Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[DeepShadow]

It's not about believability. None of the books in the Bible were written with the intention of trying to convince people they were authoritative. That's what it seems like the Book of Mormon is trying to do by putting these word-for-word passages from the Bible.

But the fact remains that books quoted from each other extensivley all the time back then. If they had copies of the Book of Isaiah, and they copied such passages, what would you expect them to sound like?

From a literary standpoint, this is actually plagiarism.

Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were plaigerized. Who knew?

Notice how, in the Bible, quotes from other books are put in quotation marks and usually sourced.

In your modern one, maybe. Rarely if ever in the King James.

The only instance I can think of a Biblical repetition of this sort is the four Gospels, which were all quoting Jesus anyways, so that's not actually plagiarism, simply proper transcription of events.

You need to look up the concept of "proof texts" then, because this is all over ancient scripture.

As far as the second part of your comment, you'd have to quote the passages you're referring to specifically, since I'm not altogether familiar with them. Could you give some direct examples?

Here's one:

Isa. 2: 16
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

2 Ne. 12: 16
16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

From the LDS footnotes:

The Greek (Septuagint) has “ships of the sea.” The Hebrew has “ships of Tarshish.” The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.

Now this might not be that bid a deal if Joseph Smith had access to both translations, but I'm not sure he did. Moreover, if this was Joseph's idea, one wonders why not just pick one phrase or the other, when together they sound redundant?

The thing is, they aren't redundant to the original writer, who was using a poetic style. Here's the original context:

10 ¶ Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

There's a repeated theme: A, A, B. Where A is some metaphoric couplet, and B is a reference to spiritual things, hence:

A Enter into the rock,
A hide thee in the dust,
B for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.

A The lofty looks of man shall be humbled,
A the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down,
B the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

And here the central chiasmus:
B the day of the LORD of hosts
A shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty,
A and upon every one that is lifted up;
B and he shall be brought low:

A And upon all the cedars of Lebanon,
B that are high and lifted up,
A and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

A And upon all the high mountains,
A upon all the hills
B that are lifted up,

A upon every high tower,
A upon every fenced wall,

A upon all the ships of Tarshish,
? and upon all pleasant pictures.

And now we've lost our parallel structure. We've contrasted oaks with cedars, rocks with dirt, why are we contrasting ships with pictures?!

(Hums: One of these things is not like the others...)

But it keeps going:

A the loftiness of man shall be bowed down
A the haughtiness of men shall be made low:
B the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

we're back to contrasting lofty with haughty, which is a match.

 

[DeepShadow]

Additionally (DNA vs. The Book Of Mormon) is another great video they did. DNA doesn't lie......

No, but people can manipulate DNA findings to their own ends. Does that video mention haplogroup X? Most critics don't. The stick to the earlier studies that only found asiatic DNA. Classic cherry picking.

The worst part of the DNA argument is that it relies on a straw man fallacy, namely the claim that all native americans are descended from Lehi. Note that this claim was never made by the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith himself said otherwise during his lifetime. Other church leaders have said from time to time that the Book of Mormon allows for many other groups in the Americas, of which the Lehites were only one. Unfortunately, many church members didn't listen to this until the DNA stuff started showing up.

Finally, considering the evidence that the Mulekites were actually descended from the Asian Jaredites, we'd expect to find mostly Asiatic DNA in the late Lehite people...which is exactly what we find!

 

[DeepShadow]

Are you saying this is not part of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?

No, I'm saying it wasn't taught to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. Not everything that is in the restored gospel was in every previous dispensation. As we progress as a church, the Lord gives us new directions that build on previous ones.

Surely this is not unfamiliar to a Catholic?

 

[DeepShadow]

I think Francine's point is that, if Jesus taught the Nephites about pre-existance, you would assume that Jesus taught that to his disciples as well.

As far as we are certain, He didn't teach it to either. But it's a grevious assumption to think that what has been revealed to some will be revealed to all.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, but people can manipulate DNA findings to their own ends. Does that video mention haplogroup X? Most critics don't. The stick to the earlier studies that only found asiatic DNA. Classic cherry picking.

I would agree that some information can be manipulated. I however doubt that this is one of those cases. If DNA of Native Americans have been studied and traced by different scientist over the course of many years and sampling thousands of people some one would have exposed this blatant fraud. The question is...is this the position of the church?....that says the DNA information is incorrect because we have independent study that shows Native Americans have Israelite dna traces?


Here is touches more on the DNA you speak of;
YouTube - Addressing the Arguments Against the DNA Evidence - Part 1


I particularly don't care either way......I just like how well the video was done and it made me wonder...For me...I was focused on the historical data...or lack of it....

 

[DeepShadow]

If DNA of Native Americans have been studied and traced by different scientist over the course of many years and sampling thousands of people some one would have exposed this blatant fraud.

What blatant fraud? That's the beauty of a cherry-picking fallacy, you can quote actual studies! You just forget to quote the others.

The question is...is this the position of the church?....that says the DNA information is incorrect because we have independent study that shows Native Americans have Israelite dna traces?

Huh? The church itself has no stance on DNA, and I doubt it ever will. It was a subsequent peer-reviewed study (by non-Mormons) that found Haplogroup X in America.

Here is touches more on the DNA you speak of;
YouTube - Addressing the Arguments Against the DNA Evidence - Part 1

This still doesn't address the bigger issue: the Book of Mormon had an Asiatic group--the Jaredites--who came over and intermarried with the Lehite people! The DNA evidence therefore supports both sides...and puts us back to square one.

 

[kadzbiz]

Who adheres closer to the BoM, mainstream or fundemental mormons?

 

[DeepShadow]

Who adheres closer to the BoM, mainstream or fundemental mormons?

Depends upon who you ask, of course, but--judging by how the Book of Mormon prohibits polygamy, which fundamentalists are known for--I'd say the fundamentalists place the D&C over the Book of Mormon.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What blatant fraud? That's the beauty of a cherry-picking fallacy, you can quote actual studies! You just forget to quote the others.



Huh? The church itself has no stance on DNA, and I doubt it ever will. It was a subsequent peer-reviewed study (by non-Mormons) that found Haplogroup X in America.



This still doesn't address the bigger issue: the Book of Mormon had an Asiatic group--the Jaredites--who came over and intermarried with the Lehite people! The DNA evidence therefore supports both sides...and puts us back to square one.

Look, my position on this is....I don't particularly care....I found the videos to be well done....I was more focused on the first video that Kadzbiz presented. I was more interested in the lack or historical evidence. Some of the scholars in that video, from what I can tell, had no agenda toward mormonism. They seem to be experts in their field of study and in their country....

I merely posted the DNA video because I sat and watched that one as well. As it has been said...if you look you will find that everyone is related to each other.......It was interesting that he said that Haplogroup X was outside the time frame of the book of Mormon........Again....I didn't go into any sort of detail because I haven't done any real study of your faith.......

 

[kadzbiz]

Depends upon who you ask, of course, but--judging by how the Book of Mormon prohibits polygamy, which fundamentalists are known for--I'd say the fundamentalists place the D&C over the Book of Mormon.

How does the D & C fit in with the BoM? Surely if the church Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then his words should be followed, no?

 

[kadzbiz]

Talking about becoming a God, what do you LDS guys think has happened to those Mormons who have passed on? Are they Gods? Are they God as is the Father or different? If they are Gods, are they conscious of what they have left behind? Can they do anything for the betterment of mankind?

 

[Francine]

As far as we are certain, He didn't teach it to either. But it's a grevious assumption to think that what has been revealed to some will be revealed to all.

Yes, but if the doctrine was hidden from the Nephites and from the first generation of Latter Day Saints, yet is casually mentioned in certain pamphlets left in the homes of Gentiles by modern LDS missionaries, one might disregard that doctrine as one of the plain and precious things removed from the Gospel of the Lamb which justified a Restoration.

 

[Katzpur]

More than happy to view what you present. Talking about digging up, why isn't the LSD church happy to have a archeological dig of the Hill Cumorah considering it would help confirm much of the events that the BoM depicts?

Like I said before, I can't watch the video. Did it say that the Church has objected to an archeological dig in that area? Did it give a source from the Church for that statement?

 

[Katzpur]

Additionally (DNA vs. The Book Of Mormon) is another great video they did. DNA doesn't lie......

I don't know how in-depth that video goes, but if you would like to look at an alternative point of view, here is a link to a very comprehensive paper on the subject:

DNA and the Book of Mormon

(I posted this on another thread a long time ago and it got me my first frubals from Jay. )

 

[Katzpur]

Talking about becoming a God, what do you LDS guys think has happened to those Mormons who have passed on? Are they Gods? Are they God as is the Father or different? If they are Gods, are they conscious of what they have left behind? Can they do anything for the betterment of mankind?

Nobody is a god yet. That's not going to happen for a long, long, long time.

 

[kadzbiz]

Like I said before, I can't watch the video. Did it say that the Church has objected to an archeological dig in that area? Did it give a source from the Church for that statement?

Well, the presenters of the film stated the church objects to it. Surely after all this time, wouldn't the church have wanted to excavate to prove their story?

Nobody is a god yet. That's not going to happen for a long, long, long time.

Oh? Don't they become Gods when they die and go to heaven after living the right life as per the scriptures?

 

[Katzpur]

Well, the presenters of the film stated the church objects to it. Surely after all this time, wouldn't the church have wanted to excavate to prove their story?

So, believe the presenters of the film. I'd just like to know how they substantiate their claim. If the Church has nixed an excavation, I'd just like to hear the actually statement to this effect. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Does it to you?

By the way, we have never expected archeology to prove our claims that Joseph Smith translated an ancient text. Fact is, it can't prove it and it can't disprove it. Nobody ever came to be a Latter-day Saint based on what has turned up in some South American dig. Our religion -- like all other religions -- is based on faith, not on archeological evidence. How many Christians do you know believe the Bible to be God's word based on what archeologists have found in the Holy Land? Besides, in terms of hard evidence, archeological finds to date are, in my opinion, far less compelling than linguistic evidences, which are many. DeepShadow would be a good source of information on that subject.

Oh? Don't they become Gods when they die and go to heaven after living the right life as per the scriptures?

As per which scriptures specifically? (1) We don't believe anyone goes to Heaven immediately after death. Rather, we believe in an intermediate state known as the Spirit World (Paradise and the Spirit Prison). It will not be until the Last Judgment that anyone will go to Heaven. And it may be a long time after that that anyone attains godhood. (2) We don't believe deification (e.g. exaltation) will be limited to those who lived their lives as Latter-day Saints, nor do we believe that the majority of Latter-day Saints will become godlike. (3) We make a major distinction between being godlike (or becoming "gods" with a lower-case 'g') and becoming "God." We do not believe that any of us will ever become "God", only that we will become like Him. I started a thread on this subject ages ago. It was called "Ye Are Gods: Truth or Heresy?" It was in the same-faith (i.e. Christian) debate forum, so you probably shouldn't post on it. But it will give you some insight into our doctrine on this subject.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know how in-depth that video goes, but if you would like to look at an alternative point of view, here is a link to a very comprehensive paper on the subject:

DNA and the Book of Mormon

(I posted this on another thread a long time ago and it got me my first frubals from Jay. )

Thanks I'll take a look. As always. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate because of my lack of knowledge and experience with mormonism. The first video did raise some interesting questions and issues. One of the things mentioned is given there was this huge battle....there has been no evidence to support it. It was said there was a battle where hundreds of thousands or millions died but no evidence has been found. There has been no cooberating evidence from native american trides that such a battle of great magnitude or multitude ever took place. As far as a dig...I can't remember the LDS's name but he did do a dig years ago. I think it was the 40's. I'll get that info later. But he never found anything to substantiate the claims in the book. The video talked about cities and temples built but again, no native american tride can substantiate this. This was not something passed down throughout there history. I found the second video interesting as well but I posted that one because they went hand in hand.

Whenever you get your speakers working .......that video is worth watching...... I found it to be quite interesting.

 

[Katzpur]

Hey, kadzbiz and DreGod07...

I just noticed that the two of you are posting in the Same-Faith-Debates forum. It really doesn't matter to me, but you may not have noticed that this is what you're doing. Since it's possible that someone will complain, you might want to reconsider before you post again.

 

[DeepShadow]

I'd like it if any videos became their own threads, because I like watching and commenting on/discussing/debating them.