What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[RDKatz]

In theory that is what Isaiah was doing - giving the Word of God in written form - are all his translators "also prophets"???

Most Christians find that idea - out of bounds. Not at all what the Bible says about Prophets.



I think that in fact it was written by an early Baptist - Solomon Spalding as a kind of "American Pilgrim's progress". Smith simply got the manuscript and published it under his own name and title. There is in fact no doctrine of the Mormon church in it. When Mormons come to your home step 1 is to get you messed up on the difference between prophet and translator (Not out of meanness but just because they themselves have not thought that one through) - step two is to get you to read an actual book written by Smith - such as "Pearl of Great Price" or "Doctrines and Covenants" - where you actually will find genuine Mormon unique doctrine.

In any case - many "nice sounding stories" are out there - but the Bible test of a prophet does not even once include the idea of "translating something" and even the Mormons admit that a "lousy translation" blows the whole deal. So then "What is the test of a translation"? Turns out we all know how to test a translation and it has nothing to do with what Mormon's sometimes suggest.

As far as the Spaulding Theory goes you may wish to read this: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspecti...gist-solomon-spaulding-and-the-book-of-mormon

 

[BobRyan]

With the bible--"translators" go back to the original writings to determine the meaning of the word according to what the then meaning of the word was.
How can anyone test the accuracy of Smith's translations, when no one can go to the original??
.

True - which means if they make this all about the accuracy of the translation proving the gift of prophecy (an Idea not found in all of scripture - but it is what they choose for this topic) - then it is a dead end to start with.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

How many times to I have to repeat myself before you "get it"? The only situation which would be analogous to Joseph Smith is if we not only did not have any translations of Isaiah but had no original manuscripts either. If someone were to suddenly appear with a translation of Isaiah saying it had been given him by an angel who had helped him translate it (despite the fact that he knew no Hebrew) I would be inclined to read the book to assess his claims.

And precisely how would you "assess the claim" that it was accurately translated - according to the Bible there is no such test and according to real life the only way to do the test is to have an independent expert in both language with access to both texts. So ... a dead end on the subject of "assessing the translation".

I think I am just stating the obvious.

 

[zelosravioli]

For me there are three standards by which I determine the truth of claim to prophethood.
1. The person of the prophet and his character.
2. The Word which he reveals.
3. The potency of his revelation to bring about spiritual transformation. (Smaneck #673)

I respect that you study many religions, but even in other ancient religions, a Prophet was a seer, or someone who could speak for, or with, the gods like a mediator. Generally foretelling the future was necessary. Most religions would expect the prophet to prove his ability, but Judaism would demand that the supposed Prophet foretell future events, and that they come true, otherwise that prophet was to be ignored (maybe even put to death). Israel often ignored the Law like this one, but the better Prophets would prevail nonetheless. The testimony of 'these' prophets is what scripture 'is'. Scripture is the testimony to these, and of these Prophets. And these had to conform (from all we can glean from the text and history) to the 'previous' Law and Prophets as established by Moses. Joseph made himself out to be a Prophet, of the highest order. Even promoting himself in line, and even above the Biblical prophets. Because of his supposed gift of clairvoyant 'translating', his 'visitations', his revelations, his 'prophecies', his doctrine of restoring lost truths - by means of himself - his self placement and doctrine teaches that 'he' and his revelations needn't agree with the previous Prophets and manuscripts because 'these' were 'not to be trusted' because of their being changed, lost and tampered with. This is unlike anything heard of in scripture (Jeremiah reproduced his 'own' manuscript), we might acknowledge some things are lost, and changed, but we use literary means to discern the original texts thru comparing extant manuscripts with each other, other ancient resources and objective evidences. Translators do not claim clairvoyant messages are coming in from the spirit world to change what 'is here', or add things 'from nowhere'.

As far as voice prints, as a reader of scripture many times over, the Prophets have a colorful language of allegory, poetry, rhythm, song, lamentation, parable, parallelism, mystery, etc. (and the hidden 'veiled' person of the promised messiah) also are the running threads of predictions of destruction, captivity and restoration of Israel. 'Behind' the Judgments and promises you hear the same voice: of the one called 'The Lord'. If anything thing resembles a Hebrew Prophetic line of thought, or a true Israelite speaking in the BOM, it is always a passage or story that has been plagiarized from the King James. The BOM just sounds like a 19th century protestant making up a story, not a Hebrew in any degree or time. That is so plain, it is baffling...

 

[smaneck]

And precisely how would you "assess the claim" that it was accurately translated - according to the Bible there is no such test and according to real life the only way to do the test is to have an independent expert in both language with access to both texts. So ... a dead end on the subject of "assessing the translation".

By "claim" I don't mean the claim that Isaiah was accurately translated, I mean the claim that the Book (Isaiah) was actually the Word of God given to him by an angel. I would assess that claim by reading Isaiah to see if indeed I could hear the Word of God in it.

 

[JustHisKid]

I just don't get it. I can show you point for point that the doctrine of the Book of Mormon is the same as in the Bible. It is very clear that salvation comes throught the work of Jesus Christ. The BoM says there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also makes it clear that Jesus is God, even that it was through the power of Jesus that all things were created, meaning that Jesus was not a created being. I know the arguments against the BoM, but they all seem to be contrived and/or straw men. I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I love the Book of Mormon. I am saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Everything I believe outside of that are non-salvation issues. Unless you are saying that a wrong belief can negate salvation I don't understand how you can say that a belief in the BoM can negate salvation.

What is so interesting to you about Mormonism that can't be found in simply being a Christian without the need for an additional book that adds to Scripture?

 

[smaneck]

I respect that you study many religions, but even in other ancient religions, a Prophet was a seer, or someone who could speak for, or with, the gods like a mediator.

Correct.

Generally foretelling the future was necessary.

Well, the term navi, usually translated as prophet, came from a root meaning "to warn" so prophets foretold the future in that sense. But that is not really what I mean by Prophethood. I mean those who speak for God whether or not they foretell the future. Generally to some extent they do, but I don't really consider that proof because prophecy are too open to different interpretations.

Most religions would expect the prophet to prove his ability, but Judaism would demand that the supposed Prophet foretell future events, and that they come true, otherwise that prophet was to be ignored (maybe even put to death)

However, if we take that criteria too literally then the writer of Deutero-Isaiah should have been put to death. Yes, he rightly predicted that Cyrus would conquer the Babylonian Empire, but far from breaking down the gates and destroying their temple with its 'dark treasures" the priests of Babylon (who were sick of their king) opened up the gates and Cyrus pretended to be acting in the name of their high god Marduk. He certainly didn't raid their temple. Also, Jonah's prophecies didn't come true which is why he was so upset with God.
It seems to me that what a "Navi" does is not so much fortune-tell as indicate the direction in which things are headed and their consequences.

If anything thing resembles a Hebrew Prophetic line of thought, or a true Israelite speaking in the BOM, it is always a passage or story that has been plagiarized from the King James. The BOM just sounds like a 19th century protestant making up a story, not a Hebrew in any degree or time. That is so plain, it is baffling...

It did strike me that way, which is why I'm not a Mormon. But I read at least a decent portion of the text before coming to that conclusion. And had it impressed me, there might have been a different story.

 

[Albion]

As far as the Spaulding Theory goes you may wish to read this: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspecti...gist-solomon-spaulding-and-the-book-of-mormon

That Honolulu explanation has long since been disproved. It's a different manuscript.

 

[smaneck]

It's a different manuscript.

And the original manuscript is where?

 

[zelosravioli]

.. then the writer of Deutero-Isaiah should have been put to death... Also, Jonah's prophecies didn't come true which is why he was so upset with God. (Smaneck)
Most the stipulation of the prophets was already declared with Moses, even with Lot. That 'if' they repent God will relent. Jonah was aware of that. Jonah said he didn't want God to relent 'if' they repent, and they did show signs of repentance. That is why Jonah was mad, he didn't want them to repent. I don't want to divert the subject, so I will leave Isaiah for other discussions. If he were truly false, he should be put to death, but he wasn't, why?

 

[smaneck]

Most the stipulation of the prophets was already declared with Moses, even with Lot. That 'if' they repent God will relent.

Jonah never told the people he preached to that if they repented God would relent, nor was he told to say that. Keep in mind, that Jonah wasn't preaching to the Jews. He was sent to the Nineveh, the capital of the hated Assyrian Empire who destroyed the Kingdom of Israel. That's why Jonah didn't want to preach to them in the first place.

 

[Ironhold]

And the original manuscript is where?

Remember what I've said before about how critics of the church so often refuse correction?

This is one of those instances.

Even though it was established beyond a shadow of a doubt even back in the 1890s that the Spaulding manuscript could not have been the source material for the Book of Mormon, critics of the church spent the next century claiming that it was.

When it became too ridiculous for anyone to keep making the claim, a new one appeared. According to this new claim, Spauding was working on two manuscripts, and that this mysterious second one, which has not surfaced yet, was the one that Joseph allegedly plagiarized. Thus, they argue, Spaulding is still the author of the Book of Mormon and the evidence of this is still out there.

 

[smaneck]

According to this new claim, Spauding was working on two manuscripts, and that this mysterious second one, which has not surfaced yet, was the one that Joseph allegedly plagiarized.

So Joseph Smith's original manuscript is gone and so is Spaulding's? This is fun.

Now nobody can prove anything!

 

[LoAmmi]

Well, the term navi, usually translated as prophet, came from a root meaning "to warn" so prophets foretold the future in that sense. But that is not really what I mean by Prophethood. I mean those who speak for God whether or not they foretell the future. Generally to some extent they do, but I don't really consider that proof because prophecy are too open to different interpretations.

Not quite. "Fruit of the lips" not "to warn" but close enough I suppose.

 

[BobRyan]

So Joseph Smith's original manuscript is gone and so is Spaulding's? This is fun.

Now nobody can prove anything!

That is not entirely true.

Was the Book of Mormon written by Solomon Spalding who was an Anabaptist living in the late 1700's and was Spalding's intent to write a fictional American version of something like Pilgrim's Progress to illustrate Christian principles.

So then little to no Mormon doctrine in the BoM?? For example the BoM condemns polygamy in stronger language than does the actual Bible.

Solomon Spalding (1761–1816) was the author at least two related texts: the unfinished but extant Manuscript Story – Conneaut Creek, and the finished (but lost) Manuscript, Found, an unpublished historical romance about the lost civilization of the mound builders of North America.


Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for "Manuscript found"

Manuscript, Found

Around 1812, Spaulding completed a historical romance entitled Manuscript, Found which "purported to have been a record found buried in the earth".[4] Spaulding moved to Pittsburgh and reportedly took Manuscript, Found to the publisher Patterson & Lambdin. Spaulding died in 1816.[7] Manuscript, Found was never published and is now a lost work.
Plot The plot of Manuscript, Found told "of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes.


It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country."[4]
Phraseology Manuscript, Found was written "in scripture style of writing". Readers recalled its repetitive usage of phrases like "and it came to pass" or "now it came to pass", as well as the repeated phrase "I Nephi".[8]

Apparently the relatives of Spalding remember a little something about the content of the "lost manuscript".

In 1833, Spalding's brother John and seven other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon. Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."[9] These statements were published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.[10]

The story improves somewhat in terms of intrigue.

In the book Life in Utah[20] (1870) by J. H. Beadle, a version of the theory was presented with some additional details.

Beadle states that in 1812, Spalding presented Manuscript, Found to a bookseller named Patterson in Pittsburgh, wishing to have it published as a "historical romance, to account for the settlement of America", and proposing to write a fictional preface describing "its having been taken from plates dug up in Ohio." Patterson declined, as he "did not think the enterprise would pay."

Beadle states that Rigdon was then at work in the office of Patterson, who died in 1826. Spalding had died of tuberculosis in 1816, and apparently the manuscript had not been returned, because the subsequent fate of that copy of the manuscript was said by Beadle to be unknown. According to Beadle, Spalding's widow "had another complete copy, but in the year 1825, while residing in Ontario Co., N. Y., next door to a man named Stroude, for whom Joe Smith was digging a well, that copy was also lost. Mrs. Spalding thinks it was stolen from her trunk."[21]

independent review

A 2008 Stanford study (Jockers et al.) of the text of the Book of Mormon compared it to writings of possible authors of the text showed a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery. It concluded that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding–Rigdon theory of authorship.

A later ciritic of the Standord 2008 study found

By using Smith's personal writings written in his own handwriting, the Schaalje rebuttal concluded that stylometric evidence supports neither Smith nor Spalding–Rigdon authorship

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

The Spauding Manuscript theory, the View of the Hebrews theory, are all old issues that have been answered so many times its not worth the time. Non-Mormons can't accept the testimonies of Mormons & the story of the claims of how The Book of Mormon came forth, so they have to come up with their own theories as to where it came from. Falsely claiming that Joseph Smith must have borrowed the whole thing from sources & his environment. Not an original argument, in & of itself. So have anti-Mormon "Christians" borrowed the argument from early to later anti-Christians & Atheists? They've used the same argument, claiming that Christianity & the Bible was borrowed from the environment & sources that pre-date the Bible. So, the challenge is for Christians to answer their own arguments (against the Book of Mormon), by answering the same types against the Bible & early Christian doctrines. Who is willing here to start doing that?

With all the stronger parallels found in early Christian writings, art works & mystery dramas & those of Mormonism. Why aren't anti-Mormon "Christians" claiming that Joseph Smith borrowed the temple rituals, symbols, & doctrines from early Christianity?


T. W. Doane, Bible Myth, And Their Parallels In Other Religions, (New York: The Truth Seeker Company, 1882 & 1910).

American Atheists publications.

A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticism, (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1912).

Gilbert Thurlow, Bible Myths & Mysteries, (London, England: Octopus Books, 1974).

John P. Lundy, Monumental Christianity, Or the Art and Symbolism of the Primitive Church, (New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875 & 1882).
R. Joseph Hoffmann, (translator) Celsus On The True Doctrine, (A Discourse Against the early Christians), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Huge Nibley, Dr. (Series): The Collected Works of Huge Nibley, (Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies = F.A.R.M.S., and Deseret Book Company). Volume 4: Mormonism and Early Christianity, (1987).

Daniel C. Peterson, Dr. and Stephen David Ricks, Professor: Offenders For A Word {How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints}, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen Books, 1992).

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/brown-robert-rosemary

http://www.shields-research.org/Brown/Brown.htm

 

[smaneck]

Apparently the relatives of Spalding remember a little something about the content of the "lost manuscript".

But forgot where it is?

So they've got affidavits and the Mormons have affidavits. And nobody has an original manuscript.

Sounds like a stalemate.

 

[Ironhold]

So then little to no Mormon doctrine in the BoM?? For example the BoM condemns polygamy in stronger language than does the actual Bible.

This tells me that you've not read the Book of Mormon for yourself.

The same passage so often cited as "proof" that the BoM condemns polygamy also contains a caveat a few verses down - God has the right to command it if the situation warrants it.

 

[Ironhold]

So Joseph Smith's original manuscript is gone and so is Spaulding's? This is fun.

Now nobody can prove anything!

Thing is, this isn't the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

That would be a minister's wife trying to base her arguments on supposed Book of Mormon verses that didn't actually exist. Half of the verses she gave for something came after the last actual, numerical verse in that chapter.

 

[BobRyan]

The Spauding Manuscript theory, the View of the Hebrews theory, are all old issues that have been answered so many times its not worth the time.

Until you look into the details.

1. Almost no Mormon doctrine in the BoM - just what you expect from a Baptist fiction such as Spalding claimed to have written.
2. No Mormon witnesses to the plates continue to maintain their claims to have seen real physical plates with real physical eyes- 5 years after 1844 - the year Smith died.