Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[huckelberry]

from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

Wow what a surprise it’s all a load of crap.

Honestly it’s so sad that these things are spread so widely.

drumdude, the article has some interesting information. Sad but i suppose a person could say there is relatively harmless fantasy or wishful thinking. On the other hand there are some clearly malignant versions of the movement.

[Kishkumen]

Wow what a surprise it’s all a load of crap.

Honestly it’s so sad that these things are spread so widely.

drumdude, the article has some interesting information. Sad but i suppose a person could say there is relatively harmless fantasy or wishful thinking. On the other hand there are some clearly malignant versions of the movement.

The 12 Tribes themselves are a mythological construct, so . . . .

[huckelberry]

drumdude, the article has some interesting information. Sad but i suppose a person could say there is relatively harmless fantasy or wishful thinking. On the other hand there are some clearly malignant versions of the movement.

The 12 Tribes themselves are a mythological construct, so . . . .

Well, but the matter of a Northern kingdom getting conquered and dispersed is sober history to everything I am aware on the subject. I find myself thinking that with some movement of groups and over 2000 years of ancestry dispersing lines it is probable that most anybody in Europe would have a connection to some ancestor from the Northern Kingdom of Israel. I think you are pointing out that the mythological allure of the idea of ten lost tribes gives that mundane ancestry connection an added excitement and allure.

[drumdude]

The 12 Tribes themselves are a mythological construct, so . . . .

Well, but the matter of a Northern kingdom getting conquered and dispersed is sober history to everything I am aware on the subject. I find myself thinking that with some movement of groups and over 2000 years of ancestry dispersing lines it is probable that most anybody in Europe would have a connection to some ancestor from the Northern Kingdom of Israel. I think you are pointing out that the mythological allure of the idea of ten lost tribes gives that mundane ancestry connection an added excitement and allure.

This was particularly grating to me when I was a Mormon. Patriarchal blessings told you your house with the same accuracy and meaning as the sorting hat in Hogwarts putting you in Hufflepuff or Griffyndor.

It was difficult to take Mormons seriously when they talked about Ephraim or whatever tribe as if it was their real ancestry.

[MG 2.0]

You are cherry picking only part of what he said.

You've cut off the bit I quoted right before I said that. Was that deliberate so as to hide the anachronism that I was talking about?

Here’s the quote from Hardy that I provided right before the comment that you selected to quote out of context.

In addition, the regular interactions with the King James Bible seen in 2 Nephi 25–30 make these chapters something of a biblical commentary.

Aftwr which I commented: “ Which is interesting as Nephi died a thousand years before the King James Bible was even conceived.”

You’ve been warned before about deceptively truncating people’s posts when you quote them. Several times.

Stop doing it, it’s dishonest and is conduct unbecoming from a member of the Church.

Let’s look then at the broader picture:

In addition, the regular interactions with the King James Bible seen in 2 Nephi 25–30 make these chapters something of a biblical commentary. When Nephi alludes to the story of the brass serpent at 25:20, observing that the Lord “gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations,” he makes the miracle of Numbers 21:4–9 applicable to all humankind, not just Israel. At 25:24–30, Nephi’s understanding of the law of Moses is similar to Paul’s, regarding it as a set of temporary commandments having their fulfillment and termination in Christ (see Romans 7:1–6; 10:4; Galatians 3:24–26), yet where Paul proclaims that Christians are dead to the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19), Nephi asserts that the law itself will be dead for believers. And Nephi transforms God’s general summons at Isaiah 55:1 into a personal invitation to come to Christ at 2 Nephi 26:25 (“Come unto me all ye ends of the earth”), in the process replacing Isaiah’s “wine and milk” with milk and honey, a common biblical description of the bounties of the promised land.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

Does this sound like Joseph Smith was literally interacting with the Bible in the sense of stealing or regurgitating what he had read? This complex interaction would have to be taking place ‘on the fly’ along with what came before and after while his head is in a hat without any physical prop/crutch.

There was at least one witness that confirmed that Joseph could leave off translation and go play with the kids or some other form of entertainment/relaxation and come back to his hat and peepstone, stick in his head and pick up right where he left off. It would be mind boggling to think that he could do this while translating on the fly and ending up with a very complex interwoven narrative.

Get Hardy’s Annotated Book of Mormon. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

This ‘anachronism’ you’re referring to has other explanations besides Joseph simply ‘blowing it’ by taking stuff from one place or another. There’s just too much other stuff going on in the surrounding text, before and after. One would expect that there will be some ‘interweaving’ and intertextual similarities between what is being taught in the Book of Mormon and in the other scriptures.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

......YAftwr which I commented: “ Which is interesting as Nephi died a thousand years before the King James Bible was even conceived.”
....

Let’s look then at the broader picture:

In addition, the regular interactions with the King James Bible seen in 2 Nephi 25–30 make these chapters something of a biblical commentary. When Nephi alludes to the story of the brass serpent at 25:20, observing that the Lord “gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations,” he makes the miracle of Numbers 21:4–9 applicable to all humankind, not just Israel. At 25:24–30, Nephi’s understanding of the law of Moses is similar to Paul’s, regarding it as a set of temporary commandments having their fulfillment and termination in Christ (see Romans 7:1–6; 10:4; Galatians 3:24–26), yet where Paul proclaims that Christians are dead to the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19), Nephi asserts that the law itself will be dead for believers. And Nephi transforms God’s general summons at Isaiah 55:1 into a personal invitation to come to Christ at 2 Nephi 26:25 (“Come unto me all ye ends of the earth”), in the process replacing Isaiah’s “wine and milk” with milk and honey, a common biblical description of the bounties of the promised land.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

...
Does this sound like Joseph Smith was literally interacting with the Bible in the sense of stealing or regurgitating what he had read? This complex interaction would have to be taking place ‘on the fly’ along with what came before and after while his head is in a hat without any physical prop/crutch.

.......

If I offend either of you by my selection of quotes I plead an attempt to focus on what is confusing me trying to follow your discussion.

First, I am aware that extended quotes of Isaiah follow the particulars of King James translation . People seem willing to admit Joseph used that source for translation if one sees it as translating. I find it confusing to say King James is first conceived in 16th century. It is a translation of material over a thousand years earlier. This material in 2 Nephi contains ideas from the New testament over a thousand years before King James. But one can notice that 2 Nephi is suppose to be before the New Testament which suggest an anachronism. That is not clear because the Book of Mormon is a different series of historical events in a different place with separately developing tradition. If there is revelation Nephi could have knowledge of details well before such things became known in Jerusalem.

But a different point should not be forgotten. These New Testament ideas are not obscure points of Bible research but the common fodder of Protestant belief and preaching. Joseph if creating 2 Nephi would not be rushing about researching King James he would have already heard all this many times.

One of the things people may like about the Book of Mormon is that it presents basic Christianity in ways people are familiar with. In the Bible it is sometimes more difficult and hesitant , as if people were searching out new understanding.

[Morley]

Two thousand years of pogroms by Christians are not something that can be, as you say, '"put aside."

Sure it can - putting something aside is to be silent on that something in order to focus on another thing - In this case, how Jewish communities determine who belongs and who doesn't belong.

"Mrs. Swartz, putting aside your experience in the concentration camp, how did you like Germany?"

For Jews, it obviously has not been put aside. I'm only describing the reality, not detailing how things should or should not be. You think it's silly; they don't

Earlier, you said that there are "many Jews who are secular, or who practice Talmudic Judaism, or are Muslim, or are Hindu, or are Atheist." Generally speaking, folks of Jewish descent who've converted to another religion do not call themselves Jews, but refer to themselves as Hindus of Jewish descent, or Muslims of Jewish descent.

distinction without a difference.

It's a distinction without a difference to you. It's obviously not a distinction without a difference to most Jews.

The Jews I know tend to see the Messianic Jew movement as fraudulent and manipulative.

Fair, but that certainly would not be true for the Jews that are now followers of Jesus (I know a few of them) - Or if you would prefer, saying the same thing with slightly different words - "Christians of Jewish decent."

That's good. The perception is not reflective of character.

Because I share a culture, religious upbringing, heritage, and ancestry with Mormons, I consider myself to be ethnically a Mormon. The LDS Church thinks otherwise--and I would be surprised if they didn't. I really don't expect the Church to include me in their definitions of what a Mormon is. So, though I'm still free to call myself a Mormon, I don't expect anyone else to agree.

As to what you call secular or atheistic Jews, this is generally something that bothers Christians much more than it bothers most Jews.

You might be right that it bothers Christians, but I have never met one.
I refer to them as secular Jews because they are secular and Jewish.

Excellent.

Reform Jewish Congregations, for example, don't police their members according to their individual beliefs, which can range from orthodox, to conservative, to liberal, to atheistic. All are welcome. Why should they not be?

'
Not really though, right? All are welcome? Isn't that the point you're trying to make in our exchanges? All, except for those who follow Jesus right?

Good catch. You're right, I should have said all are welcome within the confines of what the larger community defines as Jewish--which can be a pretty big net.

You're wrong when you say ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things.

You're wrong that I said ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things. I said that a religious Jew and an ethnic Jew (if they are not religious) are always two separate things.

Why would Jewishness be any different than any other ethnicity? An ethnicity is a defined social and cultural group based on any combination of shared history, religion, language, and beliefs. We can each belong to a number of different ethnicities, each with their own traits and values. As I mentioned, I consider myself to be ethnically a Mormon, though both MG and the LDS Church would disagree with that. I'm also, obviously, ethnically an American. I try to maintain my Scandinavian ethnicity, buy learning Swedish, knowing my ancestors, and following the culture.

You want Jews to accept Messianic Jews the same way I might want the LDS Church to accept me as a Mormon [in truth, I really don't care]. Neither is going to happen. Both of the larger communities have the right to reject our petitions--as they should. Of course, those who are rejected have the right to bitch about it.

Though by practice, you might never know it, my wife identifies as both an ethnic Iranian and an ethnic Muslim.

My intention is not to be insulting, and I think we are getting a bit off track, but this idea that your wife identifies as an ethnic Muslim makes no sense to me. Understand, I don't care how your wife identifies, but you brought it up, so I am simply expressing my confusion.

My point is that ethnicity includes more than one kind of identity. An ethnic Iranian will not necessarily be a ethnically a Muslim--she could be an Iranian and be ethnically Jewish, Christian, Bahai, Zoroastrian, or any number of things. She could be ethnically Iranian and also be a ethnically a Kurd or a Turk, as they are populations that live in Iran.

As an aside, she considers herself to be more ethnically American than many who were born here. And she's right.

She considers herself to be "more ethnically American than many who were born here."? "And she's right"?
Color me completely perplexed at this pont.

Why would you be perplexed?

[MG 2.0]

Let’s look then at the broader picture:

...
Does this sound like Joseph Smith was literally interacting with the Bible in the sense of stealing or regurgitating what he had read? This complex interaction would have to be taking place ‘on the fly’ along with what came before and after while his head is in a hat without any physical prop/crutch.

.......

If I offend either of you by my selection of quotes I plead an attempt to focus on what is confusing me trying to follow your discussion.

First, I am aware that extended quotes of Isaiah follow the particulars of King James translation . People seem willing to admit Joseph used that source for translation if one sees it as translating. I find it confusing to say King James is first conceived in 16th century. It is a translation of material over a thousand years earlier. This material in 2 Nephi contains ideas from the New testament over a thousand years before King James. But one can notice that 2 Nephi is suppose to be before the New Testament which suggest an anachronism. That is not clear because the Book of Mormon is a different series of historical events in a different place with separately developing tradition. If there is revelation Nephi could have knowledge of details well before such things became known in Jerusalem.

But a different point should not be forgotten. These New Testament ideas are not obscure points of Bible research but the common fodder of Protestant belief and preaching. Joseph if creating 2 Nephi would not be rushing about researching King James he would have already heard all this many times.

One of the things people may like about the Book of Mormon is that it presents basic Christianity in ways people are familiar with. In the Bible it is sometimes more difficult and hesitant , as if people were searching out new understanding.

Hi huckelberry, I think it’s important to remember…no plates during translation (not directly used most of the time)…no cheat sheets.

If this is true, which witness statements seem to support, then we have a guy looking inside a hat with a stone in it. Nothing else.

Whatever was going on was happening as Joseph was looking into hat.I don’t think this can be over emphasized. The other thing that can’t be emphasized enough is that Joseph SOMEHOW was directly involved and that his mind/brain wasn’t on vacation.

Years ago when I became aware of Ostler’s work and his Expansion Theory I gave it some serious consideration. And I still do. Now, what the elements (moving parts) that went into that expansion of the original record on the plates are, I think, above any one of our pay grades.

I think the Book of Mormon is a composite of Joseph, God, Angels (people that have passed on beyond the veil), and of course the record on the plates.

It would not be too surprising to see all the elements…including what appear to be anachronisms to us…combined together resulting in this book which for many years now has stumped the critics in the sense that no one has been able to explain the WHOLE. They might pick at parts here and there but when it comes to explaining the WHOLE I haven’t seen anything that totally overpowers me to the point where I feel obligated to say Joseph did it or Oliver did it or Sidney did it. The evidence, in the main, just isn’t there.

What we do have is witnesses. Take ‘em’ or leave em’.

So, New Testament pieces in the Book of Mormon? Isaiah (even with a chronological discrepancy…remember, angels that have immediate access/recollection of their world and what to us is past history), horses, and the rest…I think it’s important to look at the WHOLE. I think that is what Hardy is able to do while also looking minutely at the parts and how they all miraculously fit together.

And then you have Chaiastic structures and other Hebraic elements, stylometry (multiple authors), yada, yada, and you have a book that definitely exceeds the meager expectations of Mark Twain.

This book needs to be looked at holistically. Grant Hardy does that quite well.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I’m tempted to acquire the Annotated version so I can see for myself how he treats what he points out as anachronisms, racism etc.

You ought to. I read a lot of it at Barnes and Noble when it came out. I'm actually a fan, and I think it was a brilliant move on his part. Another way to look at it is to compare Glenn Larson's original Battlestar with the reimagined Battlestar of 2004. Or compare cop shows like "Chips" to "The Shield" or "The Wire". A Moroni who is more like Vic Mackey from the Shield is far more interesting than a goody two-shoes who polishes his shield every morning and never wavers keeping the commandments.

I don't recall how he deals with racial elements or anachronisms, he probably isn't super interested in anachronisms though. It's all about the story elements.

[I Have Questions]

Let’s look then at the broader picture:

In addition, the regular interactions with the King James Bible seen in 2 Nephi 25–30 make these chapters something of a biblical commentary. When Nephi alludes to the story of the brass serpent at 25:20, observing that the Lord “gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations,” he makes the miracle of Numbers 21:4–9 applicable to all humankind, not just Israel. At 25:24–30, Nephi’s understanding of the law of Moses is similar to Paul’s, regarding it as a set of temporary commandments having their fulfillment and termination in Christ (see Romans 7:1–6; 10:4; Galatians 3:24–26), yet where Paul proclaims that Christians are dead to the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19), Nephi asserts that the law itself will be dead for believers. And Nephi transforms God’s general summons at Isaiah 55:1 into a personal invitation to come to Christ at 2 Nephi 26:25 (“Come unto me all ye ends of the earth”), in the process replacing Isaiah’s “wine and milk” with milk and honey, a common biblical description of the bounties of the promised land.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

Does this sound like Joseph Smith was literally interacting with the Bible in the sense of stealing or regurgitating what he had read? This complex interaction would have to be taking place ‘on the fly’ along with what came before and after while his head is in a hat without any physical prop/crutch.

There was at least one witness that confirmed that Joseph could leave off translation and go play with the kids or some other form of entertainment/relaxation and come back to his hat and peepstone, stick in his head and pick up right where he left off. It would be mind boggling to think that he could do this while translating on the fly and ending up with a very complex interwoven narrative.

Get Hardy’s Annotated Book of Mormon. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

This ‘anachronism’ you’re referring to has other explanations besides Joseph simply ‘blowing it’ by taking stuff from one place or another. There’s just too much other stuff going on in the surrounding text, before and after. One would expect that there will be some ‘interweaving’ and intertextual similarities between what is being taught in the Book of Mormon and in the other scriptures.

Regards,
MG

What other explanation for how content from a version of the Bible that wouldn’t exist for another 1,000 years ended up in the Book of Mormon, makes the most sense to you? How does Hardy explain it?