Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

It’s inescapable that Joseph used a readily available King James Bible to copy content into the Book of Mormon. Which is problematic for believers who think it was produced by either transcribing content of ancient plates, or by reading words off a magic stone. Joseph did neither, he copied content from a KJV Bible. Directly. The reason that Hardy acknowledges that as an anachronism, and a problem, is because it undermines the book’s claims about itself, and Joseph’s claims about how he produced it.

But he did. The witnesses testify that Joseph did use translation ‘devices’ in order to read the words off to the scribe. So we have more than one thing going on. That brings back in to the conversation what I was talking about in an earlier post that I don’t think was responded to.

Regards,
MG

Well no. Because you’re relying solely on the word of his family and friends. Witnesses lie. Surely you accept that witnesses can lie, can be coerced or manipulated, can allow people to put words in their mouth, can succumb to group pressure?

The hard, objective evidence is right there in the book itself.

[MG 2.0]

Dan McClellan has publicly stated the Book of Mormon is not historical, but Dan has a temple recommend.

I believe the Book of Mormon is complete bunk and I have a temple recommend. Belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not required for a temple recommend. You should know this M.G. Do you not have a temple recommend?

I find that incredible. If you disbelieve the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, then the restoration as Joseph Smith and the Church tells it, didn’t happen. How can you answer yes to believing in the restoration on that basis, and not be lying?

“Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?”

I’m interested in how Wang answers this.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

*bump for IHAQ

[I Have Questions]

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

*bump for IHAQ

Why have you bumped this for me? It’s a conversation between you and huckelberry, in which you don’t ask any questions.

[MG 2.0]

But he did. The witnesses testify that Joseph did use translation ‘devices’ in order to read the words off to the scribe. So we have more than one thing going on. That brings back in to the conversation what I was talking about in an earlier post that I don’t think was responded to.

Regards,
MG

Well no. Because you’re relying solely on the word of his family and friends. Witnesses lie. Surely you accept that witnesses can lie, can be coerced or manipulated, can allow people to put words in their mouth, can succumb to group pressure?

The hard, objective evidence is right there in the book itself.

I leave it to others to do their own research on the witnesses. I’ll suggest a couple of places to begin:

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/

https://rsc.BYU.edu/coming-forth-book-m ... -witnesses

You can’t just write them off like IHAQ just did.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Well no. Because you’re relying solely on the word of his family and friends. Witnesses lie. Surely you accept that witnesses can lie, can be coerced or manipulated, can allow people to put words in their mouth, can succumb to group pressure?

The hard, objective evidence is right there in the book itself.

I leave it to others to do their own research on the witnesses. I’ll suggest a couple of places to begin:

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/

https://rsc.BYU.edu/coming-forth-book-m ... -witnesses

You can’t just write them off like IHAQ just did.

Regards,
MG

Do witnesses to things always tell the truth? Do they always remember things accurately? Are they always impartial?

I asked Chat GPT “Is witness testimony reliable?” And got this response:

Witness testimony can be both reliable and unreliable, depending on various factors. Here are some considerations:

Accuracy: Witness memory can be fallible, influenced by factors such as stress during the event, the passage of time, and personal biases. This can affect the accuracy of their testimony.
Perception: Witnesses may interpret events differently based on their perspective, background, and prior experiences, leading to discrepancies in their accounts.
Sincerity: Most witnesses genuinely believe in the truth of their testimony, but some may intentionally lie or distort facts due to motives such as fear, loyalty, or personal gain.
Cross-Examination: Legal processes often subject witness testimony to rigorous cross-examination to test its consistency and reliability.
Corroboration: When multiple witnesses provide consistent accounts, especially if they are independent of each other, it can enhance the reliability of their testimony.
Forensic Evidence: Witness testimony is sometimes supported or contradicted by physical evidence, which can help assess its reliability.
In summary, while witness testimony is crucial in legal proceedings and daily life, its reliability can vary and needs careful evaluation in context with other evidence and factors.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I find that incredible. If you disbelieve the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, then the restoration as Joseph Smith and the Church tells it, didn’t happen. How can you answer yes to believing in the restoration on that basis, and not be lying?

“Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?”

I’m interested in how Wang answers this.

Regards,
MG

Whenever I go to my temple recommend interview, I always remember that in answering the questions I'm entitled to be as honest to the church as the church has been to me.

When I was in a leadership position and conducting the interviews, I always kept that in mind for members who were struggling with belief and had doubts. I gave out temple recommends like they were Chiclets.

I dare someone to give these answers at the next temple recommend interview. "I'm as honest with dealing with my fellowmen as Joseph Smith was with his fellowmen." "I'm as faithful to my wife as Joseph Smith was to Emma." "I'm as honest and transparent as the church has been."

[Philo Sofee]

I’m interested in how Wang answers this.

Regards,
MG

Whenever I go to my temple recommend interview, I always remember that in answering the questions I'm entitled to be as honest to the church as the church has been to me.

When I was in a leadership position and conducting the interviews, I always kept that in mind for members who were struggling with belief and had doubts. I gave out temple recommends like they were Chiclets.

I dare someone to give these answers at the next temple recommend interview. "I'm as honest with dealing with my fellowmen as Joseph Smith was with his fellowmen." "I'm as faithful to my wife as Joseph Smith was to Emma." "I'm as honest and transparent as the church has been."

I am SO STEALING THIS FROM YOU! (With due credit given, of course)

[I Have Questions]

Well no. Because you’re relying solely on the word of his family and friends. Witnesses lie. Surely you accept that witnesses can lie, can be coerced or manipulated, can allow people to put words in their mouth, can succumb to group pressure?

The hard, objective evidence is right there in the book itself.

I leave it to others to do their own research on the witnesses. I’ll suggest a couple of places to begin:

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/

https://rsc.BYU.edu/coming-forth-book-m ... -witnesses

You can’t just write them off like IHAQ just did.

Regards,
MG

For reference here is what MG2.0 said on another thread about his own witness testimony, when it was shown to lack corroboration…

I may be off on the timeline. This was a long time ago. If I misspoke on the chronology, I’m sorry. Especially if that somehow is an issue for you.

Memories fade sometimes when it comes to what took place when.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159136&p=2874684#p2874682

Than you MG 2.0 for demonstrating the exact point I was making about witness testimony being unreliable.

[Physics Guy]

There are accounts from witnesses saying how Smith did his translating: behind a sheet, head in his hat, with a seer stone, and so on. Nobody seems to mention the obvious issue of how seriously to take any of these statements.

If we had no idea at all about how Smith worked, then these statements would be historical gold—for historians of Joseph Smith in particular—as evidence that told us something about a mystery. By no means whatever, however, does this historical evidence value make those statements into documentary proof that Smith never did anything differently.

Smith was not under 24/7 surveillance. He wasn't on reality TV. There were no cameras watching him constantly. It is not by any means an established historical fact that Smith did not simply pull out a King James Bible and read aloud from it, or copy it out, or get someone else to copy it out, or jot down some notes and peek at them while he was taking a bathroom break from dictation, or whatever.

Saying that witness accounts prove that Smith never used notes is like saying your client couldn't have committed the crime in Brooklyn last month because an eyewitness statement proves he was in Manhattan, when what you have is a note from the guy's mom that says he was in Manhattan one day last year. As evidence that he did visit Manhattan at some point in his life, that note's as good as his mom's credibility. As proof he wasn't in Brooklyn last month, it's worth nothing.