god.” (John 1:6;12;13;18) The language in no way warrants such a rendering.
This use of the word θεος is indefinite and qualitative. Why, if we take a definite approach then we run into the same problem had John inserted the article. Hence the NET Bible translates John 1:1c “and the Word was fully God.” Jusifying it in the footnotes:
Finally in John 1:14 we see John use a different to be verb, this time he uses ἐγένετο which denotes a coming into being. It is the only time in the passage the word is used of Jesus, though elsewhere it is used of John the Baptist (eg. John 1:6) Thus we see the word, who is God becomes flesh. Therefore as I stated before, Mormonism denies that Jesus came in the flesh, and is against 1 John 4:1-3. Plainly stated the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity, denying that Jesus is God incarnate, God with us.
Mantis Mutu:
I see the corrections you are trying to make, unfortunately your lexical repetition still faces the problem of point H and H’ not agreeing, simply bookending it will not excuse the fact that three verses do not fit the literary or theological context. Also as you pointed out I2 and I2′ are not directly corresponding, though I did find that they could work together as “working to destroy the Church” contrasted with “laboring to bring souls unto repentance.” If you would like to continue this conversation, perhaps in more detail feel free to email me through the email on my blog. Linked by my name, though I will be out of town for the weekend.
Grace and Peace.
Lautensack
VooK: here are some quick comments to your list, not full fledged; this is NOT my short list, I’ll try to get that out today. THAnKS
1. BofM may be weakest here: let the reader notice how sparse the entries were these last weeks regarding NEW WORLD GEOGRAPHY. the big word here is BE PATIENT, it’s coming….tho that was moe FoF’s line. NOTE: many, I would say ALL, of the major hurdles to a believable BofM geography remain, EVEN IF YOU ALLOW FOR CUMORAH NOT BEING IN NY. Put Cumorah wherever you choose and then SHOW US THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CHOICE. The Cumorah thing becomes a nice dodge, and a great way to waste time. In contrast to this, the Bible offers us REAL places where REAL stuff is found and analyzed. You are debating about what happened at Jericho: how ironic, VooK, because, at least there is a JERICHO to debate, and there are REAL walls we can examine, etc…The fact that we are sifting thru what remains of Jericho shows that the events of the Bible have SOME place in space, time, and history? Where are the ancient BofM city/sites where we can have a SIMILAR debate about what really happened ? Well….it’s hard to find this stuff…..and we’ve just got started…..etc,etc.
Have you heard of Ray VAnDerlaan ? He has entire CD SETS where Old and New testament sites are walked over, sifted thru, and discussed. I’m NOT saying he is right about his conclusions, I’m saying there is enough SOLID archaeological evidence for this guy (and many others, christian and non) to have an entire MINISTRY built around it. Yes, we’ve had hundreds of years head start on the digs, but with cultures as developed as the Jaredites, Nephites, etx….the big vacuum thing looms large.
2. some of the above applies here, but the obvious element here is that JS had the Bible, books about the Bible and the Bible peoples/cultures available to him. The fact that ANY of this information pops up in a book alleged to be ancient, by the ‘translator’ who has access to (cont’d)
this information is supposed to tell me what ?? As noted above, it’s interesting the amount of time and posts went into the OLD WORLD connections, but these are spoken of (most of them) in the Bible anyway. You’ve offered a few things that might be novel. I’d say, totally underwhelming.
3. deserves it’s own thread, but STAY AWAY FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS if you want to prove these points: they are NOT your friends.
4, haven’t yet read Mr.Skousen, so I can’t comment on this.
5. here are some questions I’ll be asking myself as I look further into this Wordsmith thing:
what are the parameters of the testing instrument?
what were the fundamental assumptions and a priori thots as they set this up ??
what does this instrument have the ability to reasonable tell us, what is safe to extapolate from and how?
what is OUTSIDE of the istruments ability to tell us reasonably??
You get the most KUDOS for the Wordsmith thing, and the Chiasmus structures. Definitely somethng to chew on there. Stay away from geography and reformed Egyptian. Also: the myths are a wash until you start digging up material that coincides with the myth material. Until then, you have a George Lucas screenplay, not something to bet your eternal soul upon.
Appreciate your efforts, and those of M&M, FoF, Ralph and others. REGGIE, are you doing OK ??
Germit,
I do not know you, or your depth of knowledge in several of the areas you attempt to warn me off for pursuit. Having actually read all of the Church fathers for the first two centuries of the Church, with all due respect, I know what they say, what they don’t say, and where they are supportive and at times contradictory to LDS and non-LDS doctrines. For example, no person reading Justin will walk away thinking “Man, he is trinitarian.” Not even remotely.
As for the physical evidence of New World BoM archeology, I personally don’t believe there will ever be anything which will rise to the level of proof in this area. It is inherent in the BoM that there will not be. It would be illogical to require people to exercise faith, and then destroy agency by providing proof. Which is why Christ does not live among us today to prove His own resurrection. It destroys the need for faith, which in turn suppresses motivation.
Lastly, in my opinion introducing the idea of “demonic” influence on Joseph Smith in your analysis creates a scenario of manifestly circular reasoning, with no ability to introduce contrary evidence, as it will simply be interpreted as a ploy of deception. So the use of seer stones, which has many, many Biblical parallels, is seen as a demonic tool, even though the product of the work encourages only faith, goodness and dedication to God.
If the lifting of Moses’ arms was required to allow Israel to prevail, or Jesus spitting in the dirt to make clay to apply to a man’s eyes to help him see, or blessing of handkerchiefs by Paul to heal are not likewise tools to focus one’s faith, then I could agree with you. But God uses tools to strengthen us. This line of reasoning is probably a separate thread.
Peace.
vook wrote: “For example, no person reading Justin will walk away thinking “Man, he is trinitarian.” Not even remotely.”
This shows how little of Justin you have actually read.
Justin was a Trinitarian.
Lautensack
VooK: thanks for the reply
the short answer to what I’ve read on the early church fathers is “not nearly enough”. I’m trying to rectify that, I’m currently looking at Robert Wilken’s “Spirit of The Early Christian Thought” and I’m going to make early church history part of my reading diet. I will pay close attention to what I see on Justin. So far, I stand by my comment, and this is certainly ‘separate thread-worthy’. Along a similar vein: the reformers, esp. Martin Luther, are not your friends either, tho they seem to get ‘grand-fathered in’ as helping out with the restoration. Don’t think so, but that’s for later.
You are cetainly right that any demonic influence is a matter more of theological and subjective analysis: we can’t ask science to show us where, or at least exactly how, GOD or the devil operated when using means that are above the ability of our testing measures. Granted.
Your ‘physical evidence operating against faith’ is really a dodge; and GOD doesn’t seem to mind giving us tons of the stuff when it comes to the bible. I know Ralph is not that impressed with the advances made here, but the results speak (loudly) for themselves; THERE IS NO PARALLEL OF A BODY OF EVIDENCE SIMILAR FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON, even tho the time span for many of the events is hundreds, sometimes 1000’s of years younger….hmmmmmmm Your ‘this wouldn’t help our faith’ argument is a convenient way to explain away mountains of evidence that should be there and is not, at least not yet. There is no logical reason to believe that GOD would operate ONE way with these kind of things for christianity in general (OLD WORLD stuff) and then go silent when it comes to the NEW WORLD. Can you explain this kind of inconsistency ??
More on the seer stone theme and others later.
Your apologetic skills are VERY good, by the way. GERMIT
VooK: this is just a ‘fly-by’ post
It would be illogical to require people to exercise faith, and then destroy agency by providing proof. Which is why Christ does not live among us today to prove His own resurrection. It destroys the need for faith, which in turn suppresses motivation.
absolutely not the case, and just a weird idea: granted, GOD is not in the business in giving us absolute PROOF, and then ask us to act in faith/trust in what is (to our physical senses) shown to be undeniably true. But you’ve painted with too broad a brush, and your own excitement about the Wordsmith thing works AGAINST your idea, you trust the BofM that much more because it stands up to this test and others. Not PROOF, but EVIDENCE. It’s no different with the geography and archaeology, it’s just that you have a poorer hand to play (seemingly) than the stats studies. GOD does NOT mind giving sensory helps, granted there is always some kind of ‘leap of faith’, but evidences don’t shred that faith, they aren’t the bottom line, but they can and do HELP.
You’ve never addressed the issue of: if you sorely lack the PHYSICAL evidence in a book that presents itself as historical, why should anyone take the SPIRITUAL claims seriously ?? Seems to me: if wrong with the 1st (and shown to be so), then don’t bet on the 2cd.
More later, GERMIT
Lautensack,
Thanks for the in depth analysis. I agree with it up until you dropped in the absolutely unsupported “conclusion”.
Your analysis clearly shows the separateness of being of the Father (the God) and the Son (the Word). And this I totally agree with.
The interlinear translation of John 1:14 is “and the Word flesh became and tabernacles among us and we-gaze-at the glory of-Him glory as of-only-begotten-one beside Father full of-grace and truth”
Thus we see the Word (Jesus, the Son) Who was with the God in the beginning and Who was (indefinite and qualitative) God, BECAME FLESH.
Exactly as Mormons believe, and exactly as the BoM testifies.
Therefore, according to the BoM, Jesus has a body of flesh, and thus is supported by 1 John 4:1-3.
Plainly stated, those who deny that Jesus has a body of flesh are antichrist.
Cheers!
“I shall attempt to persuade you . . . that there is . . . another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things – above whom there is no other God – wishes to announce to them. . . . He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, – numerically, I mean, not (distinct) in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world – above whom there is no other God – has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with. . . . He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56 and 58 (Ante Nicene Fathers 1:223-224 and 225))
If believing in Jesus as “another God…subject to the maker of all things…above whom there is no other god”, is Trinitarian, then Mormons are Trinitarians.
This is probably a rabbit whole, but I see Justin and the Fathers abused too often to just let non-contextual comments stand as if they represented Justin’s view of the deity of Christ and his relationship to the Father. His statements are all the more astonishing when you realize he was debating the Biblical teaching of a plurality of gods with a Jew. We see him less assertive of multiple real gods in his Apologies because he seeks to avoid implying any pagan sort of understanding of the plurality of gods. Biblical gods are not at war with each other based on human emotions. To bring up the plurality of divine beings with pagans risks misunderstanding. To argue a plurality of divine beings with a Jew shows us what staunchly contrasted Christians from Jews in their understanding of the restored Biblical message.
Lautensack,
I just wanted to chime in on the John 1 analysis. As someone who does read Biblical Greek, even if somewhat feebly, you are using some approaches which should be highlighted. For example, Kai ho theos en pros ton theon indicates two beings are present. I see Trinitarians flop badly here, even Daniel Wallace (Author of “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, the standard advanced grammar in Greek linguistics today) for whom I have utmost respect, as they insert a meaning of “father” for “ho theos”, even though it says “God”. The obvious problem is God and the Word are “pros”, distinct beings in association with each other.
Secondly, your assert: “Please note that in Greek the order of the words is far less important than English” This is only true of grammar, not meaning. In fact, word order is one of the prime methods used to flag emphasis in a sentence. It is hugely significant that John uses a predicate nominative construction for this third clause. His statement imparts quality to the definite noun which follows, The Word. In other words, the Word has all of the qualitative features of the class of beings called “god”. While translating this as “the Word was a god” may go to far in the sense of adding “a”, it is actually a widely accepted translation. See also “A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John”, page 8-9, or Wallace’s GGBTB, pages 256-290. Your quote from NET Bible is actually Wallace’s work, as he was the principle translator. In GGBTB he cites John 1:14 to point out John intended a qualitative meaning: “the word became flesh”. The Greek “ho Logos sarx egeneto” also has “sarx”-flesh- without the article. The Word did not become “the” flesh, or “a” flesh, but flesh is a quality or attribute of his nature. He notes this is qualitative about 85% of the time in the NT. Other classic John phrases “God is love”, “God is Light” and “God is Spirit” all lack the definite article because they describe a particular attribute of God.
The irony of the Biblical place evidence is actually how bad it is, given the land has been continuously occupied for some 5,000 years. Most places are only speculated as to their location because of proximity to some other identified location. Jericho exists, but it lends no support whatsoever to the Biblical account. In fact, it tears it down.
I believe to think physical evidence replaces faith is very flawed. There has been a significant exodus of many of the great archaeologists of our time as their faith was lost in the dirt of Israel. A widely held belief by those who were once faithful Christians or Jews is the Bible is largely a flawed story, rewritten at times, to promote an unprovable set of beliefs. The location of the most important sites are all unknown.
So here is the argument: You may say the Bible is without error. Yet Jericho has huge, validated scientific evidence showing it did not happen. If the Bible cannot get a simple factual matter correct, how can any of it be trusted in Spiritual things?
Many of the men whose hands are in the dirt no longer believe because the dirt tells a different story. No man can know Jesus is the Christ, save by the Spirit.
You basically say Mormons must appeal to faith because they lack evidence. But we see evidence, as we have discussed here, we just don’t need evidence. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Where was Zarahemla? I don’t know. But Moroni did. And he brought plates, and showed them to witnesses, and testified of their truth. And we have those testimonies. The plates handled by more than a dozen people prove Moroni and Zarahemla did exist. JS could not afford even tin, let alone the gold or lead for plates and blacksmithing. And the co-conspirators would surely have come forward.
I am just not persuaded by a lack of evidence about Zip codes when the evidence is so well attested about its residents and writings.
It appears that this thread is running to an end as things are starting to get off topic with criticism against the Bible and its history and the early church fathers.
We LDS have given evidences in the form of literary (eg Chiasmus), geographical (eg the trip from Jerusalem to a land called Bountiful on the Arabic peninsula, Nahom, etc) and others (eg Hebrew names, the same number of fortifications found in MesoAmerica as armies mentioned in the BoM etc). These are evidences, not conclusive proof as there can be in some cases other explanations for them. And this is where you non-LDS chime in – you give the other explanations for them. But there are some you cannot so you just say that it’s a coincidence using the “give 100 monkeys a typewriter and a few years and they will write the whole works of Shakespeare by coincidence” style defence (eg Nahom and the trip from Jerusalem).
So bottom line – we have given you what you want, you have reasoned it away enough to still your own conscience so you can keep on believing there is nothing out there as evidence. No matter what you think, the evidences we have given are plausible and although you can use another explanation, it does not make your or our conclusions right or wrong. This is where faith comes in and the (dare I mention it as we have been asked not to) testimony from the Holy Ghost to assist in this faith. You have your own bias not to believe and that is why you rationalise away what we have given you. Yes there is evidence if you choose to take it that way and believe. The same stands for the Bible – look at the many atheists out there and their proofs against it.
Ah, yes, and let the whining “you are attacking the Bible” begin anew.
Ample evidence has been provided to establish plausiblity. The only way for the sincere truth seeker to “know” is to approach the source of all truth in humble, sincere and faithful prayer. Thus getting us into the topic forbidden.
Cheers all and as Paul says “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
VooK: you’ve given me quite a bit to think on, your statement about the poor quality of the archaeological evidence for the bible is something of a gauntlet laid down, maybe that will be a future thread as a contrast to this one, which is probably about up.
Regarding the Jericho account there seem to be many in the field that would disagree with your assessment. It did not take me long to find the article below, I am NOT a trained archaeologist, so this becomes ‘he said, she said’ (for GERMIT the self-confessed amateur) but the findings you mentioned , according to Dr. Wood are very flawed. I’ll do more digging, pardon the pun. Blessings and Peace.
This is from the Associates for Biblical Research website:
Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence Bryant G. Wood PhD
To All: well, I think I’ll sneak in a short list of my own before the thread closes, likely soon. Before I list a few of my faves, I’ll state aloud that these are probably ALL considered “ALREADY ANSWERED” and “OLD NEWS” to LDS in general and LDS apologists in particular. The attitude is “dragging THAT old canard up again…?” Let the reader/searcher read both sides and decide if a SATISFACTORY answer has been given. And of course, what satisfies one is found not enough by another…
Book of Mormon found fictional (but interesting in parts) because:
1)NEW WORLD GEOGRAPHY: interesting while VooK nibbles away about the interpretation of Jericho’s remains, the elephant walking thru the room is that THERE IS A JERICHO TO QUIBBLE ABOUT!! There is NOTHING like this for the BofM: No city sites, no battle grounds found, NOTHING placed, minor OR major. In light of this , the best LDS apologetic seems to be: yeah, but Bible archaeology is wanting because…. What’s left unsaid is the ridiculous imbalance: there are so MANY digs in the OLD WORLD, that we might have trouble sorting out which pile of stuff belongs to what city. No such problem over here, it’s resting quietly underground awaiting …..what ??
I find your words, VooK, about the state of bible arshaeology laced with desperation. I look forward to reading more on Jericho, and other sites that REALLY exist.
2) Reformed egyptian: deserves it’s own category. we didnt talk a lot about it, but how would you like to be an ‘expert’ in RE and start up a converstion among credentialed language guys ?? Good luck, worse yet if you try to make a NEW WORLD connection, a real one, beyond the wild ‘theory de jour’ that’s been hatched to try and defend this albatross. Where is the evidence for this once popular (among MANY thousands or more) language, in a culture that was NOT sequestered or sheltered ?It’s just painful to see what the LDS consider evidence in this area: ANY connection to ANYTHING egyptian(cont’)
1
(cont’d)
is embraced like thanksgiving turkey after the famine. This vacuum of REAL evidence will continue while the tortured reasoning to include AnYTHING near eastern/egyptian will also continue. Meanwhile the elephant of it’s non-existence in ANY world walks on: watch for any non-LDS expert in the field to say otherwise.
3)MODERNITY IN THE ‘OLD BOOK’
A very long, and detailed book could be filled with these, there are sub-categories underneath categories !! External (linen and metal production), internal (modern languages, politics, theology, social commentary), and the KJV and apocrypha is a huge sub-category of its own. A few problems of this sort would be, perhaps , just an oddity, some kind of religious ‘go-figure’ kind of deal. As a CUMULATIVE phenomena, credulity is taken down to PRINCESS BRIDE Bad Guy’s basement to be place and stretched on THE MACHINE. Not sure the setting here, but it’s kinda high.
4)MASONIC CONNECTION
This one is so weird, it begs for its own category. WE didn’t get into it much this thread, that’s OK, but boy did it get hammered a few months ago. Fascinating stuff. Again, the explanations for how MASONIC knock-offs appeared in the book and DON”T appear in NEW WORLD cultures of yesteryear IN THEIR MORMON FORM, these explanations themselves are great works of fiction. You will here the “there’s much we don’t know…” line surrounding this one…..indeed there is…..
5) SEER STONE/SCRYING/MAGIC
this is (kind of) my short list, so I’ll finish up with this one. the alleged connections to the OT Urimm and Thummim are clever and at a cursory level, make some sense….then you realize that the istrument (seer stone) they are talking about has KNOWN occult uses and history, and is being used not as a simple yes/no device (like dice were sometimes used in the NT), but a full blown REVELATION MACHINE, a means of producing ‘God’s book’. Anyone who wants to doubt this is questioned (speciously) as to their belief in the use of
Germit,
I find your list interesting, as I suspect we must talk past each other a great deal to hear stuff so different from what I thought we discussed.
1. Archeology: I personally don’t think there will ever be any NW BoM evidence rising close to the “proof” level, as that is not the nature of the BoM. Old World stuff, I’d start with Nahom, the Bountiful stuff, and the route from Jerusalem.
2. Reformed Egyptian has many examples. Just recently a sample of Hebrew scripture in Hebrew words transliterated into Egyptian was found inside an Egyptian temple or pyramid (I don’t have the article in front of me). The Shema, in Hebrew but transliterated into Greek letters was found in Austria, dating back more than 1,500 years. There are multiple examples in the Mid-East, all quite ancient. So far from a weakness, this is a great strength.
3. Internal issues beg the question of who wrote them, which I continue to remind has an astronomically small chance of being JS, based on both the contemporary eyewitness evidence and the modern Wordprint stylometry analysis. 1 in 1.5 Trillion is very close to a non-existant chance that JS wrote the text of the BoM. Avoiding the issue by attacking the content as “too new” is like accusing Einstein of copying his work from someone, but saying exactly who is unimportant. It is the point.
4. This will be fun. I have a wonderful book called “Old Testament Parallels” by Matthews & Benjamin (non-LDS) which chronicles over 1000 antecedent stories to specific OT verses, with a couple of hundred being direct text borrowings. The point is God can “borrow” from non-scriptural sources, even quoting them, to teach spiritual truth. Be careful throwing this rock to hard, you may be surprised by what we find under it.
5. I guess eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood, or carrying a Tent with God in it on an Ark, or wearing a cloak for power is too pedestrian to compare. No Problem. This would be a great topic to dissect
I don’t know how to edit something I mis-stated, so let me amend point #4 above. What I meant is that using antecedent stories, Matthews & Benjamin tie those stories to more than 1000 mostly OT Bible verses, with hundreds of verses shown to contain direct textual borrowings from these antecedent stories.
Cheers.
VooK: thanks for the give and take.
Included in the weirdness of #4 is that this quasi-Masonic set up is allegedly some kind of RESTORATION of what God had from the earliest days. Yeah…..right. You are as sharp an apologist as I’ve seen for the LDS, so far, take a stab at that. And from what I’ve been told , this temple protocol goes all the way back to ADAM. What if there were/are connections between the OT and other stuff ?? That’s not even getting you out of the blocks to establish your ‘eternal principles’ of temple this and that. A similar point: would a JEW, past or present look at this set up and say: yes,yes…..remarkably like what we’ve had for centuries…… show me such a Jewish expert, bonus points if reputable Jews speak well of said expert’s views. Your argument is more of ‘a connection here proves a connection there’. If the topic was ‘how the bible came to be’, then you’d be saying something, but it’s (for now) the BofM that’s under the scope.
For #2, does ANY kind of transliteration help you out ?? OK, transliteration happens….and that shows what ?? The core issues are not whether or not a language such as RE COULD come into being, but DID it come into being, and where do we see evidences of it. Is the Hebrew to Egyptian example above the best you have ?? If you can get me the article title, I’m happy to follow up with that….still seeing NO examples Anthon script like material….only one language transliterated into another, which NO ONE is contesting.
For #1, if I’m in your shoes , I’d do the same: cling to whatever OLD WORLD connections you have, the NEW WORLD doesn’t seem to favor you, can’t play a card you don’t have. I’ll look into the examples (the few we have), and get back on a future thread.
Back to fun,fun,fun, at work; more later
thanks, again GERMIT
Germit,
I am going to pass on discussing the Masonic implications vs. Biblical textual restoration at this time. Not really part of the proof process for the BoM. I think there is a lot of value discussing them, but this particular thread is mushrooming already, so I want to focus back on hard-science instead of trying to debate a subjective standard of proof.
Germit wrote:
“The core issues are not whether or not a language such as RE COULD come into being, but DID it come into being, and where do we see evidences of it. Is the Hebrew to Egyptian example above the best you have ??”
The answer to your first question is an overwhelming, scientifically documented “YES”. It is not just because 20 words show up here or there transliterated. Full documents are written in such Reformed Egyptian forms as Egyptian demotic. I specifically reference Papyrus Amherst 63, discovered in the 1900’s, but only recognized as a full Aramaic text written using Egyptian characters in the past 60 years. Have you heard of that practice anywhere else before? The papyrus dates from 2nd Century BC.
Then there is the ostraca dating to 598-587 BC found in Arad in the heart of Israel written in Egyptian heiratic. Does that date ring a bell? These particular artifacts are very interesting because the text is sort of a mix of Hebrew and Egyptian heiratic, would be something analogous to Spanglish today! The (NON-LDS)archaeologist who discovered them observed they were probably practice materials for training Hebrew children how to learn the Egyptian writing method for use with their language! See this article at FARMS, which has references to the source material: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=2&id=128&cat_id=339
Now, do any transliterations help? Circumstances dictate value. The main value of these two examples is the affirmative demonstration that Hebrews DID use Egyptian characters with Hebrew words in recording things.
Peace.