Tell me what you think of this chapter in the Book of Mormon

[benidict]

Parker, your posts usually feed me. I am not ignoring you, it is just that I cannot disagree with much of what you post.

he does make alot of sense most of the time doesnt he? im like you. i get alot out of what he writes. Peace

 

[BartBurk]

As a Ph.D., member of an editorial board for an academic religion journal, and Mormon converting to Catholicism, I’m inclined to weigh in on this.

Neither the Tanners’ materials nor Martin’s materials deserve their reputation by former Mormons, and the Spaulding theory is, to put it mildly, a complete joke.

There is, in my opinion, a little something to the Ethan Smith theories, and especially in regards to Ethan Smith’s use of James Adair’s book.

If you want to read credible material that is critical of Mormons, read the materials put out by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. Their edited volume with Beckwith, The New Mormon Challenge, is quite good. It’s from a Protestant perspective.

The book to read, though, is *Studies of the Book of Mormon *by B.H. Roberts. Roberts was a President of the Seventy in the LDS Church. FARMS and Mormon apologists are still reacting to his book 80+ years after the fact. It behooves a serious critic of the Book of Mormon to read it.

If anyone is interested in my opinion of how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, please ask. I’ll be happy to elaborate.

My RCIA classes have started up and so far I’m enjoying them.

Craig Criddle used to think the Spaulding theory was a complete joke too:

i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

 

[LongJourney]

By taking a broader look at possible sources, my skepticism waned. The second half of the book had the richness of many sources that the first half lacked. That convinced me. Spalding was a well-read person. Smith & Co. weren’t. The lost 116 pages story reveals it all.

 

[Sunstone]

Craig Criddle used to think the Spaulding theory was a complete joke too:

i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

Thanks for sharing that. I’m familiar with those points and don’t find them persuasive. In truth, Mormon Apologists love the Spaulding stuff because they handle it so well. I read the Spaulding manuscript and wasn’t impressed.

Critics of Mormons are willing to use Spaulding as one more idea to throw up against the wall, or to rally those who already agree with them. It’s persuasive power with Mormons is just about zero.

Joseph Smith Jr. used the King James Bible, the Apocrypha, his own fertile imagination (his mother details how he told amazing stories about the history of the American Indians years before the Book of Mormon), things like his father’s dream of the tree of life, public discussion that surrounded works of people like Ethan Smith and James Adair, and some of the religious controversies of his day (such as infant baptism).

I think his method was that of a shaman, and that the Book of Mormon was written in a manner similar to the Book of Abraham, with Smith going over and over the same images again and again like a casette tape on a tape head. I think he was sincere, but deluded. Like other shaman’s have described, Smith may have tapped into what Jung called the collective unconscious.

Also, contrary to what has been asserted, the Book of Mormon does contain some unique Mormon teachings. Still, it’s probably the most Christian of the distinctive Mormon scriptures as Smith became more heretical over time.

 

[BartBurk]

Thanks for sharing that. I’m familiar with those points and don’t find them persuasive. In truth, Mormon Apologists love the Spaulding stuff because they handle it so well. I read the Spaulding manuscript and wasn’t impressed.

Critics of Mormons are willing to use Spaulding as one more idea to throw up against the wall, or to rally those who already agree with them. It’s persuasive power with Mormons is just about zero.

Joseph Smith Jr. used the King James Bible, the Apocrypha, his own fertile imagination (his mother details how he told amazing stories about the history of the American Indians years before the Book of Mormon), things like his father’s dream of the tree of life, public discussion that surrounded works of people like Ethan Smith and James Adair, and some of the religious controversies of his day (such as infant baptism).

I think his method was that of a shaman, and that the Book of Mormon was written in a manner similar to the Book of Abraham, with Smith going over and over the same images again and again like a casette tape on a tape head. I think he was sincere, but deluded. Like other shaman’s have described, Smith may have tapped into what Jung called the collective unconscious.

Also, contrary to what has been asserted, the Book of Mormon does contain some unique Mormon teachings. Still, it’s probably the most Christian of the distinctive Mormon scriptures as Smith became more heretical over time.

Handling it well is all in the eyes of the beholder. I’m convinced Sidney Rigdon was the mover behind the Book of Mormon – that some of the other sources besides a Spalding manuscript might have contributed to it is beyond doubt. It is hard for me to read this passage and not see it as Book of Mormon related:

Near the west bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort. As I was walking and forming various conjectures respecting the character, situation, & numbers of those people who far exceeded the present Indians in works of art and ingenuity, I hapned to tread on a flat stone. This was at a small distance from the fort, & it lay on the top of a small mound of Earth exactly horizontal. The face of it had a singular appearance. I discovered a number of characters which appeared to me to be letters, but so much effaced by the ravages of time, that I could not read the inscription. With the assistance of a leaver I raised the stone. But you may easily conjecture my astonishment when I discovered that its ends and sides rested on stones & that it was designed as a cover to an artificial Cave. I found by examining that its sides were lined with stones built in a connical form with - - - - - down, & that it was about eight feet deep. Determined to investigate the design of this extraordinary work of antiquity, I prepared myself with necessary requisites for that purpose and decended to the Bottom of the Cave. Observing one side to be perpendicular nearly three feet from the bottom, I began to inspect that part with accuracy. Here I noticed a big flat stone fixed in the form of a doar. I immediately tore it down and Lo, a cavity within the wall presented itself it being about three feet in diamiter from side to side and about two feet high. Within this cavity I found an earthen Box with a cover which shut it perfectly tite. The Box was two feet in length one & half in breadth & one & three inches in diameter. My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit, but curiosity soon gained the assendancy & the box was taken & raised to open it. When I had removed the Cover I found that it contained twenty-eight rolls of parchment – & – that when - - - appeared to be manuscrips written in eligant hand with Roman letters & in the Latin Language.

They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention contained a history of the author’s life & that part of America which extends along the great Lakes & the waters of the Mississippy.

There are enough similarities in the manuscript we have to suspect the Book of Mormon may have arisen from it. And it is likely that Spalding had more than one manuscript from which the Book of Mormon could have been taken. I’ve never seen a Mormon apologist deal with this effectively except in their own brains.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I disagree 100%, and if there were such a thing as 200%, then I would disagree 200% with each of those statements.

Actually, they didn’t necessarily write in the common, everyday language. You can research that and find out about it.

Indeed, that is an opinion that could be formed by someone who reads the Bible intellectually and tiny snippets of the Book of Mormon intellectually and thinks they have done a credible job of getting a feel for the authenticity and the doctrinal clarity of what they were supposedly reading for spiritual insights in their life, from God.

But it’s fine for anyone to form an opinion and legitimize the decisions they have already made.

I love “King James English”, so I of course would have a different view going in–nor do I think that the Book of Mormon uses strictly King James English. It has some sentences that are far more complex than any sentence in the King James Bible.

Peace to all, and to you, SteveVH.

 

[Anglican_Gal]

Handling it well is all in the eyes of the beholder. I’m convinced Sidney Rigdon was the mover behind the Book of Mormon – that some of the other sources besides a Spalding manuscript might have contributed to it is beyond doubt. It is hard for me to read this passage and not see it as Book of Mormon related:

There are enough similarities in the manuscript we have to suspect the Book of Mormon may have arisen from it. And it is likely that Spalding had more than one manuscript from which the Book of Mormon could have been taken. I’ve never seen a Mormon apologist deal with this effectively except in their own brains.

I agree. Although I would point out that the Book of Mormon, which I have read and studied, does not contain:

1. God was once a man, and is an exalted human being.
2. Jesus was the first spirit child of God and one of his wives in pre-existence.
3. Men can be exalted to godhood through Mormon temple rites and faithfulness.
4. Temple marriages can seal a husband and wife for eternity.
5. Temple rites, wherein various covenants are made, including committing all you
   own to the Mormon Church (Law of Consecration).
6. Premortal existence.
7. Three Kingdoms in the afterlife.
8. Vicarious baptism for the dead (second chance).
9. A plurality of gods
10. Polygamy being necessary for complete exaltation (in fact, polygamy
    is condemned in the Book of Mormon. Polygamy, however, is currently suspended.

It does contain the Campbellite-derived “plan of salvation”: Faith, Repentance, Baptism, etc. It adds the laying on of hands for the Holy Spirit. It also contains the assertion that dark skin is the consequence of sin.

It is the more unique doctrines of Mormonism which are included in numbers 1 through 10 listed above which are not taught in the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Mormon denies these teachings (baptism for dead people, for instance).

The problem lies in the fact that Mormon missionaries proselytize using the Book of Mormon, and that many people are baptized into Mormonism without knowing its full belief system. For this reason, a vast number of “converts” leave Mormonism within one year after baptism.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I disagree 100%, and if there were such a thing as 200%, then I would disagree 200% with each of those statements.

This may be a petty issue, but are you telling me that an expert in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek cannot translate one to the other without divine inspiration? I have an employee who translates from Spanish to English very nicely and I am quite certain that her translation is not divinely inspired. We are talking about human language, not divine revelation.

Actually, they didn’t necessarily write in the common, everyday language. You can research that and find out about it.

Not necessarily?

Indeed, that is an opinion that could be formed by someone who reads the Bible intellectually and tiny snippets of the Book of Mormon intellectually and thinks they have done a credible job of getting a feel for the authenticity and the doctrinal clarity of what they were supposedly reading for spiritual insights in their life, from God.

But it’s fine for anyone to form an opinion and legitimize the decisions they have already made.

I was the one with the opinion so there is no need to speak of me in the third person. What you are really saying is that I have no spiritual insights in my life and only approach Scripture from a purely intellectual standpoint.

I will tell you this, very honestly, Parker. There is no doubt in my mind that I approach anything having to do with the LDS with a certain degree of bias. I cannot imagine reading the Book of Mormon for spiritual insight as I feel literally sick when reading even little “snippetts” of it. I’m not sure why, but that is the honest truth. It gives me the creeps. I believe Joseph Smith was nothing but a fraud. So, have I done an honest, unbiased study of the Book of Mormon? Absolutley not. I would feel the same about anything written by Ellen G. White or the Watchtower Society.

But don’t you dare judge me when it comes to my inner life and my spirituality. My God and His Church are everything to me. It is what gets me up in the morning and occupies the great majority of my life outside of work and family. I know my faith and have a deep relationship with my Lord which you know nothing about. So lay off, ok?

By the way, saying “Peace to you” while withdrawing the knife is not charity. It is deceit.

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,
I only have a minute, but wanted to let you know that I have learned a new perspective about the Proverb, “A soft answer turneth away wrath:” (I guess my words to you were “grievous,” and that I needed to soften how I responded, but I was trying to be candid. I didn’t mean to imply that you never read the Bible in a spiritual frame of mind. I’ll explain more later tonight when I have the time. Briefly, it is a far different thing to translate from English to Spanish or from Spanish to English than from Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew to English, since there is nowhere near a linear one-to-one meaning exchange, even with the punctuation, let alone the word usage.)

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,
After thinking more about writing any more in response to your comments, I have realized that “lay off” means to do exactly that, so sorry to have bothered you. I’m weary of the whole exchange. Maybe a Catholic will explain to you about Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic translation and how one word or phrase in the original language could have any of several different meanings in English. Bye.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I should add that the only way we can seriously discuss Mormonism with Mormons is to take the Book of Mormon very seriously. If the Book of Mormon is true we have to take the claims of groups that use the Book of Mormon seriously. On the other hand the entire Mormon religion falls apart if the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be. So maybe instead of looking at the doctrines of various Mormon groups we should concentrate on Book of Mormon issues specifically to have a serious discussion.

Yes you should take the BoM seriously. It teaches monotheism and has a Trinitarian view of God. Mormonism teaches a plurality of gods and other things not found in the BoM.

However, if the BoM is supposed to be the fullness of the everlasting gospel, then why do they have so many splinter groups?

Actually, Mormonism stands or falls on whether there really was a complete apostasy.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes you should take the BoM seriously. It teaches monotheism and has a Trinitarian view of God. Mormonism teaches a plurality of gods and other things not found in the BoM.

Actually, Mormonism stands or falls on whether there really was a complete apostasy.
However, if the BoM is supposed to be the fullness of the everlasting gospel, then why do they have so many splinter groups?

Yankee Drifter,
One should expect splinter groups, especially from a religion that has a strong belief in personal revelation, because it is going to attract people who believe in that concept and believe strongly and teach freedom of choice.

If people believe in personal revelation, then unless they become very familiar with the guidance of the Holy Ghost in their own life plus the guidance of a prophet and how God balances the two in leading the people to the changes they need to make in their lives as they seek to become sanctified through the atonement and grace of Christ, then they can go “off balance” pretty easily and be distracted by other “voices” or by someone who appeals to what they want to follow.

The “natural man” isn’t inclined to follow prophetic leadership, ever. There is no guarantee that just because someone is LDS at a point in their life, they are not going to slip into a mode of being a “natural man” and yet want some of the doctrines they personally liked and find a “splinter group” religion that matches what appeals to them, or start one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .I will tell you this, very honestly, Parker. There is no doubt in my mind that I approach anything having to do with the LDS with a certain degree of bias. I cannot imagine reading the Book of Mormon for spiritual insight as I feel literally sick when reading even little “snippetts” of it. I’m not sure why, but that is the honest truth. It gives me the creeps. I believe Joseph Smith was nothing but a fraud. So, have I done an honest, unbiased study of the Book of Mormon? Absolutley not. I would feel the same about anything written by Ellen G. White or the Watchtower Society.

Steve,

I know this was addressed to ParkerD. I don’t want to get into the particular details of the discussion; but I will say that I experience the same thing when reading the Book of Mormon. However, for me, it didn’t start until after my baptism into the Mormon Church. Soon after baptism, whenever I started reading the Book of Mormon; I felt physically sick. I was engulfed in darkness; and I had both a physical and spiritual response. I was blind to this before my Mormon baptism. You know the rest of the story.

. . .But it’s fine for anyone to form an opinion and legitimize the decisions they have already made. . . .

ParkerD’s argument fails. I had “formed an opinion” about Mormonism and was baptized into the Mormon Church. I had every reason to “legitimize the decisions already made.” Yet I began to feel sick every time I tried to read the Book of Mormon.

But don’t you dare judge me when it comes to my inner life and my spirituality. My God and His Church are everything to me. It is what gets me up in the morning and occupies the great majority of my life outside of work and family. I know my faith and have a deep relationship with my Lord which you know nothing about… . . .

ParkerD,

You will not find a man more dedicated to our Lord, Jesus Christ, than Steve. Sadly, it is quite common to attempt to discredit those with opposing views, rather than remaining on topic.

In Christ and claiming His protection,
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I only have a minute, but wanted to let you know that I have learned a new perspective about the Proverb, “A soft answer turneth away wrath:” (I guess my words to you were “grievous,” and that I needed to soften how I responded, but I was trying to be candid. I didn’t mean to imply that you never read the Bible in a spiritual frame of mind. I’ll explain more later tonight when I have the time. Briefly, it is a far different thing to translate from English to Spanish or from Spanish to English than from Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew to English, since there is nowhere near a linear one-to-one meaning exchange, even with the punctuation, let alone the word usage.)

Implying that one is spiritually vacant is not a “soft answer” Parker, and playing the misunderstood victim who was only trying to be kind and charitable doesn’t wash. At the same time I will not pretend that I have not equally offended you and others on this forum so I am more than willing to forgive and forget and move on from here.

Yes, I am well aware that translating ancient languages is more difficult than translating modern languages. A good friend of mine who happens to be one of the top Catholic theologians in America and possibly the world, is fluent in both Hebrew and Greek and extremely knowledgeable in Aramaic. He would never claim divine inspiration when translating these languages. But that is the point. We are only talking about greater degrees of difficulty, requiring greater skill and knowledge. Divine inspiration is a requirement for divine revelation and not a requirement for translating human language regardless of the degree of difficulty involved.

 

[Anglican_Gal]

As a Ph.D., member of an editorial board for an academic religion journal, and Mormon converting to Catholicism, I’m inclined to weigh in on this.

Neither the Tanners’ materials nor Martin’s materials deserve their reputation by former Mormons, and the Spaulding theory is, to put it mildly, a complete joke.

There is, in my opinion, a little something to the Ethan Smith theories, and especially in regards to Ethan Smith’s use of James Adair’s book.

If you want to read credible material that is critical of Mormons, read the materials put out by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. Their edited volume with Beckwith, The New Mormon Challenge, is quite good. It’s from a Protestant perspective.

The book to read, though, is *Studies of the Book of Mormon *by B.H. Roberts. Roberts was a President of the Seventy in the LDS Church. FARMS and Mormon apologists are still reacting to his book 80+ years after the fact. It behooves a serious critic of the Book of Mormon to read it.

If anyone is interested in my opinion of how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, please ask. I’ll be happy to elaborate.

My RCIA classes have started up and so far I’m enjoying them.

The Spaulding theory can only be a joke if there was one manuscript. We have to remember that there probably were numerous manuscripts of Spualdings general story. Back in his day there was no white out, no computers, etc. Spaulding was writing his story over a long period of time, and its very reasonable to suggest there were various versions written on its way to perfection. Furthermore, several witnesses place Sidney Rigdon in the print shop on numerous occasions where at least one Spaulding manuscript was available. Rigdon’s link with Smith prior to his supposed first reading of the BoM in Kirtland is highly improbable - no one “converts” so suddently without knowing what he’s converting to, as did Rigdon. Rigdon knew the book was coming, since he had prophesied about it, and I believe he was fully aware of its content.

 

[LongJourney]

Why does your pious prattling about God’s love seem to fall apart whenever we start discussing issues with the BoM? Are you afraid of the disapproval of your church community if you were to begin to say that maybe it is an allegory, not literally true, and made up by JS and others?

Remember that the extremely heterodox theology of Mormonism has very little in common with the BoM. And the BoM has little in common with reality. And Mormon theology radically departs from standard Christian theology.

So, Parker, do you follow God, or do you follow men?

Consider your answer carefully.

 

[Pahoran]

You really ought to read this: cassiusuniversity.wordpress.com/mcb/

And then read my review.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

Woooooo— thank you. That was great. And, by the way, I enjoy stream-of-consciousness writing.

I will moderate my next revision in response. It might be well to use Skousenite when describing the far right culture within Mormonism that I mean to criticize.

Thank you for your review. I am sure it will spur more people to read my book.

I am a much more mellow person than when I first began the effort, and hopefully will become even more mellow on the subject as time goes on.

 

[ParkerD]

Why does your pious prattling about God’s love seem to fall apart whenever we start discussing issues with the BoM?

LJ,
I responded that I should have given a “soft answer.”

Sometimes people need that. Sometimes we misread people–it’s a human characteristic.

As far as the Book of Mormon, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If you think that just because I challenged people about it, and have challenged your assumptions, and that fact means I stopped loving people, then I would just say that to challenge people’s thinking or assumptions doesn’t mean that a person has stopped loving them. The Book of Mormon is all about challenging the world’s opinions in our modern, foreseen by prophets world, just like Isaiah foresaw and challenged the world’s opinions in the Bible (and John the Revelator did also).

Are you afraid of the disapproval of your church community if you were to begin to say that maybe it is an allegory, not literally true, and made up by JS and others?

You really don’t seem to get it. I am 100% certain that the Book of Mormon is a true book written by true people who actually did live, as I have noted many times on this forum. If anyone were to assert in my presence that the Book of Mormon were an allegory, and I heard it and thought I could do any good at all to challenge their thinking, then I would do it whether they were LDS or not. If anyone were to bring up the non-scholarly types of theories asserted by some certain “Stanford” scholars or their ilk, I would again say that those folks set true scholarship aside in arriving at their theories. Their approaches simply bear no resemblance to true scholarly research or research methods.

Remember that the extremely heterodox theology of Mormonism has very little in common with the BoM.

The Book of Mormon tells that John and others had responsibilities to give more heaven-sent knowledge to the world than the Book of Mormon gives to the world. God is in charge of how that knowledge is given, and reveals that knowledge according to His timetable, not man’s.

Mormon theology radically departs from standard Christian theology.

I suppose that since “standard Christian theology” says the Bible is the only revealed word of God ever to be or that ever has been, then of course the Book of Mormon departs from that thinking.

So, Parker, do you follow God, or do you follow men?

God, happily so without following "dark spirits’ that communicate “darkness” and lead people to mistake that “darkness” as an answer from God.

Consider your answer carefully.

I did. Thanks for asking so I could once more clarify. Hopefully I’ve now done that.

 

[LongJourney]

God, happily so without following "dark spirits’ that communicate “darkness” and lead people to mistake that “darkness” as an answer from God.

Is darkness related to skin color, or is it an absence of light?