What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[mmksparbud]

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

I personally know nothing about Spaulding except for what I've read here--Never heard of him before. It holds true for any field I know of. Because something else has the same problem the BOM has, doesn't lessen the problem. If 50 other manuscripts have the same problem, doesn't then mean that it's ok to have the problem.

 

[BobRyan]

P
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.

Your accusations are noted - I don't see facts to support them.

 

[BobRyan]

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??

true.

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

Mormons claim to have found (in 1884) and printed Spaulding's 118 page manuscript. Joseph Smith claimed to have a 116 page manuscript "The Book of Mormon" that was "also lost" (roughly at the same time Spaulding's manuscript went missing)- and now we have the 522 page version.

Just interesting details of history.

 

[BobRyan]

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).

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).

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).

As noted too often, you continue to screw up & mistate others' points.

Accusation noted - though I don't see evidence to support it.

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.

Accusation noted - but I don't think I am actuated by an atheist spirit simply for the "sin" of "noticing" that history of the actual Mormon massacre of innocent pilgrims on their way to California - and as has already been posted on this thread - even Mormons have admitted that this was wrong of them to do.

Your idea of comparing that to atheists attacking the Bible is misguided. It is equivocation.

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).

As already stated that is flawed - the atheist attack on the Bible is NOT comparable to a non-Mormon admitting to the historic fact of the Mormon's massacre of innocent pilgrims. In your example above you point to atheist complaints about God's condemnation of rebellion against God by his people in Lev 26.

That is totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Your idea that to notice these facts of history that are not complimentary towards the Mormon religion " is inadvertantly attacking the bible" is off base equivocation, because nothing in what I did -- condones their method or their premise. You are mixing apples and oranges without a shred of link between.

Bringing up 7th Day Adventist examples, was to point out how no church is immuned from being vilified by other religionists.

I don't dispute that all denominations are subject to some form of criticism by other denominations. That is a general principle that applies all up and down the street no matter how pure this or that denomination may be that is being accused.

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.

My argument was that because this is Spaulding's work we don't expect to find Mormon doctrine. I would add that because this before Joseph Smith thought to make up some of his later ideas - even what he adds to Spaulding's material does not contain distinctive Mormon doctrine.

I gave an example of this fact with the doctrine of polygamy - that is even more explicitly condemned in the BoM than in the Bible itself.

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.

If you argument is that LDS errors could be compared to some of the errors we find in the 3rd to 7th centuries - I don't know that your claim is entirely false - but I think it is a diversion from the topic here.

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."

I know of no apologetic for Christianity that relies on all humanity being "pre-existent spirit brothers" that came to earth.

I was just pointing out that when I say that the SDA church is considered mainline Christianity there are certain undeniable factors that lead to that conclusion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[smaneck]

Mormons claim to have found (in 1884) and printed Spaulding's 118 page manuscript. Joseph Smith claimed to have a 116 page manuscript "The Book of Mormon" that was "also lost" (roughly at the same time Spaulding's manuscript went missing)- and now we have the 522 page version.

Just interesting details of history.

Thing is, Spaulding's manuscript bears no resemblance to the BOM.

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

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.

Ironhold, from one Mormon to another. After checking out the "Manuscript Found," at the Internet Archives, there seem to be very little in it that could be used to produce a Book of Mormon with. In fact, there are so many things lacking which aren't in said manuscript, that the Book of Mormon includes, & which are now being found, post-1830 publication date of BOM. See for yourself. I listed a few examples, but Bob, as he often does, ignored the challenge to answer 'what the "Manuscript Found" doesn't include, & what the BOM does include,' which thus couldn't have been "borrowed" from the Manuscript Found. Critics like to try to point to pre-1830 "parallels," while they ignore, or down play post-1830 evidences & parallels that supports BOM claims, & other things restored in Mormonism.

Book of Mormon & other evidences. Radio shows, etc., Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

[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.


I find that question "interesting" given those statements from the BoM. The BoM claims to be a story about Jews that came to the Americas and the reason given in the text - is that polygamy was such an abomination God would not have them on the same CONTINENT with such a people.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, your continual distortions of what you claim is & is not Mormon doctrine sickens me. I wouldn't accept, nor should non-Mormons or Mormons accept your twists, distortions, vilifications & other anti-Christian-Atheistic type tactics borrowed, to present what you continue to claim is how & what the Book of Mormon is claiming. Your shocking generalization tactics are like how an Atheist or early anti-Christian would present to be "the reason given in the text" what the New Testament "claims" as a story about how the Jews were told that they need to become cannibals & blood drinkers, (by shocking generalizing & distorting John 6:52-60).

BOM Jacob 2:30, allows for a virtuous form of poligamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The whole sermon in Jacob 2 is about the problems caused by those in the Old Testament times that took poligamy to extremes, thus cases like Solomon & David are mentioned. Poligamous prophets like Abraham, & others aren't, despite how they could be vilified too, under said distorting tactics, (Gen. 16:1-6). Poligamy is part of Jewish, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, & other religious histories. Each of these religions could be vilified, demonized with a few disinformation polemical tactics. King David, writer of the Psalms, is one of the cases that Jacob used to point out what not to do under poligomous settings, his fragging one of his soldiers to get his girl, his other problems are part of the Psalms, David knows he's going to hell, but has the hope that the Messiah will one day descend to raise him up out of hell. In early to later Christian art, David is one in many being lifted up, by hand & wrist grasps, from hell, hades, limbo, purgatory. Despite what David did, the Psalms remain in most Christian bibles for us to learn the lessons from his mistakes. Jacob, in the BOM, is bringing up these examples, not to outlaw poligamy, but to get the men to not seek it for the wrong motives, lustful ones.

Bob will continue to try to distort the BOM & use Atheistic-early to later anti-Christians tactics for what ever ill-motive he has. The reader here should note his mean spirited methods for what they are & see through his tactics used, that if used against his own faith, & others, would make it so that his own faith & others wouldn't be able to pass his own tests for claims to be presenting truths.

 

[Songsmith]

true.






Mormons claim to have found (in 1884) and printed Spaulding's 118 page manuscript. Joseph Smith claimed to have a 116 page manuscript "The Book of Mormon" that was "also lost" (roughly at the same time Spaulding's manuscript went missing)- and now we have the 522 page version.

Just interesting details of history.

The 116 pages that were stolen were not a finished product. They were still a work in progress. This was not the Spaulding manuscript that was later expanded.

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

What I find ironic is that Mormons used the duly set up democratic system to distroy a printing press, and everybody cried TREASON!
Yet when Mormon printing presses during the time were destroyed on at least three occations without appealing to any legal system at all, everybody turns a blind eye to it.

It seems nothing has changed in America.

Interesting point! Curious, what are your sources for this?

 

[BobRyan]

The 116 pages that were stolen were not a finished product. They were still a work in progress. This was not the Spaulding manuscript that was later expanded.

If you had that manuscript we could all see if that claim is correct.

 

[BobRyan]

[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.


I find that question "interesting" given those statements from the BoM. The BoM claims to be a story about Jews that came to the Americas and the reason given in the text - is that polygamy was such an abomination God would not have them on the same CONTINENT with such a people.

Bob, your continual distortions of what you claim is & is not Mormon doctrine sickens me.

Ok well we have the text above ... and by contrast we have you being sick.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

BOM Jacob 2:30, allows for a virtuous form of poligamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

If the argument is that Jacob 2:30 mentions polygamy you did not find it.

If the argument is that the BoM teaches that God would "command" abomination, would "Command" what the BoM calls "wickedness" -- then then God of the BoM is quite strange indeed. Because the text says that the whole reason for the move to the Americas was that this sort of abomination and wickedness was not at all acceptable to God.

The whole sermon in Jacob 2 is about the problems caused by those in the Old Testament times that took poligamy to extremes,

The BoM does not say "to extremes" -- you have inserted this in your post -- without ever quoting such a thing from the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a great example of text that does not say "do not take polygamy to an extreme just do it at a moderate level"

In stead of saying "ok 2 or 3 or Joseph-Smith-12 but not 500 that would be extreme" the text says " For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; "

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.



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

 

[BobRyan]

There is no Place where the God of the Bible says "this is abomination but some day I will command you to do such things"... not even one.

The Protestant model is "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine. The teaching that God commands what HE calls abomination... is not in scripture.

The God of the Bible does not say "Here is abomination... here is wickedness... there shall not a man of you do such things... but later I may command you to do it".

 

[BobRyan]

================== quote
After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration—for Joseph personally and for other Church members. Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition. Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.

Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment
...
These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma. He may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord’s command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships.33 This could explain why, according to Lorenzo Snow, the angel reprimanded Joseph for having “demurred” on plural marriage even after he had entered into the practice.34
...
Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

======================== end quote

BoM

[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]

Any reason why you keep trying to repeat the same point even after being told that it doesn't mean what you think it means?

 

[BobRyan]

Any reason why you keep trying to repeat the same point even after being told that it doesn't mean what you think it means?

You have to prove your point "with actual fact" to make it compelling - merely accusing people is "Fluff" it does not compel the point in your favor for the unbiased objective reader.

Be objective and factual and you will have more success.

In my post above - all can read the text and the point is glaringly obvious --

What Baptist or Methodist could read that section from the BoM and say "himm this makes Polygamy sound totally ok to God that is why he calls it an abomination and wickedness and not a man shall do it... he really means do it with just a few wives but not more than 20 or 30".

I think we all know this is not how Christians would ignore the details in that text. Which means that Mormons are not presenting this case to those Baptists and Methodists when they do their BoM-first presentations arguing that the BoM is the proof and basis for the discussion.

They present the BoM but they are avoiding certain topics.

 

[Ironhold]

No, we quote everything in full and in context, which you are refusing to do.

Why?

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

"Accusation noted - but I don't think I am actuated by an atheist spirit simply for the "sin" of "noticing" that history of the actual Mormon massacre of innocent pilgrims on their way to California - and as has already been posted on this thread - even Mormons have admitted that this was wrong of them to do." Response: You side tracking to another issue, the Mountain Meadow, is just another vilification tactics again used by Atheists & early anti-Christians who bring up the same types of things against Christianity & other religions. This is the human element in all religious histories that is often used to vilify all religions. Each religious history has those who have made bad choices, which, choices are often collected & listed as "reasons why not to believe" in that particular faith. That's what you're doing here, which is a tactic that said critics do. Atheists & early to later anti-Christians like, American Atheists, T. W. Doane, Bible Myths, & books like Isis Unveiled, bring up the murders & other human weakinesses of Christians & other religionists as "evidences" why not to believe. The Crusades, the slaughter of the Aztecs, forced Christianization of non-Christians, Christians during the time of slavery, are the types of things that said critics will bring up. What you are doing is no different that said critics. Thus, any answer that a Christian, or your might bring up, would answer your own issues you've raised here. I haven't seen your respond yet to what Celsus brought up about the borrowing issue, about witnesses, etc., etc. You just side step those with further garbage to throw, & continue to claim to speak how Mormons are suppose to interpret their own scriptures, despite how different ones of us have pointed out the flaws in your logic, tactics, misinterpretations & distortions of history.

"Your idea of comparing that to atheists attacking the Bible is misguided. It is equivocation." No it's not! If anyone has studied Atheistic writings & early to later anti-Christian writings, as links have been provided in my earlier posts, they'd see the parallels & tactics used by you, could be pointed out to argue that you borrowed, plagiarized from them. That's your charge against JS, isn't it? Claiming he plagiarized from Spalding's "Lost Manuscript"! So for the sake of parallels, the same charge could be raised against your.

People can see for themselves, there is little, if anything in the said manuscript that would produce what is in the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon on line.
Solomon Spalding "Manuscript Found" at Internet Archives.


"If you argument is that LDS errors could be compared to some of the errors we find in the 3rd to 7th centuries - I don't know that your claim is entirely false - but I think it is a diversion from the topic here." Nope, no diversion. LDS errors are human choices, like early to later Christian choices. But that's what Christ's atonment is all about, to pay for our sins. The point is to note & get the reader to look at how early Christian apologists responded to their critics, as sources listed earlier gives opportunities to so do.

"I know of no apologetic for Christianity that relies on all humanity being "pre-existent spirit brothers" that came to earth." That might be because you haven't see it in historic biblical Christian history, that is full of it, as links provided earlier shows.

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

"Accusation noted - but I don't think I am actuated by an atheist spirit simply for the "sin" of "noticing" that history of the actual Mormon massacre of innocent pilgrims on their way to California - and as has already been posted on this thread - even Mormons have admitted that this was wrong of them to do." Response: You're side tracking to another issue, the Mountain Meadow, (which has been addressed by others), but which side tracking is just another vilification tactic again used by Atheists & early anti-Christians who bring up the same types of things against Christianity & other religions. This is the human element in all religious histories that is often used to vilify all religions. Each religious history has those who have made bad choices, which, choices are often collected & listed as "reasons why not to believe" in that particular faith. That's what you're doing here, which is a tactic that said critics do. Atheists & early to later anti-Christians like, American Atheists, T. W. Doane, Bible Myths, & books like Isis Unveiled, bring up the murders & other human weakinesses of Christians & other religionists are said to have done, as "evidences" why not to believe. The Crusades, the slaughter of the Aztecs, forced Christianization of non-Christians by Christian Knight Orders, Christians during the time of slavery, as presented by former slaves, are the types of things that said critics will bring up. What you are doing is no different than said critics. Thus, any answer that a Christian, or that you might bring up, to attempt to answer said critics, would answer your own issues you've raised here. I haven't seen your response yet to what Celsus brought up about the borrowing issue, about witnesses, etc., etc. (That I've posted earlier). You just side step those with further garbage to throw, & continue to claim to speak for Mormons as to how they, and others should interpret the Book of Mormon, despite how different ones of us have pointed out the flaws in your logic, tactics, misinterpretations & distortions of history.

"Your idea of comparing that to atheists attacking the Bible is misguided. It is equivocation." No it's not! If anyone has studied Atheistic writings & early to later anti-Christian writings, as links have been provided in my earlier posts provided, for they'd see the parallels & tactics used by you, could be pointed out to argue that you borrowed, plagiarized from them. That's your charge against JS, isn't it? Claiming he plagiarized from Spalding's "Lost Manuscript"! So for the sake of parallels, the same charge could be raised against your borrowing from Atheistic & early anti-Christians, who used the borrowing tactics too.

People can see for themselves, there is little, if anything in the said manuscript that would produce what is in the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon on line.
Solomon Spalding "Manuscript Found" at Internet Archives.

"If you argument is that LDS errors could be compared to some of the errors we find in the 3rd to 7th centuries - I don't know that your claim is entirely false - but I think it is a diversion from the topic here." Nope, no diversion. LDS errors are human choices, like early to later Christian choices. But that's what Christ's atonment is all about, to pay for our sins. The point is to note & get the reader to look at how early Christian apologists responded to their critics, as sources listed earlier gives opportunities to so do.

"I know of no apologetic for Christianity that relies on all humanity being "pre-existent spirit brothers" that came to earth." That might be because you haven't see it in historic biblical Christian history, that is full of it, as links provided earlier shows.

 

[smaneck]

There is no Place where the God of the Bible says "this is abomination but some day I will command you to do such things"... not even one.

But NT in particular and Christians in general did just that:

Leviticus 11:10-19 - (6) "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you."

Yet Christianity gets rid of the conception of unclean food. Most Christians I know here in the buckle of the Bible belt could not live without their catfish and shrimp!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There is no Place where the God of the Bible says "this is abomination but some day I will command you to do such things"... not even one.

But NT in particular and Christians in general did just that:

Leviticus 11:10-19 - (6) "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you."

Yet Christianity gets rid of the conception of unclean food. Most Christians I know here in the buckle of the Bible belt could not live without their catfish and shrimp!

Well I too live in that buckle. And I belong to what Christianity today calls the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world. And we do not choose to ignore Lev 11.

But you are missing the point. You do not have God telling the Jews in Lev 11 or the Christians in the NT 'I know I said that eating rats, cats, dogs, bats was an abomination - but now I command you to eat those rats,cats,dogs,bats".

Rather God says that you may eat that which is approved of in the Word of God in keeping with the true faith that is described in the Bible. If someone should eat the rat sandwich today - they cannot find God telling them to engage in such.

In fact in Is 66 - God predicts that even at the end of time - those who eat mice are not pleasing God by so doing.

in Christ,

Bob