The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_zerinus]

Defeat? Do you think you're in some kind of battle?

No, I thought you were.

This thread, for most posters has been about sharing information and discussing it.

That may be true of some.

For instance, you didn't know before this thread that Joseph had tried to sell the Book of Mormon copyright.
Now you do.

I still don’t. The evidence is still inconclusive.

[_deacon blues]

Defeat? Do you think you're in some kind of battle?

No, I thought you were.

This thread, for most posters has been about sharing information and discussing it.

That may be true of some.

For instance, you didn't know before this thread that Joseph had tried to sell the Book of Mormon copyright.
Now you do.

I still don’t. The evidence is still inconclusive.

Read Manuscript Book #1 in the Joseph Smith papers. God told Joseph Smith to sell the copyright.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I still don’t. The evidence is still inconclusive.

What would be conclusive evidence for you that Joseph Smith attempted to sell the copyright?

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

It's not a translation issue, it's a credibility issue.
The book is claimed to have been written by Mormon quoting and abridging ancient Prophets and adding some content, followed by his son adding some content. All of which was done 421AD or earlier. If it contains content that dates to later than that, then the book is t what it claims to be. Period.

Wrong. It doesn’t “contain content that is later than that.” The content is contemporary to the time period it was written. [b]It is the translation of the content that you are quibbling about. It is therefore a translation issue, not a content issue.[/b]

Yep. Exactly. That's what I've said also...repeatedly. The thing is, zerinus, these guys CAN"T go this direction because it muddles/screws up the validity and/or 'oomph' of some of these 'nineteenth century creation' arguments they keep on using to discredit the Book of Mormon.

I appreciated your willingness to share your testimony. I think that the Lord gives to each person a testimony in a format/way/means that is unique and individual to them. You have had a spiritual witness that you can't deny. That should be valued and should be part of the conversation. Not automatically rejected.

You've got to remember that these folks, on the whole (there are a few exceptions), are agnostic/atheist/secularist types. They, by default, are not going to accept anything having to do with revelation and/or a witness of the Spirit.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

It's not a translation issue, it's a credibility issue.
The book is claimed to have been written by Mormon quoting and abridging ancient Prophets and adding some content, followed by his son adding some content. All of which was done 421AD or earlier. If it contains content that dates to later than that, then the book is t what it claims to be. Period.

Wrong. It doesn’t “contain content that is later than that.” The content is contemporary to the time period it was written. It is the translation of the content that you are quibbling about. It is therefore a translation issue, not a content issue.

Gosh, how can zerinus say that when he doesn't have:

(a) The supposed ancient original text in front of him (which was supposedly in 'Reformed Egyptian', no?)
and:
(b) An ability to understand what the original text was saying, independent of the English of the current Book of Mormon.

Absent both of those, there seems no reasonable basis for asserting that obvious signs in the text of ignorance of olive cultivation (such as the lack of reference to oil production, or being disappointed when olives prove to be bitter) is the result of a translation problem rather than being simply there in a text originally written in English by someone who didn't know about olive cultivation.

NO WAIT!!! I get it. Zerinus has a non-negotiable spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a real ancient text, translated by the gift and power of God. Thus he is quite sure that the original of Jacob 5 has the text of a sermon delivered in the 6th century BC by someone who really did know all about olive cultivation. So if the present English Book of Mormon text seems to have been written by somebody who does not know about olive cultivation, that must be a translation problem.

Do I have that right? So it all depends on whether or not zerinus's assertion of his personal revelation is to be accepted by others. I don't see why it should be ... and if he can't explain why it should be, he simply has no argument worth presenting to others.

(Teensy problem of course: we are told that the translation was done by a seer stone, are we not? And the accounts of that stone suggest that it gave the translation word by word to Smith who then dictated it. So how can there be any mistakes in such a translation?)

[_Lemmie]

Gosh, how can zerinus say that when he doesn't have:

(a) The supposed ancient original text in front of him (which was supposedly in 'Reformed Egyptian', no?)
and:
(b) An ability to understand what the original text was saying, independent of the English of the current Book of Mormon.

It's interesting that his argument is that it is a translation issue when there is no way to evaluate the translation process, given the original on the plates are not available.

We do, however, have precedent. When the Book of Abraham papyrus turned up and Joseph Smith's translation process was compared to the original, his "translation" was clearly fraudulent.

When Joseph Smith's previous fraud is combined with all the Book of Mormon/Jacob 5 errors pointed out in this thread alone, it's quite clear that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century invention, written by a con man who had no compunction at all about cribbing from every source he possibly could.

[_I have a question]

They, by default, are not going to accept anything having to do with revelation and/or a witness of the Spirit.

Regards,
MG

Correct.

Because so-called revelation and spiritual witnesses have been shown time and time again to be notoriously unreliable as a means of determining things.

So, what else you got?

[_Fence Sitter]

Correct.

Because so-called revelation and spiritual witnesses have been shown time and time again to be notoriously unreliable as a means of determining things.

So, what else you got?

Given there are only about .005% of people in the world who might begin to accept the revelations and spirit to which MG refers, it appears the "us guys" are part of a group of billions of people who do not value such "evidence" and yet somehow it should be part of the conversation. By the reasoning alien abduction should be part of the conversation, numerology, astrology, voodoo and all other sorts of quack beliefs should be part of the conversation.

Seriously , why is it when someone claims that their subjective spiritual experience should be considered as evidence for anyone other than themselves, they ignore the same spiritual experience claims from billions of other people whose beliefs contradict their own?

Shouldn't the fact that nearly everyone else spiritual experiences contradicts your own be "part of the conversation"?

[_mentalgymnast]

They, by default, are not going to accept anything having to do with revelation and/or a witness of the Spirit.

Regards,
MG

Correct.

Because so-called revelation and spiritual witnesses have been shown time and time again to be notoriously unreliable as a means of determining things.

So, what else you got?

It's not a matter of what else I have. It's simply a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when talking with those that are agnostic/atheist/secularists. It's a chasm that exists in communication.

Granted, some of the spiritual experiences that people claim to have can be dissected and be found to be wanting. But I don't think that is reason to either disrespect and or negate the experience of folks who claim to have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. If you believe that the sum total of experience is in the mind/brain, you will look at EVERY spiritual experience as having no basis in materialistic fact. OTOH, if you look at 'light and truth' as being relative, and on a scale of lesser to greater, then we have a much wider spectrum of possibilities.

There is a lot of "throw the baby out with the bath water" mentality around here.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Seriously , why is it when someone claims that their subjective spiritual experience should be considered as evidence for anyone other than themselves, they ignore the same spiritual experience claims from billions of other people whose beliefs contradict their own?

I don't think we should ignore the spiritual experience(s) of others.

Shouldn't the fact that nearly everyone else spiritual experiences contradicts your own be "part of the conversation"?

I think it gets a little more involved/complicated than wrapping everything up into this short statement. Of course the answer to your question is yes. But I think this is where it gets a bit messy. The WHY and HOW of spiritual experiences might "contridict"/differ from one to another but they can end up leading/directing to a greater good.

OTOH, we...as I've mentioned...should be open to false spiritual experiences. We should be open to psychological trauma/disorders. We should be open to misidentifying emotion for the Spirit...etc.

I while back I recommended a documentary/movie called "Mary's Land"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3346766/

I think it is on Netflix or Amazon Prime.

This production can't help but open your eyes to the possibilities of religious experience and how/why these experiences may all originate at the same SOURCE.

Again, let me be clear, I know that much of what is claimed to be religious experience WITH or IN the spirit may be something other than coming from the SOURCE. But if that experience leads towards a greater understanding of light and truth, I think it is from God.

We could argue this all day long and not resolve anything, however. I'm simply pointing out that the experience that zerinus claims to have had should not be automatically discounted and/or disbelieved.

Regards,
MG