Any Mormons on here read the CES Letter?

[gazelam]

That’s true. So then I have to ask you…do you personally feel confident that you can address all the challenges raised by this letter?

No. I’d probably need to research most topics, but I do believe there are adequate answers available.

If you prefer not to respond that’s OK, but I’m honestly curious…do you personally have an explanation for the View of the Hebrews and its parallels to the BoM?

Being a working stiff and not an intellectual, I have neither the time nor the desire to read the many books that critics claim are Joseph Smith’s source for the Book of Mormon. I did just read A Case for the Book of Mormon by Tad Callister.

Regarding View of the Hebrews (VoH) , the points are made in the book that

1. Fawn Brodie - a proponent of the VoH theory - referred to the VoH as “just bad scholarship”, and that the Book of Mormon is “highly original and imaginative fiction”.
2. B. H. Roberts (LDS scholar) once drew up 26 parallels between VoH and the Book of Mormon. Another scholar - Hugh Nibley noted 35 parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Dead Sea scrolls. No one thinks the Dead Sea scrolls influenced the Book of Mormon. Thematic parallels do not automatically mean plagiarism.
3. The first recorded attempt at tying the Book of Mormon to VoH was done 72 years after the Book of Mormon was published. The attempt was not made when VoH was at peak circulation.

And here’s what FAIR Mormon says about View of the Hebrews.

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

I don’t think he called her a liar. I think he called her a phony and a fraud. Like there’s a big difference. It was probably almost 40 years ago when I read No Ma’am That’s Not History but maybe I should read it again. But in principle, Rebecca got you on that one.

Well if she actually provide the information we could have a debate. But that hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Prodigal1984]

What do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Most of them are just books of the Bible plus texts like Enoch, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll. I always find it interesting when people cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as if they are some completely foreign work. They aren’t. 99% of them we already knew about for centuries( the writings outside the Bible that is). The only major thing the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed for the most part is these two very important facts, that the text of the Bible was never “corrupted” as many had falsely claimed for centuries( and many still do erroneously), and also that the Essenes had a very broad biblical canon. I’m not undermining it because it was probably the greatest discovery for Christianity in the 20th century, but the notion that the collection is all of these new texts or something is false. That would be the Nag Hammadi Library.

 

[Prodigal1984]

What’s these parallels in the First Book of Napoleon? Never heard that one until reading this.
As a former Mormon missionary I would advise you to stop defending it. The entire thing is a fraud. I testify to that. Forget the View of the Hebrews, even if that one turned out being a coincidence theres still all these other issues. People can make up stories to defend it until the cows come home. There literally is an office of the church dedicated to just making stuff up to countering these historical facts that prove it is all false. I know. My father was a “bishop”. Literally a fact comes out that they never thought they’d have to be confronted with and then they brainstorm what nonsense they can feed to justify it. It actually must be an interesting thing to get paid to do. The video above is just that. Stuff they never wanted to have to acknowledge
but had no choice. The fact they need to make stuff up like this is a kid whose brother just told him there is no Santa Claus and it is some last ditch effort to justify it with riddles is totally absurd. I would be an atheist before I ever tried defending that nonsense again. I am so embarrassed I actually believed that for so many years.

 

[gazelam]

Another perfect example of when an LDS can’t respond to the initial query they go on the attack.

Are you willing to just speak to some of the questions in the CES letter? Are you able to?

Today is your lucky day! I have a guest Catholic Apologist - none other than Jimmy Akin - already refuting CES Letter issues 1, 2 & 3! He has a a new podcast on Joseph Smith. At minute 26:48 the host asks Akin if there are any bad arguments against the Book of Mormon. Akin responds by saying that complaints that the Book of Mormon includes passages from the KJV is a bad argument. He notes that copyright is a modern invention, and that ancient texts would frequently borrow from each other. For example, Isaiah 2:2-4 has the same prophecy in the same words as Malachi 4:1-3. Neither prophecy references the other. Scholars use the term “intertexuality” to describe the phenomenon.

Again, Runnells is in over his head.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Yah except the Old Testament books were written by real people, who may have been influenced by other books. This happens quite often in the Bible. Jude cites Enoch and Paul cites Greek philosophers and playwrights in a few places. He may have been influenced by it but it doesn’t undermine what he is saying.
Noone looked through magic hats like what was that Christmas movie there the Frosty the Snowman with the magician and the hat with the rabbits and eggs flinging out? I always think of Smith when I see that on TV.
I started questioning the church when I was a missionary and met a couple who are part of the RLDS or I guess they call themselves the Church of Christ now but they claim the church in Utah is the apostate church and the true one is in Independence Missouri. Realized our entire argument of an apostasy happened right in the Mormon church right after Smith’s death. After that I realized there never was an apostasy. And if there was I have no idea why we use the same New Testament as that apostasy church decided on to begin with.

 

[gazelam]

What’s these parallels in the First Book of Napoleon? Never heard that one until reading this.

What are you even talking about here?

As a former Mormon missionary I would advise you to stop defending it.

I always find it interesting when CAFers attempt to squelch debate… on a forum specifically meant for debate!

The entire thing is a fraud. I testify to that. Forget the View of the Hebrews, even if that one turned out being a coincidence theres still all these other issues.

This is a classic big list attack. The intent is to throw out so many objections at once that if one is refuted, there’s another one at the ready.

The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren’t written in search of a genuine answer. They are intended to draw blood. If there is a good defense to one, never mind, there are many more to be shot in different directions.

I am so embarrassed I actually believed that for so many years.

I’m not embarrassed in the least that I believe it.

 

[Prodigal1984]

What are you even talking about here?

Did you not read the CES Letter? In the section on the Book of Mormon further down it alludes to a First Book of Napoleon and how it stole from that as well.

 

[gazelam]

Did you not read the CES Letter? In the section on the Book of Mormon further down it alludes to a First Book of Napoleon and how it stole from that as well.

In your quest for the real source of the Book of Mormon, have you considered Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass? The parallels are stunning! The analysis is here.

 

[Horton]

Of all the charges in the CES letter this is the only one you are able to answer to. Jimmy Akin is a great apologist but I believe he is missing the point on this one. It never was about copyright or biblical text, it’s about a supposedly ancient text written in the exact language & style of the KJV. If this was truly what Smith claimed it was, an additional scripture he translated, why isn’t it either an ancient language or 19th century English?

Your response certainly does not prove Runnells is in over his head.

 

[Horton]

I’m guessing he has not read the CES letter. I wonder why someone would try to refute something they are unwilling to read?

 

[vsedriver]

it’s about a supposedly ancient text written in the exact language & style of the KJV. If this was truly what Smith claimed it was, an additional scripture he translated, why isn’t it either an ancient language or 19th century English?

hence the reason I concluded that the BoM was false.

 

[Lemuel]

I don’t think he called her a liar. I think he called her a phony and a fraud. Like there’s a big difference. It was probably almost 40 years ago when I read No Ma’am That’s Not History but maybe I should read it again. But in principle, Rebecca got you on that one.

I did a little bit of research on this and couldn’t find anything where he called her a liar (although he called her a “saint of ignorance” among other personal attacks), but it was clear that he considered her book less than honest and his unkind feelings for her were obvious. My personal conclusion was that in 1946 when he wrote the response to her book, he considered the story of the rock in the hat to be hearsay and untrue. But that’s just my take on it. I’ll let you decide.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

You don’t get excommunicated for the first question, or the second, etc. You get excommunicated when you keep asking questions, and do so publicly. In Runnells’ case, he went through the proper channels, was promised answers to his questions, but then never got any. So he kept asking, pleading with the leadership for answers. This guy wanted to stay in. He wanted to get good answers that would belay the serious problems he discovered. They never came. The answers he found out on his own seriously challenged the truth claims of Mormonism. Finally he got to the point that he couldn’t continue participating in something he knew to be false. When he was public about his experience, having been failed miserably by the leadership of the church, he was excommunicated.

Publicly questioning the doctrine of the church or its leaders is what gets you kicked out. If you stay quiet and keep your doubts to yourself, then you can stay. Of course, you would be living your own private hell, so each individual has to make their own choice in this situation.

 

[Lemuel]

You get excommunicated when you keep asking questions, and do so publicly.

As was the case of the doctor in my ward. The problem is that bishops aren’t necessarily any smarter or wiser than the Elder’s quorum secretary, so if you have a burning question, who do you turn to? Bishops often only know how to say, “have faith” or “study and pray more” or they will just tell you to avoid anything outside of church authorized materials. The problem with that is that the most damning questions generally come from the Church’s own sources. But finding someone to answer your questions can be difficult at best. Just shut up and tow the line or prepare to be disciplined.

Of course, you would be living your own private hell, so each individual has to make their own choice in this situation.

I chose hell for a lot longer than I should have. I wasted too much of my life.

 

[Stephen168]

I have a guest Catholic Apologist - none other than Jimmy Akin - already refuting CES Letter issues

The podcast was to answer the question: Is Joseph Smith a prophet?

His points were:

Mormon’s primary proof is their testimony.

The lost 116 pages is evidence against the Book of Mormon being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Nobody has seen the plates

The Bible is written in three known languages, refers to places that still exists, refer to ancient people who still exist, refers to individuals known to exist from secular writing, and archeology has found cities mentioned in the Bible. The Book of Mormon has none of these, which one should expect.

Falsely prophesied a World War would result from Nullification Crisis of 1832.

The Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, he was not able to translate the papyri, so he was not a supernatural translator. This is also evidence against Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, Joseph Smith is not a prophet and Christians should reject the Mormon teachings contained in Mormon scripture.

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. - Deuteronomy 13:1-3

 

[NeuroTypical]

This is a difference between LDS and Catholics, yes? Catholics don’t excommunicate you for apostasy. Do I understand that right? You can be a Catholic and believe, even preach, whatever you want, whether it adheres to Catholic belief or not, without risk of excommunication. If you’re a priest, they might defrock you or something, but the average lay member finds it pretty hard to get kicked out of Catholicism.

Please let me know if I’m wrong here. I think this is what’s been explained to me in the past by Catholics, but I might be fuzzy on the details.

Anyway, yes, it’s a certainty if you as an LDS person start preaching or teaching what we’d consider false doctrine, while standing on your membership in the church, it’s a good way to encounter church discipline.

I doubt anyone has been kicked out of my church for asking questions. Sowing dissent? Yes. Preaching stuff that doesn’t adhere with church teachings? Yes. Trying to force change? Yes. Trying to use your calling or our microphones to disrupt our meetings or get people to believe stuff the church doesn’t believe or want taught through callings or over microphones? Yes. But asking questions? Doubtful.

 

[Horton]

Catholics believe in mercy and the endless love of God. One of the reasons it is so difficult to be excommunicated.

You say no one gets excommunicated for asking questions, but here we are with Jeremy Runnells who was excommunicated for asking questions.

 

[Horton]

it’s a good way to encounter church discipline.

This may be one of the biggest differences between Catholics and the LDS. The Catholic Church does not “discipline” its members. When a Catholic is in error or has made a mistake, the Church would much rather show mercy, offer consolation and gentle correction.

 

[Lemuel]

But asking questions? Doubtful.

If you persist in asking questions and getting answers, then, yes you can. I wonder how many disciplinary councils you have participated in. I have many. While I have never disciplined anyone for asking questions, I was on a council that denied a man’s petition to be rebaptized because he had questions. I don’t see a lot of difference in the two.