If plates then God

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I am not an authority Deutero-Isaiah but here is an apologetic source for outside observers of this thread:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/arc ... -of-Mormon

It seems as though this is an unsettled question along with others.

But the fact remains, however one chooses to skirt around it, that it would have been very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon on his own.

I again refer readers to this essay:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

A long read, but worth it.

Of course if you’re of the same mind as Dr. Steuss and make a mockery of the whole thing by throwing out:

Then what Brian Hales or anyone else has to say in regards to the veracity of the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon is going to be the ramblings of a deluded crackpot.

Regards,
MG

David Bokovoy addresses the apologetics here.

Without the biblical book of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon would not exist. Isaiah appears directly cited, echoed, or alluded to throughout the entire work. For many years, Mormon apologists have struggled to reconcile their belief in the book as an authentic work from antiquity with the fact that the Book of Mormon relies so heavily upon the exilic chapters of Isaiah, which the Book of Mormon anachronistically presents as pre-exilic material. This underlying assumption reflects Joseph Smith’s own early nineteenth century beliefs regarding Isaianic authorship. However, Smith's understanding, and by extension, the one featured in the Book of Mormon, is not a reflection of historical reality.

Simply put, if the Book of Mormon is what most Latter-day Saints assume, namely an authentic ancient translation of a historical record from antiquity, then the Isaianic material scholars refer to as Deutero-Isaiah should not appear cited throughout the work. Yet it does, extensively.

Apologists addressing this issue have frequently noted that not withstanding this serious challenge to their beliefs, at least the Book of Mormon never presents the final ten chapters of Isaiah as pre-exilic material. And this is significant.

Since 1892, biblical scholars have recognized that Isaiah 56-66 contain an anthology of approximately twelve passages of oracles written by unknown prophets in the years immediately following the Jewish return from Babylon. If this post-exilic material appeared in the Book of Mormon, it would prove detrimental to traditional claims that the book is an ancient record.

Unfortunately, Mormon apologists who attempted to address these issues have had very little exposure to critical research on Isaiah. In reality, the Book of Mormon relies heavily upon what scholars refer to as Trito-Isaiah. Not only are these post-exilic chapters sometimes cited and alluded to throughout the book, the editors responsible for this final addition to the Isaianic corpus shaped the material the Book of Mormon cites as authentic pre-exilic Isaianic prophecies.

Without the book of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon would not exist. And its extensive reliance upon the post-exilic shaping of Isaiah helps scholars establish the Book of Mormon’s nineteenth century origins, and therefore, the original context or historical Sitz im Leben by which the book should be interpreted.

Or in other words, after an extended break of serious soul searching, I feel it's high time for me to return to my passion for critical scholarship and the way it helps contextualize religious texts. Because there is a lot to say about this exciting topic that helps us to better understand the Book of Mormon.

Colby Townsend and I are in the process of co-authoring an article on the subject. Whereas my own studies have primarily focused upon Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, Colby has done extensive research on Trito-Isaiah that has significantly enhanced my understanding of the issue.

Eta. I will take Dr. Bokovoy's account over Hales or fairmormon neither of which have exposure to critical research of Isaiah.

This will be ignored.

- Doc

[Rivendale]

Eta. I will take Dr Bokovoy's account over Hales or fairmormon neither of which have exposure to critical research of Isaiah.

This will be ignored.

- Doc

It seems to be common. Ignore academic discipline in an area in favor of another person that has training in another field that has no connection at all. Anesthesiologist does not equate to Biblical studies. Fair Mormon group think that usually quotes their own sources like the Interpreter does not equate to Biblical studies. The scarlet letter appears to be Bokovoy is no longer among the fold.

[tagriffy]

It seems as though this is an unsettled question along with others.

But the fact remains, however one chooses to skirt around it, that it would have been very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon on his own.

I again refer readers to this essay:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

A long read, but worth it.

[snip]

Regards,
MG

Marcus and I raised red flags on Hales' essay, which notably you didn't really address. Further research research would probably only uncover more cheating on Hales' part. So the alleged unlikelihood of Smith's authorship doesn't rise to the level of verified fact.

Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.

[Kishkumen]

Royal Skousen, a professor of linguistics and religion at Brigham Young University, has written extensively about the Book of Mormon and its relationship to the Bible. In his book Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: A Linguistic and Historical Approach, Skousen argues that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies.

Skousen provides several pieces of evidence to support his claim. First, he notes that the Book of Mormon authors often use the same words and phrases as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon uses the phrase "the Lamb of God" to refer to Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah does. Second, Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon authors often follow the same literary structure as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon and Isaiah both use a chiastic structure, which is a type of literary pattern that involves repeating words and phrases in reverse order.

Skousen's work has been influential among Mormon scholars, and many now accept his view that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies.

In addition to his linguistic analysis, Skousen also provides a historical overview of the Book of Mormon's use of Isaiah. He argues that the Book of Mormon authors were likely familiar with the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was widely used in the ancient world. Skousen also suggests that the Book of Mormon authors may have been influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature, which also made use of Isaiah's prophecies.

Reference: Bard A.I.

Regards,
MG

What do you think that means, MG? I am happy that this enriches your appreciation of the Book of Mormon, but it is not evidence of its antiquity. There are relatively easy and straightforward methods for assessing how a text or other object matches or does not match an ancient context, and the Book of Mormon pretty much fails to meet them. That does not mean it is not scripture or the word of God. It just means that the evidence of its antiquity is too paltry, and the evidence of its fit in the 19th century abundant.

I mean, the author is, in some sense, Joseph Smith. He dictated the book. Evidently he knew Isaiah, and I find that impressive but not evidence of the antiquity of the book’s composition.

[Kishkumen]

I think the Septuagint was translated in or around the Third Century BCE. According to the CoJCoLDS, Lehi and Co. arrived in the Americas around 600 BCE.

American scholar Charles Thomson’s English translation of the Septuagint was first published in 1808.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[Kishkumen]

Marcus and I raised red flags on Hales' essay, which notably you didn't really address. Further research research would probably only uncover more cheating on Hales' part. So the alleged unlikelihood of Smith's authorship doesn't rise to the level of verified fact.

Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.

Hales is a nice, decent, and intelligent fellow, but most of his apologetics are a waste of time. Lots of special pleading that mostly boils down to Herculean efforts to talk himself into holding onto belief while pretending that evidence contrary to his views does not exist.

This is, after all, the guy who believes that Smith did not have sexual relations with his polygamous wives. As far as I am concerned, that’s all anyone really needs to know about his thinking. It stops at the border of his testimony.

[yellowstone123]

The book of Isaiah is real easy. Mormons make it difficult. Chapters 1-39 deal with an evil king of Israel and an evil king of Syria conspiring to fight Judah. Chapters 40 on include the Persian King Cyrus who was born after Lehi left for his holy land and Cyrus released many Jews to return to rebuild the temple. I think Cyrus is in chapter 45 and many Jews saw him as a military leader to bring in peace. Some saw him as the one they had been waiting for.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

David Bokovoy addresses the apologetics here.

Eta. I will take Dr. Bokovoy's account over Hales or fairmormon neither of which have exposure to critical research of Isaiah.

This will be ignored.

- Doc

MG’s response will be something like this, “Nephi performed miracles. He cut off the head of Laban and then miraculously disguised himself in Laban’s bloodless clothes, then miraculously stole Laban’s Pentateuch, which was miraculously centuries before the Pentateuch was compiled or canonized. See how easy it is if you just have faith? Regards, MG”

[I Have Questions]

If the plates existence is confirmation of God, and the contents of those plates enlightens us to that God, and the Book of Mormon is an accurate reflection of that content. Then we can study the Book of Mormon and find that God’s character.

For instance:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

Now if that passage from the Book of Mormon isn’t an example of God’s character, then the whole thing falls apart. However, if it is an example of God’s character, then God uses skin colour to highlight who is or isn’t in His good books. So the God Mormon’s believe in as a result of their belief in real plates, is a racist. So the thread title can be rewritten as “If plates, then God…is a racist”

One of the temple recommend questions asks: Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Which can be read as including - Do you believe the gold plates were real? Which can be extended to be also asking “Do you believe black skin was a sign of a curse from God?

By answering yes to the main question, you are implicitly answering yes to the inherent supplemental question I’ve added. If you attend the temple you’re sustaining racism.