Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Valo]

"God is a fish in water."

"Elohim swims in the ocean as a fish."

"The fish of the sea swims."

"In the ocean wide, the Spirit moves and dwells."

All of these sentences express the same basic idea.

No, they don’t.

If I came across a sentence I needed to translate and I understood the idea, I could pick from any one of those already written descriptions and use it to express the idea contained.

No, you couldn’t.

Sorry it's already happened. It does and I did.

[Morley]

Hey Morley, you sometime present an artist who is outside of my familiarity. Mr Herbin is someone I am unfamiliar with . I find the portrait not quite to my liking but was curious and checked google. I find a bunch of later colorful abstract work which I definitely like. Of course the general style is very familiar but these works are new to me and a happy addition.

I like the colors in the abstracts, but I’m really digging the landscapes.

Thank you. I usually can't get abstraction or landscape to work very well as avatars. It's gratifying that you would look up and appreciate the work of some of these artists. There's so much depth to the subject of art that sometimes I think that I walk in a world of wonder that I obnoxiously feel compelled to share.

[huckelberry]

Hey Morley, you sometime present an artist who is outside of my familiarity. Mr Herbin is someone I am unfamiliar with . I find the portrait not quite to my liking but was curious and checked google. I find a bunch of later colorful abstract work which I definitely like. Of course the general style is very familiar but these works are new to me and a happy addition.

I like the colors in the abstracts, but I’m really digging the landscapes.

Thank you. I usually can't get abstraction or landscape to work very well as avatars. It's gratifying that you would look up and appreciate the work of some of these artists. There's so much depth to the subject of art that sometimes I think that I walk in a world of wonder that I obnoxiously feel compelled to share.

Morley, I am glad you take the bother to share art which catches your interest. I should not mean that I thought this portrait is wrong. It is interesting, clear color and form. The degree of angularity comes off as odd but perhaps not all bad. It is the same kind of angularity I think which is perhaps happier in his abstractions.

[Moksha]

Watch Witnesses for free:

https://vimeo.com/824199556/ecefc622ed?&login=true#_=_

Dr. Peterson says his contractual obligation with the Interpreter Foundation will make this free viewing last only a couple of hours... or something like that. See Dr. Shades for exact details.

[I Have Questions]

Watch Witnesses for free:

https://vimeo.com/824199556/ecefc622ed?&login=true#_=_

Dr. Peterson says his contractual obligation with the Interpreter Foundation will make this free viewing last only a couple of hours... or something like that. See Dr. Shades for exact details.

Why would Interpreter hold a contract with the movie makers which embargoes Peterson from distributing the movie for free via YouTube etc? He talks about the need to pay people such as actors, does it mean they haven’t received full payment for their work on Witnesses? Does it mean Interpreter have loaned the funds to pay the bills for Witnesses and Peterson is gradually trying to pay it back?

Has Interpreter used funds to fill the financial gap that Witnesses has, that were not donated for the movie but for other things? Do donors know?

[Moksha]

Why would Interpreter hold a contract with the movie makers which embargoes Peterson from distributing the movie for free via YouTube etc? He talks about the need to pay people such as actors, does it mean they haven’t received full payment for their work on Witnesses? Does it mean Interpreter have loaned the funds to pay the bills for Witnesses and Peterson is gradually trying to pay it back?

Has Interpreter used funds to fill the financial gap that Witnesses has, that were not donated for the movie but for other things? Do donors know?

I don't know. I couldn't understand why it was free for so short a time. Maybe there is hope that some movie archive will purchase it.

[I Have Questions]

Why would Interpreter hold a contract with the movie makers which embargoes Peterson from distributing the movie for free via YouTube etc? He talks about the need to pay people such as actors, does it mean they haven’t received full payment for their work on Witnesses? Does it mean Interpreter have loaned the funds to pay the bills for Witnesses and Peterson is gradually trying to pay it back?

Has Interpreter used funds to fill the financial gap that Witnesses has, that were not donated for the movie but for other things? Do donors know?

I don't know. I couldn't understand why it was free for so short a time. Maybe there is hope that some movie archive will purchase it.

I’d guess that it was a desperate last minute decision to try and get some interest in 6 Days.

[MG 2.0]

As I see it there are only two pieces of testable evidence available to us for the notion that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. 1. First hand accounts by the people who were there. 2. The contents of The Book of Mormon itself.

In terms of the first point, what people say is highly unreliable. That’s already been demonstrated. The apologists will say that this is the best evidence in favour of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Which is a highly suspect thing to say when there is a tangible item available to examine objectively - the book itself.

So to the second point. The content of the book itself. The book’s contents are testable. Here is what the book is claimed to be.

THE Book of Mormon
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/Book of Mormon-title?lang=eng
The last entry in the book is dated AD421. For the book to be what it claims to be, it shouldn’t contain any content that dates to a time later than that. That’s a very basic minimum evidence threshold to require it to meet. Anything in there from a later date means we have no need to look any further. It isn’t what it claims to be.

So, does The Book of Mormon contain content that dates from more recent than AD421?

The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon. A few examples are 2 Nephi 19:1, 2 Nephi 21:3, and 2 Nephi 16:2. The Book of Mormon references "dragons" and "satyrs" in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV of the Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of ... ames_Bible

Spelling it out, that’s content from 1,348 years later.

The Book of Mormon contains a version of the Sermon on the Mount, which some authors have claimed to be "the Achilles heel of the Book of Mormon."[5] One author makes the point that certain portions of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew 5–7 do not agree with the KJV of the text, and concludes that the Book of Mormon version of the sermon should not contain text similar to the KJV.

Oops! More content from 1,348 years after the Book of Mormon was supposedly finished and sealed up.

There are many words and phrases which, when found in the Book of Mormon, exist only in a KJV context, suggesting that the words were not part of the author's daily vocabulary, but were used only in borrowings from the KJV. For example, "fervent" and "elements" each appear twice, both times together in the same phrase, and in the same context as 2 Peter 3:10 (3 Nephi 26:3, Mormon 9:2). Also, "talent" is used only once, in the same context as Matthew 25:28 (Ether 12:35).[19]

Yep, content from 1,348 years later.

There’s a plethora of examples that show the Book of Mormon was written later than AD421, which demonstrates that whatever else the book might or might not be, it’s not “ AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

1. The Book of Mormon claims to have been written before AD421
2. The Book of Mormon contains content written in AD1769
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be

Grant Hardy:

Hardy discusses Joseph Smith’s own use of the Book of Mormon and concludes,

In short, Smith treated the Book of Mormon as something external to himself, whose contents he was not particularly familiar with. He certainly never produced anything else like it. That book of scripture, coming at the very beginning of his public life, emerged fully formed as a unified, coherent, history-like narrative of nearly 270,000 words and almost two hundred named characters interacting with one another in complicated plot lines. His later, relatively brief, mostly discursive revelations, such as those collected in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, along with his revisions of the King James Bible, are not in the same category.

This is a profound observation.

I suppose you can argue till the cows come home on how what got into the Book of Mormon got there. There is obviously text that comports with 19th century America. There are text blocks that in most part find direct parallels to text found in the Bible. But at the end of the day Joseph seemed to, as Hardy says, treat the Book of Mormon as something beyond himself.

This would comport with the speed at which it was translated and the amount of content that seems foreign to Joseph’s expertise and experience in the world at such a young age. Heck, he had his own opinions which changed from time to time on where the Book of Mormon peoples lived and moved.

I think it’s fair to say that there are numerous reasons to believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and that critics may have their reasons for unbelief. It’s nice that in our day and age we can all live together in peace.

Back in the day of Joseph and the early Saints that wasn’t always the case.

Good thread. From recent posts it looks like it has run its course. Thanks to all that participated. It was fun.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

As I see it there are only two pieces of testable evidence available to us for the notion that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. 1. First hand accounts by the people who were there. 2. The contents of The Book of Mormon itself.

In terms of the first point, what people say is highly unreliable. That’s already been demonstrated. The apologists will say that this is the best evidence in favour of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Which is a highly suspect thing to say when there is a tangible item available to examine objectively - the book itself.

So to the second point. The content of the book itself. The book’s contents are testable. Here is what the book is claimed to be.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/Book of Mormon-title?lang=eng
The last entry in the book is dated AD421. For the book to be what it claims to be, it shouldn’t contain any content that dates to a time later than that. That’s a very basic minimum evidence threshold to require it to meet. Anything in there from a later date means we have no need to look any further. It isn’t what it claims to be.

So, does The Book of Mormon contain content that dates from more recent than AD421?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of ... ames_Bible

Spelling it out, that’s content from 1,348 years later.

Oops! More content from 1,348 years after the Book of Mormon was supposedly finished and sealed up.

Yep, content from 1,348 years later.

There’s a plethora of examples that show the Book of Mormon was written later than AD421, which demonstrates that whatever else the book might or might not be, it’s not “ AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

1. The Book of Mormon claims to have been written before AD421
2. The Book of Mormon contains content written in AD1769
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be

...I think it’s fair to say that there are numerous reasons to believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and that critics may have their reasons for unbelief...

No, it's not fair to say that.

IHQ's post is much more helpful in terms of evaluating what the Book of Mormon is. His points about the plagiarism, among the many, many other pieces of evidence discussed in thus thread, completely obviate the LDS claims about the book.

[Moksha]

"God is a fish in water."

"Elohim swims in the ocean as a fish."

"The fish of the sea swims."

"In the ocean wide, the Spirit moves and dwells."

Where does tartar sauce fit in?