What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

BobRyan said:

I would have been more impressed had you said "I happen to have a copy of Manuscript Found - Spalding's original work of fiction from which Smith copied and it also contains vs 30

Click to expand...

Either way, verse 30 still torpedoes your argument.

And your insistence that there has to be a second Spaudling manuscript out there is little more than an argument from silence.

BobRyan said:

I love it when people claim that Smith is the author and the original writer of the BoM - when HE himself claims this is not true, that the book is a work of fiction... that he merely translated it. So to get to the "original writing" one would need the source from which HE ADMITS he was copying.

Not having that.... "imagine it does not matter"???

If Smith were claiming that HE is the prophet not those authors/writers/prophets of the BoM then the original would be HIS. HE never makes that claim!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry... I missed your point??? Smith was not the "author", the only time he had to claim he was, was the time when you needed a live person to be on record as the author, otherwise you couldn't get a copyright. Today that rule has changed.
But then your argument is merely useless equivocation anyway.

BoM on Polygamy

Jacob 1:15

[15] And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24-28

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
[29] Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

The text goes on to speak of the grief and heart ache this caused even in David's time and how doing likewise causes pain and a curse.


[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
[35] Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Ironhold said:

Either way, verse 30 still torpedoes your argument.

Click to expand...

That text above - is not at all torpedoed by anything in the BoM not even by the tiny incomplete-sentence fragment of vs 30

There is no ambiguity as to the subject in this part of the BoM -

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

I think we can all agree on at least that much.

Theway said:

I love how Critics say that they can not believe the BOM to be true because they do not have the original writings to compare it to... Yet when we get an original writting which disproves them, they say we have to look to some other nonexistent original writing for the truth????
Hypocrisy is funny.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

I love it when people claim that Smith is the author and the original writer of the BoM - when HE himself claims this is not true, that the book is a work of fiction... that he merely translated it. So to get to the "original writing" one would need the source from which HE ADMITS he was copying.

Not having that.... "imagine it does not matter"???

If Smith were claiming that HE is the prophet not those authors/writers/prophets of the BoM then the original would be HIS. HE never makes that claim!

Click to expand...

Theway said:

I'm sorry... I missed your point??? Smith was not the "author", the only time he had to claim he was, was the time when you needed a live person to be on record as the author, otherwise you couldn't get a copyright. Today that rule has changed.
But then your argument is merely useless equivocation anyway.

Click to expand...

1. I agree with you he did claim to be the author. Just not to his followers.
2. My argument stands because the post I was responding to claimed to have "the original" source to compare it to.
3. My statement was that if Smith's own handiwork was is in fact the "original" then there was no manuscript in "plates" as
"the original".

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan said:

j

The Mormon church claims -- on the BoM today "here are the Three Witnesses" - and they claim we should believe whatever these 3 witnesses say. Then after those three signed that statement of what they saw - the Mormons publish statements that they are "Liars" or they themselves publish statements that they "saw with spiritual eyes" what normal mortal eyes could not see. EVEN though the "box of plates" is claimed to have been visible to any Sally or Fred that happen to be in the room.

The whole thing looks like conn artistry -and we have nothing in like it in Christianity when it comes to the Bible.

However - my point in bringing up the Solomon Spalding source of the document is not the dishonesty and conn-man method this would consistently show for Smith - rather it is the point that because of that "source" - there is very little if any Mormon doctrine in that text. Rather it is what you would expect of an Anabaptist living in the late 1700's, early 1800's. And that fact is difficult to cover up with after-the-fact documents and stories.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

You seem to take great pleasure in your stabs at Mormonism, how would you, as a 7th day Adventist, respond to the plagiarism charge against Adventist founder, Ellen G. White? That Adventist are also called a cult! That Christ's 2nd coming didn't come in 1844? You still haven't dealt with what's not in Spalding's "Manuscript Found" (if that's one of the sources for the Book of Mormon), such as a few listed, money system, names, etc. You're still borrowing, without giving credit, from anti-Christian-Atheistic tactics, or to the devil, who inspires those critics. It should be noted again, how your own borrowed logic inadvertantly attacks the bible, for Atheists & said critics would bring up the following: Prophet Moses has Levites slaughter three thousand naked men! (Ex. 32:25-28). This one would be made to sound like canabalism being done, (Lev. 26:29). Put to death, just for getting too close to tabernacle? A little too harsh? (Num. 1:51; 3:10, 38; 4:15). Mean god burns complainers? (Num. 11:1). Man stoned to death, just for gathering sticks on Sabbath, a little too harsh? (Num. 15:32-36). Moses has horns, so he must be demonic, because the devil also has horns? Baby killing prophet Moses, (Num. 31:15-19).

You must have borrowed from Celsus, the early anti-Christian, the idea of making issues about witnesses to different events. Celsus is quoted as claiming that during the birth of Christ, the star that was said to have helped guide the wise men, to the baby Jesus, was not generally seen, nor the wise men. He charges that the story, among other reasons must therefore be false. Celsus claimed no one witnessed the dove or heard the voice of God the Father saying that Christ was the Son of God, (During the baptism of Christ). (A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticism, (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1912), Garretson, p.74. R. Joseph Hoffmann, (translator) Celsus On The True Doctrine, (A Discourse Against the early Christians), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p.58. Ante-Nicene Fathers, = ANF, 4:414).

Celsus pointed out the fact that Jesus was betrayed by his followers or disciples, they lied about knowing him, during hard times, (just like what happened with the BOM witnesses during days of persecutions & hard times, human weaknesses, if focussed on, has been used to try to discredit all religions). The fact that they betrayed Christ, (or at least some of them, although we know later that these different ones later came back and became martyrs for the cause of Christ, a fact that Celsus left out in that part of his attack. These betrayals then became "evidences" in the minds of Celsus and perhaps other early anti-Christians, that Christ was a false god. Celsus also pointed out that those fishermen were unlearned. “The Apostles were infamous men, publicans, and abandoned mariners.”
Celsus said that they were sinners, who ran away from challenges & danger. Judas also had betrayed Christ. The early Christian leaders, & their followers were accused of all kinds of crimes, & terrible vices & acts of violent terror. Wilken wrote that "...Celsus imagines Jesus having a conversation about his baptism with a Jew. "When," says the Jew, "you were bathing near John, you say that you saw what appeared to be a bird fly towards you out of the air.... What trustworthy witness saw this apparition, or who heard a voice from heaven adopting you as son of God? There is no proof except for your word & the evidence which you may produce of one of the men who were punished with you" (c. Cels.1.41). Here the question centers wholly on historical verifiability. How does one substantiate that a certain event took place? What are the criteria by which one evaluates the veracity of a document claiming to record a historical event?..." Celsus points to some of the different legends told about men, then claiming that they are no more true than the legend told by about Jesus. "...The only reasonable way to verify an account is to test the reliability of the witness. Since the account of the baptism of Jesus comes from Jesus & his followers, one should be suspicious." Like other stories invented by the followers of hero's to glorify the hero. Wilken also tells us that Celsus also used this method of attack on the story & event, the resurrection of Christ. Celsus wrote in a mocking way & asking: Who witnessed this event?, a "hysterical female" & other followers "deluded" by the same "sorcery" had either dreamt, hallucinated, or saw the event through wishful thinking. Some modern critics have used a similar approach, as [EAC]s in some ways. (COTTD), Hoffmann, 61-3; ANF, 4:423-4, Origen Against Celsus, bk.1 chap. lxii, also p.35-8, 424-25, & W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom & Persecution In The Early Church, (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1967), 9, etc. Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, (Yale University Press; New Haven and London, 1984), 110-111. Compare: Matt.11:18-19; 26:14-15; 47-52; 69-75; 27:3-5; Mark 14:43-72; Luke 22:47-62, John 18:1-27. Rev. Joseph Milner, A. M., & Rev. Isaac Milner, D.D. F.R.S., The History of The Church of Christ, (London: Printed by Luke Hansard & Sons, For T. Cadel, In the Strand, 1827), pp. 528--542. Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen (The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church), (Atlanta: 1946, 1952, 1971, 1973, & John Knox Press, 1983), p. 240; After Jesus, The Triumph of Christianity, by Reader's Digest, Editor, Gayla Visalli, etc., 1992, 199-200.

The point being, is that it's not too hard to find similiar type cases in others' religious histories, which could be made into issues, because of the endless human choices, good or bad made by all types of people throughout all religious histories. It's what people do with these cases. Plus, how they are used, or could be used to vilify others' beliefs, or others' religions. That's what's going on here, with the continual mean spirited stabs at Mormonism, which inadvertantly is an attack on all religions, for such things are often gathered by Atheists to claim there's no god, (as they also list all the weaknesses & questionable acts of all religionists too).

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

That Christ's 2nd coming didn't come in 1844?

Click to expand...

Ahem.
Maybe it did.
http://apocalypsesecrets.com/content/1844-ends-cycle-prophecy-and-opens-cycle-fulfillment

Ironhold said:

And your insistence that there has to be a second Spaudling manuscript out there is little more than an argument from silence.

Click to expand...

No wait! Isn't that Smith's claim.??? two BoM's?? The first one 116 pages and the second one 522??

(Recall that Spalding's manuscript is 118 pages with front and back cover included)

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

You seem to take great pleasure in your stabs at Mormonism, how would you, as a 7th day Adventist, respond to the plagiarism charge against Adventist founder, Ellen G. White? That Adventist are also called a cult! That Christ's 2nd coming didn't come in 1844?

Click to expand...

Certainly we can all agree that the 2nd coming did not happen in 1844. We can also agree that there was no Seventh-day Adventist church in 1844 - they were all Sunday Keeping "Millerites" not holding to even one of the distinctive doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists today.

1. Adventists are not a cult according to Trinity Magazine's "Kingdom of the Cults" (and even the rules of this discussion board) - but the LDS church is listed in that same book if you care to look that up. Adventists are trinitarian and do not have any nonsense about being spirit-brothers in heaven before coming to earth. They use sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - which means the 66 books of the Bible. (According to Christianity Today - in an article Feb of this year - the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.)
2. This thread is about the BoM -- if you want to start a thread on Adventists I am happy to join it.
3. J Smith died in 1844... the Seventh-day Adventist church formed in the 1860's.
4. Ellen White publicly promoted the books in her library by other authors and stated in the preface to her own books that their work is used for sections of the book where a statement on history is best stated in their words. If Smith was promoting Spalding's work in the preface to the BoM then I missed it.
5. My reference to Spalding with Smith is to argue that Mormon doctrine is not to be found in the BoM - if someone wants to start a thread on SDAs arguing the Adventist doctrine cannot be found in Ellen White's writings - I am happy to join that thread too.


Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

You still haven't dealt with what's not in Spalding's "Manuscript Found" (if that's one of the sources for the Book of Mormon), such as a few listed, money system, names, etc. You're still borrowing, without giving credit, from anti-Christian-Atheistic tactics, or to the devil, who inspires those critics. It should be noted again, how your own borrowed logic inadvertantly attacks the bible, for Atheists & said critics would bring up the following: Prophet Moses has Levites slaughter three thousand naked men! (Ex. 32:25-28).

Click to expand...

1. I don't think I have made any reference to any story in the BoM and said that because of that story the BoM is false.
2. Your attack on the Bible is therefore premature.
3. If you mean to argue that the slaughter of settlers going to California - as was done by Mormons can be justified in some odd way by Christians since the Christian Bible includes Ex 32:25-28 then you are horribly mistaken. Even the LDS say they have apologized for that - there is no point in Ex 32 where God says "oops -- I acted too hastily -- that was ill-advised".

I don't think you thought that through.

This one would be made to sound like canabalism being done, (Lev. 26:29).

Click to expand...

There is no canibalism in Lev 26 commanded by God - rather there are curses there and condemnation for those who reject the Word of God

Lev 26
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.
22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
23 And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;
24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.
25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
26 And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
.
These statements of plague and curse and horrific death to fall on those in Israel who forsake God - is not "a free pass for Mormons to slaughter settlers" and I think we would all agree to that. (And I don't see it in any way related to anything I have said about the Book of Mormon).

in Christ,

Bob

smaneck said:

More specifically, this 'reformed Egyptian' written on gold plates.



So you consider virtually any written language aside from Cuneiform or Chinese to be "Reformed Egyptian?" Then if we find a gold plate written in English you will consider it evidence of Smith's claim? Not very persuasive.



Isn't that a bit like arguing that because we are using Arabic numerals therefore we are writing in "Reformed Arabic"?



Yeah, I'm looking specifically for an Israeli text written Reformed Egyptian a gold plate. Can you give me evidence of that?

Click to expand...

Of course I don't consider "any written language" to be "Reformed Egyptian," just those that can be traced back to demotic Egyptian. A lot of alphabet letters in modern Europe, Russia, & America, can be traced back to the Phoenician alphabet. The Phoenicians homeland is said to have been a narrow strip along the coast of Syria which included the ancient seaports of Tyre & Sidon. The Phoenicians built ships & sailed the Mediterranean sea, & as traders, they set up mercial centers & may have even sailed in a clockwise direction round the whole continent of Africa, as commissioned by Pharaoh Necho, some time between 609 BC & 593 BC. The Phoenicians also developed an alphabet, in the which "...they took the hieratic script of ancient Egypt & transformed & modified it into a form suited to Semitic languages. From this point the Phoenician alphabet was still further modified by the Greeks, who inserted vowels & made other changes. The role of the Phoenicians in the evolution of writing from the ancient pictograms to the forms practised today cannot therefore be over emphasized." It seems that the greek language also has it's roots in the Egyptian writing system also. The Minoans are said to have had three different phases in the evolution of their writing system. Sir Arthur Evans showed that the first phase consisted of pictograms analogous "to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, which was followed by a more cursive or flowing form which seems to have been an early form of Greek...." Michael Ventris & John Chadwick, worked to decipher the "Linear B" a fragment of a late Minoan tablet. (See: The Mediterranean (Cradle of Western Culture), by Richard Carrington, 1971, A Studio Book, The Viking Press, N.Y., p.112 & see also the heading: "The Ancient Greek World."). The writers of The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, tell us that the native script of pharaonic Egyptian appears in 3 forms, the hieroglyphic, which, according to this source means in greek "sacred carving," (hieros glyphe). And a form called "hieratic" which in greek means "priestly," (hieratikos). And the 3rd being the demotic or "popular," (demotikos), form of Egyptian writing. The other two forms, the Hieratic & the demotic are said to have been adaptations of the early form, the hieroglyphics. This book goes on say that the hieratic script is a cursive form of hieroglyphic writing which had been reduced to formal symbols which was no longer pictorial, & was thus for ease of rapid writing. The demotic is said here to have been an even more rapid & abbreviated form of hieratic handwriting that is said here to have first developed some time in the 7th century B.C., & lasted until about the 5th century A.D. This book described the sample of demotic writing as found on the Rosetta Stone as being "...an abbreviated & modified form of Egyptian hieratic...." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1664-1667, see also: The Birth of Writing, by Robert Claiborne, p.40-1.)

"Then if we find a gold plate written in English you will consider it evidence of Smith's claim? Not very persuasive." My response to this is to point out how some anti-Mormon "Christians" have ignored the greater parallels, (to demotic Egyptian), in the published samples of writing from the Gold Plates, (which Joseph Smith gave to Martin Harris, who showed them to Prof. Anthon, thus, "the Anthon Transcript.") Ignored them, but have noted in the samples, they could write an English looking comment, to vilify the parallels, which are many, as being closer to "deformed English." They did this, perhaps not knowing that that perhaps they could have used the sample, because English goes back to demoic Egyptain. Thus, there are characters that look like English letters, with some differences of course too.

Where bible evidences crosses over into Book of Mormon evidences, is the Lachish Letters. Written during Book of Mormon's Lehi & Nephi's time, about 6-5th cent. B.C. They use characters, Egyptian demotic types, to write Hebrew comments, or the language of the Egyptians & the learning of the Jews, (BOM, 1 Nephi 1:2).

A number of graves around southern Italy, & Crete have also been found to have had writings inscribed on "gold plates." (Other World Journeys, by Carol Zaleski, Oub. by Oxford Un. Press, 1987, p.18, see note 30, dated 4th cent. B.C.).

Greek tablets of bronze, as well as thin plates of lead marked with inscriptions. (The Archaolog. Zeitung for 1877, p.196; & id. for 1878, p.71; Franz, Elementa Epigr. Graecae, p.168; & Roberts, Greek Epigraphy, p.234-242).

Franklin S. Harris, Jr., in 1953 presented a number of examples of ancient writings on metallic plates. In the British Museum, in London, are a number examples of ancient writings on metallic plates. 25 silver plates, of the Pali manuscript beautifully engraved in Singhalese characters, giving Buddha's first sermon at Benares India. Also, 2 thin gold plates with Javanese characters, have been found. Another example of writing on gold was found in the tomb Menkure of 2800 B.C., the builder of the 3rd pyramid at Giza. The "pseudo-hieroglyphic" inscriptions on bronze tablets found by Dunand in Lebanon at Byblus, have been said to date back to the 18th century B.C. The Demotic Chronicle of Egypt was also said to be kept on plates. The Boss of Tarkondemos consisted of a round silver plate, with Hittite writings & cuneiform writing of Assyria.

Other samples, claimed could be authentic writing on gold plates, & other types of metals.

Copper Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran by an archeologist in 1952. Its Hebrew text was inscribed on two rolls of coppper, and dates to 50-100 AD.

Archeologists in 1938, in Persepolis, near modern day Shiraz, Iran. There were two gold plates and two silver plates in a stone box, written on in cuneiform script. The plates date to 518 – 515 BC.

Silver Scrolls, dating to 600 BC. The text, written in old Hebrew, with Egyptian character influences, comes from primarily Num. 6:24-26.

• Ketef Hinnom, Wikipedia

• John Noble Wilford, “Solving a Riddle Written in Silver,” The New York Times, 28 September 2004

• “Scriptures on 2,600-Year-Old Silver Scrolls Found in Jerusalem,” Ensign 17 (June 1987): 56-57

• William J. Adams Jr., “Lehi’s Jerusalem and Writing on Silver Plates,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (3/1), Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1994, p. 204-06

• Gary D. Myers, “‘Silver scrolls’ are oldest O.T. scripture, archaeologist says,” Baptist Press, 27 Feb 2004

• Stephen Caesar, “The Blessing of the Silver Scrolls,” Associates for Biblical Research, 6 Jan 2010.

Petelia tablet, one of the Orphic Gold Plates, dating to fourth century BC. (Francis Legge wrote of the "plates of Naples" which are now in the Naples Museum, & which contain the Orphic poems, written on gold plates. (Fore Runners And Rivals Of Christianity) From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D., 1: p.134-5).

• David Larsen, “Instructions for the Netherworld: The Orphic Gold Tablets,” HeavenlyAscents.com, 18 June 2009

• David Larsen, “The Orphic Gold Tablets: Arriving in the Afterlife and the Importance of Memory for Salvation,” HeavenlyAscents.com, 26 June 2009

• David Larsen, “The Orphic Gold Tablets: A ‘Ritual for the Dead’,” HeavenlyAscents.com, 2 July 2009

• David Larsen, “The Tree of Life as Nurturing Mother,” HeavenlyAscents.com, 12 July 2009

• David Larsen, “The Orphic Gold Tablets: ‘The Longed-For Crown’,” HeavenlyAscents.com, 31 July 2009.

Robert Claiborne depicts the famous 6th cent. B.C., gold plate of the Persian King Darius, that has ancient writings inscribed in old persian, Elamite & Babylonian. He mentioned that a duplicate copy on a silver plate, was with the other. Darius had placed these records in the audience hall at Persepolis, during the 6th century B.C. Others have mentioned a 3rd plate, or 3rd copy with the other 2. Claiborne depicts another example of metallic plates. "Dating from 500 B.C., these two golden tablets inscribed in Phoenician & Etruscan were dedicated to a goddess by an Etruscan king, marking his 3rd year on the throne...." (The Birth of Writing (The Emergence of Man), by Robert Claiborne, & Ed.s of Time-Life Bk.s, 1974, p.73, 132-3; & The Last Two Million Years, by Reader's Digest History of Man, 1973, Pleasantville, N.Y., & Montreal, p.108.) Another sample of writing on metal is seen on Etruscan priests' bronze "...sheep's liver, found at Piacenza in north Italy,... It is marked in sections, each bearing the name of..." [what the Etruscan Priests believed was their] "...chief divinity and a number of lesser gods...." (Ibid., p.109.)
In the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos, some scripts were written on stone & "...bronze objects, found in the 1920s, and contain 114 different symbols, nearly half of which are similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs.... The Maya, who flourished in the Yucatan peninsula from AD 300 to 900, left many examples of their script carved on huge pillars, engraved on metal, or painted on pottery...." (Ibid., p.303, emphasis added).

More studies on ancients writing on different types of metals.

See also H. Curtis Wright, “Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes,” in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. SLC and Provo, Utah: Deseret Book Company and FARMS, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 273-334.

The ancients used bronze, copper, gold, silver, brass, iron, & other metals to write upon. Such as in the case with a "bronze plaque inscribed with raised Himyaritic characters." This sample of ancient metallic writing comes from S. Arabia, & has been dated as being from the 1st century A.D. Egyptian writings were written on papyrus or ostraca, & were carved on stone monuments, engraved on wood, but also on "metal." The copper scroll found in cave 3 at Khirbet Qumran has been dated here to be a late 1st century A.D. work. (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (A 3 Volume Set), 1st Pub. in Australia in 1980, by Hodder & Stoughton, C/R The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962, & The Un. & Colleges Christian Fellowship, 1980, p. 375, 1665 & 1667, see also: Jer. 36:4, 18, 23; 45:1, etc.)

Other Sources:

http://reformed-egyptian.com/

Voices In Stone, (The Decipherment of Ancient Scripts & Writings), by Ernst Doblhofer, 1957, translated by Mervyn Savill, Pub. by Viking Press, N.Y., 1961, p. 220-226, fig. 66 b, & 67-8. See also: The Birth of Writing, by Robert Claiborne, Pub. Time-Life Mag., 1974, p. 118-21.

The Story of Archaeological Decipherment, by Maurice Pope, op. cit., p.124-5, & fig. 78.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, Edited by Arthur Cotterell, 1980, Penguin Books, see pages 171-174, see metallic sample on p.172.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030419093942/http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/bom.html

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

Of course I don't consider "any written language" to be "Reformed Egyptian," just those that can be traced back to demotic Egyptian.

Click to expand...

I did exclude cuneiform and Chinese. But you want to include every language with an alphabet. That's quite a stretch.

A lot of alphabet letters in modern Europe, Russia, & America, can be traced back to the Phoenician alphabet.

Click to expand...

I'm a professional historian. I don't need a lecture on the Phoenicians.

The Phoenicians also developed an alphabet[/B], in the which "...they took the hieratic script of ancient Egypt & transformed & modified it into a form suited to Semitic languages.

Click to expand...

First off, there is nothing 'reformed' about the hieractic script. It's been around for as long as hieroglyphics.

From this point the Phoenician alphabet was still further modified by the Greeks, who inserted vowels & made other changes.

Click to expand...

And can you show me any evidence that this script was ever referred to as "reformed Egyptian"?

It seems that the greek language also has it's roots in the Egyptian writing system also. The Minoans are said to have had three different phases in the evolution of their writing system.

Click to expand...

We don't know that the Minoans were Greek. They could have just as well have been Egyptian. There is no evidence that the Greek-speaking people had migrated to this area yet.

My response to this is to point out how some anti-Mormon "Christians" have ignored the greater parallels, (to demotic Egyptian), in the published samples of writing from the Gold Plates (which Joseph Smith gave to Martin Harris, who showed them to Prof. Anthon, thus, "the Anthon Transcript.") Ignored them, but have noted in the samples, they could write an English looking comment, to vilify the parallels, which are many, as being closer to "deformed English."

Click to expand...

I just looked at that transcript and I'm guessing he said this because all the letters are disconnected. Heiretic is cursive and even Demotic looks more like Arabic than the Athon transcript does. Personally, I don't see any resemblance in the writing systems.

Where bible evidences crosses over into Book of Mormon evidences, is the Lachish Letters.

Click to expand...

I looked at some examples for the Lachish Letters as well. They don't seem to be a match.

Archeologists in 1938, in Persepolis, near modern day Shiraz, Iran. There were two gold plates and two silver plates in a stone box, written on in cuneiform script. The plates date to 518 – 515 BC.

Click to expand...

A couple of plates in gold is rather different than an entire book where the pages are all in gold.
.

BobRyan said:

1. I don't think I have made any reference to any story in the BoM and said that because of that story the BoM is false.
2. Your attack on the Bible is therefore premature.
3. If you mean to argue that the slaughter of settlers going to California - as was done by Mormons can be justified in some odd way by Christians since the Christian Bible includes Ex 32:25-28 then you are horribly mistaken. Even the LDS say they have apologized for that - there is no point in Ex 32 where God says "oops -- I acted too hastily -- that was ill-advised".

I don't think you thought that through.



There is no canibalism in Lev 26 commanded by God - rather there are curses there and condemnation for those who reject the Word of God

Lev 26
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.
22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
23 And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;
24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.
25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
26 And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
.
These statements of plague and curse and horrific death to fall on those in Israel who forsake God - is not "a free pass for Mormons to slaughter settlers" and I think we would all agree to that. (And I don't see it in any way related to anything I have said about the Book of Mormon).

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

As noted too often, you continue to screw up & mistate others' points. The biblical examples were how I've seen Atheists & early anti-Christians would notes such things to make issues out of them, & to point out how you've borrowed or are inspired by the same negative spirit, as the said critics are. Your claiming that I'm making an attack on the bible is an obvious distortion of the points I've been making in a lot of responses to you. So I will state it again, you are inadvertantly attacking the bible, with the same logic, tactics & disinformation methods that Atheists & early to later anti-Christians writers use. Lev. 26:29: "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Taken out of context, like Atheists do, would be presented as canibalism. They do this with the sacrament, calling it a barbaric canibalistic meal (The American Atheist publications, John 6:52-61). Bringing up 7th Day Adventist examples, was to point out how no church is immuned from being vilified by other religionists. Bringing up early anti-Christian examples, was to point out how your argument of "borrowing" & "plagiarism" could be a charge against your unoriginal arguments, because of how they have the same Atheistic-early to later anti-Christian types of claims for false theories as to the origins of scriptures. Plus, it was to see if you or other Christians here would be willing to answer your own charges against Mormons, by answering the same types found in early anti-Christian writings. You seem not to care to do so, or are unwilling to, or don't know how to. You, having called LDS' pre-existence doctrine "nonsense," you've disarmed yourself of one of the doctrines that early Christians used to answer the early anti-Christians' charges of "borrowing." Also, perhaps you continue to ignore them, because in those answers, they would be answers to your own garbage & nonsense.

smaneck said:

I'm a professional historian. I don't need a lecture on the Phoenicians.

Click to expand...

You're asking questions, asking for sources, & evidences, and that comment is rather mean spirited. There are other readers here besides you. How would one know what to not "lecture" you in? Curious though: What you a "professional historian" in?

smaneck said:

I did exclude cuneiform and Chinese. But you want to include every language with an alphabet. That's quite a stretch.


I'm a professional historian. I don't need a lecture on the Phoenicians.



First off, there is nothing 'reformed' about the hieractic script. It's been around for as long as hieroglyphics.



And can you show me any evidence that this script was ever referred to as "reformed Egyptian"?



We don't know that the Minoans were Greek. They could have just as well have been Egyptian. There is no evidence that the Greek-speaking people had migrated to this area yet.



I just looked at that transcript and I'm guessing he said this because all the letters are disconnected. Heiretic is cursive and even Demotic looks more like Arabic than the Athon transcript does. Personally, I don't see any resemblance in the writing systems.



I looked at some examples for the Lachish Letters as well. They don't seem to be a match.



A couple of plates in gold is rather different than an entire book where the pages are all in gold.
.

Click to expand...

Didn't expect you to be convinced of these few sources in many that could be given. These type of evidences, without spiritual conversion, often never seems to be enough for those who refuse to see the evidences for what they are worth. Thus, consider such things not as reasons why you have to believe, but reasons for which I believe, added to that a spiritual quest & spirtual testimony, where by I testify that the Book of Mormon is true. All these things are just added witnesses to me of the ancientness of the Book of Mormon. The concept of "Reformed Egyptian" is what Book of Mormon prophets called the language that got changed, altered, & evolved according to their manners of communication. They also changed & altered the Hebrew too. Thus, the same type of things happened down through history with Egyptian, Hebrew, & other languages that have their roots in demotic Egyptian. I've given you enough sources to study. Go do your professional historian training stuff, & check them out, please.

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

You're asking questions, asking for sources, & evidences, and that comment is rather mean spirited.

Click to expand...

I did ask for evidence to your claim that "reformed Egyptian" got written on gold plates. Your answer seems to be that anything written in any language using the Phoenician alphabet ought to be accepted as 'reformed Egyptian', whether on a gold plate or not. Frankly that makes no sense to me. The Phoenicians, after all, were the same people as the Canaanites and the Hebrew people had been living next to them for hundreds of years. Whatever the ultimate origin of the Phoenician alphabet, why wouldn't the Hebrews name it after the people they took it from instead of 'reformed Egyptian" a term you've yet to establish even existed. If you can find me a single text in antiquity [aside from the BOM, of course] that calls Phoenician "reformed Egyptian" then I will accept that possibility. Until then I still want to see the gold plate written in what is recognized to be 'reformed Egyptian." Greek plates don't count much less Persian ones written in cuneiform.

Curious though: What you a "professional historian" in?

Click to expand...

I have three PhD fields, one in Middle East history, another in the history of South Asia and a third in Church history.
Why those three? I like religions.

But since I couldn't get a straight answer to my original question I'll ask you the same question I asked the other Mormons on this thread. In your opinion, should monogamy or polygamy be the spiritual and ethical ideal for marriage?

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

Didn't expect you to be convinced of these few sources in many that could be given. These type of evidences, without spiritual conversion, often never seems to be enough for those who refuse to see the evidences for what they are worth.

Click to expand...

You don't want to say that to a professional historian. We stake our reputations on being objective. But perhaps what you are saying is that if we become more 'subjective' i.e. believers then we can be persuaded by less than adequate evidence. I'm just asking for the kind of evidence I would expect any of my students to produce to back up their thesis. A long treatise on the Phoenicians isn't going to cut it unless you can establish that the ancients referred to the Phoenician script as 'reformed Egyptian.' And that is true, whatever its origins.

The concept of "Reformed Egyptian" is what Book of Mormon prophets called the language that got changed, altered, & evolved according to their manners of communication. They also changed & altered the Hebrew too. Thus, the same type of things happened down through history with Egyptian, Hebrew, & other languages that have their roots in demotic Egyptian.

Click to expand...

Okay, wait just a minute. Why are you even distinguishing between 'reformed Egyptian' and Hebrew if your "reformed Egyptian" includes everything derived from the Phoenician alphabet? You do realize that the Hebrew script is derived from the Phoenician alphabet as well? It doesn't have any direct roots to the Demotic. Paleolithic Hebrew is based directly on the Phoenician alphabet. Later they adopted the Aramaic script.

Go do your professional historian training stuff, & check them out, please.

Click to expand...

Here is the problem: all your sources appear irrelevant to the question I asked. I specifically asked for evidence that there are other instances of 'reformed Egyptian' written on gold plates. Instead you give me evidence of gold plates from entirely different cultures and languages.

As for Phoenician writings---how do they know the Phoenicians wrote anything? How did they come to decipher them? How have they deciphered all other writings of an ancient people?---the archeologists and linguists and whatnot all end up descending on the found article and studying it---and they usually have found many other writings, they find a building, a house, a temple, they find pottery, they find evidence of a group of people. They study, study, study--that's all anybody asks, let's study the found articles---but they are not around.
I worked in the medical field for 28 years, the one thing that was drilled into us over and over again is the fact that everything needs to be written down, if it is not written down, then it wasn't done. We couldn't say, I just forgot to write it, but I did it--no written record---then it wasn't done. The original record must be shown and studied---and that is true of any field. Somebody can't just claim that they have a book by William Shakespeare--but they don't have the original manuscript, they just have a copy of what they saw. And Shakespeare wrote it in an unknown language, but some stones were used to decipher it. But here it is, the genuine, deciphered, only one of it's kind in the world, William Shakespeare's own truest autobiography.
And may I ask---where are those deciphering stones??? Can those, at least, be examined??

P

BobRyan said:

1. I agree with you he did claim to be the author. Just not to his followers.
2. My argument stands because the post I was responding to claimed to have "the original" source to compare it to.
3. My statement was that if Smith's own handiwork was is in fact the "original" then there was no manuscript in "plates" as
"the original".

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

No.... I think everyone "sans one" who read his post understood his post.... You seem to be the only one who misread it, intentional or not.
Details do matter, the problem is that you are not arguing details to get a clearer understanding, but you use details in order to muddy the waters.
This does not make you come away as someone who knows something, but as someone that can be ignored without missing anything important.

mmksparbud said:

We couldn't say, I just forgot to write it, but I did it--no written record---then it wasn't done. The original record must be shown and studied---and that is true of any field.

Click to expand...

And that would be true of the Spaulding manuscript as well, right?