Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

  • Thread starter Thread starter wademann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mormon fool:
…The fact that Joseph Smith could find hidden treasure with his seer stone is good evidence for the Book of Mormon. He was truly a multi-talented prophet! …
Isaac Hale would disagree:

…In the first place, it is clear that as a youth Smith was a practitioner of the occult and superstitious practice of divination, which has always been emphatically forbidden by Scripture and the Church. We have already noted his method of “translating” the golden plates. In many preliterate cultures, including that of the native North Americans, the practice of gazing at special stones (especially luminous quartz crystals) with a view to obtaining secret knowledge has been common. Among the less educated early–nineteenth-century Caucasians in upper New York, the practice of peep-stone gazing or glass-looking was sufficiently widespread to be outlawed as a form of charlatanry.

Smith later denied any participation in such activities, but the evidence cannot be ignored. Several years after Smith assumed the role of Mormon prophet, his disillusioned father-in-law, Isaac Hale, recalled how, in November 1825, a team of “money-diggers” employed Smith…]

Hale noted that, when the team began digging (without success) in the area where Smith had told them an old Spanish fortune was buried, he claimed that “the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see.” The diggers soon gave up, and Smith, who had been boarding at Hale’s house, took off, leaving an unpaid bill of $12.68 (ibid.).

Hale was not alone in testifying to Smith’s dubious activities. On December 11, 1833, another neighbor, Willard Chase, swore an affidavit before a Wayne County justice of the peace stating the way in which Smith obtained his peep-stone. In 1822, Smith and his brother Alvin assisted Chase in digging a well. Chase found a curious-looking stone, and, as they were examining it, “Joseph put it in his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.”

…]

Joseph Smith was in fact convicted of “glass-looking” in the Bainbridge Court in March 1826. The court record was printed twice in the nineteenth century, but the original was for some reason unobtainable, providing LDS apologists with a loop hole: They denied emphatically that the court record was genuine, admitting that if it was it would be a fatal blow to the credibility of their prophet (e.g., Hugh Nibley, The Myth Makers, p.142). However, on July 28, 1971, an independent document was discovered that verified the authenticity of the missing court record. It was an original bill of costs in the handwriting of Justice Albert Neely, detailing his fees for a list of cases tried in 1826. There, in the middle of the list, is the name of Joseph Smith, convicted for the “misdemeanor” of “glass-looking” on 20 March 1826. (Martin, pp. 35–38). The Maze of Mormonism reproduces a photograph of this document and gives still further contemporary evidence of Smith’s “peeping” activities with his stone and hat.

Smith’s consistency is also open to serious question. The final, official version of Smith’s discovery of the plates is, as we have seen, that the angel Moroni appeared and informed him how to get them. But two neighbors, the brothers Hiel and Joseph Lewis (regarded by their fellow citizens as “truthful, honorable, Christian gentlemen”) testified that in 1827, when he first began translating the alleged plates, Smith’s original story was that his mystic information was none other than the ghost of a bearded Spaniard, with his throat cut from ear to ear and blood streaming down. Not one word about angels (ibid. pp.335–336)!

…]

Also, Smith’s handling of money scarcely inspires confidence in his reliability. G. T. Harrison, a practicing attorney and former Mormon, researched the court records of Geauga County, Ohio, and found that 13 lawsuits were brought against Smith between 1837 and 1839 by creditors, for sums totaling nearly $25,000. Most of these resulted from the failure of a highly dubious “bank” that he had set up in Kirtland in contravention of Ohio state laws.

Although the LDS church has subsequently denied that he was ever proven guilty, the court records show at least five convictions (Martin, pp.38–39). Smith by that time had a large following of reverential disciples who had to bail him out constantly…

source: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea3.asp

The sections I had to omit for brevity are interesting, too.
 
QUOTE] So my question became: What did the first century Christians do that was so evil that God removed His keys of authority? To date, I have found the LDS responses to this all-important question wanting.

Augustine,
Do you think the BOM is true, false, partially true, or remains to be seen? If you think it’s false, then where do you think it came from? Thanks for bringing intelectual honesty to this thread. Not that I’m an intelectual, but I think I can learn alot from you as well as casen and mormonfool.
 
40.png
wademann:
Casen,

Anyone,

What absolute irrefutable evidence do you have that the BOM is not true?
Go to Alma 46:13 and compare it to the Bible in the Book of Acts. In alma 46, it mentions that there where christians already at that time. The book of alma was written at around 73 B.C. That’s at least what the book of Mormon says. Now think as to how it could be that there were christians at around this time when it was BEFORE CHRIST. Plus, the Book of Acts says that the first Christians where in Antioch not in the land of Nephi which the BOM mentions the christians where. One more thing, the book of Acts was written after 33 A.D. Try to reconcile the date and please let me know if you have. That certainly would be interesting.
 
I once had a young ex-mormon tell me, that he believed that Joseph Smith did see an angel and wrote the BOM, but that it was a fallen angel. That was really the best argument that I had ever heard, because that would be the only way to wipe a large part of the evidence away.
 
BJ Colbert:
I know you will say anything to disprove it, just because you are Catholic. Yet you believe that statues cry real tears and bleed real blood. How far-fetched is that?
🙂 BJ
Some catholics do take it so far and i’m not saying “all.” But try to see if the Church does approve all these things. The Catholic Church is slow in approving any apparition or miracle.

Let’s take a look at some evidences on the life of JS. he was born in 1805. He received a revelation , at the age of 14, from God that none of the churches were right and he was not to join any. He supposedly was to restore the real Truth. This brings us to 1819. But on 1826 he was found guilty of being “a disorderly person and an impostor” in connection with his use of a peep stone to search for buried treasure. Now the question is “how could someone who received a vision from God to restore the truth of Jesus Christ and bring it to the whole world do such a thing?”

Evidence of the above mentioned statement is to be found in irr.org/mit/divination.html.
 
40.png
gryskull:
Go to Alma 46:13 and compare it to the Bible in the Book of Acts. In alma 46, it mentions that there where christians already at that time. The book of alma was written at around 73 B.C. That’s at least what the book of Mormon says. Now think as to how it could be that there were christians at around this time when it was BEFORE CHRIST. Plus, the Book of Acts says that the first Christians where in Antioch not in the land of Nephi which the BOM mentions the christians where. One more thing, the book of Acts was written after 33 A.D. Try to reconcile the date and please let me know if you have. That certainly would be interesting.
Gryskull,
You decided to pick on the dummy huh? images/icons/icon10.gif I am not as well read as some of brainiacs on this thread, but I will give what I think. If you look at alma 18:39 it says

" but this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the lord did he make known unto them."

It seems to me that any one that believed in this revelation would be called christian, if christian means believing in Christ. Seems too simple, but I defer to Augustine, casen and mormonfool to check my work
 
40.png
gryskull:
Some catholics do take it so far and i’m not saying “all.” But try to see if the Church does approve all these things. The Catholic Church is slow in approving any apparition or miracle.

Let’s take a look at some evidences on the life of JS. he was born in 1805. He received a revelation , at the age of 14, from God that none of the churches were right and he was not to join any. He supposedly was to restore the real Truth. This brings us to 1819. But on 1826 he was found guilty of being “a disorderly person and an impostor” in connection with his use of a peep stone to search for buried treasure. Now the question is “how could someone who received a vision from God to restore the truth of Jesus Christ and bring it to the whole world do such a thing?”

Evidence of the above mentioned statement is to be found in irr.org/mit/divination.html.
 
40.png
gryskull:
Some catholics do take it so far and i’m not saying “all.” But try to see if the Church does approve all these things. The Catholic Church is slow in approving any apparition or miracle.

Let’s take a look at some evidences on the life of JS. he was born in 1805. He received a revelation , at the age of 14, from God that none of the churches were right and he was not to join any. He supposedly was to restore the real Truth. This brings us to 1819. But on 1826 he was found guilty of being “a disorderly person and an impostor” in connection with his use of a peep stone to search for buried treasure. Now the question is “how could someone who received a vision from God to restore the truth of Jesus Christ and bring it to the whole world do such a thing?”

Evidence of the above mentioned statement is to be found in irr.org/mit/divination.html.
Wasn’t Jesus arrested? Is that your irrefutable evidence? I see these same old tired stories get thrown out, that have already been refuted, maybe not to your satisfaction, but to a few million mormons satisfaction. This is not irrefutable. Joseph Smith had many enemies in which satan could use to do his bidding. If this is the true church, wouldn’t you think that the forces of evil would do anything to stop it’s growth? But through all these years of persecution and anti-mormon reteric, it continues to grow. If you look at the history of the church there is no way it should have survived, but it has. How do you explain that? Look at the link in casen’s earlier post, in the section about BOM nuggets. Can you refute all of that?
 
40.png
DeFide:
…In the first place, it is clear that as a youth Smith was a practitioner of the occult and superstitious practice of divination,
which has always been emphatically forbidden by Scripture.
Joseph Smith’s prophetic abiliities are not substantially different from biblical prophets like Moses, Joseph, Urim and Thummin toting High Priests, Samuel, or Jesus using a pagan healing ritual etc. I don’t see how biblical injunctions against sorcery works against both sets of prophets.
, the practice of peep-stone gazing or glass-looking was sufficiently widespread to be outlawed as a form of charlatanry.
Here’s the NY statute: “…all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, *or to discover where lost goods may be found; … shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons”

*No way Joseph Smith gets convicted of this in a trial, which is probably why he got let off after a preliminary hearing. His own employer, Josiah Stowell, would not testify against Joseph Smith as a charlatan. Without that testimony, Gordon Madsen argued that Joseph couldn’t have been convicted of fraud. As a prophet-in-training Joseph Smith had no need to pretend.
The diggers soon gave up, and Smith, who had been boarding at Hale’s house, took off, leaving an unpaid bill of $12.68 (ibid.).
I am not sure what the status on this bill is/was, but a lot of things were done on credit. Since Hale let Joseph move back I am guessing the debt was satisfied or forgiven, even if Hale griped about it.
Joseph Smith was in fact convicted of “glass-looking” in the Bainbridge Court in March 1826.
It is obviously a preliminary hearing as even critic Dan Vogel points out.
Viewing the court transcript as a record of a preliminary hearing resolves some discrepancies that would otherwise remain inexplicable. The authenticity of the court transcript has been questioned on the grounds that “it has Joseph testify first, giving the defense before the prosecution has made its case” as would be expected in a trial record. [7] But Thomas G. Waterman’s Justice’s Manual of 1825 specifically instructed justices regarding pretrial examinations: “After the examination of the accused, all witnesses present are to be examined on oath touching the complaint.”
[cont]
 
40.png
DeFide:
Joseph Smith was in fact convicted of “glass-looking” in the Bainbridge Court in March 1826.
As my Vogel link points out guilty =/= conviction in the context of a preliminary hearing. The tract quotes Nibley, Kirkham, and Walters while ignoring Vogel and Madsen, showing how out of date it is with current scholarship.
Smith’s consistency is also open to serious question. The final, official version of Smith’s discovery of the plates is, as we have seen, that the angel Moroni appeared and informed him how to get them.
It is a serious question, so thank goodness it was tackled by a serious scholar Mark Ashurst-McGee. AM documents that Joseph Smith always told the same story:
Returning to the historical record, we can summarize the documentary evidence: (1) All firsthand accounts agree on Moroni’s identity as an angel. (2) The earliest accounts say that Moroni is an angel. (3) A contextual consideration indicates that Moroni made a better angel than a treasure guardian. (4) A closer look at what the treasure-guardian sources actually say clearly demonstrates that their source is not Joseph Smith but rather run-ofthe-mill treasure-lore superimposed upon his story. In this case, it is not difficult to discern the direction in which Moroni’s metamorphosis occurred. In conclusion, folklore analysis and the ground rules of history support the thesis that Joseph Smith’s encounters with Moroni are best understood as the visits of a heavenly messenger to a prayerful seeker.
Although the LDS church has subsequently denied that he was ever proven guilty, the court records show at least five convictions (Martin, pp.38–39). Smith by that time had a large following of reverential disciples who had to bail him out constantly…
Actually the church has very forthright that Joseph Smith was plagued by many vexatious lawsuits stemming from religious persecution. The best studies on these court cases are conducted in byustudies, hardly a secret.
The sections I had to omit for brevity are interesting, too.
Thanks for sparing us 😉 .
 
RE: Kirtland Bank Failures

Smith’s money troubles were caused by his followers, more than they were alleviated by them alleviated by them. The Kirtland bank failure was typical of the many other bank failures that year.
 
the names joe smith used like “mormon” or “moroni” or “jaredities” have no consistent identifiable etymology. all of the names in the scriptures have a meaning in hebrew -they all have origins. like moses means “take out” in hebrew. even common english names have some origin. this shows how joe smith just made them up.

if i claimed that an ancient race of people descended from the greeks inhabited australia in the 4th century b.c., nobody would believe me because there is no evidence of it!!! nobody has ever found any evidence of greek civilization in australia. but according to mormon logic, i could argue that since we really can’t know anything for certain, all that we are left with is faith and that it is reasonable to believe that the greeks lived in australia. even with zero archeological evidence!!??

this is totally opposed to how the catholic church testifies to itself by using historical evidence to show it is same church founded by Jesus and document how it refined its doctrine over 2000 years.

mormonism totally depends on a conspiracy theory that early teachings were somehow lost and the hebrews traveled to the americas despite having zero evidence. if you believe this, why not believe my fantasy about greeks in australia? what’s the difference?

also, there are plenty of other crack pots who claimed they too recieved special revelation. see Manichæism or islam. why not believe in them?
 
Oat soda said: the names joe smith used like “mormon” or “moroni” or “jaredities” have no consistent identifiable etymology. all of the names in the scriptures have a meaning in hebrew -they all have origins.

Oat soda, you haven’t done your homework again…

From: *Book of Mormon Names * by Paul Y Hoskisson

The Lehite-Mulekite names often show greatest affinity with Semitic languages (CWHN 6:281-94). For instance, Abish and Abinadi resemble ab, father, names in Hebrew; Alma appears in a Bar Kokhba letter (c. A.D. 130) found in the Judean desert; Mulek could be a diminutive of West Semitic mlk, king; Omni and Limhi appear to have the same morphology as Old Testament Omri and Zimri; Jershon is remarkably close to a noun form of the Hebrew root yrs (see below). Some Lehite-Mulekite names more closely resemble Egyptian: Ammon, Korihor, Pahoran, and Paanchi (CWHN 5:25-34).
…Jershon is the toponym for a land given by the Nephites to a group of Lamanites as an inheritance; based on the usual correspondence in the King James Version of j for the Hebrew phoneme /y/, Book of Mormon Jershon could correspond to the Hebrew root yrs meaning “to inherit,” thus providing an appropriate play on words in Alma 27:22: “and this land Jershon is the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.”


And here’s an exerpt from an interesting article about how Mulek, a character in the Book of Mormon that traveled to the Americas by boat, and was also a “son of King Zedekiah” may be the same person as Malkiyahu, (Mulek being a short version of his full formal name Malkiyahu). An ancient seal bearing the title “Malkiyahu the son of the king” was recently discovered in Jerusalem.

So was Mulek the “Malkiyahu the son of the king” mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6? Nothing in the Bible or the Book of Mormon negates this identification. And the evidence rehearsed above lends significant support to it. The m-l-k basis of both Hebrew names is clear, and the case of Berekhyahu/Baruch demonstrates that there is theoretical precedent for a person being called both Malkiyahu and Mulek–the one a longer, more formal version of the name with a theophoric yahu element [an ending based on an abbreviation of the divine name, YHWH], and the other a shorter form lacking that element but featuring a different vowel vocalization. Malkiyahu/Mulek would not have been killed by the Babylonians before Zedekiah’s eyes, as were his brothers (all younger than himself), because as the king’s oldest son and heir to the throne, he was likely sent to Egypt by his father well before the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of the royal family. Whether Mulek was sent to Egypt as a royal messenger or ambassador or in an effort to ensure his safety, it is unlikely that he could have taken all of his possessions with him to Egypt. Other men in Judah with the ben hamelek title are known to have possessed multiple stamp seals, and if Malkiyahu/Mulek did also it would have been easy for him to have left one behind. Some 2,570 years or so later, that seal was found by someone digging in Jerusalem and was surreptitiously sold. The stamp seal of “Malkiyahu son of the king” now in the London collection of Shlomo Moussaieff seems to be authentic. In answer to the question posed at the outset of this article–and the significance of this can hardly be overstated–it is quite possible that an archaeological artifact of a Book of Mormon personality has been identified. It appears that the seal of Mulek has been found.

From: Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?, by Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003, pp. 72-83

There are lots more too:

Zarahemla (Omni 1:12) seems to be Hebrew meaning “seed of compassion”, Cumorah is probably Hebrew (kemorah) meaning “priesthood”, an abstract noun based on the word (komer).

Ishmael died before Lehi’s family left the Arabian Peninsula for the americas at a place called Nahom (Hebrew meaning is “to comfort”). Interestingly a place called Nehhem has been noted in northern Yemen where two alter inscriptions from approximately BC 600 (the time line of Lefi) also mention the name.
See *Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon * by John A. Tvedtnes

There is much more I could post on this subject but I’ve probably gone on too long already.
 
Hi Casen,

Thank you so much for your kind words. You wrote:
I appreciate your honest approach.>>
Me: Thanks again. I really do try to be objective; I try to place myself in the shoes of a person whose paradigm I am investigating, trying to think, for instance, as Mormon would think when I read about the CoJCoLDS—pro and/or con.
I’ve said for years that if I wasn’t LDS I’d have to be Catholic because I haven’t found any other viable alternative, considering the importance of authority.>>
Me: You probably already know this, but many of the same “ministries” that attack Mormonism, also attack the Catholic Church. Hmmm…
…do you have an opinion or theory as to its origin?>>
Me: I am kind of black and white on this one: either Joseph Smith Jr. received revelation/s from God, or he received it/them from the Devil—I am just not convinced by the arguments based on naturalistic presuppositions.

I think we are dealing with spiritual matters, and as such, I refuse to let naturalist assumptions dominate the discussion. For instance, I was a believer in the supernatural character of the Bible long before I became a Catholic. I am quite sure that I have a spiritual witness/testimony of the divine nature of the Bible.

Back to the BoM. To be honest (and I am sure I will take some heat on this from my Catholic brothers/sisters), I must say that I do not have a spiritual witness/testimony on either the truthfulness or falsehood of the BoM. Don’t know what else to say on this issue; I am just trying to be honest. I know that huge implications are at stake, but I refuse to take a hard stance on this issue without a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

Hope you understand,

Aug
 
Hi tkdnick,

You posted:
So you don’t have specific issues with the BoM, but more with the actual church? Did I read that right?>>
Me: I do have some unresolved “issues” with the BoM (see my post to Casen), but, and I do not know how to be any more clear on this, the real issue between the RCC and CoJCoLDS boils down to “great” apostasy—i.e. did the early Christian Church loose Her authority?

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
40.png
wademann:
If this is the true church, wouldn’t you think that the forces of evil would do anything to stop it’s growth? But through all these years of persecution and anti-mormon reteric, it continues to grow. If you look at the history of the church there is no way it should have survived, but it has. How do you explain that?
Actually it’s quite simple. Though the early LDS church faced considerable persecution in its very early days, once it escaped to Utah it was able to flourish in a place where there was no persecution. That is why it survived and grew. In Utah, the church set up its own society with its own government and laws, all run by the church free from external threats. You make it sound like the LDS church has been persecuted throughout its entire existence. This is simply not true, and your argument is in fact an argument for the continuity of the Catholic church, which survived far greater persecution over a much longer period of time. The Catholic church survived (and thrived ) despite 300+ years of viscious persecution by the Roman empire, far worse than anything endured by the Mormon church in 19th-century America. I don’t know how anyone can objectively look at the Catholic church and explain how it has managed to survive. Kings come and go, nations rise and fall, governments form and topple–yet the Catholic church remains as the world’s oldest continuing institution. How else but under divine protection can you explain that? Yes, the early LDS suffered some terrible persecution, but when put in perspective, the Mormon church has enjoyed the safety and security of growing within the relatively tolerant culture of the United States.
 
40.png
AugustineH354:
Me: I do have some unresolved “issues” with the BoM (see my post to Casen), but, and I do not know how to be any more clear on this, the real issue between the RCC and CoJCoLDS boils down to “great” apostasy—i.e. did the early Christian Church loose Her authority?

Grace and peace,

Aug
Couldn’t agree with you more. The “great apostacy” is the key. It is where Mormons and Catholics should focus our discussions. It’s this issue that led me back strongly into the Catholic church when I started doing my own research instead of relying on the assumed apostacy theory taught to me by the Mormon missionaries. What I found was that the early church was Catholic, not Mormon. All the big doctrines and teachings are there in the writings of the early church fathers. If you want to know what the earliest Christians believed and practiced, the ECF’s are a terrific source.
 
Augustine,
Thanks for responding to my question. I agree the issue of the “great apostasy” is important.

Since you know so much about both religions and the doctrines of each, I would be interested, perhaps in another thread, in hearing what you feel you gave up and also gained by choosing RCC over CoJCoLDS in terms of doctrine. For example, I’d have a real problem giving up the beautiful doctrine found in D&C Section 76 which describes the Plan of Salvation in so much detail and for which I’ve received a personal witness (but I’m no expert on Catholicism so perhaps there is something similar in Catholic teachings, considering the Bible talks of “many mansions”).

That’s just an example but I’m curious if there were items taught in the D&C or PoGP you felt you were “giving up” or RCC beliefs that differ from LDS beliefs that you are grateful to have gained. Your answer might help me better appreciate the RCC.
 
Hi Wade,

You posted:
Do you think the BOM is true, false, partially true, or remains to be seen? If you think it’s false, then where do you think it came from? Thanks for bringing intelectual honesty to this thread. Not that I’m an intelectual, but I think I can learn alot from you as well as casen and mormonfool.>>
Me: I am not an intellectual either, just love to read, and have the time to read a lot. As for the BoM: “remains to be seen” (see my recent post to Casen for clarification).

Now, perhaps this would be a good place to add some further thoughts on the BoM, in addition to my reflections to Casen. Although the real issue is whether or not Joseph Smith Jr. was called as a prophet by God (or deceived to think so by the Devil), and this, of course, is directly linked with the issue of the apostasy, beyond this, it must be said that the BoM contains much truth. Even the most ardent Christian detractors of the BoM are forced to admit this, for the BoM contains a considerably portion of quotations from the Bible. I would also add that some good, sound, Biblical based theological principles are found in the BoM. But if the early Christian Church never lost the keys of authority, such admissions are essentially irrelevant.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top