Book of Mormon is true scripture

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that does not mean they weren’t inspired by god.

Nor does it mean that they weren't inspired by Baal, the Faerie Queen, or the infamous Pink Unicorn. But if they were inspired by any of these coequal contenders, the result looks suspiciously like typical West Semitic mythology and folklore.

 

[Katzpur]

Gold was a rare and precious commodity in the ancient. Writing was rarely commited to such material.

Your opinion was commonly held in 1830. Informed individuals today know otherwise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Katspur-- You provided this website: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

I was browsing the section called "Writing on Metal Plates". The author suggests that the fact that Joseph Smith (supposedly) translated from metal plates constitutes evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, since religious texts were sometimes recorded on metal plates in the past. However, is this really "evidence" for anything at all? Religious texts were also recorded on papyrus in the past. Religious texts were also recorded on clay tablets in the past. Many mediums were used to record religious texts in the past. I hardly think the historic use of metal plates can be considered evidence "for" the Book of Mormon any more than the historic use of papyrus or clay or stone tablets can be considered evidence "against" it.

 

[Aqualung]

Katspur-- You provided this website: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

I was browsing the section called "Writing on Metal Plates". The author suggests that the fact that Joseph Smith (supposedly) translated from metal plates constitutes evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, since religious texts were sometimes recorded on metal plates in the past. However, is this really "evidence" for anything at all? Religious texts were also recorded on papyrus in the past. Religious texts were also recorded on clay tablets in the past. Many mediums were used to record religious texts in the past. I hardly think the historic use of metal plates can be considered evidence "for" the Book of Mormon any more than the historic use of papyrus or clay or stone tablets can be considered evidence "against" it.

That's true, but that could be said of any one peice of evidence. If you look at it all together, it is a peice that strengthens the evidence.

 

[Katzpur]

Katspur-- You provided this website: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

I was browsing the section called "Writing on Metal Plates". The author suggests that the fact that Joseph Smith (supposedly) translated from metal plates constitutes evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, since religious texts were sometimes recorded on metal plates in the past. However, is this really "evidence" for anything at all? Religious texts were also recorded on papyrus in the past. Religious texts were also recorded on clay tablets in the past. Many mediums were used to record religious texts in the past. I hardly think the historic use of metal plates can be considered evidence "for" the Book of Mormon any more than the historic use of papyrus or clay or stone tablets can be considered evidence "against" it.

Given the fact that not one single solitary example of such a record was discovered until 100 years after Joseph Smith described the plates he translated, I actually think it's pretty remarkable -- not to mention way, way too extraordinary to have been mere coincidence. Today we know that it was not unusual for ancient texts (religious and secular both) to have been written on metal plates, but in Joseph Smith's day, the idea was completely foreign -- even to scholars. Are you suggesting that it was just a lucky guess on his part?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Given the fact that not one single solitary example of such a record was discovered until 100 years after Joseph Smith described the plates he translated, I actually think it's pretty remarkable -- not to mention way, way too extraordinary to have been mere coincidence. Today we know that it was not unusual for ancient texts (religious and secular both) to have been written on metal plates, but in Joseph Smith's day, the idea was completely foreign -- even to scholars. Are you suggesting that it was just a lucky guess on his part?

Why, does that sound far-fetched?

Please tell me: what medium(s) would have *not* been a "lucky guess"?

 

[greatcalgarian]

The funny thing is that it has yet to be "proven" wrong. Since 1830 scholars from all over the world have yet to prove it wrong. And yet the feat of writing such a book has never been tried or even close to being accomplished. That must say something. A unlearned farm boy from the backwoods of vermont with no formal education, with a large family, living in the time period of spread of thousands of religion never could have written a book that changed the WORLD as has the Book of Mormon

In China during the Qing dynasty, there was a revolution "Tai Ping Tian Kuo", where the leader claimed to be Jesus' brother, and has his own version of "Bible" for the Chinese. This revolution ended up in failure. If successful, may be we have another branch of Christianity Chinese type:bounce

On the other hand, we also have Jefferson Bible, as recent as the 1800 [Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States (1801-1809).]
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
And the Charles Templeton bible:
http://www.templetons.com/charles/jesus/toc.html
Or even the more picturistic bible:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
But these have shorten the bible instead of adding new materials into the bible as in the book of Mormon:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents (I hope this is the official version)

I need to study the book of Mormon again. My first read a few years back gave me the impression that it is a fairy tale story, more mystical than the original bible, and may be even contain more error than the original, as the original was written nearly two thousands year ago, where writers during that time may not have that much knowledge on the surrounding environment men lived in. The book of Mormon was written in the modern setting, and I do not find it scientifically stimulating during my first read.

Is it true that the unlearned farm boy wrote the whole Book of Mormon? Or was the book written by some other authors inspired by the idea put forward by this unlearned farm boy?

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml

Is this biography on Joseph Smith accurate?

 

[Kowalski]

Your opinion was commonly held in 1830. Informed individuals today know otherwise.

Really, I don't know of any, other than fakes and forgeries. Stone was common enough, but precious metals were not used for writing purposes only.


K

 

[Katzpur]

Why, does that sound far-fetched?

In all honesty, I'm speechless. Are you missing the point entirely, or what? Consider the liklihood of someone with a third-grade education and no resource materials accurately being able to describe an ancient method of record-keeping more than 100 years before even scholars were aware of it. I don't know how to answer your question, Mr. Spinkles.

Please tell me: what medium(s) would have *not* been a "lucky guess"?

How about any medium that anybody in the world knew about at the time?

 

[Katzpur]

Really, I don't know of any, other than fakes and forgeries.

Which just goes to show how much you don't know.

Stone was common enough, but precious metals were not used for writing purposes only.

You might want to pass on this information to the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago Museum, the National Archaeological Museum in Tehran, Iran, the Hugo Cohen Collection in Lima, Peru, the Natuional Museum of Villa Guilia in Rome, Italy, the National Museum in Amman, Jordan and the Louvre in Paris, France. You see, they are have ancient records on display that are written on metal plates (mostly gold and silver). They will be quite embarrassed, I'm sure, to learn that they are fakes and forgeries.

 

[Katzpur]

I need to study the book of Mormon again. My first read a few years back gave me the impression that it is a fairy tale story, more mystical than the original bible, and may be even contain more error than the original, as the original was written nearly two thousands year ago, where writers during that time may not have that much knowledge on the surrounding environment men lived in. The book of Mormon was written in the modern setting, and I do not find it scientifically stimulating during my first read.

That's interesting. I'm curious about the "fairy tale" aspect of the story. What part of the book struck you that way and why? And what about it was more "mystical" than the Bible? I'm just kind of foggy on what you mean by this statement.

If you didn't find it "scientifically stimulating," that's probably because it's not supposed to be scientifically stimulating.

Is it true that the unlearned farm boy wrote the whole Book of Mormon? Or was the book written by some other authors inspired by the idea put forward by this unlearned farm boy?

It wasn't written by either an unlearned farm boy or by other authors inspired by his idea. It was, however, translated by an unlearned farm boy.

 

[Katzpur]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml

Is this biography on Joseph Smith accurate?

In part, yes. But for the most part, no. Are you looking for an accurate biography?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In all honesty, I'm speechless. Are you missing the point entirely, or what? Consider the liklihood of someone with a third-grade education and no resource materials accurately being able to describe an ancient method of record-keeping more than 100 years before even scholars were aware of it.

First of all, whether or not scholars were aware of it at the time makes no difference, since (as you say yourself) Joseph Smith had "no resource materials". Now, if Joseph Smith did have resource materials--materials which noted the historical use of stone and clay tablets, and papyrus, but not metal plates--and yet he still chose to claim that he translated from metal plates, that would be more intriguing. Yet, since he did not have access to these materials, it is not surprising that he claimed to translate from a medium for which there was no historical evidence at the time.

Secondly, consider the likelihood of someone with a third-grade education and no resource materials using his imagination. Long before they had any knowledge of the Komodo Dragon, Europeans described and wrote about giant reptiles. Long before the advent of tank warfare, H.G. Wells wrote of battlefields full of steel beasts. Neither the Europeans nor Wells required knowledge from the Divine to do so.

How about any medium that anybody in the world knew about at the time?

Really? So if Joseph Smith had described writing on clay tablets, or stone tablets, or papyrus, that would be evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? I'm convinced that had Joseph Smith described writing on any of these mediums, Mormons would consider that evidence of the "authenticity" of the translations.

 

[emmaleebee]

I need to study the book of Mormon again. My first read a few years back gave me the impression that it is a fairy tale story, more mystical than the original bible,

I just wanted to note here, that we do not claim that the Book of Mormon replaces the Bible, but rather is additional scripture. We study out of both the Book of Mormon and the Bible--they compliment and support one another.

Is it true that the unlearned farm boy wrote the whole Book of Mormon? Or was the book written by some other authors inspired by the idea put forward by this unlearned farm boy?

As Kat said--we do not believe that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, we believe that he translated it. As it states in the introduction, we believe "[t]he book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites."

 

[Katzpur]

First of all, whether or not scholars were aware of it at the time makes no difference, since (as you say yourself) Joseph Smith had "no resource materials". Now, if Joseph Smith did have resource materials--materials which noted the historical use of stone and clay tablets, and papyrus, but not metal plates--and yet he still chose to claim that he translated from metal plates, that would be more intriguing. Yet, since he did not have access to these materials, it is not surprising that he claimed to translate from a medium for which there was no historical evidence at the time.

Secondly, consider the likelihood of someone with a third-grade education and no resource materials using his imagination. Long before they had any knowledge of the Komodo Dragon, Europeans described and wrote about giant reptiles. Long before the advent of tank warfare, H.G. Wells wrote of battlefields full of steel beasts. Neither the Europeans nor Wells required knowledge from the Divine to do so.

Really? So if Joseph Smith had described writing on clay tablets, or stone tablets, or papyrus, that would be evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? I'm convinced that had Joseph Smith described writing on any of these mediums, Mormons would consider that evidence of the "authenticity" of the translations.

Whatever. I give up. This conversation is clearly going nowhere. You obviously haven't the slightest idea the degree to which you have over-simplified what Joseph Smith accomplished in translating the Book of Mormon. You are 100% convinced that the whole thing is a fraud, and we both know that there is no evidence on the face of the earth that would change your mind. So, perhaps we ought to just drop the subject altogether. What do you think?

Kathryn

 

[Ryan2065]

Whatever. I give up. This conversation is clearly going nowhere. You obviously haven't the slightest idea the degree to which you have over-simplified what Joseph Smith accomplished in translating the Book of Mormon. You are 100% convinced that the whole thing is a fraud, and we both know that there is no evidence on the face of the earth that would change your mind. So, perhaps we ought to just drop the subject altogether. What do you think?

So what evidence have you given? I just read through this whole thread, and only 1 post gave a link to evidence that says the book of mormon is true. And this page you posted and then told us to read, yet it is quite huge and I myself do not have enough time to read this many pages. Maybe if you were to direct us to evidance with summaries or headlines, that would be good. Also, posting links to the archeolgical evidance that you suggested in your earlier posts would be very nice. In debates, evidance is usually given to support one side. You seem to think that you could give all the evidance for the book of mormon to us and no one would change their views on it. If there is true archelogical evidence that supports the book of mormon then my view on it will defently change.

So now please post the evidance.

 

[Pah]

So what evidence have you given? I just read through this whole thread, and only 1 post gave a link to evidence that says the book of mormon is true. And this page you posted and then told us to read, yet it is quite huge and I myself do not have enough time to read this many pages. Maybe if you were to direct us to evidance with summaries or headlines, that would be good. Also, posting links to the archeolgical evidance that you suggested in your earlier posts would be very nice. In debates, evidance is usually given to support one side. You seem to think that you could give all the evidance for the book of mormon to us and no one would change their views on it. If there is true archelogical evidence that supports the book of mormon then my view on it will defently change.

So now please post the evidance.

Evidence, Ryan, that is not read is deemed correct evidence. You can not deny evidence just because you would rather have "summaries or headlines". It seems that you have no evidence to refute what you have not read. I think you are out of line to ask for more.

 

[Katzpur]

So what evidence have you given? I just read through this whole thread, and only 1 post gave a link to evidence that says the book of mormon is true. And this page you posted and then told us to read, yet it is quite huge and I myself do not have enough time to read this many pages. Maybe if you were to direct us to evidance with summaries or headlines, that would be good. Also, posting links to the archeolgical evidance that you suggested in your earlier posts would be very nice. In debates, evidance is usually given to support one side. You seem to think that you could give all the evidance for the book of mormon to us and no one would change their views on it. If there is true archelogical evidence that supports the book of mormon then my view on it will defently change.

So now please post the evidance.

Ryan,

The link provided does, as you noticed, take you to a huge website. I apologize for that. Like you, I haven't got the time to read as many pages as that site contains. When people refer me to a site like that, my response is much the same as yours was. The reason I did that was that it's often the only way to really address generalizations such as "there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon." Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence -- more than most people are interested in exploring. When people ask specific questions, it's fairly easy to reply with specific answers. But it takes far less time to cut and paste a lengthy page of objections than it does to provide a personally written reply (which I prefer to do). Since the length of individual posts are limited, it's sometimes impossible to cover the material adequately, especially when a number of questions are asked at once. So, when someone either posts a general criticism about lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon, or cuts and pasts a huge article and says, in effect, "Now answer that!", I do the only thing I have time to do.

Any of the LDS posters on this forum would be more than happy to answer specific questions or address specific criticisms. I hope you'll feel free to ask us any questions you may have.

Kathryn

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whatever. I give up. This conversation is clearly going nowhere. You obviously haven't the slightest idea the degree to which you have over-simplified what Joseph Smith accomplished in translating the Book of Mormon. You are 100% convinced that the whole thing is a fraud, and we both know that there is no evidence on the face of the earth that would change your mind.

That's neither true nor implied by anything I've said on this thread. You obviously are more interested in making suggestions about my personal biases/motivations than in answering the issues I raised in my previous post.

So, perhaps we ought to just drop the subject altogether. What do you think?

I think that it's unfortunate that I took the time to examine the website you offered and make comments on some of its content, only to be met with evasion and attacks on my character. If you change your mind and decide to have a conversation, please feel free to address the content of my previous post.

Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence -- more than most people are interested in exploring. When people ask specific questions, it's fairly easy to reply with specific answers.

I took the time to explore the evidence you provided. How about some specific answers to my specific questions?