Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[Jerusha]

Any good work of fantasy fiction has to have some kind of historical “backbone”. The BoM does have such a framework, and Solomon Spalding provided it. That is what made it believable. Any honest witnesses to the BoM were talking about that backbone, which is authentic, and I honestly don’t know where Spalding found it. Maybe he did find it buried in a stone box.

 

[dianaiad]

Any good work of fantasy fiction has to have some kind of historical “backbone”. The BoM does have such a framework, and Solomon Spalding provided it. That is what made it believable. Any honest witnesses to the BoM were talking about that backbone, which is authentic, and I honestly don’t know where Spalding found it. Maybe he did find it buried in a stone box.

hey.

Jerusha.

Have you READ Spaulding’s manuscript?

 

[Catholic20064]

So if the book of mormon was conclusively proven historically, you would still be a mormon? You do know that if this ever happened it would also prove the existence of god. And most catholics on this forum would jump ship and join the mormons. And atheism would be a thing of the past because god was proven.

I am afraid that this is not how god works at this morment. All depends on faith and not evidence. I see no proof for the bible. Many novels can have historical facts woven in them. But they are still novels. What is your proof for the bible? Now it would be nice to have a second hand account at the time of christ’s ministry confirming the gospels. But we do not have such a document. And it would be nice to have something in Christ’s hand. I am sure that he used writing utensils at times. And it would have been nice if Paul would have went to where Christ was preaching and obtained written testimonies from those who witnessed the miracles of christ. But the only thing that we have is the bible, and that doesn’t include much of what christ said at all. I am sure that he said much more than what is now in the bible…

The bible takes faith, not evidence.

We’ve been through this before. It would prove nothing about the Book of Mormon if we found some Israelites had settled the Americas and done some Jewish/Christian worship. It would only give the Book of Mormon more plausibility than it has right now. It would still take faith to believe the Book of Mormon was an actual record of those Jewish/Christian people and a true story of Jesus’ visit to the Americas. That no Israeli peoples can be found in Ancient America makes the Book of Mormon implausible. We would expect to find great civilizations built around the teachings of Christ in the Americas if the Book of Mormon were true, but finding such a civilization would not in itself prove Joseph Smith’s story to be accurate. It would still take faith. God does not expect us to leave our brains behind as we exercise faith.

 

[Catholic20064]

hey.

Jerusha.

Have you READ Spaulding’s manuscript?

Which one? The one that is available or the one that was destroyed?

 

[Jerusha]

Which one? The one that is available or the one that was destroyed?

And who apparently destroyed “Manuscript Found”? There were more than twice as many witnesses to the content of “Manuscript Found” as there were to the “miraculous” writing of the BOM.

 

[ParkerD]

General comment to readers of this thread:

One of the opportunities the Book of Mormon provides to its readers (and the Bible does this also, but so many people push in so many directions with Biblical teachings that it is more difficult for a reader to find an anchor) is the opportunity to have a “touchstone of truth”. One who learns to distinguish truth versus an errant “voice” can detect truth by understanding how truth works, and how the spirit of Christ enlightens every person who is born into the world who will listen to the guidance that never-failing spiritual prompting provides. People who lack that in their life are left in the dark, groping their way through life as though they are sheep with no shepherd, foraging here and muttering there, trying to figure life out while mistrusting everything and everyone around them because they have no spiritual anchor. One example has been provided today on this thread. Such a lost opportunity!

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, Parker, there are both errant voices in the BOM, and truthful ones. Generally the truthful ones came from the Bible, Solomon Spalding, and possibly Oliver Cowdery.

 

[Catholic20064]

General comment to readers of this thread:

One of the opportunities the Book of Mormon provides to its readers (and the Bible does this also, but so many people push in so many directions with Biblical teachings that it is more difficult for a reader to find an anchor) is the opportunity to have a “touchstone of truth”. One who learns to distinguish truth versus an errant “voice” can detect truth by understanding how truth works, and how the spirit of Christ enlightens every person who is born into the world who will listen to the guidance that never-failing spiritual prompting provides. People who lack that in their life are left in the dark, groping their way through life as though they are sheep with no shepherd, foraging here and muttering there, trying to figure life out while mistrusting everything and everyone around them because they have no spiritual anchor. One example has been provided today on this thread. Such a lost opportunity!

That’s why I became Catholic. The Holy Spirit enlightened me to know the Catholic Church is God’s true church. Jesus is my shepard and he continues to guide the Catholic Church he founded through the successors of Peter and the apostles.

 

[isit]

Here is th link to th talk.

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-28,00.html

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Parker, there are both errant voices in the BOM, and truthful ones. Generally the truthful ones came from the Bible, Solomon Spalding, and possibly Oliver Cowdery.

Hi, Jerusha,
A serious junior high school English student could take the “word print”, syntax, usage, and voice/diction of Oliver Cowdery’s writings (some of which I’ve read) and of Spalding’s writings (some of which I’ve read) and then of the Book of Mormon with its many different word prints of its different genuine authors, and see so many differences that it becomes a no brainer to see the differences.

As to what I wrote of before, the “touchstone of truth”, there is another aspect of this which is that the Book of Mormon sifts for the hearts of those who really do seek truth in their lives or those who seek “smokescreens of truth” to allow self-deception, or who seek opportunities for contention at every turn in their lives. The Book of Mormon is a peace-maker for those seeking peace, but a sword for those seeking sword-play and vindictiveness. It is a two-edged sword, as are the words of Christ. They allow the reader to become a self-judge by what they do with the message of the prophets and the message of Christ and His loving atonement.

 

[dianaiad]

Which one? The one that is available or the one that was destroyed?

Actually, as far as I am aware, there is only one; the one that is ‘available.’ The only reason anybody has to assume that one was destroyed, or ‘lost,’ is because when Hurlbut got the Spaulding manuscript from Spaulding’s widow, he could see no parallel between the manuscript he had in his hand and the Book of Mormon.

He therefore determined that the ‘real’ manuscript (with the same title) must have been ‘lost.’

Why? because the BOM was supposed to be based on this manuscript and…
It wasn’t, so…
the one it was supposed to have been based on was destroyed or lost. Why? because the Book of Mormon was supposed to be based upon the Spaulding manuscript, and it wasn’t.

Both Fawn Brodie and Gerald Tanner, neither one fans of the CoJCoLDS, put any credence in the ‘Spaulding Theory,’ and believe me, both of them did a great deal of research in order to prove that it was true.

It turns out…there was only one manuscript; the one we have, and it bears very little resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

So I guess the answer to your query as to ‘which one…’ is 'there is only one. Have you read it?"

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

And who apparently destroyed “Manuscript Found”? There were more than twice as many witnesses to the content of “Manuscript Found” as there were to the “miraculous” writing of the BOM.

Indeed…and every one of those witnesses were coached by Hurlbut, it turns out, to ‘remember’ things from the Spaulding manuscript that they needed to read the Book of Mormon to identify. Or weren’t you aware that almost every one of those witnesses had been given a copy of the Book of Mormon to read, after which they were asked to remember what was in the “Manuscript Found” that they had read years before?

They were, y’know. I imagine that the conversation went rather like this:

Hurlbut: Now I know it has been some time since you read Spaulding’s work, but look here at this (showing them a passage from the BoM) Do you remember a fight scene?

**Witness…**well, yes, I think there was a fight or two…

**Hurlbut…**I think that the general’s name was, oh, Nephi, right?

**Witness…**that could have been it, I suppose…

**Hurlbut…**That would be spelled N.e.p.h.i, just like in this book right here, yes?

**Witness…**that sounds about right. (turning to his croney) That sound about right to you, Charlie? Yeah, I suppose that’s about right.

**Hurlbut…**I’m told that “Manuscript Found” was written in a ‘scriptural style,’ rather like the bible. Is that what you remember?

Witness…Yeah, it sounded pretty preachy, I guess.

**Hurlbut…**What made you think that it sounded ‘preachy?" Was it something like this…"It came to pass,’ or…'and it came to pass…" what was it?

**Witness…**I dunno, "and it came to pass,’ I guess. That sounds about right. That sound about right, Charlie?

Hurlbut…How about “now it came to pass.” Did you see that?

Witness…I guess.

Hurlbut…now don’t you worry about anything. I’ll just write this down for you the way I heard it.

…and indeed, he did that favor for his witnesses. All his affidavits are in his own handwriting, and it is fairly universally accepted (by severe critics of the church, not just by apologists) that Hurlbut coached and manipulated those affidavits. There are quite a few affidavits, even from people who didn’t LIKE the Smiths or the Mormons, that attest that the Book of Mormon did NOT come from the Spaulding manuscript…and y’know what?

Not a single one of those is in Hurlbut’s handwriting.

Imagine that.

NO reasonable scholar still thinks that the Book of Mormon was cribbed from a non-existant earlier.

In fact, this is one of the ways serious researchers into this can be known. If they still hold to this really astoundingly stupid theory, then their scholarship is seriously at issue. I have my issues with Fawn Brodie, but I have to admit, she did her work rather completely on this one. For one thing, she has a time line on where Sydney Rigdon was during the time in question that precludes his finding the manuscript, copying it…or getting involved with the Mormons.

But never mind, m’dear. I’m quite aware that you will continue to believe that the BoM is cribbed from a non-existant manuscript.

 

[why_me]

We’ve been through this before. It would prove nothing about the Book of Mormon if we found some Israelites had settled the Americas and done some Jewish/Christian worship. It would only give the Book of Mormon more plausibility than it has right now. It would still take faith to believe the Book of Mormon was an actual record of those Jewish/Christian people and a true story of Jesus’ visit to the Americas.

Hardly. This why people like you are always calling for conclusive evidence to prove the book of mormon. The plausability of the book has very little to do with evidence. The same can be said for the bible. I see no evidence for the bible either. The bible does not prove that Jesus was the son of god, unfortunately. Nor does it prove that there is a god.

However, what we have in the book of mormon are 11 people who saw the plates through a divine intervention.And then we have Emma Smith saying that no way could her husband Joseph write that book because if he did, she would have known. And then we have these witnesses to the book of mormon going to their graves testifying to its truthfulness. I see no such witnesses for the new testament. And then we have both Hyrum and Joseph going to their deaths for the supposed con when it would have been very easy to deny the book and live.

The 11 witnesses give a powerful testimony that what they saw is what they saw. No one faltered about what they experienced. And that means much.

 

[why_me]

Not a single one of those is in Hurlbut’s handwriting.

Imagine that.

NO reasonable scholar still thinks that the Book of Mormon was cribbed from a non-existant earlier.

In fact, this is one of the ways serious researchers into this can be known. If they still hold to this really astoundingly stupid theory, then their scholarship is seriously at issue. I have my issues with Fawn Brodie, but I have to admit, she did her work rather completely on this one. For one thing, she has a time line on where Sydney Rigdon was during the time in question that precludes his finding the manuscript, copying it…or getting involved with the Mormons.

But never mind, m’dear. I’m quite aware that you will continue to believe that the BoM is cribbed from a non-existant manuscript.

And then of course we have to get all these people together to correlate the book of mormon. Lets see, we have Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and the dead Spaulding. Then we need the original manucript written by the three who for some reason thought copying aspects of the spaulding manucript would further their cause. And then of course, we need to explain how Oliver and Sidney both of whom had a falling out with Joseph remained silent about the con and allowed Joseph to receive all the glory for the book and con. And then we have to explain why Joseph at one moment stuck his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon with no manucript to be seen and how all three duped their wives and family and why they would do so.

And then after all the persecution all still remained silent and persevered in the con. And how 11 witnesses went to their deathbed testifying to the book of mormon and how they handled the plates. Somehow, the so called con should have failed almost from the very beginning…but…all stuck to their story and no one at that time, uncovered a plot. And that would have been the time to do so.

 

[why_me]

Also a lot of these rumors that the critics are now coming forth with were around at the time of Joseph Smith, including authorship of the book of mormon. Many people tried to find another voice for the book since no one really believed that Joseph could have written such a book. And of course, the rumor about sidney rigdon writing the book were around when Sidney was a good mormon leader. He always denied his authorship. And of course, if I were a member at that time, I would have asked him personally: Sidney, did you write the book of mormon? And I am sure that it was asked of him. And in his last breath, he continued to deny his involvement in the book of mormon as he prepared to face his maker.

 

[Catholic20064]

If you all want to keep believing in the Book of Mormon fantasy that is your right. Eventually, it will become your problem. Elder Holland didn’t offer any good reasons to believe in the Book of Mormon in his talk.

 

[why_me]

If you all want to keep believing in the Book of Mormon fantasy that is your right. Eventually, it will become your problem. Elder Holland didn’t offer any good reasons to believe in the Book of Mormon in his talk.

The likelihood of Joseph and his brother hyum dying for a fraud is slight to be sure. Not to mention that none of the witnesses ever retracted their testimony even during Joseph Smith’s darkest days is a good plus for the book of mormon. Now does that make it true. No. But it doesn’t make it false either.

 

[Catholic20064]

The likelihood of Joseph and his brother hyum dying for a fraud is slight to be sure. Not to mention that none of the witnesses ever retracted their testimony even during Joseph Smith’s darkest days is a good plus for the book of mormon. Now does that make it true. No. But it doesn’t make it false either.

You are assuming the Mormon Church’s version of history is correct and that Joseph and Hyrum actually thought they were going to die in Carthage Jail. I don’t put a lot of stock in those tales. There is also evidence that Hyrum and Joseph expected the Nauvoo Militia to come and rescue them. We don’t really know what Hyrum and Joseph were thinking when they were in Carthage Jail beyond what pro-Joseph witnesses like John Taylor and Willard Richards reported. I deem both of them to be unreliable witnesses because of their consistent lying regarding polygamy and other church matters. As to the witnesses to the Book of Mormon there are many conflicting stories about what they actually claimed to see. We also have good reason to believe that Saints in Nauvoo believed Cowdrey had actually denied his testimony according to a poem by Eliza R. Snow:

Amazed with wonder! I look round Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
To see most people of our day, Because Peter cursed and swore?
Reject the glorious gospel sound, Or Book of Mormon not his word
Because the simple turn away. Because denied, by Oliver?
Or does it prove there is no time, Or prove, that Joseph Smith is false
Because some watches will not go? Because apostates say tis so?

The direct statement that the witnesses never denied their testimonies is fraught with historical problems.

 

[Jerusha]

We also have good reason to believe that Saints in Nauvoo believed Cowdrey had actually denied his testimony.The direct statement that the witnesses never denied their testimonies is fraught with historical problems.

This is interesting in that the Jockers study indicated Cowdery was the author of chapters in the Book of Mormon which presented conventional Christian theology. David Whitmer was not a credible witness for Cowdery’s deathbed statement. Cowdery was an important part of the conspiracy, but may have been the most honest among them. He was needed because he had the skills in working copper, for the dummy plates, and because of his level of literacy.

 

[Catholic20064]

This is interesting in that the Jockers study indicated Cowdery was the author of chapters in the Book of Mormon which presented conventional Christian theology. David Whitmer was not a credible witness for Cowdery’s deathbed statement. Cowdery was an important part of the conspiracy, but may have been the most honest among them. He was needed because he had the skills in working copper, for the dummy plates, and because of his level of literacy.

It makes much more sense to me that the Catholic Church, even with all of its historical baggage, has the most valid claim to direct apostolic succession. The Mormon Church just has too many loose ends in its history that need to be tied up to make it ring true. There is really no indication the leaders of the Saints were honest men in any of their dealings whether it be money digging, lying about polygamy, the Kirtland Bank fraud, or the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. There is much more, but I don’t have the inclination to go into it and it is easily accessed in any good library or on the internet.