Who wrote the Book of Mormon and where did it come from?

[chris2009]

He also took the critics head on with passion by mentioning Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews and Solomon Spaulding. I think that the internet has made an impact with its critic theories about the book of mormon. But he was right. The testimony of the book is with the death of Joseph and his brother Hyrum right before they bore their testimony to the guards about the truthfulness of the book and with the 11 witnesses who never denied the book and what they saw.

That being said, the catholic church also is a great church with wonderful and dedicated members who believe in god. I admire the catholic church and its saints. And I attend Mass and work with nuns and priests for a better world. I tend to take the good from both churches.

I’ve talked to some critics who claim Joseph Smith got the ideas from the Book of Mormon from copying Solomon Spaulding’s book. I investigated this further. There are some interestingly similar elements, but in reality the Book of Mormon is completely different. When I investigated further I found that Solomon Spaulding’s novel was partly based on the book from Ethan Smith “View of the Hebrews”. Ethan Smith wrote his book from his in depth reseach of the American Indians and gives some amazing evidence that they are a branch of the tribes of Israel. He even compares the Hebrew language with their language – and there are many, many words that are the same. To me this is an incredible evidence that the Book of Mormon is true! Truth will match up with truth!

 

[Arandur]

He also took the critics head on with passion by mentioning Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews and Solomon Spaulding. I think that the internet has made an impact with its critic theories about the book of mormon. But he was right. The testimony of the book is with the death of Joseph and his brother Hyrum right before they bore their testimony to the guards about the truthfulness of the book and with the 11 witnesses who never denied the book and what they saw.

If you are going by testimony of martyrs, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church sadly and also blessedly has by immeasurable magnitude the greater weight, so much so that these incidents you reference don’t even register. Sorry.

That being said, the catholic church also is a great church with wonderful and dedicated members who believe in god. I admire the catholic church and its saints. And I attend Mass and work with nuns and priests for a better world. I tend to take the good from both churches.

Thank you for this. I, too, have known wonderful Mormons and admire the way of life many lead.

 

[chris2009]

I listened to it. It was a very strong appeal to emotion. Sorry, I was not “dumbfounded and speechless”. I know that you believe in it, but others do not. Similarly, others believe in the divine origins of the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, etc. It’s interesting that he claims that no other book has been examined and scrutinized as much as the Book of Mormon. What about…the Bible . Atheists have “proven” that it is a false book, and yet here we are. Same goes with the books listed above.

All those books have been scrutinized. But you have to admit it’s nothing compared to what the Book of Mormon has been through.

Christ said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” He also said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”(John 3:3)

In John 3:3 the word “see” is the Greek “idein” which means to perceive or recognize. Perhaps it requires some change in heart to recognize the kingdom of God on the earth. Along the same lines, although Christ came to His people, most did not recognize Him to be the Messiah. Perhaps today people are kept from the truth because they do not recognize it. To much tradition, pregidous or unwillingness to change keeps people’s minds closed and blinds them.

This reminds me of a talk called “True Faith” given by apostle Orson Pratt in the early 1800’s. Orson Pratt said,

“The evidence which God always gives to establish the divinity of His revelations, is sufficient to produce faith in the heart of every person living, who examines it in a proper manner. Hence every creature in all the world, who has come to years of understanding, and who has evidence placed within his reach, is condemned if he does not believe it. There are some who say that, if the evidence were sufficient, they would be compelled to believe; but this is not true – the evidence may be sufficient, and yet they may refuse to examine it; or they may examine it with prejudiced minds, or they may be careless in their examinations, or they may refuse to examine it in the manner in which God has directed; or they may examine it with a determination not to embrace it, even though it be true; or they may be partial in weighing the evidence for, and apparently against it, with a most anxious desire and hope that they shall find it false. All these obstacles, and many others that might be named, prevent them from believing that which an honest, candid, unprejudiced, and prayerful mind would believe. Therefore it is not for the lack of evidence that they disbelieve, but it is their own evil hearts, and the darkness which they bring with them in their investigation. When God reveals a truth, as it is always accompanied with sufficient evidence, all people, because of their agency, can believe or disbelieve it, as they choose: and if the believe it, they can also obey or disobey it, as they choose: and herein is the condemnation of man, because they prefer unbelief to faith, and disobedience to obedience.”

 

[Arandur]

And where were these people before they came to Germany? Nobody knows for certain, neither you nor I. But there is much evidence that they are descendants of the tribes of Israel. Their banners and symbols all match up. You also have to ask yourself, where did an entire nation of Northern Isreal with 10 tribes go? They were taken captive to Assyria and then left to a land in the north. They were not heard of again. Where did they go?

CFR

There are many, many peoples other than Israelites, far outnumbering them. Israelites tended to either form close-knit communities that kept to themselves and preserved their culture (primarily the Jews), or they assimilated and were largely lost amongst other cultures, adopting their ways and leaving little influence of their own by comparison (for which they are much chastised in the Bible). This often happens to conquered peoples. They then lose their identity. There is no more truth to calling peoples into whom such tribes dissolved “descendants” of the tribe than to call them descendants (primarily) of some other civilization or aborigine.

In addition there is much evidence that Joseph of Arimathea, Mary and others Judean refugees came to England. The symbol of England shows a lion and a unicorn. The lion is a symbol of Judah and the unicorn is a symbol of Ephraim.

CFR.

I haven’t seen a unicorn associated with England. The Lion was a popular symbol used by many pagans as well–including well throughout Rome. Attributing these things to primary Israelite influence is a ridiculous example of the fallacy of grasping at straws.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

All those books have been scrutinized. But you have to admit it’s nothing compared to what the Book of Mormon has been through.

In my view, I would say that the Bible has been scrutinized much more than any other text, including in modern times. Perhaps the Koran, especially in modern times, comes next. Then I would say the Book of Mormon. But that’s just my view. As far as scrutiny by professionals, both religious and non-religious, the Book of Mormon is nowhere near the Bible, again in my view, perhaps you disagree.

 

[Garland]

mormons, once you by the big lie " j. smith was a prophet" all the others become easy pickins. The fact still remains that the book of mormon “adds” to the scriptures, a thing not possible to do and hold salvation. The kjv , the version you subscribe to, strictly forbids this, for to do so is to add to your torment. I guess it must seem foolish to any person who hasn`t " swallowed the camel", that saying every thing you must work around was lost and “restored” by that “camel” to its original meaning. Next goldylocks and the three bears might become real after such “restoration”. To “burn in the bosom”, is not proof of anything , as a spicy hotdog will give the same sinsation at times. Jesus founded a Church, CATHOLIC. He didnot write any thing, nor did he tell anyone else to. To believe in your religion, would be “swallowing the camel” while believeing that the true church somehow failed for over a thousand years with no hope for all who lived and died in that time is gaging on the knat. Blessings Garland

 

[why_me]

In my view, I would say that the Bible has been scrutinized much more than any other text, including in modern times. Perhaps the Koran, especially in modern times, comes next. Then I would say the Book of Mormon. But that’s just my view. As far as scrutiny by professionals, both religious and non-religious, the Book of Mormon is nowhere near the Bible, again in my view, perhaps you disagree.

That is true. And some of the scrutinizers have come to the conclusion that the bible is false. And the koran, well, anyone attempting to prove that book false will lose a head for sure especially in the muslim world.

The book of mormon has been on the front line from the first moment of its publication when people began to look for answers as to who wrote it. Not much has changed since then since the theories then are still the same theories today. But no one has come close to figuring it out. I think that the window of opportunity has passed. It should have succeeded in the 1830’s when all involved were alive. But alas, the book survived stronger than ever.

 

[why_me]

If you are going by testimony of martyrs, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church sadly and also blessedly has by immeasurable magnitude the greater weight, so much so that these incidents you reference don’t even register. Sorry.

Thank you for this. I, too, have known wonderful Mormons and admire the way of life many lead.

The martydom of Joseph Smith and his brother are different in the sense that critics claim that they were fraudsters. Would a fraudster die for his fraud, leaving behind his family? And would a fraudster suffer the persecution that Joseph Smith experienced? Eventually, a fraudster tends to look at his or her fraud in a gain/loss prospect and in this case JS was a big loser.

He also bore his testimony to the guards that were guarding him and both he and his brother read from the book of mormon from their prison confinement. A frauster would not do such a thing if they knew that that book was a fraud. What would be the point? Even when facing death, he did not admit to the fraud and when he was in prison in 1838, he did not show any concern for what the 11 witnesses were saying about the ‘fraud’. That would be very unusual for a fraudster who may have fear that the fraud would be undone by lose lips.

 

[Arandur]

The martydom of Joseph Smith and his brother are different in the sense that critics claim that they were fraudsters. Would a fraudster die for his fraud, leaving behind his family? And would a fraudster suffer the persecution that Joseph Smith experienced? Eventually, a fraudster tends to look at his or her fraud in a gain/loss prospect and in this case JS was a big loser.

He also bore his testimony to the guards that were guarding him and both he and his brother read from the book of mormon from their prison confinement. A frauster would not do such a thing if they knew that that book was a fraud. What would be the point? Even when facing death, he did not admit to the fraud and when he was in prison in 1838, he did not show any concern for what the 11 witnesses were saying about the ‘fraud’. That would be very unusual for a fraudster who may have fear that the fraud would be undone by lose lips.

The Apostles and earliest disciples, as well as those they taught and appointed, were similarly accused of perpetrating frauds–chief among them being the Resurrection. These men died for a faith that is demonstrably Catholic, and certainly had no resemblance to Mormonism. Those two independent points are historically-verifiable.

There have been many, many other Catholics who have been accused of perpetrating frauds of miracles or witness of essential truths and have held fast in martyrdom.

As others have pointed out, Smith is not unique among “fraudsters” as you put it who die without recanting. Some are delusionary, some are too stubborn and prideful, some may simply realize there is just nothing really to gain in the measure from recanting, as they’d lose everything they gained from the fraud and all credibility, and may still pay for it. And others may have been deluded by another power.

You must consider other explanations. The aforementioned comparisons to other non-Biblical texts are useful because it highlights these. Most of those books have things about them that are difficult to explain, either presenting a very complex picture of influences in the drafting, or things seemingly attributable only to supernatural origin. And why not? We struggle against principalities and powers, and even the devil masquerades as an angel of light.

For me, since the Qur’an is the non-Biblical book aside from the BoM with which I am most familiar, I tend to use it by comparison. The many, many similarities in origin encourage that comparison. They also mark a familiar pattern; the Adversary up to his old tricks. He’s not really that original. He repeatedly rehashes the same things with different spin.

 

[Kdesiel]

I can agree with you. I think that discussion and dialogue are very important for understanding. However, usually on religious boards people come to the discussion with a certain bias. In this case, the biasness of a catholicism or mormonism. And in both cases both attempt to prove themselves correct in their interpretation. And in the end, it is always a draw unless one person is more learned and convincing than the other.

And so, in a discussion, one must come to the table without bias but with objectivity. And this is nearly impossible on a religious board because most people have a certain bias. I good critical dialague is achieved through looking at theories objectively and not with a preconceived bias.

The point is this is a disscussin board, not a conversion board. If you’re entering a disscussion here with the intent of converting then …you’re wasting your time. Of course there is going to be bias towards ones affiliation no one disputed that. So the disscussion ends in a draw doesn’t take away from the interesting points made and learned.

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

The martydom of Joseph Smith and his brother are different in the sense that critics claim that they were fraudsters. Would a fraudster die for his fraud, leaving behind his family? And would a fraudster suffer the persecution that Joseph Smith experienced? Eventually, a fraudster tends to look at his or her fraud in a gain/loss prospect and in this case JS was a big loser.

False prophets die for their cults all the time. In the past few decades we had Jim Jones, who committed suicide along with his followers, David Koresh who burned to death in his compound rather surrender to the feds and face charges of child rape, and the heaven’s gate cult that committed suicide so they could hitch a ride on a comet.

Joseph Smith, however, did not give his life for his beliefs (assuming he believed in anything other than sex and power). He was arrested for a crime, and when the lynch mob came to kill him (for his crimes not his beliefs) he tried to shoot his way out of it and escape. He killed at least two people in the attempt. I don’t fault him for trying to defend himself, but don’t call him a martyr or claim that he went like a lamb to the slaughter.

Only in Islam and Mormonism is a martyr someone who dies while killing people.

 

[ParkerD]

The Apostles and earliest disciples, as well as those they taught and appointed, were similarly accused of perpetrating frauds–chief among them being the Resurrection. These men died for a faith that is demonstrably Catholic, and certainly had no resemblance to Mormonism. Those two independent points are historically-verifiable.

There have been many, many other Catholics who have been accused of perpetrating frauds of miracles or witness of essential truths and have held fast in martyrdom.

As others have pointed out, Smith is not unique among “fraudsters” as you put it who die without recanting. Some are delusionary, some are too stubborn and prideful, some may simply realize there is just nothing really to gain in the measure from recanting, as they’d lose everything they gained from the fraud and all credibility, and may still pay for it. And others may have been deluded by another power.

You must consider other explanations. The aforementioned comparisons to other non-Biblical texts are useful because it highlights these. Most of those books have things about them that are difficult to explain, either presenting a very complex picture of influences in the drafting, or things seemingly attributable only to supernatural origin. And why not? We struggle against principalities and powers, and even the devil masquerades as an angel of light.

For me, since the Qur’an is the non-Biblical book aside from the BoM with which I am most familiar, I tend to use it by comparison. The many, many similarities in origin encourage that comparison. They also mark a familiar pattern; the Adversary up to his old tricks. He’s not really that original. He repeatedly rehashes the same things with different spin.

Arandur,

Your use of the term “demonstrably Catholic” to describe the apostles who were killed and Stephen who was killed, is totally amusing to me. Those men were followers of Christ and His teachings, not the teachings of a pope. Peter taught that Christ is the rock and cornerstone of the Church. Catholics (some of them, who think they are repeating what they have been taught and I have seen it confirmed by Scott Hahn) think Peter was the rock. That is a change from what Christ taught.

But certainly some Catholics have been willing to die for their beliefs in the early days of their church, and some non-Catholics at later times such as William Tyndale whom the Catholic leadership vehemently opposed.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Arandur,

Your use of the term “demonstrably Catholic” to describe the apostles who were killed and Stephen who was killed, is totally amusing to me. Those men were followers of Christ and His teachings, not the teachings of a pope. Peter taught that Christ is the rock and cornerstone of the Church. Catholics (some of them, who think they are repeating what they have been taught and I have seen it confirmed by Scott Hahn) think Peter was the rock. That is a change from what Christ taught.

But certainly some Catholics have been willing to die for their beliefs in the early days of their church, and some non-Catholics at later times such as William Tyndale whom the Catholic leadership vehemently opposed.

Of course every denomination believes that the apostles were following and teaching beliefs that were “demonstrably [insert your church here]”. And I also find it amusing that you say that he wasn’t following “the teachings of a pope”. We don’t think he was following the teachings of a pope either, so that’s really a moot point.

As far as the “rock” issue, well of course that’s another thread, however for Catholics, we do not deny that Jesus Christ is rock, the “living stone”. Peter being rock and Jesus Christ being rock are not mutually exclusive for us. In fact, I have seen quite a few interpretations of what the rock is in Matt 16:18, including Peter, his confession, and revelation. Again, none of these detract from Jesus Christ being the chief foundation, especially considering the Bible giving seemingly conflicting statements on the foundation, which must be understood together.

 

[twopekinguys]

False prophets die for their cults all the time. In the past few decades we had Jim Jones, who committed suicide along with his followers, David Koresh who burned to death in his compound rather surrender to the feds and face charges of child rape, and the heaven’s gate cult that committed suicide so they could hitch a ride on a comet.

Joseph Smith, however, did not give his life for his beliefs (assuming he believed in anything other than sex and power). He was arrested for a crime, and when the lynch mob came to kill him (for his crimes not his beliefs) he tried to shoot his way out of it and escape. He killed at least two people in the attempt. I don’t fault him for trying to defend himself, but don’t call him a martyr or claim that he went like a lamb to the slaughter.

Only in Islam and Mormonism is a martyr someone who dies while killing people.

Well said.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

As far as the “rock” issue, well of course that’s another thread, however for Catholics, we do not deny that Jesus Christ is rock, the “living stone”.

…just to clarify, Thurif, “Upon this Rock I shall build my Church” – Peter is the “Rock”. Jesus chose Peter…because Peter was a firm believer amongst all the chatter with the Romans and the clueless and the unknowing.

Upon founding the Catholic Church, Jesus (God) chose Peter as the first Pope. There’s been an unbroken succession for 2,009 years, and will be unbroken until the end of time.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

…just to clarify, Thurif, “Upon this Rock I shall build my Church” – Peter is the “Rock”. Jesus chose Peter…because Peter was a firm believer amongst all the chatter with the Romans and the clueless and the unknowing.

Upon founding the Catholic Church, Jesus (God) chose Peter as the first Pope. There’s been an unbroken succession for 2,009 years, and will be unbroken until the end of time.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Agreed And as the Bible also says, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone and living stone as well. The two claims are not mutually exclusive, even if non-Catholics may present it as such.

 

[mjf001]

Arandur,

Your use of the term “demonstrably Catholic” to describe the apostles who were killed and Stephen who was killed, is totally amusing to me. Those men were followers of Christ and His teachings, not the teachings of a pope. Peter taught that Christ is the rock and cornerstone of the Church. Catholics (some of them, who think they are repeating what they have been taught and I have seen it confirmed by Scott Hahn) think Peter was the rock. That is a change from what Christ taught.

But certainly some Catholics have been willing to die for their beliefs in the early days of their church, and some non-Catholics at later times such as William Tyndale whom the Catholic leadership vehemently opposed.

Parker,
A while back you asked me to do some research on William Tyndale. When I presented my findings on this man, you decided you didn’t want to discuss it anymore. Does the fact you’re bringing him up again mean you’re ready to discuss him? For the record one more time. The Church opposed his heretical prologue to several books of the New Testament, along with other heretical translations of the New Testament. The Bishop of England enlisted Sir Thomas Moore to analyze his writings and he came up with over two hundred different errors in his prologue and translations. This is why the Church opposed William Tyndale. Lastly, the state of England, King Henry VIII, head of the Church of England, tried Tyndale and executed him, not the Catholic Church. With all due respect, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I have presented you with this information before, so you can not claim ignorance to these facts, unless of course, you didn’t read anything I posted previously.
I would be glad to have the discussion on Tyndale you declined to have before. Know this however, I will correct the record on this heretic every time he’s brought up, discussion or no.
In Christ,
Michael

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Agreed And as the Bible also says, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone and living stone as well. The two claims are not mutually exclusive, even if non-Catholics may present it as such.

–Absolutely.

Cheers,

St. Lawrence Fan:thumbsup:

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Parker,
A while back you asked me to do some research on William Tyndale. When I presented my findings on this man, you decided you didn’t want to discuss it anymore.

–Michael, no need to go on with this. You see, mormons run out of answers immediately and they hide in panic because they realize they have no foundation to Joe’s Myth. There is no shred to prove any of Joe’s Myth - either archaeologically or anthropologically. Zilch; Nada.

Regarding William Tyndale? Who cares? Just another heretic against the Church that Christ built.

Just the way it is.

The only good part about Tyndale is that he went to Oxford.
I attended College there for one year. Been to his Alma Mater - Magdalen College. Beautiful.
Oscar Wilde went there, too.

Tyndale was another confused dude…in a religion that came along in the 1500’s.

I’ve been in Bars older than his religion. The Turf Tavern, (Oxford) being one of them.

…and so it goes.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,

Your use of the term “demonstrably Catholic” to describe the apostles who were killed and Stephen who was killed, is totally amusing to me.

My terminology (“demonstrably Catholic”) was a challenge–one that would make a good thread. In other words, I challenge anyone to compare historical writings of the early Church and find it more similar to any group today than it is to the Catholic Church. In context of this discussion in particular, I challenge you to find any significant amount of historical evidence that shows any group, even a heretical offshoot, bore any significant resemblance to the Mormon church. Then compare to the evidence of similarities that the mainline apostolic Church has with the Catholic Church.

Those men were followers of Christ and His teachings, not the teachings of a pope.

You’re griping about the pope? Your “prophet” makes more arrogant claims than our Petrine successor does. I really don’t understand why any Smithians have any problem whatsoever with the idea of a pope.

To clarify, though, neither the Church then nor now follows the “teachings of a pope” in lieu of the teachings of Christ. We follow the teachings of Christ transmitted by His choice and authority through the apostles (and original disciples) to their successors and guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

It’s quite a different story for Smithians, whose faith ultimately rests on faith in Joseph Smith himself. Thus, yours is a religion of a single man, not of Christ.

Peter taught that Christ is the rock and cornerstone of the Church. Catholics (some of them, who think they are repeating what they have been taught and I have seen it confirmed by Scott Hahn) think Peter was the rock. That is a change from what Christ taught.

I hope you know that “Peter” is the Greek form of “Cepha” and that both mean “rock.” Simon was NAMED “rock.” This is a fact that cannot be dodged in a proper interpretation of the passage, and the reason that many Protestant scholars have admitted that Jesus included Peter in His meaning and in this special mission. God-instituted name changes are important and consistently represent titles and missions among His faithful. And then, of course, there were ministerial keys given, along with powers. This indicates an office. Of course, all this is explored in much further depth in other threads. It’s just absurd to say that the “rock” terminology has nothing to do with Peter, or that there was no office spoken of in that passage.