Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Information dated decades after the Book of Mormon was brought forth does nothing to prove that the information was available before the Book of Mormon was brought forth. You are speculating again. Instead of speculating that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the Middle East before the Book of Mormon was published, prove that he did.

This is true. I can’t use the evidence I posted earlier to show Joseph Smith knew the word “Nihm” because the evidence I posted was a few decades after the BOM was published.

I also can’t prove what Joseph Smith did or did not know but I can show that some things were commonly known at that time.

1. A person who went to church would know the basics of Mid-East climate, geography and culture because information on those things are in the Bible and would have been in sermons. (Sermons which were much longer – an hour or more – than they are now.)
2. Egyptology was all the rage in America in the early 19th century so it is quite probable that Joseph Smith was exposed to the basics of Mid-East culture, geography and climate from the “fad.”

Here is how the University of Virginia describes it:

“…the American love affair with ancient Egypt began immediately after the French Revolution, when travelers first brought antiquities to England, and eventually to America. By the 1830s and 40s, “Every self-respecting bookcase then contained at least one book on Egypt.” Americans were also inspired by Egyptian architecture…”

xroads.virginia.edu/~UG00/rekas/tut/images/connect.htm

The Mormon argument is that Joseph Smith knew little or nothing about the Mid-East and so whatever he got right would be evidence of revelation. I think it is quite likely that he knew something because of his exposure to Christianity and the fad of Egyptology.

I think the burden is on you to show that he knew nothing about the Mid-East.

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

This is true. I can’t use the evidence I posted earlier to show Joseph Smith knew the word “Nihm” because the evidence I posted was a few decades after the BOM was published.

Very true.

Calvin:

I also can’t prove what Joseph Smith did or did not know but I can show that some things were commonly known at that time.

Then, show me. Claiming that these things were commonly known at the time is not the same as showing me that they were.

Calvin:

1. A person who went to church would know the basics of Mid-East climate, geography and culture because information on those things are in the Bible and would have been in sermons. (Sermons which were much longer – an hour or more – than they are now.)

Joseph Smith was not affiliated with a church until the church of Jesus Christ was restored through him in 1830. Although he had attended a few churches when he was looking for the true church, he did not join any of them.

I don’t see how the Bible could lead him to believe that a place named Bountiful existed in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and that this place had fruit and honey. I am not sure what you think you could discover about Mid-East climate, geography, and culture from the Bible. Please elaborate.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

1. Egyptology was all the rage in America in the early 19th century so it is quite probable that Joseph Smith was exposed to the basics of Mid-East culture, geography and climate from the “fad.”

Here is how the University of Virginia describes it:

“…the American love affair with ancient Egypt began immediately after the French Revolution, when travelers first brought antiquities to England, and eventually to America. By the 1830s and 40s, “Every self-respecting bookcase then contained at least one book on Egypt.” Americans were also inspired by Egyptian architecture…”

xroads.virginia.edu/~UG00/rekas/tut/images/connect.htm

But how does knowing about Egypt, if Smith did know about it prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, affect his description of Bountiful? Egypt is in Africa. Bountiful was said to exist in the southern part of Saudi Arabia. I can’t see the connection.

Calvin:

The Mormon argument is that Joseph Smith knew little or nothing about the Mid-East and so whatever he got right would be evidence of revelation. I think it is quite likely that he knew something because of his exposure to Christianity and the fad of Egyptology.

And this again, is just speculation on your part. I have explained that he had not been exposed to much Christianity. I also have questioned how knowing about Egyptology proves anything, if he did know about it. Your evidence seems a bit thin.

Calvin:

I think the burden is on you to show that he knew nothing about the Mid-East.

I see that you are asking me to prove a negative. In this thread, the idea of proving a negative has already been discussed. It’s impossible. To have a chance to prove that Joseph Smith knew nothing about the Mid-East, I would have to be with him every minute of every day. I don’t know what he read, if much of anything. Therefore, the burden of proof is really upon you because if you could prove that he knew anything specifically about the Mid-East, you would be proving a positive.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

Please take a course in the art and science of Logic at your earliest opportunity.

Really, Katholikos? Has it done you any good? I hadn’t noticed.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Vague? What in the Book of Mormon account of Bountiful and Nahom do you consider vague? How does it match other geographic locaitons?

1 Nephi 16

"…Now, all these things were said and done as my father dwelt in a tent in the valley* which he called Lemuel***.

And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord spake unto my father by night, and commanded him that on the morrow he should take his journey* into the wilderness***…

And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman… And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of **four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer… And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea. And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days…

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions* which were given upon the ball. And it came to pass that I did slay **wild *beasts, insomuch that I did obtain food for our families… And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time… And it came to pass that Ishmael died and was buried in the place called Nahom."
http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/spacer.gif

Ok so the Book of Mormon tells me that “Nahom” is “many days” travel from a “mountain” where “wild beasts” lived that is “many days” travel from a “fertile wilderness” near the “Red Sea” that is “four days and four nights” “south-southeast” from a (regular) “wilderness” which is across from a “river” which is near a “valley”…

How is that NOT vague?!

-C

 

[Count_Chocula]

Considering the fact that the Mid East has been a happenin place for pretty much ever, it’s not too far fetched to assume that Mr. Smith could have acquired a map or some such other peice of random info with which to fabricate the BoM off of with the addition of a Bible.

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

And this again, is just speculation on your part. I have explained that he had not been exposed to much Christianity. I also have questioned how knowing about Egyptology proves anything, if he did know about it. Your evidence seems a bit thin.

That is not so Smith says himself that he studied the Bible and various creeds of various faiths.

-D

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

But how does knowing about Egypt, if Smith did know about it prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, affect his description of Bountiful? Egypt is in Africa. Bountiful was said to exist in the southern part of Saudi Arabia. I can’t see the connection.

And this again, is just speculation on your part. I have explained that he had not been exposed to much Christianity. I also have questioned how knowing about Egyptology proves anything, if he did know about it.

I mentioned Egyptology because Joseph Smith claims the BOM was written in “reformed Egyptian” which is “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Neph 1:2).

My hypothesis is that he was influences by the “fad” of Egyptology that had been sweeping the country from the early to mid 1800s. If, as the University of Virginia seems to think, books on Egypt were quite common by the 1830s, it is possible that Joseph Smith was influenced by the contents of those books and so came up with the idea of “reformed Egyptian.” (Which I should point out is a language only Mormons believe in and, at most, there is one bizarre sample of en.wikipedia.org/upload/0/02/Caractors_large.jpg.)

It is important to note that the BOM does not say where Bountiful is. Mormon apologists have hypothesized that Bountiful is in Saudi Arabia, but the BOM itself does not say where it is. Similar to the verses I posted below for Nahom, Bountiful is described as “fertile valley” near “mountains” and “rivers.” Apart from the Red Sea reference, it could literally be anywhere in the world!

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

I mentioned Egyptology because Joseph Smith claims the BOM was written in “reformed Egyptian” which is “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Neph 1:2).

My hypothesis is that he was influences by the “fad” of Egyptology that had been sweeping the country from the early to mid 1800s. If, as the University of Virginia seems to think, books on Egypt were quite common by the 1830s, it is possible that Joseph Smith was influenced by the contents of those books and so came up with the idea of “reformed Egyptian.” (Which I should point out is a language only Mormons believe in and, at most, there is one bizarre sample of en.wikipedia.org/upload/0/02/Caractors_large.jpg.)

It is important to note that the BOM does not say where Bountiful is. Mormon apologists have hypothesized that Bountiful is in Saudi Arabia, but the BOM itself does not say where it is. Similar to the verses I posted below for Nahom, Bountiful is described as “fertile valley” near “mountains” and “rivers.” Apart from the Red Sea reference, it could literally be anywhere in the world!

-C

But as you have quoted from the Book of Mormon in your earlier post, Lehi’s group traveled in a “south-southeast” direction from Jerusalem. With this statement, you could not assume that they traveled into Europe, Russia, or Africa. If you follow the direction given in the Book of Mormon, traveling south-souteast can only take you into Saudi Arabia.

The direction “south-southeast” is written in 1 Nephi 16:13. They traveled that direction until 1 Nephi 17:1, where we are told that they traveled eastward. They began traveling eastward after they had reached the Red Sea. Due to the direction they had traveled before, they had to be on the Saudi Arabian side of the Red Sea, not the African side.

The directions are quite clear. If we are to find Nahom and Bountiful, we must look in the Arabian peninsula. Having shown that, I am still waiting for you or anyone else to show a dozen places in the Arabian peninsula which would fit the description in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

The directions are quite clear. If we are to find Nahom and Bountiful, we must look in the Arabian peninsula. Having shown that, I am still waiting for you or anyone else to show a dozen places in the Arabian peninsula which would fit the description in the Book of Mormon.

You seem to have forgotten the issue under consideration…

Mormon apologists claim that Joseph Smith knew little or nothing about Mid-East geography and, therefore, the only way he could get the details right about “Nahom” and “Bountiful” in the BOM is if he had revelation from God.

My counter-point is that the descriptions of Nahom and Bountiful in the BOM are too** vague** to be used as evidence of special revelation. I posted the verses on Nahom earlier. The verses on Bountiful are very similar: a land of “fruit and wild honey” “filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind” by “a seashore” near “a mountain.”

I take back what I wrote earlier. Joseph Smith doesn’t need any special knowledge of Egypt or Bible history to come up with something like that! It doesn’t take divine revelation to make up a story about a land of fruit and wild honey filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind by a seashore near a mountain!

I’m going to concede this point. Great you found “Bountiful.” I’m happy for you. It doesn’t prove Joseph Smith had a revelation from God.

-C

 

[darcee]

If you go far enough south, less east, you could reach Yemen which has about 4 rivers that empty into the sea. If you go less far south and more east you hit the northern area of the Persian gulf which has several other likely possibilities. If you continue east from there and follow the coastline I see about 6 river heads emptying into the Persian gulf.
I am sure a motivated archeologist could construct all sorts of evidence to validate any of these sites.
-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

You seem to have forgotten the issue under consideration…

Mormon apologists claim that Joseph Smith knew little or nothing about Mid-East geography and, therefore, the only way he could get the details right about “Nahom” and “Bountiful” in the BOM is if he had revelation from God.

My counter-point is that the descriptions of Nahom and Bountiful in the BOM are too** vague** to be used as evidence of special revelation. I posted the verses on Nahom earlier. The verses on Bountiful are very similar: a land of “fruit and wild honey” “filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind” by “a seashore” near “a mountain.”

I take back what I wrote earlier. Joseph Smith doesn’t need any special knowledge of Egypt or Bible history to come up with something like that! It doesn’t take divine revelation to make up a story about a land of fruit and wild honey filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind by a seashore near a mountain!

I’m going to concede this point. Great you found “Bountiful.” I’m happy for you. It doesn’t prove Joseph Smith had a revelation from God.

-C

Who said that Joseph Smith had a revelation from God about Bountiful? The Book of Mormon was not given to Joseph Smith by revelation. It was already written on plates of gold. Smith simply translated the plates by the power of God. The argument of a revelation being given to Smith about Bountiful would only hold water if Joseph Smith had written what he saw in a vision like the Apostle John did when he wrote the Book of Revelation. But this is not the way the Book of Mormon was brought forth. You are arguing a point that is irrelevant.

I am glad that you are now convinced that Bountiful has been located. Now, you can use it to help you believe the Book of Mormon is true.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

If you go far enough south, less east, you could reach Yemen which has about 4 rivers that empty into the sea. If you go less far south and more east you hit the northern area of the Persian gulf which has several other likely possibilities. If you continue east from there and follow the coastline I see about 6 river heads emptying into the Persian gulf.
I am sure a motivated archeologist could construct all sorts of evidence to validate any of these sites.
-D

You still have not given me exact locations where you claim Bountiful could be. Can you give me any names of these places so I can consider them?

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Who said that Joseph Smith had a revelation from God about Bountiful? The Book of Mormon was not given to Joseph Smith by revelation. It was already written on plates of gold. Smith simply translated the plates by the power of God. The argument of a revelation being given to Smith about Bountiful would only hold water if Joseph Smith had written what he saw in a vision like the Apostle John did when he wrote the Book of Revelation. But this is not the way the Book of Mormon was brought forth. You are arguing a point that is irrelevant.

I am glad that you are now convinced that Bountiful has been located. Now, you can use it to help you believe the Book of Mormon is true.

In Reformed theology, a specific message from God is called “special revelation.” Special revelation may be written (stone tablets, papyrus, etc.) or spoken (the Jewish prophets). This is as opposed to “general revelation” which is the knowledge of God we receive from nature (as Paul discusses in Romans).

Mormons believe the BOM is inspired by God and it contains a specific message about doctrine and history. I, therefore, used the term “revelation” (thinking “special revelation”) to describe the BOM.

Non-Mormons claim there are errors in the BOM which prove that it could not have been come from God (and hence would not be special revelation). Mormons claim there are no erros in the BOM and go a step further and state that there are things in the BOM that Smith would not have known (and hence must have come from God on gold plates – e.g. “special revelation”).

There is plenty of room in the category of “special revelation” to allow for a translation of gold plates. (I happen to think he made the whole thing up but) when I wrote that Joseph Smith had a revelation from God what I, technically, was saying was that the contents of the plates are “special revelation.” I’m sorry if my application of Reformed concepts to Mormon theology was confusing. Hopefully now you see what I meant.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

Mormons claim there are no erros in the BOM and go a step further and state that there are things in the BOM that Smith would not have known (and hence must have come from God on gold plates – e.g. “special revelation”).

Actually, the BOM indicated that it is not to be held to an inerrancy standard. I know LDS do not believe in inerrant scriptures and I do not think ROI would either.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Actually, the BOM indicated that it is not to be held to an inerrancy standard. I know LDS do not believe in inerrant scriptures and I do not think ROI would either.

Were there errors in the BOM?

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

Were there errors in the BOM?

-C

As you may or may not know the CoJCoLDS has made some changes to the BOM (I am not sure how ROI would respond). Almost none of these effect meaning, and most recently changes were made that involved comparing the current wording to the 1830’s BOM. Most changes have been made pointing to scribe errors of spelling and punctuation.

Hugh Nibley has always taught his classes using the 1830’s BOM.

If this were not some non-Mormon forum, I would have answered, “There are no errors in the BOM that I know of.” Which would have meant that I do not concern myself with the statement on the title page of the BOM, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God…”

There are no passages in the BOM to which I say, well that should read … instead.

My point was actually that LDS do not embrace inerrant scriptures, not that there are any errors. The scriptures are sufficient to aid men in coming to God, but are not to be held up as inerrant.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

As you may or may not know the CoJCoLDS has made some changes to the BOM (I am not sure how ROI would respond). Almost none of these effect meaning, and most recently changes were made that involved comparing the current wording to the 1830’s BOM. Most changes have been made pointing to scribe errors of spelling and punctuation.

Hugh Nibley has always taught his classes using the 1830’s BOM.

If this were not some non-Mormon forum, I would have answered, “There are no errors in the BOM that I know of.” Which would have meant that I do not concern myself with the statement on the title page of the BOM, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God…”

There are no passages in the BOM to which I say, well that should read … instead.

My point was actually that LDS do not embrace inerrant scriptures, not that there are any errors. The scriptures are sufficient to aid men in coming to God, but are not to be held up as inerrant.

Charity, TOm

I do know there have been some changes to the BOM over the years. My grandfather did his doctoral dissertation on the BOM and has a collection of old BOMs. He claims there have been “significant” changes, but I do not know the details of that claim. All of my quotes have been from the online BOM so they should be current. The hard copy I have for personal reading is from the 1980s.

The introduction for the BOM states:

“Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: ‘I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.’”

I have always taken this sentence to mean that if the BOM is the “most correct” book on Earth then it should essentially be inerrant. If there are serious problems with the history recounted in the BOM, then it would cause me to doubt the claim that it is the “most correct” book on Earth. If I doubt that claim then I doubt the prophet who made it and we are right back at the beginning again. It seems to me that the credibility of the BOM (and the Mormon religion) hinges on whether or not the historic claims presented therein are accurate.

Also I’m not aware that any Biblical prophet ever said “if there are mistakes in this message, they are my mistakes.” It seems that Mormons have a different idea of the office and role of the prophet, if they think that human mistakes could potentially creep into God’s message.

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

In Reformed theology, a specific message from God is called “special revelation.” Special revelation may be written (stone tablets, papyrus, etc.) or spoken (the Jewish prophets). This is as opposed to “general revelation” which is the knowledge of God we receive from nature (as Paul discusses in Romans).

Mormons believe the BOM is inspired by God and it contains a specific message about doctrine and history. I, therefore, used the term “revelation” (thinking “special revelation”) to describe the BOM.

Non-Mormons claim there are errors in the BOM which prove that it could not have been come from God (and hence would not be special revelation). Mormons claim there are no erros in the BOM and go a step further and state that there are things in the BOM that Smith would not have known (and hence must have come from God on gold plates – e.g. “special revelation”).

There is plenty of room in the category of “special revelation” to allow for a translation of gold plates. (I happen to think he made the whole thing up but) when I wrote that Joseph Smith had a revelation from God what I, technically, was saying was that the contents of the plates are “special revelation.” I’m sorry if my application of Reformed concepts to Mormon theology was confusing. Hopefully now you see what I meant.

-C

Since the plates were written upon by someone other that Joseph Smith, I do not see how this could be a revelation to him. If something that has been written by someone else is considered a “special revelation” to those who translate it, then the whole Bible would be considered a “special revelation”, because the people who translated the Bible into English were not the ones who wrote the Bible in the first place.

Do you believe that the Bible was translated by the power of God? Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to have been translated by the power of God, and you call the Book of Mormon a “special revelation”, then the Bible would also qualify as a “special revelation” by your qualifications. It does not matter if a document is written on gold plates, cloth, papyrus, or tree bark, either all of them would qualify as “special revelations” or none of them would.

When we speak of certain things that could not be known by Smith at the time that Book of Mormon came forth, we are saying that he could not have written what is in the Book of Mormon because of his lack of knowledge of these subjects. We are not saying that he received information from God, such as by a Word of Knowledge, and then proceeded to write the Book of Mormon. We are saying that the only way he would have known about what is written in the Book of Mormon was after he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of the Eternal All-powerful God.

 

[rod_of_iron]

I use the Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon. The people who published this version of the Book of Mormon spent over 14 years comparing the versions of the Book of Mormon with each other to produce the most correct version of it without retranslating the plates of gold again. These people relied heavily on the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript which both precede the 1830 Book of Mormon. I believe that the original manuscript was completely accurate, but a great deal of it has deteriorated to the point that it cannot be used on its own. It was water damage.

Therefore, I believe the most correct version of the Book of Mormon existing on earth today is this RCE version that I am speaking of. This version can be found online at:

restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE

Why not compare any of these changes you say were done to the Book of Mormon with the RCE version?

I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is inerrant, anymore than I believe that the Bible is inerrant. To say a book is inerrant and is the Word of God is to deify that book. Jesus is the only one referred to as being the Word of God. Jesus is inerrant. But the Bible and Book of Mormon are reliable enough to lead us to the truth, even if some of the historical details may not be completely accurate.