How did Matthew's Gospel get into the BOM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TonyYL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I was trying to say regarding the similarities in styles is that they should NOT exist. Those layers of translations and cultural drift not only impose a human error element but they SHOULD give us a more unique style. Now admittedly we really don’t have sufficient anthropological material on the nephites to have an objective clue about their culture but whether or not one chooses to believe in JS I just don’t see any relevance in going down that path. In other words if you were to “prove” that BoM shares all of these literary “idiosyncracies” (for lack of a better term) with Jewish literature of that era I don’t see that as being meaningful one way or the other. Either JS was influenced by the Bible in a “pious fraud” (possibly with aid of Oliver, Sidney or others) which would explain this OR He gave a truly inspired translation of scripture (which he could have “phrased” in this style based on his experience with the Bible or maybe the Lord communicates in a “Jewish” style…don’t laugh they are his chosen people 🙂 ) OR it’s a hoax that doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view.

I think one could make a case for or against the similarities regardless of ones views on the veracity of this book.
 
40.png
majick275:
I think one could make a case for or against the similarities regardless of ones views on the veracity of this book.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so; at least I’ve personally never seen a strong case to logically explain all the semitic influences in the Book of Mormon if it’s a fraud. There are many not even available in the Bible but existing in semitic culture and literature so just saying that Joseph coppied the Bible doesn’t cut it. You say the case COULD be made but so far no one has done it.
 
obviously it depends on one’s point of view. The similarities outside of what is in the Bible seem pretty subjective to me. If one proceeds from the point of view that the BoM is “true” then each piece of “evidence” appears to fit within a plausible theory supporting its veracity.

If one “believes it not” then each piece of evidence seems to fit a plausible theory refuting it. I would find too much similarity to be problematic as it would seem to conflict not only with expected cultural drift but with the apparent drift from the book itself. I would especially be skeptical of similarities in the book of ether. (it being of supposedly jaredite origin)

the critic (myself included) would also consider the influence of others besides JS in the creation of the book as well as allowing a longer timeline for it’s creation.
 
Yes, I agree that we all see through the lens of our experience and biases. I’ve already admitted that I’m biased in this area. However, when a person looks into these things with an open mind (and heart) the case becomes very compelling.

Regarding cultural drift, I’m not sure I follow you. Many of the examples I cited above are Semitic characteristics that have existed for more than three thousand years in Near Eastern cultures and continue to exist to this day. So if they could remain in the Near East for so long why couldn’t they exist throughout the Book of Mormon time span?

As far as the Book of Ether is concerned, it’s an abridgement written my Moroni so we would expect the same Semitic patterns found in his other Book of Mormon writings to also be found in the Book of Ether.
 
an abridgement that is “translated” by a “prophet” would , in the minds of many, be less likely to exhibit “conversions” to the style of the translator. (not to mention that Mormon and Moroni should NOT have seemed very “hebrew”)

Cultural drift occurs when a relatively SMALL group is more or less permanently separated from the “mother culture”. Over time they SHOULD exhibit less and less similarity with the original culture. This process is accelerated when the “colonists” are exposed to either indigenous populations and/or subsequent colonizations by other cultures.

Semitic culture retaining clearly identifiable characteristics in the middle east would be expected. They WERE the indigenous culture and we can see the limited effects of cultural incursions into this area and compensate for even that in our research by our knowledge of the invadiers cultures. The same should not be true for the americas.

Things get really complex for the BoM when anthropological science is applied. The geography in the BoM is not suffciently defined for us to “know” where these people lived. BUT, The BoM itself claims in Ether that the Jaredites were the first inhabitants since the flood. They do not tell us of any encounters with other cultures even though we have discovered numerous significant migrations from asia during their time in the americas. The same though is true for the nephites/lamanites/mulekites. (they do not record for us any knowledge of other cultures even though we have discovered numerous civilizations in that time period in the americas) They also were told in Nephi that they were being a given a land that had been kept from all others. (excepting the jaredites)

Numerous place names that have survived to this day exist in the area betweeen the great lakes and the atlantic that are very similar or sometimes even exactly the same as BoM “geography” names. This would seem consistent with cumorah being in JS “backyard” so to speak and would explain the presence of the plates there. However, culturally this is simply not plausible. Most LDS apologists even dismiss this and speculate that mesoamerica (being apparently more “culturally” similar) is the most likely place. Even then you kind of have to buy into the “limited geography theory” to explain away DNA evidence and a lack of any examples of other cultures interacting with the BoM peoples. (Critics would point out the likelihood of JS “Borrowing” from available maps.)

This is problematic when one considers the words of the intro in the book itself to this day that the lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the american indians. JS is also said to have identified a place in Missouri as the original site of one of the nephite cities. There is also the vast scope of the wars AND the nations themselves as described in the BoM that would require these peoples to have logically come into contact with some of these pre-columbian civilizations that we have found to have existed during the time period covered by the BoM.

You see we should see either an isolationist type of cultural drift in a very tiny, clannish society. (BoM people only folks in america or at least their part of america) OR we should see rapidly accelerated cultural drift as the BoM people were influenced by both indigenous peoples AND succesive waves of asian migration.

The first seems very implausible as it can NOT explain the sheer size of the described society, its advanced learning nor even the placement of the plates for Joseph to find. It simply isn’t consistent with the BoM itself.

The second seems to be refuted by these perceived semitic characteristics in the writings. Mormon/Moroni should, in this theory, be almost culturally unrecognizable as to Hebrew origin. We see in the BoM itself a culture that is certainly different in its religious practices to the extent that one would expect a different type of culture from that alone. We shold also in this case see the BoM itself telling us of these interactions with other cultures. They certainly gave us detailed accounts of the mulekites and the jaredites interactions with them as well as quite the running commentary early of what they found in the land as they explored and built up their nation(s).

.
 
(continued)

Despite what I have read on JeffLindsay or from Hugh Nibbley, I believe firmly that one has to disregard the existing evidence and take the BoM solely on faith if one is to attribute its origin to be in any way divine. I personally find this to be similar to saying that the earth is only as old as the human race (hyper literal interpretation of genesis) and evidence to the contrary from paleontologists, etc. exists because God MADE the world old with dinosaur bones already in it. Possible? of course, plausible ? hardly. (IMO, I certainly COULD be mistaken)

I find compelling evidence for the plausibility that it (the BoM) COULD have been manufactured by JS and his associates during the time period that he would have had to produce it. For me at least Occams razor cuts the credibility of this book into shreds. It was only when I looked at these things with a truly open heart and mind (no preconceived notion of true or not) that I was able to find my own way spiritually and thus started my journey into what I believe to be the original Christian Church, the RCC
 
Interesting. So was it evidence, logic and reasoning that brought you to the RCC or was it something else, perhaps something spiritual?

What about your belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is your faith based on scientific evidence or something spiritual?

I’m curious because I keep hearing people on these boards discounting spiritual manifestations despite their frequent occurrence in the very scriptures Catholics hold dear. While I find the evidences of the Book of Mormon very compelling I believe that spiritual things ultimately must be revealed by the Holy Spirit for a person to truly “know”. As Jesus said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you…”. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is spiritually based and the evidences discussed above are just icing on the cake… fun topics of discussion. I would say the same thing about my testimony of Jesus Christ.
 
It was (and still is) definitely a combination. So all of the above. I certainly do NOT discount spiritual witness when it is accompanied by proper “seeking”. (for lack of a better term). I guess an example would be “Lord please tell me what I want to believe in is true” would be an example of what I disagree with. “Lord, please show me the path you want me to travel” (all the while searching myself) is more of what works for me. I have oversimplified this badly but I do believe that the Holy Spirit is a valuable guide and my own experience includes a spiritual witness to the divine origin of the RCC.
 
Once, I read a book called “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon.” It said that the Book of Mormon was a novel written by a Protestant minister. A friend of Joseph Smith purloined the manuscript from a print shop where he worked. There was some interesting evidence to support that theory. For example the Book of Mormon has the phrase “It came to pass” over and over again. The protestant minister was known as “Old ‘it came to pass’” by his flock because he used that phrase so much. Also there were some sheafs of paper on display in the Visitor’s Center in Salt Lake City on Temple Square. Some were written by the various men who transcribed the words Joseph Smith spoke as he supposedly translated from the golden plates behind a screen. The names of the transcribers were given to identify those who wrote the various pages. Except one, it was identified as the “Unknown Scribe” as the handwritting could not be identified. The authors of “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon” photographed this sheet and had a handwriting analyst compare it with samples of writings by the protestant minister. Lo and behold they matched. Obviously one of the pages of the stolen manuscript was mixed in with the “transcription pages.” The “Unknown Scribe” sheets were pulled from display when the book came out. :tsktsk: :bigyikes: :banghead:

Kathie :bowdown:
 
Well even though I don’t believe in the BoM I am VERY skeptical about this claim. (I assume you are talking about the spalding manuscript) While it is quite possible that Rev. Spalding indirectly influenced JS it seems highly unlikely based on available evidence that he actually copied any of it in the making of this book. Much more likely that JS “borrowed” from view of the hebrews by ethan smith. He also appears to copy from KJV of the Bible (including the apocrypha) as well as the geography of the northeast US, local legends and the “folk tales” that seem to have (name removed by moderator)ired Spaldings work.

Oliver cowdery certainly could have helped as could Martin Harris, the whitmers and even Emma.

I think there is sufficient evidence against the BoM that we should careful about checking our sources very thoroughly.
 
Before this thread get too sidetracked, I would like to throw in support to Majick’s response to Casen:

Using one’s reason should endorse and work in Harmony with one’s Spiritual self. Even in the lds church, “the glory of God is Intelligence”. How is it now that you, Casen, want to imply that rationality is, or must, work in a vaccum, separated from Spirit?

Rationality is a tool given us by God so that we may understand His will. The more God reveals to us on a spiritual level, the more we must try to make sense of it, especially in comjunction with everything else He has given us.

Just because we “test the spirit” of each “revelation” given until it proves itself before wholly adopting it does not suggest that we suborn or ignore spiritual witness in favor of Reason. Fatima? Lourdes? There is no “rational” basis for either of these visions, but they do rationally conform to what we “know” that God has given us. Therefore, our reason is used (in this case) to validate/support a spiritual witness. It also protects us from those “false” visions that your Smith cliamed also could be received by an authoritative Prophet, such as those of Garabandahl.

As I am trying to maintain a charitable discourse, I will not make comparisons of lds revelation and spiritual witness.

Consider also, that this is an apologetics forum, and apologetics is a rational endeavor. To simply make a nonrational “I know the church is true because of my spiritual testimony” is not an apologetic. It is not subject for discussion (which is again, a rational exercise). Therefore, any discussions you find here will naturally and necessarily make a preference for the rational over subjective experiences interpreted as being spiritual.

God bless…
 
40.png
Casen:
Interesting. So was it evidence, logic and reasoning that brought you to the RCC or was it something else, perhaps something spiritual?

What about your belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is your faith based on scientific evidence or something spiritual?

I’m curious because I keep hearing people on these boards discounting spiritual manifestations despite their frequent occurrence in the very scriptures Catholics hold dear. While I find the evidences of the Book of Mormon very compelling I believe that spiritual things ultimately must be revealed by the Holy Spirit for a person to truly “know”. As Jesus said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you…”. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is spiritually based and the evidences discussed above are just icing on the cake… fun topics of discussion. I would say the same thing about my testimony of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I realize that I’m jumping in here - that the question(s) were directed to someone else, however…

I have to say, as simply as I can, that I know the Catholic Church to be the Church founded by Christ by “evidence, logic and reasoning” and a great deal of that which is intensely spiritual. The proof is found in a 2,000 year history in which faith, reason, evidence, and logic culminate - a Church that even under the leadership of some truly horrible human beings has never been allowed to stray from the truth of the Gospel.

Heresy and ‘embarrassments’ of the evil that men have done and will do in the name of God have neither changed, subtracted from, or added to the Gospel as lived by Christ and preached by His Apostles.

It’s a beautiful thing - it is a joy which I cannot describe. My “testimony” I would preach in Hyde Park - and I pray that, by example, my testimony is in evidence in all that I do: whether prodded by faith, spirituality, reason, logic, evidence - the totality of my being. In the Catholic Church faith and reason meet in perfect harmony and boundless joy.

Ben
 
40.png
majick275:
Well even though I don’t believe in the BoM I am VERY skeptical about this claim. (I assume you are talking about the spalding manuscript) …

I think there is sufficient evidence against the BoM that we should careful about checking our sources very thoroughly.
Click to expand...
Small paragraphs of it are online:

thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/wrw/1977DavA.htm

Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
ben_dy:
I pray that, by example, my testimony is in evidence in all that I do: whether prodded by faith, spirituality, reason, logic, evidence - the totality of my being. In the Catholic Church faith and reason meet in perfect harmony and boundless joy.

Ben
Click to expand...
This is a beautiful statement and reflects my opinion and feelings precisely. Nicely done.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
Before this thread get too sidetracked, I would like to throw in support to Majick’s response to Casen:

Using one’s reason should endorse and work in Harmony with one’s Spiritual self. Even in the lds church, “the glory of God is Intelligence”. How is it now that you, Casen, want to imply that rationality is, or must, work in a vaccum, separated from Spirit?
Click to expand...
I agree that reason indeed works in harmony with spiritual truth. Hence my points about evidences that the Book of Mormon is indeed what it claims to be. However, there are some spiritual truths that I believe one must come to through the Holy Spirit such as a testimony of Jesus Christ. Does faith in Jesus Christ contradict science, evidence or reason? Absolutely not. However, while science may tell us limited things about Jesus (i.e. he was a real person that lived on the earth about 2,000 years ago, was crucified, etc.) it can’t confirm that He performed mighty miracles; resurrected, is the Son of God.

If there was no known scientific evidence that a man named Jesus ever lived I would still know that He did live and does live and is my Savior because the Holy Spirit has confirmed this fact to me on numerous occasions. And for me, so it is with the Book of Mormon.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:15 - 17)
 
40.png
Vidar:
Yup, now tell me why the peculiar King James Bible errors found their way into the BOM. Footnotes from christian copyists found their way into the text of the King James Version. Somehow, these same footnotes are found in BOM…

Also explain why the ending of the ‘Our Father’ “For thine is the kingdom…” which was mistakenly added to the gospels because of it’s use in the early Catholic Mass found it’s way into the BOM. 🙂
Click to expand...
This post is worth revisting. I should have Vidar give us some sources on these claims, but no matter. I see that this is a rather popular criticism against the Book of Mormon since at least the 80’s. I do stand by my stress on the tail end of the translation process, that it is one of Intelligent Design, with the design being to add a second witness of Biblical, especially KJV text.

I note with some satisfaction that the latest FARMS Review a reprint of an earlier article is now available online. Why am I happy? Well apparently the author of that particular article, independently came up with the same conclusion as I in regards to the 2nd witness angle only with more evidence. Strands of Bible scholarship, (the Jesus Seminar comes to mind), question the authenticity of the texts. They, for instance have later Christian “prophets” putting words in Jesus 's mouth. Enter the Book of Mormon, for those of us who accept its truth claims, we don’t have to worry about falling for all those naturalistic assumptions that deny the ressurection and divinity of Christ. The Book of Mormon puts the smack down on this threat to Christianity.

Another article is from the FARMS founder, guy by the name of Welch. He teaches at BYU Law School and now that Saint Nibley has left us, Welch is pretty much the man when it comes to scripture studies. We can catch the tail end of the debate between him an Stan Larson. Larson originally brought up 11-12 errors that can be seen in the KJV based on the earliest Greek Manuscripts. Welch seems to have gotten Larson to wittle those down to 8. Seven of the errors, Welch claims do not affect the meaning in any significant way. Welch also provides an example where the Book of Mormon corrects a mistake that is attested to by the early manuscripts.

The 8th case is that of the addition of doxology in the Lord’s Prayer. Vidar attributes that because of inclusion in the Mass. However, if I understand Welch’s argument, this type of phraseology was a standard practice in Jewish prayer forms of Jesus’ time and it would have been awkward to end a prayer abruptly with amen. So I bet in can be argued the Mass version based on oral traditions was correct and a scribal error inadvertently left it out. Who says scripture can’t get better with age?

later,
fool
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top