Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[AugustineH354]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for responding. You wrote:

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.>>

Me: It was back in the early 80’s (81/82) that I purchased the 38 volume set of the ANF/NF/PNF’s published by Eerdmans. I quickly developed a passion for the writings of the ECF’s, and have supplemented my Eerdmans set with dozens of other works on and by the ECF’s (including some important Greek and Latin editions). But it was the reading of John Henry Newman that helped me to crystallize the issue of authority. Fact is, one can find Mormon doctrine in the ANF’s quite easily; but on the flip side, one will also find Catholic doctrine (what one will not find are the doctrines unique to the Protestant revolt). Mormons will see a deformation of doctrine as the post-NT age advances, while Catholics will see a legitimate development of doctrine (the acorn becoming an oak tree analogy). I have coined a phrase that I think sums of the situation: “Either divine development or divine restoration”.

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[wademann]

Chris-WA:

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.

Chris,
There’s a inside joke among mormons that says; “if it wasn’t for divine guidance the missionaries would have ruined the church a long time ago”. I thought that was pretty funny when I first heard it. You have a good point about the catholic church, but didn’t they have a lot of time to grow so large, that just the sheer size of membership, could be the reason that they survived? We believe that the US is the promised land, and that the Lord’s ulimate design was for the Gospel to be brought back in this time and circumstance.

 

[tkdnick]

AugustineH354:

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?

I think this is the main issue between the LDS and any church. And I believe it is up to the LDS to prove that it happened. And at which point they must also prove that their church is truly the restored church.

 

[tkdnick]

AugustineH354:

I purchased the 38 volume set of the ANF/NF/PNF’s published by Eerdmans.

What is this? What do the abbreviations stand for?

 

[tkdnick]

wademann:

You have a good point about the catholic church, but didn’t they have a lot of time to grow so large, that just the sheer size of membership, could be the reason that they survived?

This case could be made for the latter part of Church history. However, this can’t be made for early Church history. During it’s “fledgling” years, Christians (Catholics) were hunted and killed by Romans, as well as Jews, and I’m sure other groups as well, solely based on the fact that that they were Christians. Hundreds and thousands of people lost their lives for their faith. While it’s true that the LDS church suffered a good deal of persecution, I have not seen evidence that there were mass huntings and killings of members simply because they were members. I have not seen evidence that there was an attempt to wipe LDS out as there was to wipe Catholics out.

 

[TOmNossor]

I am about to go out town so I can briefly say hello and then vanish to another country where I probably will have no access to a computer. Sometimes it is best not to get into the fray.

Do I “always” talk about him? I just note that despite the fact that I have a fair amount of knowledge about the Catholic Church and Catholic apologetics, there are those who have greater knowledge about my church and the Catholic Church and see things very differently. My testimony must account for this truth and my witness should not unduly shake the faith of Catholics.

Anyway, noticing some of the comments on this thread I thought it would be interesting to confirm some of the things AugustineH354 has said. I am quite certain he has 15000+ books. I am still quite convinced that he has more knowledge of Mormonism and Catholicism (not to mention a number of other religious –isms) than I do, and he believes the Catholic Church is the best solution to the question of which church is most likely God’s “one true church” (whatever that means). This fact gives folks such as myself who think they know a little about Catholicism and Mormonism reason to pause before we get too bold with our addressing of silliness like the “Clement test.”

So I cannot guarantee that he has read all of the books on his shelf. I can tell you that on multiple occasions he would say something like, “Oh, this is discussed in ‘such and such’ book” or “Let’s see what Socrates (or Clement of Rome) said in context.” He could walk straight to the location of “such and such” book, pull it off the shelf. Often upon opening “such and such book” or some other book I might pull off the shelf there would be highlighter marks throughout.

Now, I am somewhat of a LDS apologist, but in response to this from Anima Christi:
Anima Christi:

It is up to Mormons to bear the burden of proof and show us why the Book of Mormon and the LDS church are true. It is not our responsibility to show that it isn’t

true.

I say, if you are a committed Catholic then I can agree with this statement when it comes to inviting you to read the BOM for the purposes of converting or deciding if you should convert. I also would suggest that we will not PROVE such things and you should continue being a Catholic who doesn’t read the BOM until/unless you feel you have been call/convicted to do so. Since I have always maintained that I am here to invite Catholics to not disparage, condemn, spread falsehoods, … concerning LDS; I believe my landscape is quite different.

If a Catholic chooses to boldly declare the BOM to be false and the faith I have in it to be misplaced, then I believe the burden has now shifted. The majority of the threads on Mormonism on this board include bold statements about how obviously false the CoJCoLDS is. If one personally dismisses the CoJCoLDS, that is their business. But when said person chooses to tell me that I should dismiss the CoJCoLDS or that I am intellectual deficient (must have “taken leave of my senses”) for accepting it, the burden of proof is upon them.

Now I believe the “preponderance of the evidence” points to the CoJCoLDS as God’s church. AugustineH354 believes the “preponderance of the evidence points” to the Catholic Church as God’s church. But I know I do not believe either has been proven true or false “beyond a shadow of a doubt” by the evidences. I suspect AugustineH354 would say the same thing (and he has WAY more evidences in his possession than I do).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning the five best objections:

I would be interesting to see the five best objections, and AugustineH354 could probably provide responses as good or better than the ones found on the internet, but if you would like to save him and others time you can do what I did when I felt “call/convicted” to investigate the Catholic Church. When I came across ideas that I thought were damning for the Catholic Church I would search for my own Catholic apologetics. Catholic Answers was one of the places I would regularly go. Another trick I learned was that if I searched for “Catholic, Mary, worship” I would have to sort through many anti-Catholic sites before I found a Catholic responses, but if I searched for “anti-Catholic, Mary, worship” I would find mostly Catholic responses (it seems anti-Catholics do not like to call themselves anti-Catholics). So fairlds.org has a good topical guide section and farms.byu.edu has a lot of articles.

And when reading the LDS responses to your “slam-dunk” evidence, remember that Catholicism is not without its difficult to respond to problems. Certainly LDS explanations for the lack of bodies in upstate New York will not be a reason that non-LDS should become LDS, but Catholics explanations of how Pope … behaved horribly or taught falsity will not lead one to a conviction of the Catholic Church. The responses to our problems are seldom evidences (although occasionally they are), but the responses to our evidences (when they exist at all) are also seldom anti-evidences.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I am about to go out town so I can briefly say hello and then vanish to another country where I probably will have no access to a computer. Sometimes it is best not to get into the fray.

Do I “always” talk about him? I just note that despite the fact that I have a fair amount of knowledge about the Catholic Church and Catholic apologetics, there are those who have greater knowledge about my church and the Catholic Church and see things very differently.

Nice to see you again TOm.

Enjoy your trip!

I didn’t mean always in the sense of you talking about him all the time. I meant always in the sense that you have made references to “a friend” who knows more about religions than you. I assumed it was always the same friend, which is where always came from.

 

[AugustineH354]

The 38 volume set I abbreviated as “ANF/NF/PNF” is:

*The Ante-Nicene Fathers *- 10 volumes

*The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series *- 14 volumes

*The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series *- 14 volumes

Aug

 

[oat_soda]

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;

give me a break. you’re really trying hard to find a hebrew origin. nearly all the other names are right out of the KJV. what is the hebrew origin of moroni or mormon? where did it come from?

Jered or Jared = “descent” son of Mahalaleel and father of Enoch in the 4th generation from Seth a descendant of Judah and father of Gedor

so jered or jared is from the bible.

Nephishesim or Nephusim = “refreshed of spices” a family of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel

nephishesim is from the book of nehemiah.

if i claimed that an ancient race of people descended from the greeks inhabited australia in the 4th century b.c., would you believe me? no, because unless there is substantial evidence, it’s a fantasy. just like the BOM.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

This case could be made for the latter part of Church history. However, this can’t be made for early Church history. During it’s “fledgling” years, Christians (Catholics) were hunted and killed by Romans, as well as Jews, and I’m sure other groups as well, solely based on the fact that that they were Christians. Hundreds and thousands of people lost their lives for their faith. While it’s true that the LDS church suffered a good deal of persecution, I have not seen evidence that there were mass huntings and killings of members simply because they were members. I have not seen evidence that there was an attempt to wipe LDS out as there was to wipe Catholics out.

Oh no here goes.

I would suggest that the survival of the early church is only a problem for non-Christian religions. Christians believe that Christ was the Son of God. He chose Apostles to spread his message. He promised the Holy Spirit would be with believers. Christians do not have a problem seeing divine protection in the early church.

Also, while I agree with AugustineH354 that the Apostasy must have occurred at the end of the public ministry of the apostles (generally their death), I would suggest that there was a valid lesser authority that continued to shepherd the truth and aided in the formation of the Bible (this is a James Barker idea and he suggests that this lesser authority slowly vanished after the development that accepted heretical baptism). The survival of the Early Church as a group that formed the Bible and preserved the witness of Christ was integral to the Restoration in my eyes.

Non-LDS are not able to similarly explain the survival of the early CoJCoLDS, but I would agree the persecution while quite powerful was not as powerful as the persecution of the Early Church.

Charity, TOm

 

[DeFide]

TOmNossor:

Non-LDS are not able to similarly explain the survival of the early CoJCoLDS, but I would agree the persecution while quite powerful was not as powerful as the persecution of the Early Church.

Charity, TOm

This point seems irrelevant. There are many new sects and religions that “survive”, but that doesn’t make them authentic.

 

[wademann]

tkdnick:

This case could be made for the latter part of Church history. However, this can’t be made for early Church history…

I don’t know much about catholic history, but couldn’t the case be made that early church history was before the apostasy, if there was an apostasy?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

DeFide:

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.

A well-known example from English history of this ancient practice of scrying is that practiced by Doctor John Dee (1527-1608) and his (somewhat shady) associate Edward Kelly. Kelly hired a boy for this practice (boys were, according to the classical theory, young enough and pure enough not to have their spiritual vision clouded: therefore, they were the ideal mediums) - and angels were seen.​

It is at least remarkable that Moroni was an angel, seen by a young Joseph Smith, through the use of a practice which sounds remarkably like scrying.

Dee and Joseph Smith were both interested in “Enochian” matters & codes; in angelic messages; in ancient matters; in "white "occultism. Both had a liking for fantastic genealogy & for making connections with the past/.

"He (= Dee) drew up a family tree which originated with an ancient Welsh king, Rhodri Mawr, Rhodri the Great, thus connecting Dee with the house of Tudor and Queen Elizabeth. He likened himself consciously to the druids, to Welsh tradition, trying to appropriate it to the royal advantage. Therefore, not so much of the mystic, Dee plundered seams of legend which fed back into a recognisable picture we now know as nationalism, Welsh and English. The Enochian angel-speak recorded by Dee and Kelly is also reminiscent of ancient Welsh (a language understood by Dee) and possibly Aztec (Dee possessed an Aztec mirror of obsidian, now in the British Museum)…

After being pilloried for forgery (and possibly losing his ears), [Edward Kelly] traveled around Dee’s favourite principality, Wales, where he claimed to have unearthed various valuable artifacts at Glastonbury Abbey (a key site in Arthurian legend, of course).

map.twentythree.us/dee.html

Kelly’s activities are not unlike those of Joseph Smith: both claim to find antiquities; both are of slightly disreputable character.

Joseph Smith is certainly an interesting character. ##

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.”

…]

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.

[snip]

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

give me a break. you’re really trying hard to find a hebrew origin. nearly all the other names are right out of the KJV. what is the hebrew origin of moroni or mormon? where did it come from? so jered or jared is from the bible. nephishesim is from the book of nehemiah.

I addressed what the Hebrew meaning of Moroni in post 26 and provided a link to Casen’s Tvedtnes source, which I invite you to check out if you are brave enough.

The cumulative case has to be considered. You are right that some Hebrew names are similiar to those found in the Bible and some are not.

What do you do with with the Hebrew names that are not found in the Bible but are found in other sources not accessible to Joseph Smith like Alma?

 

[mormon_fool]

Gottle of Geer:
Kelly’s activities are not unlike those of Joseph Smith: both claim to find antiquities; both are of slightly disreputable character.

I find comparisons to biblical prophets much more deep and enlightening. It is easy to see that Joseph Smith was heavily influenced and had access to the Bible. I doubt the Smith family library contained any of Dee and Kelly’s works.

I understand that scrying was part of the culture of the times, but really it only helps us understand a minor part of Joseph Smith. To summarize Dr. Bushman at his Library of Congress address, Joseph Smith must be considered from many worldviews (histories) to account for him.

 

[DeFide]

Next, we have the incident of the Kinderhook Plates, where Smith was exposed as a fraud in his claims to be be a divinely-guided translator and prophet by some folks playing a trick on him:

utlm.org/onlineresources/kinderhookplates.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

wademann:

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.

satan can’t be summonsed or interviewed - so arguments which bring in allegedly satanic activity may be as easily denied as affirmed.​

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?

What is wrong with this:​

Major premise: True prophets are persecuted
Minor premise: I am persecuted
Conclusion: I am a true prophet.

The problem is, that persons who claim to be prophets may be prosecuted, not persecuted, for unprophetly activites: such as fraud, murder, or a host of criminal activities. That is why St. Peter writes: “If any of you should suffer, let him suffer as a Christian…”

Lots of causes & organisations do very well despite opposition: Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Islam, Protestantism, are just a few. Mormonism’s early troubles are no evidence of anything either supernatural or even morally good. Mormonism can perfectly well be something less than Divinely approved - just as the position of its critics implies.

No movement is wholly bad - even Fascism has the virtue of insisting on obedience (albeit a warped sort of obedience); and Mormonism has its virtues too: if it were utterly foul from top to bottom, no body would touch it. But it’s not - so people are attracted to it. That is not, however, an argument that it is a good thing in itself; if it is to be shown to be theologically legitimate, a far stronger case for it needs to be made.

Mormons were in the fortunate position of being able to escape opposition by moving West & consolidating themselves as a society. Having martyrs and a holy book or two, and the beginnings of a priesthood, can hardly have hindered them. And schism has the helpful effect of getting rid of the self-selected dissidents, and so, of increasing the cohesion of the group. Add someone with the abilities of Brigham Young as a ruler and guide, war-leader and disciplinarian, and the boost given to Mormonism by incoming - and rootless - settlers and emigrants; and it would have been amazing if Mormonism had *not *flourished. ##

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Next, we have the incident of the Kinderhook Plates, where Smith was exposed as a fraud in his claims to be be a divinely-guided translator and prophet by some folks playing a trick on him:

utlm.org/onlineresources/kinderhookplates.htm

How about reading pro-LDS article, say here, addressing the same material and see if you can draw the same conclusion. I getting worn out by all the topic shifts, but thanks for your continued interest.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oat soda:

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?

It is certainly striking that much of the detail in the OT is compatible with the mediaeval narrative that tells how the Gaels of Scotland are descendants of a Greek prince named Gathelos and his wife, the Egyptian princess Scota. If Scotland is the land called Israel in the OT, as the Biblical evidence suggests, then the Scots are the true Jews.​

For example:

Edinburgh = Adonai-burgh
Kintyre - Kahan-Tyr = Priest of Tyre: Tyre was not far from Israel; Kintyre is not far from Scotland
David is the name of an Israelite & a Scottish king, both of good character
The OT says much of islands & coasts - this is a plain allusion to the Western Isles and the Hebrides
Hebrides = descendants of Heber. The patronymic is Greek in form: plain evidence of the Greek language & origin of the dwellers on those islands
“Ben” in mountain names is pure Hebrew - meaning “son”, it is evidence of the Scottish hope of a Messiah.

This is only a small sample of the arguments that might be given for the identity of Israel with Caledonia. IMHO, they are conclusive.

The Greeks in Australia are of course Scottish Highlanders: evidence of the world-wide Gaelic-speaking empire, of which, even yet, some remains are extant. The Celtic empire in Continental Europe of the 4th century BC was plainly a part of this. This must be why there are Gaelic speakers in both Australia & Canada. We may conjecture that some time the centre of this Empire was in Atlantis - this would explain how two far-sundered nations could share the same ways as their mother-country.

History makes so much sense, if only ignores the (so-called) historians ##