Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Smith’s “witnesses” of the golden plates didn’t die for the faith. Of “the 8” witnesses, Page produced his own seer stone and made prophecies, leading Whitmer and Cowdery also astray. Jacob Whitmer and Page apostatized from the Mormon Church; John Whitmer was excommunicated.

The fact that all 11 men continued to affirm their experience of viewing the Book of Mormon even after some (6) of them left the church makes their witness more impressive not less, IMO. Also, IMO, one of the witnesses, Hyrum Smith, can be said to have died for the faith, sealing his testimony with his blood as did his brother Joseph.

The original three weren’t very reliable, joining other sects or religions on and off,

If someone switching religions is enough to make them unreliable, then ironically Mr. Bennett has the same credibility problem. He switched from being Catholic to Mormon to Catholic again. I think switching faiths can be seen as an asset. It shows often someone is an independent thinker and not easily controlled.

and Cowdrey even once made a “full and final renunciation” of his Mormon beliefs

To be sure, this is a second hand quotation which is problematic to accept at face value. Larry E. Morris does some source analysis of where this idea comes from:

Keen, a respected citizen of Tiffin, clearly believed that Oliver Cowdery had fully renounced Mormonism. Still, certain difficulties remain with Keen’s statement: he recorded the incident (apparently for the first time) more than forty years after it happened; his account was never corroborated by other witnesses; and he gave the statement at the request of Arthur B. Deming, the anti-Mormon editor of Naked Truths about Mormonism and a man likely to lead his witness. Furthermore, two equally respected citizens of Tiffin claimed that Oliver never discussed Mormonism. “I think that it is absolutely certain that Mr. C., after his separation from the Mormons, never conversed on the subject with his most intimate friends, and never by word or act, disclosed anything relating to the conception, development or progress of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’” wrote William Henry Gibson, judge, general, orator, businessman, lawyer, and Tiffin’s most famous resident.8

%between%

Smith called Harris “a wicked man”.

Not really. God called Martin Harris “a wicked man” as recorded in D&C 3 (Joseph was just relaying the word). This happened before Martin Harris repented and was privileged to view the plates.

By 1847, all eleven (8+3 orig.) witnesses were either dead or had joined competing sects.

OK. But to put this in perspective both Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery rejoined the LDS church, making 7 out of 11 who died in full fellowship of the LDS church.

This explored in the book Inside Mormonism, but can probably also be found in other sources as well.

Richard L. Anderson’s Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses is the definitive study on subject.

Later,
fool

 

[Jayson]

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8).

That about settles it for me. Isn’t this what morminism is based on in the first place? - Another Gospel preached by an Angel

 

[mormon_fool]

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8).

That about settles it for me. Isn’t this what morminism is based on in the first place? - Another Gospel preached by an Angel

This seems like a restatement of the thread’s question, rather than a settlement of it. Does the Book of Mormon really teach “Another Gospel” or the same Gospel Paul taught? Conclusions on this obviously will vary, the idea is to present evidence and reasoning to try to persuade others (to some extent) about our viewpoints.

Putting aside for a second on whether the Gospel according to the Book of Mormon is sufficiently correct or not, the role of an Angel does not necessitate a conclusion one way or another Revelation 14:6 (KJV) reads:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

 

[mormon_fool]

wademann:

Have you read the BOM?

I have read it a time or two .

 

[Jerusha]

I could only get about 1/4 of the way through. I got the giggles when I realized how many names were variants of the word “moron”. The author was almost into a practical joke— “And if you believe this, that is what you are.”

Chloroform in print, in truth.

 

[mormon_fool]

Jerusha:

I could only get about 1/4 of the way through. I got the giggles when I realized how many names were variants of the word “moron”. The author was almost into a practical joke— “And if you believe this, that is what you are.”

Chloroform in print, in truth.

The fact that there are a lot of Morons running arround in the Book of Mormon is good evidence for its ancientness. As Hebrew scholar John Tvedtnes points out that Moron perhaps means “place of myrhh” or a “place of bitterness”. Moroni then is person from the land of Moron, by Hebrew convention. If this seems sketchy I think Tvedtnes makes a good cumulative case for Hebrew origin of some Book of Mormon names in a paper which was favorably received at a Jewish academic conference.

I can understand your’s (and Mark Twain’s) difficulty reading the Book of Mormon. Sometimes ancient texts are hard to get into.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I have read most of the Book of Mormon. It was terribly boring. However, most Mormon teachings (the ones that are the most blasphemous, at least) are not in the Book of Mormon but in the other Mormon scriptures (Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) and the sermons and writings of Joseph Smith and his successors, such as Brigham Young (who said that Adam is our God, thought the Mormon Church no longer teaches this, at least not officially). Actually, the Book of Mormon seems to teach monotheism and the trinity.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints included the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price in the free Book of Mormons that they give away. (Typically those books are bound in one volume together with the Book of Mormon, in the average Mormon’s copy of the BoM; just not in the free paperback copies of the Book of Mormon that they give away). I know this from firsthand experience since I have been around a lot of Mormons because I was in a Mormon boyscout troop!

 

[Jerusha]

LOL Whatever. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe.

The point of it all is, that Mormonism is offensive to me. Mormons do not offend me, so long as they respect my rights and my beliefs, and who I am as a human being.

Bye:wave:

 

[Jerusha]

I agree with you, AC. Mormonism offends me as a Catholic, and as a woman, as well as a person of Algonquin Indian ancestry.

 

[wademann]

Jerusha,

 

[wademann]

Whoops!!!

Jerusha,

Do all other religions other than Catholic offend you?

 

[Jerusha]

LOL!!! No. Everybody has their right to their choice of religion. So long as Mormons understand where I am coming from, and respect my rights, and do not twist and misinterpret and lie about my heritage, I respect their rights.

The analogy is very appropriate-- I was just thinking about it: Mormonism is offensive to me just like Christianity offends Jews. And there are some Christians, like myself, who respect the cultural heritage that Jesus came from. Maybe someday Mormons will have the same attitude.

 

[Tmaque]

As an ex-LDS I get terribly peeved when people suggest that those who believe the LDS religion is true are somehow blind, or refuse to see the logic in the arguments against the LDS faith. Catholics are not immune from religious blinders. We are not somehow intellectually superior to LDS. Sure, there are problems with the BOM just as there are problems with the Bible. We can pick apart the BOM and non-Christians and agnostics/atheists can certainly pick apart the Bible(If you don’t believe that YOU have blinders on.)

The ugly truth is, as human beings, our faith in a certain religion has much more to do with how we feel and far less to do with the objective truth. Most people decide what to believe and then go about looking for evidence to back up their pre-conceived belief.

Sorry to go on and on. I guess my point is that we should not belittle people for their beliefs, as many seem to be doing on this thread. Our logical position as Catholics is pretty tenuous as well. It’s all about faith. The Holy Spirit is the person doing the convincing, not us. God works in each one of us for his own reasons and at his own pace. Let’s be humble and not think we’re so intellectually and morally superior, we’re not.

 

[Jerusha]

Agreed, Todd. Patience and tolerance.

Faith and belief are the keys. Cold hard logic is not definitive.

 

[Jerusha]

To destroy and discredit the entirety of the BOM is to deny the Indian legends that contributed to it. I always found very irritating the historians’ claim that there is no such thing as pre-Columbian Indian history, when oral tradition (althugh somewhat distorted over time) has validity. Even the early books of the Bible are based on oral tradition.

 

[mlchance]

"The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

"Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

“The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.”

…

"Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

“The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.”

 

[mlchance]

Casen:

The Book of Mormon is full or complex Hebraic poetic forms such as chiasmus.…

On chiasmus in the BoM.

Chiasmus is neither complex nor uniquely Hebraic. On chiasmus in general. Of especial note: “[Chiasmus] is especially common in 18th century English poetry, but is also found in prose of all periods.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jerusha]

I wouldn’t be surprised that that battle between the “Nephites and the Lamanites” is derived from legends of the earlier Vikings, or the later Greenlandic people arriving here. They were probably roundly defeated, and the survivors assimilated into the tribes.

Typical exaggeration that arises from oral tradition.

 

[oat_soda]

It would be interesting if you were not Catholic and wanted to come up with arguments against the Catholic Church. I bet you could find all kinds of problems if you used to the same standards that you use against the Mormons

objectively, you can argue the case for catholicism using historical evidence. many protestant conversions are based on such investigation of early church history and the writings of the chuch fathers. for instance, i would start out using the scriptures as acurate historical evidence and show how archeological evidence supports this view and that we know it was written down only 30 years after Christ’s death. from there i can use scriptures and other historical documents to prove that Jesus established a church and show using historical documents how this church still exists today entirely in the Catholic Church.

as catholics, we know that absolute truth exists apart from us and that things “are” or exist apart from us too. this means we can know things and ideas are by which we know things exist and not that reality is based on our ideas.

i’m not going to get into your relativistic argument that we really can’t know anything for certain and all we have is faith. this is how mormons argue against the historical record and the mountain of evidence that proves without doubt that joe smith fabricated everything in the BOM.

this link proves mormonism to be false: irr.org/mit/

 

[mlchance]

Jerusha:

I wouldn’t be surprised that that battle between the “Nephites and the Lamanites” is derived from legends of the earlier Vikings, or the later Greenlandic people arriving here. They were probably roundly defeated, and the survivors assimilated into the tribes.

Interesting bit of rationalization for which there is absolutely no archaeological evidence. The alleged battle between the Nephites and Lamanites supposedly took place in 421 A.D. Vikings, led by the Christian Eric the Red, arrived in Newfoundland in 11th century A.D., about 600 years later.

Of course, we ought not let historical facts stand in the way of good fiction.

– Mark L. Chance.