Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[Chris-WA]

wademann:

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.

I think the time issue obviously affects growth in a practical sense because you can’t reach 1 billion members in just a few years. (Keep in mind also that in the first 1900 years or so of the Catholic church’s existance, there was no mass transit or telephones or satellite communications.) But time does not explain the continuity of this church, because had the church apostacized within the first 100 years or so, as LDS claim, it would have self destructed long ago. There are many times when it could have fizzled out and died, but instead continued to evangelize and grow. I believe men could not have held a church together on their own merits, even if they were all completely pure and true to their faith (which they were not and never will be). The church has faced and will face attack from within and without until the end, as Christ told us in his comments about the wheat and the chaff.

Unlike the LDS, we don’t believe in dispensationalism, wherein there were a series of failed attempts by God to establish a faithful church. We believe that all the prophets, and the entire Old Testament for that matter, were preparation for Christ’s coming (the fullness of time) and the establishment of the church. Since then, it has been the mission of the church to spread the gospel beyond Israel to all the nations–which we can certainly say the Catholic church has done, and continues to do, until all have had a chance to hear the gospel.

We believe the promissed land was that territory which was given to Israel as a nation (modern day Israel), from which the church eventually began and spread. America is not the promissed land in a scriptural sense. We don’t believe the Garden of Eden was somewhere in Missouri, and we have no reason to believe Zion has anything to do with the U.S. For us, the new Jerusalem spoken of in the Bible is the church itself–the bride of Christ, whom we certainly believe Christ would never allow to apostacize within 100 years of his death and resurrection.

 

[wademann]

I have not seen any irrefutable evidence, on this thread, that shows the BOM to be false, of course that is just my humble opinion. I am sure others would say that they haven’t seen any irrefutable evidence, that proves the BOM is true, but if you are being honest I think we could all say there is a lot of evidence on both sides. I appreciate everyone’s participation and hope that we all will continue to study the scriptures with an open mind. I want to give extra thanks to Augustine, casen and mormonfool, for setting good examples on how to have civil discussions, that show respect for others, even when they disagree, and the patience they show to those of us that are not quite as well read. I have learned a lot.

 

[Jerusha]

My impatience comes from generations of frustration with Mormons who refuse to see other explanations. I have faith that the Mormon church can change its teachings to something that is more respectful of Indians, and American Indian history. My experiences with Mormons have been, in large part, negative.

I cannot apologize-- I believe that apologies should come from the other side. I am glad to have met open-minded Mormons on this board, and I know that they will be the driving force, in the future, in reform of the church.

The BOM is not entirely wrong–there are difficulties with “translation” and interpretation.

 

[Casen]

Thanks wadermann and everyone else that has posted here. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

RE: I have not seen any irrefutable evidence, on this thread, that shows the BOM to be false, of course that is just my humble opinion. I am sure others would say that they haven’t seen any irrefutable evidence, that proves the BOM is true, but if you are being honest I think we could all say there is a lot of evidence on both sides.

While I’ve enjoyed the discussion of evidences I don’t think you can ever definitively “prove” spiritual matters… and I think that’s the way God designed it. I have a good friend from Malaysia that is Buddhist and I can’t prove to him that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God, performed mighty miracles and rose on the third day. While there is evidence that some items in the Bible did indeed occur, the supernatural items are matters of faith and I believe faith is a gift of the spirit. I can only suggest he read the Bible and pray for a spiritual confirmation of those things.

One issue I often see is people that have grown up in one religion see the world only through the eyes of their upbringing and see everyone outside their “sphere” as disillusioned, misguided, or stupid. They think, “My religion is OBVIOUSLY true, I don’t see why those dumb (Catholics,Mormons, JWs, Protestants, Muslims, etc.) can’t see the truth! Why, they must be brainwashed!

Hopefully this discussion has helped us all to see that honest people can look at the same evidence and read the same scriptures and come to different conclusions.

 

[DeFide]

wademann:

I have not seen any irrefutable evidence, on this thread, that shows the BOM to be false, of course that is just my humble opinion…

I have. Quite a lot. That is also my opinion, but I’m sure me saying so won’t change your mind. Like I pointed out to Aug, it only contributes to the thread if you can state why.

Respectfully yours.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

Since there is no written translation and very poor agreement among secondary sources (Clayton, Pratt, Fuqate, etc.) as to what Joseph Smith said or did then the evidence of fraud is very weak.
:

Where did the specifics of the translation come from then? Mormons consider Smith’s personal secretary to be extremely reliable. Was he lying? Why are drawings of the plates included amongst the seven pages of “History of The Church” devoted to the Kinderhook Plates? If Smith (or any subsequent Mormon President) was a prophet and/or had divinely-guided translation ability, why didn’t they immediately know that the plates were bogus gibberish? Instead they put the translation in “History of The Church” (Vol.5).

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Where did the specifics of the translation come from then?

The specifics are not very impressive and they are recalled differently by Pratt and Clayton. Someone, likely Joseph Smith, was speculating as to their contents. It would not be a stretch for Joseph Smith to comment that the characters looked “Egyptian” if they at all resembled the one of the two types of Egyptian that he had previously translated. If the record was Egyptian the next deduction-- based on Biblical geneologies-- is that the record was someone descended from Ham. From JS’s previous experience, many scriptural records start out listing a geneology. Finally someone may have tied it into the Jaredites because they may have thought they were on ancient Jaredite lands.

Next Clayton could have confused such speculation with an attempted translation. Clayton may or may not have been there when the Kinderhook plates were shown to Joseph Smith. His Journal entry doesn’t come until 3 days later. His memory may slightly be off or he may be relaying information that came to him second hand.

Mormons consider Smith’s personal secretary to be extremely reliable

.

I have no idea where you get this from. Just because the History of the Church relied on it in the 19th century, it doesn’t mean that it is currently looked at as an unimpeachable source. Consider Stanley Kimball’s comment in the church magazine:

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.” It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what *others *felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …” 3

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However, as will be pointed out later, speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the *Millennial Star *of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the “History of Joseph Smith” was edited into book form as the *History of the Church *in 1909. 4

Was he lying?

No, I am sure he was reporting on what he thought he knew.

Why are drawings of the plates included amongst the seven pages of “History of The Church” devoted to the Kinderhook Plates?

Latter-day Saints tend to get excited about the possibility of further ancient scripture surfacing. I hope more does. The LDS are all over things like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If Smith (or any subsequent Mormon President) was a prophet and/or had divinely-guided translation ability, why didn’t they immediately know that the plates were bogus gibberish? Instead they put the translation in “History of The Church” (Vol.5).

I addressed this in my last post by citing Doctrine & Covenants 9. Revelation to prophets is not something that happens on demand. It usually comes after a lot of study and prayer.

 

[mormon_fool]

Jerusha:

My impatience comes from generations of frustration with Mormons who refuse to see other explanations. I have faith that the Mormon church can change its teachings to something that is more respectful of Indians, and American Indian history. My experiences with Mormons have been, in large part, negative.

I like to at least entertain alternative theories for the origin of the Book of Mormon, even if I tend to be critical of them. Even if these theories can’t quite account for the Book of Mormon, at least in my eyes, I usually end up learning a lot more about Joesph Smith’s environment and that is valuable information to me.

There are some, like Dan Vogel, who believe that the Joseph Smith took advantage of Euro-Americans fascination with Indian legends to increase the popularity of his made up book. He finds evidence for his theory by showing Ethan Smith, Josiah Priest, and other literature carry themes that somewhat resonate with the BOM narrative.

But if you are aware of more oral traditions and legends than Vogel is, and can draw striking parellels with the BOM narrative, then you can potentially strengthen that line of thought. But it sounds like you would have to get more familiar with the BoM text to do so, which thing I can definitely encourage .

references:

Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon by Dan Vogel

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/vogel1.htm

FARMS review:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=48

Vogel’s response to the review:

xmission.com/~research/central/reply.htm

And don’t forget the response to the response to the review of the book at:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=534

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

DeFide:

I have. Quite a lot. That is also my opinion, but I’m sure me saying so won’t change your mind. Like I pointed out to Aug, it only contributes to the thread if you can state why.

Respectfully yours.

I would like to know:​

1. What languages & scripts are named in the Anthon letter;
2. Whether the reading of one of them in the letter should be “Assyriac” or “Syriac” (I have come across both, but the former more than the latter, which I have seen once only)
3. What is meant by whichever it may be
4. How, if “Assyriac” is the correct reading -

5 - and if “Assyrian” is meant

• and if the cuneiform script is meant by that: how Anthon could plausibly claim to read a script that had not been deciphered; which had begun to be deciphered, but only begun. The ancient native language of Assyria recorded before 600 BC, was not known at the time: if the language is being referred to, rather than the script.

1. What a pictographic & syllabic script such as Egyptian (one that is, which is not alphabetic) is doing alongside “Chaldaic”, by which is meant either cuneiform (which is syllabic) or Aramaic (which is alphabetic). If Syriac is meant - what is it doing along aside a language such as Egyptian, which is written in a different kind of script ?

If there are replies to these problems - as I am sure there must be - I look forward to reading them. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mormon fool:

The specifics are not very impressive and they are recalled differently by Pratt and Clayton. Someone, likely Joseph Smith, was speculating as to their contents. It would not be a stretch for Joseph Smith to comment that the characters looked “Egyptian” if they at all resembled the one of the two types of Egyptian that he had previously translated.

But what he translated looks exceedingly unlike Egyptian: as a comparison with James Allen’s “Middle Egyptian Grammar” indicates. Apart from anything else, the vowels of Egyptian are unknown - which is why transcriptions in books (such as Allen’s) look so awkward.​

Sir Alan Gardiner’s sign-list look unlike anything from Smith - see the second link below:

egypt.cd2.com/html/hieroglyphs.html

jimloy.com/egypt/egypt.htm - scroll down to:

jimloy.com/hiero/gardner0.htm

or go to:

showcase.netins.net/web/ankh/gardiner.html

A page on the “Book of Abraham” by an alumnus of BYU, which is interesting as an indication of Smith’s accuracy as a translator of Egyptian:

mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp

If the record was Egyptian the next deduction-- based on Biblical geneologies-- is that the record was someone descended from Ham. From JS’s previous experience, many scriptural records start out listing a geneology. Finally someone may have tied it into the Jaredites because they may have thought they were on ancient Jaredite lands.

Next Clayton could have confused such speculation with an attempted translation. Clayton may or may not have been there when the Kinderhook plates were shown to Joseph Smith. His Journal entry doesn’t come until 3 days later. His memory may slightly be off or he may be relaying information that came to him second hand.

.

I have no idea where you get this from. Just because the History of the Church relied on it in the 19th century, it doesn’t mean that it is currently looked at as an unimpeachable source. Consider Stanley Kimball’s comment in the church magazine:

No, I am sure he was reporting on what he thought he knew.

Latter-day Saints tend to get excited about the possibility of further ancient scripture surfacing. I hope more does. The LDS are all over things like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I addressed this in my last post by citing Doctrine & Covenants 9. Revelation to prophets is not something that happens on demand. It usually comes after a lot of study and prayer.

 

[DeFide]

## I would like to know:

1. What languages & scripts are named in the Anthon letter;
2. Whether the reading of one of them in the letter should be “Assyriac” or “Syriac” (I have come across both, but the former more than the latter, which I have seen once only)
3. What is meant by whichever it may be
4. How, if “Assyriac” is the correct reading -

5 - and if “Assyrian” is meant

• and if the cuneiform script is meant by that: how Anthon could plausibly claim to read a script that had not been deciphered; which had begun to be deciphered, but only begun. The ancient native language of Assyria recorded before 600 BC, was not known at the time: if the language is being referred to, rather than the script.

1. What a pictographic & syllabic script such as Egyptian (one that is, which is not alphabetic) is doing alongside “Chaldaic”, by which is meant either cuneiform (which is syllabic) or Aramaic (which is alphabetic). If Syriac is meant - what is it doing along aside a language such as Egyptian, which is written in a different kind of script ?

If there are replies to these problems - as I am sure there must be - I look forward to reading them. ##

Michael, I think perhaps you meant to ask someone else, right?

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

…Revelation to prophets is not something that happens on demand. It usually comes after a lot of study and prayer.

So his divinely-guided translation abilities which he claimed for himself only engaged under the proper conditions? In that case, perhaps his divinely-guided translation abilities weren’t engaged for the making of the Book of Mormon, or for any other “inspired” Mormon scripture. As has been noted in this thread, Smith translated those “golden plates” for the Book of Mormon in an amazingly short time.

It’s also interesting that for over a decade afterward, other Mormon prophets were also unable to engage their divinely-guided translation abilities on the only set of plates they had in possession and see them as bogus gibberish.

This is just too much (for me).

 

[mormon_fool]

## I would like to know:

1. What languages & scripts are named in the Anthon letter;

Those following along with the discussion may not be familiar with the incident between Dr. Charles Anthon and Martin Harris. I will give a little introduction. Harris was a wealthy farmer and associate of Joseph Smith. His “doubting Thomas” skeptical nature has been notes, but through a series of faith promoting experiences he helped finance the initial press run of the Book of Mormon and helped out in other ways.

Joseph Smith initially struggled in making his translation of the Book of Mormon. His mother’s history has him trying to make up an alphabet from the charactors first. At some point he agreed to let Harris take his preliminary, alphabet “translation” as well as a transcription of some other charactors to verify them with the current scholars.

We may have a copy of the transcription but do not have a the “translation”. Current day Egyptologist John Gee notes that :

Though the so-called Anthon transcript contains a mere seven lines of text, it contains about eighty different characters; however, since the sample size is small, one is not able to determine whether the script is syllabic (like Ethiopic) or logographic (like Egyptian or Mayan). . .

We would then expect it to be a Semitic language written in an Egyptian script a Semitic language that had been modified by time and creolization with the American languages, and an Egyptian script that had been modified not only by being engraved on metal plates, but also changed along with the handwriting styles and modifications of the Nephites (see Mormon 9:32). This has then been copied by a nineteenth-century hand in pen and ink.

Martin’s side of the story of meeting with Anthon is recorded in JS-History 62-65. He sees a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 29:11-12 about the inability of an unlearned man to read a sealed book. Anthon’s side of the story comes out a little differently. It is important to consider motives. Anthon didn’t want to associated with mormons so he could have downplayed his endorsement of the characters. For Harris, his skepticism was overcome, so it is likely that Anthon did offer some kind of endorsement.

On to the question:

Harris reports (as recorded by JS):

Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic.

Other sources:

 Phelps wrote that Martin Harris took the characters "to professor Anthon who translated and declared them to be the **ancient short-hand Egyptian.**"

The Rev. T. A. Clark in Palmyra wrote that “After his return he came to see me again, and told me that, among others, he had consulted Prof. Anthon, who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide what language they belonged to.”
From Anthon:

 "It consisted of all kinds of singular characters disposed in columns, . . .** Greek and Hebrew** **letters**, crosses and flourishes;   **Roman letters** inverted or placed sideways were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, arched with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the **Mexican **calendar." -- 1834 letter


    "The characters were arranged in columns, like the   **Chinese mode** of writing, . . .** Greek, Hebrew** and all sorts of letters, more or less distorted, . . . were intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the **Mexican zodiac**." -- 1841 letter.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

Gottle of Geer:

1. Whether the reading of one of them in the letter should be “Assyriac” or “Syriac” (I have come across both, but the former more than the latter, which I have seen once only)
2. What is meant by whichever it may be
3. How, if “Assyriac” is the correct reading -

5 - and if “Assyrian” is meant

I don’t think it is all that helpful to get hung up too much on any one account. Anthon didn’t really have the ability to read Egyptian although he could identify types of writing.

A good take on the whole incident is:

•   The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith      *
           **David E. Sloan**

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1996. Pp. 57–81
farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=124

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

So his divinely-guided translation abilities which he claimed for himself only engaged under the proper conditions? In that case, perhaps his divinely-guided translation abilities weren’t engaged for the making of the Book of Mormon, or for any other “inspired” Mormon scripture.

Joseph Smith did not claim for himself translation abilities, Throughout his ministry it was a divinely-given gift that was periodically granted. A good frame of reference is manifestation of spiritual gifts, take healing for instance. The NT apostles didn’t walk around healing everyone in sight, however they were occasionally inspired to in cases of sufficient faith.

Joseph Smith was not inspired to produce a translated text for the Kinderhook plates, therefore nothing can be said (from the Kinderhook incident) about his abilities when he claimed to be so inspired.

As has been noted in this thread, Smith translated those “golden plates” for the Book of Mormon in an amazingly short time.

I can think of at least three occasions when his ability to translate was taken away from him. He also had great difficulty getting started.

It’s also interesting that for over a decade afterward, other Mormon prophets were also unable to engage their divinely-guided translation abilities on the only set of plates they had in possession and see them as bogus gibberish.

I don’t know where you get a decade of possesion from. From documents we can say the church borrowed them for at most a few months.

This seems to me to be the same type of dig that critics of Jesus launched when He was on the cross.

Matt 27:42 “He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.”

The connection is that just because someone doesn’t do what we expect them to do, it doesn’t mean they can’t. They (Jesus and the LDS prophets) probably had something better to do.

 

[Jerusha]

The connection is that just because someone doesn’t do what we expect them to do, it doesn’t mean they can’t. .

And I DO have better things to do. That is why I post here. I invite any qualified persons to continue my research.

I believe that what I have found is a much more reasonable explanation for the phenomena that the BOM tried to explain— mainly, the existence of beliefs resembling those of the Judaeo-Christian tradition among people who supposedly had never previously had contact with Europeans.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

Joseph Smith did not claim for himself translation abilities, Throughout his ministry it was a divinely-given gift that was periodically granted. A good frame of reference is manifestation of spiritual gifts, take healing for instance. The NT apostles didn’t walk around healing everyone in sight, however they were occasionally inspired to in cases of sufficient faith.
…

Smith was a “periodic” prophet and a “periodic” divinely-guided translator? True prophets aren’t hit-and-miss.

You made an analogy of apostles only healing some people. A better analogy would be apostles claiming to heal someone when in fact they didn’t. That would make them frauds just as much as Smith claiming that bogus gibberish was a history of “a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt…” Smith should have said, “I can’t make sense of this”, because there was absolutely no sense to be made of it.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

I don’t know where you get a decade of possesion from. From documents we can say the church borrowed them for at most a few months.

.

I’m referring to facsimiles of the plates and the characters that appear on them as shown in “The History of The Church”:

utlm.org/images/kinderhookhistory800.gif

 

[Casen]

Jerusha said: I invite any qualified persons to continue my research.

I thought I was done with this thread but this line from Jerusha made me laugh! She hasn’t read the Book of Mormon ONCE because it was too boring (an argument I occasionally hear from my six year old son) yet she has a bunch of theories about the book’s origin and we’re invited to continue her “research”. That was funny! Thanks Jerusha.

 

[gryskull]

wademann:

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

First of all I wouldn’t refer to BJ, who is one of your members, a dummy. Pretty harsh words you’ve used there for one of your own.

Second, the term christians was used only after 33 AD by St. Luke. Although in essence you can call the Apostles christians the term was never used. Not even by the old testament prophets. They used a different term like “the Son of Man” in the book of Daniel, etc. But the terms christians was not used. did the Jews believe in these prophecies. Sure they did. But were they ever called christians?

It’s quite obvious that Joseph Smith was using modern day info and terms. If the book of alma was written around 75 BC anyone inquiring about the truth of the BOM would certainly question it’s antiquity.

God Bless.