Is the Mormon God/Heavenly Father described in the Bible?

[theidler]

Theidler, We do not know the exact term Nephi used for “Bible”. However, we do know that the Nephite language was unique. Here is the comment from Moroni, the last writer in the BofM, “But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.” (Mormon 9:34). As Moroni indicates, no other people knew the Nephite’s language. That is why God needed to prepare a way to translate the book.

…the Nephites were a pretty major civilization by the sounds of it. Did they never come in contact with other civilizations aside from the Lamanites, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Olmecs? If the Nephites originally came from Jerusalem, would they have not spoken Hebrew? Or was it originally Hebrew and then sort of gradually changed into a different form of Hebrew once they had been settled on the continent?
It would greatly help if we had these plates so we could actually examine the characters and language used.

 

[Miriam1947]

…the Nephites were a pretty major civilization by the sounds of it. Did they never come in contact with other civilizations aside from the Lamanites, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Olmecs? If the Nephites originally came from Jerusalem, would they have not spoken Hebrew? Or was it originally Hebrew and then sort of gradually changed into a different form of Hebrew once they had been settled on the continent?
It would greatly help if we had these plates so we could actually examine the characters and language used.

So sorry, you cannot have that which has never existed.

 

[Janderich]

…the Nephites were a pretty major civilization by the sounds of it. Did they never come in contact with other civilizations aside from the Lamanites, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Olmecs?

We don’t know for sure.

theidler:

If the Nephites originally came from Jerusalem, would they have not spoken Hebrew? Or was it originally Hebrew and then sort of gradually changed into a different form of Hebrew once they had been settled on the continent?

Moroni says, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also;…” (Mormon 9:33)

theidler:

It would greatly help if we had these plates so we could actually examine the characters and language used.

Indeed it would, but then what of faith? Can the Lord not establish his word through witnesses? If two or three were sufficient to put a man to death in Moses’ day are not twelve sufficient to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon? Can the Lord not ask the rest to believe on faith? As Paul said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1).

 

[TexanKnight]

We don’t know for sure.

That is because there is no archaeological evidence that even acknowledges the existence of the Nephites. Mormons do not even know where they lived

Moroni says, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also;…” (Mormon 9:33)

Joseph could never have written in Hebrew, so he came up with a reformed egyptian that also has no evidence that Hebrews knew

Indeed it would, but then what of faith? Can the Lord not establish his word through witnesses? If two or three were sufficient to put a man to death in Moses’ day are not twelve sufficient to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon? Can the Lord not ask the rest to believe on faith? As Paul said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1).

Depends on the men, a convicted con man and his best friends and family are not reliable witnesses

 

[theidler]

We don’t know for sure.

That’s it? A civilization that large has left no known (as of yet) trace of its contacts with any other civilizations of the time period?

Moroni says, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also;…” (Mormon 9:33)

Is Hebrew a lengthy writing style? I am not sure. But it makes no sense why the Book is still written in a such a rambling style, with many unnecessary phrases peppered throughout - a sentence reading “yea, and it came to pass that _____ was exceedingly afraid, yea, even unto the depths of his soul”. Obviously if space was an issue, why is the writing style not truncated or abrupt? Or is this a translation issue?

Indeed it would, but then what of faith? Can the Lord not establish his word through witnesses? If two or three were sufficient to put a man to death in Moses’ day are not twelve sufficient to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon? Can the Lord not ask the rest to believe on faith? As Paul said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1).

Faith is one thing - but is it not also written, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1 KJV)
We are not to be “carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Ephesians 4:14 KJV). We are to walk by faith, but not be led astray as well. Therefore, is it not permissible for someone to be skeptical of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism’s doctrines, when there is so little evidence for it all (especially when compared with the writings of the Bible)? Are we to give the Restored Church of God the benefit of the doubt? How about the Jehovah’s Witnesses? What about people who claim to be Christ re-incarnated? What about the Gnostic gospels and writings? Are we to just follow them in faith until we find out that they are untrue? There has to be a bit of reason involved here Janderich, otherwise one becomes not a sheep following the Shepherd, but a lemming walking off a cliff.

 

[soren1]

Soren,
I appreciate your more rational approach free from personal attacks and humor at my expense. Such things are no doubt easy to do on this site in which a group of people are ready to join in the “fun”. C.S. Lewis once said, “For unfortunately, we enjoy thinking about other people’s faults…” (and I might add even percieved faults).

Thank you.

Anyway, what of Emma Smith’s statement? She of course is not one of the 11 witnesses to the BofM, but let’s discuss it.

I think she is just as relevant as any of the eleven, because she is a witness to the whole event of the BOM coming forth. Her testimony belongs to the broader circumstances wherein the witnesses became persuaded of the Book of Mormon, and upon which their credibility depends. It is quite obvious to me that on the hypothesis that the BOM is a fraud, then the best explanation of the eleven witnesses would not be a twelve-man conspiracy between them and Joseph, but rather some trickery achieved by Smith alone. I think this for two reasons: first, conspiracies are hard to accomplish; second, the persistence of the witnesses in their testimony, even among those who separated from Smith, shows that they had real conviction.

How they came to such conviction would, on the fraud hypothesis, always have to remain a matter of speculation. One can only show that some deception could have worked, because many greater ruses have been pulled off at times by other people. I could bore you to tears by listing off plausible ways Smith might have done it either which illusion or, more likely, coercive psychology. I could bore you still further with examples of known charlatans who have made similar achievements. Yet all that could result from that would be the modest achievement of showing that other explanations besides the Mormon one can fit the facts. It would do nothing to show which is true, and the case against Smith would still remain hypothetical.

However, the Emma’s text is not hypothetical, and does help show which is true. If we think only of broad questions like “Did the witnesses really see the plates?” our answers will depend on guesswork. Yet if we narrow our questions to more elementary matters like “Do the description of the plates by all the relevant witnesses square with gold?” we can draw firmer conclusions. We might fail to answer how Smith did in fact persuade his witnesses, but we can rule out one possible answer: that the way he did it was by producing a real golden object.

You may have more knowledge on metallurgy then do I. I truly have not investigated if gold sheets given certain thicknesses can “rustle”.

You should. But even if you don’t, you can find out for yourself. Think about gold: it is soft and heavy. Play with a wedding ring: even in its alloyed state, it doesn’t sound like other metals. At least some LDS apologists acknowledge this and some have even used it constructively in pro-Mormon arguments. For instance, I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find an article online I once read where a Mormon argues from Emma’s rustling that the plates had to be .02 inches thick, because that is how thin the gold would need to be to have the properties Emma describes. The author uses this fact to rebut the famous argument that the BOM was too heavy for Joseph to run with. Alas for the Mormon rebuttal, however, a sheet of gold thinner than a piece of copy-paper could hardly be described as a “plate” but rather a “sheet.”

 

[soren1]

However, let me give you what we have. The three witnesses do not specifically mention the composition of the plates but the eight witnesses say, “Be it known… : That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.”

A harder, lighter metal with yellow hue, say brass, could have both the appearance of gold and create the metallic rusting sound. Thus, the hypothesis that the sheets were not gold harmonizes the testimony of the three witnesses with Emma’s account better than the hypothesis that they were gold.

Also from the Book of Mormon itself we have, “Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone.” (Mormon 8:5) From the above, plus a few other statements it seems clear that the Book of Mormon had the appearance of gold but it is not obvious if the plates were of pure gold. In fact, it is more likely that they were an alloy of gold. Such an alloy may account for the apparent discrepancy.

I have already twice mentioned the alloy theory, and my argument takes it into account. I also ground the it could just be gold plating. In fact, gold always needs to be alloyed to some extent in order to retain its shape, because it is a very soft (and hence non-rustling) metal. Nevertheless, I don’t see why Moroni 8:5 supports the theory of an alloy. At best it merely shows that there are other metals besides gold that Moroni could use to write if he had them. But we already know that, because there are brass plates too. The text here is silent about mixtures of metal and provides no evidence either way.

You liked what I said about the burden of proof, so let me say more about what I think I have proven. I have talked a lot about evidence and hypotheses etc., and I wouldn’t be surprised if you have (reasonably) thought at some time, “What about praying open-mindedly? Does this guy think that empirical analysis is the only way to know if the BOM is true?” If you have wondered that, my answer is no; my core reasons for rejecting the BOM and the Moroni prayer with it are all theological. Yet the present topic for discussion is the evidence, so I am leaving my theological views out of it so, that the discussion of the evidence isn’t tainted by presuppositions weighted in my favor, the better to grant you the benefit of the doubt.

Let’s say that the plates were made of .02 in. tumbaga. Do you think it strengthens or hurts the testimonial evidence for the BOM if its defense requires an unlikely and wholly speculative hypothesis of this kind, and most importantly, an hypothesis based only on the need to defend the testimony rather than positive evidence contained in the testimony itself? That is to say, it is based on a non-evidential assertion. I think it obvious that this hurts your case badly, as do Harris’s qualifications and the Urim and Thummim stuff. I think it is harder to explain problems like these than to imagine how Smith could deceive the witnesses. That means the cumulative evidence is more damaging than helpful BOM, and it can be said without prejudice that you are not in a position of strength challenging us on the evidential basis of the witnesses.

 

[pablope]

Let me first frame the context of this response. I have already discussed some of the eye witness accounts of the golden plates. We are now talking about a statement made within the book itself.

The term “history” is my word for what the angel explained. I was attempting to describe in a few words why Nephi would generally understand what we today refer to as the Bible. However, you are correct in saying that what I referred to as “history” is to Nephi in fact future.

/LIST]

And you expect me to believe that? Your statement belies what you believe and have been taught…that it was the Bible…but when the inconsistencies where pointed out…you try to change your story (sorry if it offends you, just imho…)

It it was indeed truly prophesy as you said later, you would have mentioned it initially as such…as prophesy…if it was what have been taught you…but you stated otherwise…

 

[pablope]

Let me first frame the context of this response. I have already discussed some of the eye witness accounts of the golden plates.
Without having to delve in too deep, here is the explanation in brief…

Nephi sees Gentiles cross the ocean to the Americas (my word). With them they have a book (see 1 Ne 13: 20)
The angel then explains what is in the book. Among other items he explains…

• It is a record of the Jew’s.
• It contains the covenants of the Lord to Israel.
• It contains prophecy of the holy prophets.
• It is a record similar to the plates Nephi has (Books of Moses, etc).

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the abook proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

So, how could such book be a record of the 12 apostles…not all apostles wrote anything…only Peter, John, Judas and Matthew wrote anything…???

And another interesting thing…look at the use of the word gentile…

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the aJews in purity unto the bGentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

Gentile…it’s root word is Latin…there is no Hebrew or Greek equivalent.

Gentile derives from Latin gens (from which, together with forms of the cognate Greek word genos, also derive gene, general, genus and genesis). The original meaning of “clan” or “family” was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. …In Saint Jerome’s Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used in this wider sense, along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Hebrew peoples.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile)

So again…how could an angel use, this time, a Latin word…for speaking to a supposedly Hebrew Nephi?

:banghead:

This the case of another inept angel…

 

[Pepband_Mom]

The reliability of the Bible is without question - over 5000 copies exist today.

BOM comes up with a goose-egg. No proof, just hear-say. Smithsonian has gotten letters for years about the BOM - it would have been taught nation wide IF were true. Thousand’s of archeologists in the USA strangely are silent about this man-made nonsense disguised as “truth”; not much there to teach about.

In 1831, Mormon council decided to print the history of the Church “the Book of Covenants” with only 65 of Smith’s “revelations”; later it evolves into “Doctrine & Covenants” with many changes: Section 68 of D&C not printed in 1835 “the Book of Covenants” but down the road in “the Evening and the Morning Star” in where 323 words were added and 21 left out - boiling down to changes in context as words added & deleted - apparently can’t attribute to the sloppy secretary Harris this time (didn’t Lefty discuss that in another blog? yeah, I remember! the Star Wars Music).

Smith had a relevelation published as per Book of Commandments - not planning on any other work other than BOM.

March 1829 revelation printed in Book of Com. Chapter 4, v 2: “…and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”

This was reprinted in 1835. Smith decides to create new scripture but has to skirt around God’s apparent statement that He will not grant Smith another “gift”. So the change in church policy requires a “change” in revelation to make it fly.

D & C 5:4: “And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I commanded that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”

Smith again digs deeper & deeper holes, the story of his life it would seem. Bag the “golden plates”. How 'bout a golden shovel?

 

[Janderich]

It is quite obvious to me that on the hypothesis that the BOM is a fraud, then the best explanation of the eleven witnesses would not be a twelve-man conspiracy between them and Joseph, but rather some trickery achieved by Smith alone. I think this for two reasons: first, conspiracies are hard to accomplish; second, the persistence of the witnesses in their testimony, even among those who separated from Smith, shows that they had real conviction.

How they came to such conviction would, on the fraud hypothesis, always have to remain a matter of speculation. One can only show that some deception could have worked, because many greater ruses have been pulled off at times by other people. I could bore you to tears by listing off plausible ways Smith might have done it either which illusion or, more likely, coercive psychology. I could bore you still further with examples of known charlatans who have made similar achievements. Yet all that could result from that would be the modest achievemeant of showing that other explanations besides the Mormon one can fit the facts. It would do nothing to show which is true, and the case against Smith would still remain hypothetical.

Soren, You agree that the eleven witnesses had real conviction. However, you want to wipe away their testimonies, both collectively and individually, by making a completely unsupported supposition that they were deceived? Such broad statements with no facts surely do not negate their testimony. Moreover, as you said earlier, “I take as a general principle that in debates about religion the burden of proof is always carried by the objector. That means I must prove my case; you need not.” Your case has not been proven regarding the eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon.

Listen to David Whitmer’s statement (one of the three witnesses) when he was accused of somehow being deluded into thinking he had seen the plates, “No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!” (See Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cited in Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration, pp. 311-12)

soren1:

However, the Emma’s text is not hypothetical, and does help show which is true. If we think only of broad questions like “Did the witnesses really see the plates?” our answers will depend on guesswork. Yet if we narrow our questions to more elementary matters like “Do the description of the plates by all the relevant witnesses square with gold?” we can draw firmer conclusions. We might fail to answer how Smith did in fact persuade his witnesses, but we can rule out one possible answer: that the way he did it was by producing a real golden object.

Think about gold: it is soft and heavy. Play with a wedding ring: even in its alloyed state, it doesn’t sound like other metals. At least some LDS apologists acknowledge this and some have even used it constructively in pro-Mormon arguments…

A harder, lighter metal with yellow hue, say brass, could have both the appearance of gold and create the metallic rusting sound. Thus, the hypothesis that the sheets were not gold harmonizes the testimony of the three witnesses with Emma’s account better than the hypothesis that they were gold.

I have already twice mentioned the alloy theory, and my argument takes it into account. I also ground the it could just be gold plating. In fact, gold always needs to be alloyed to some extent in order to retain its shape, because it is a very soft (and hence non-rustling) metal. Nevertheless, I don’t see why Moroni 8:5 supports the theory of an alloy. At best it merely shows that there are other metals besides gold that Moroni could use to write if he had them. But we already know that, because there are brass plates too. The text here is silent about mixtures of metal and provides no evidence either way.

You liked what I said about the burden of proof, so let me say more about what I think I have proven… Let’s say that the plates were made of .02 in. tumbaga. Do you think it strengthens or hurts the testimonial evidence for the BOM if its defense requires an unlikely and wholly speculative hypothesis of this kind, and most importantly, an hypothesis based only on the need to defend the testimony rather than positive evidence contained in the testimony itself? That is to say, it is based on a non-evidential assertion. I think it obvious that this hurts your case badly, as do Harris’s qualifications and the Urim and Thummim stuff. I think it is harder to explain problems like these than to imagine how Smith could deceive the witnesses. That means the cumulative evidence is more damaging than helpful BOM, and it can be said without prejudice that you are not in a position of strength challenging us on the evidential basis of the witnesses.

I’m not sure I truly understand your argument now. Is it regarding the use of the word “gold”? If so I don’t really find it surprising that some would speak of the plates as gold even though they may not be 100% gold. This is exactly what we do with “gold” jewelry today. Instead of saying something like, “the ring is 75% pure gold alloyed with 25% copper” we simply say the ring is “gold”.

 

[Janderich]

And you expect me to believe that? Your statement belies what you believe and have been taught…that it was the Bible…but when the inconsistencies where pointed out…you try to change your story (sorry if it offends you, just imho…)

It it was indeed truly prophesy as you said later, you would have mentioned it initially as such…as prophesy…if it was what have been taught you…but you stated otherwise…

Pablope, I have honestly explained my choice of words. How can we carry on a discussion if you do not even believe me regarding such a simple matter? For example, you have given me no reason not to take you at your word, and so I believe what you say to be the truth as you see it. I hope you would give me the same courtesy. You really must be less suspicious of my motives.

 

[pablope]

Pablope, I have honestly explained my choice of words. How can we carry on a discussion if you do not even believe me regarding such a simple matter? For example, you have given me no reason not to take you at your word, and so I believe what you say to be the truth as you see it. I hope you would give me the same courtesy. You really must be less suspicious of my motives.

I apologize, Janderich…

Let me restate my point…if it was a prophecy…it would have been always taught as a prophecy to you…to any mormon…and any conversation about the matter, you would always say it is prophecy without any second thought…it would be an automatic reaction…(I hope you get my point)…or a predictable reaction, on your part.

But your initial statement/s treat it as “history”…as something with a past…which is your automatic reaction without thinking about it…I get this to mean, it had been taught to you as such…not a prophecy…and when the inconsistency was pointed out…the bible being not a hebrew word…you tried to explain it away.

Again, I apologize…but from other mormon posters here…it has been the usual predictable response or retort…so, I am sorry for lumping you like that.

Well, let us get on…from post 69…can you explain the use of the word gentile?

[SIGN]25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the aJews in purity unto the bGentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

Gentile…it’s root word is Latin…there is no Hebrew or Greek equivalent.

Gentile derives from Latin gens (from which, together with forms of the cognate Greek word genos, also derive gene, general, genus and genesis). The original meaning of “clan” or “family” was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. …In Saint Jerome’s Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used in this wider sense, along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Hebrew peoples.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile)

So again…how could an angel use, this time, a Latin word…for speaking to a supposedly Hebrew Nephi?[/SIGN]

Gentile would not even be used till the NT…so how could a supposedly Latin word be used to a hebrew audience?

 

[Janderich]

Well, let us get on…from post 69…can you explain the use of the word gentile?

[SIGN]25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the aJews in purity unto the bGentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

Gentile…it’s root word is Latin…there is no Hebrew or Greek equivalent.

Gentile derives from Latin gens (from which, together with forms of the cognate Greek word genos, also derive gene, general, genus and genesis). The original meaning of “clan” or “family” was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. …In Saint Jerome’s Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used in this wider sense, along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Hebrew peoples.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile)

So again…how could an angel use, this time, a Latin word…for speaking to a supposedly Hebrew Nephi?[/SIGN]

Gentile would not even be used till the NT…so how could a supposedly Latin word be used to a Hebrew audience?

Pablape, The Book of Mormon was translated into English and uses, where possible, similar terminology as the KJV of the Bible. The KJV of the old testament uses the term gentile many times. From your same wiki article further down the page we have:

The most important of such Hebrew words was goyim (singular, goy), a term with the broad meaning of “peoples” or “nations” which was sometimes used to refer to Israelites, but most commonly as a generic label for peoples. Strong’s Concordance defines goy as “nation, people, usually of non-Hebrew people, or of descendants of Abraham, or of Israel, or of a swarm of locusts or other animals (fig.) Goyim = ‘nations’.” Strongs #1471[1]

In the King James Version, Gentile is only one of several words used to translate goy or goyim. It is translated as “nation” 374 times, “heathen” 143 times, “Gentiles” 30 times, and “people” 11 times.

The Book of Mormon also uses the terms “heathen”, “nation” and “gentile”. I hope it is obvious that the angel would not speak in Latin. And again obvious that words had to be translated. I see no contradiction.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The point of a con is for the target to be convinced. So eleven witnesses had a conviction. A conviction of a fraud only makes their conviction something to be pitied, rather than believed as conveying a truth.

How many millions of people today are sucked into Smith’s con? Still the same con, still the conviction of an untruth.

 

[Janderich]

Obviously if space was an issue, why is the writing style not truncated or abrupt? Or is this a translation issue?

It is truncated all over the place. The Book of Mormon uses the term, “and it came to pass” 1297 times! If that does not indicated that the text was edited I don’t know what does.

 

[KathleenGee]

What kind of witnesses and what were their proof, and how consistent were they?..what issues would make a witness compromised?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Just a side note:

My 25th anniversary of leaving the LDS cult is coming up. To this day, whenever I drive past an LDS chapel I utter a small prayer of thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit for helping me to recognize the deception and to get out when I did.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy::flowers:

Yay! So glad you got out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy::flowers:

Yay! So glad you got out.

lol…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am jealous…it has only been 22 years for me…

Glad you got out too!

:clapping::extrahappy: :dancing: