Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Physics Guy]

If an idea is true and important then I agree that it doesn’t matter how the idea is expressed.

This cuts both ways. If the same idea is expressed in multiple sources, we only need one of those sources to have the idea, and can ignore the other sources without losing the idea. A source can only be important because of the idea it expresses if it is the only source which expresses that idea.

What great idea is expressed in the Book of Mormon but in no other source?

[Chap]

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded. The fact that Joseph Smith and Co. (because he didn't write it alone) quoted the Bible verbatim to express this idea given by the Spirit doesn't do anything to the truth value of those words.

Joseph Smith was not 'dictating an idea'.

He was (or so he claimed) translating an ancient text written on gold plates in Reformed Egyptian into English. But the translation just happened to be in identical words to the translation made by 'King James's Men' of a completely different text, the Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah, which they translated into English in about 1604-1611.

More generally, why on earth would a deity make someone in early 19th century upstate New York translate a text written many centuries before that period into the English of 17th century England? It makes no sense. Surely early 19th century American English should have been the logical choice? Of course, if Smith was a faker trying to imitate the 'Bible English' in which his neighbours expected religious ideas to be expressed ... well, it figures.

[Gadianton]

If an idea is true and important then I agree that it doesn’t matter how the idea is expressed.

This cuts both ways. If the same idea is expressed in multiple sources, we only need one of those sources to have the idea, and can ignore the other sources without losing the idea. A source can only be important because of the idea it expresses if it is the only source which expresses that idea.

What great idea is expressed in the Book of Mormon but in no other source?

That's not a bad point. The Book of Mormon may be the most derivative book ever written by anyone aside from James Patterson. And it's intentional, because the whole point is to resonate with the reader's preconceived ideas about Bible writing, pre-Columbian pseudohistory, magical tall tales, or 19th century theology ideas floating around at the time. Consider if Joseph Smith had written of Nephite prophets mutilating their manhood with stingray spines to let blood on a burning alter, and the greater the scarring of the hot dog, the greater the rank and wisdom of the prophet.

The target audience for magical tales are always the most gullible people. Those who want an ancient artifact that looks mysterious, but then the story behind it makes total sense to present day concerns. The gullible are then parted in some way with their money to connect themselves to the story in some fashion.

[Chap]

I asked, somewhat rhetorically:

More generally, why on earth would a deity make someone in early 19th century upstate New York translate a text written many centuries before that period into the English of 17th century England? It makes no sense. Surely early 19th century American English should have been the logical choice? Of course, if Smith was a faker trying to imitate the 'Bible English' in which his neighbours expected religious ideas to be expressed ... well, it figures.

And in effect I was answered here:

The Book of Mormon may be the most derivative book ever written by anyone aside from James Patterson. And it's intentional, because the whole point is to resonate with the reader's preconceived ideas about Bible writing, pre-Columbian pseudohistory, magical tall tales, or 19th century theology ideas floating around at the time. [...]

The target audience for magical tales are always the most gullible people. Those who want an ancient artifact that looks mysterious, but then the story behind it makes total sense to present day concerns. The gullible are then parted in some way with their money to connect themselves to the story in some fashion.

[malkie]

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded. The fact that Joseph Smith and Co. (because he didn't write it alone) quoted the Bible verbatim to express this idea given by the Spirit doesn't do anything to the truth value of those words.

That’s fine. But it also refutes the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Church about the process of producing the Book of Mormon.
“THE Book of Mormon AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”...plus some bits that were copied from a KJV Bible that was lying around

Velo you are putting forward an idea that contradicts the account of Joseph Smith, the book’s claims about itself, and the Church’s position. What you suggest both refutes the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, and is also an apostate position. You are actually suggesting that Joseph Smith and the Church aren’t telling the truth.

Bravo <applause>

I have a feeling (meaning, I'm too lazy to investigate, so cannot be more definite) that we might find other cases in which an apologetic response to criticism requires an apostate defence, or, at the very least, a defence that is not an official church teaching.

[Morley]

I asked, somewhat rhetorically:

More generally, why on earth would a deity make someone in early 19th century upstate New York translate a text written many centuries before that period into the English of 17th century England? It makes no sense. Surely early 19th century American English should have been the logical choice? Of course, if Smith was a faker trying to imitate the 'Bible English' in which his neighbours expected religious ideas to be expressed ... well, it figures.

And in effect I was answered here:

The Book of Mormon may be the most derivative book ever written by anyone aside from James Patterson. And it's intentional, because the whole point is to resonate with the reader's preconceived ideas about Bible writing, pre-Columbian pseudohistory, magical tall tales, or 19th century theology ideas floating around at the time. [...]

The target audience for magical tales are always the most gullible people. Those who want an ancient artifact that looks mysterious, but then the story behind it makes total sense to present day concerns. The gullible are then parted in some way with their money to connect themselves to the story in some fashion.

But three witnesses.

[Morley]

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 ... e?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

But three witnesses.

[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.

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

But three witnesses.

Don’t forget the plates!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158043

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

But three witnesses.

Don’t forget the plates!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158043

Regards,
MG

We only hear of the plates because: But three witnesses.


The Book of Mormon has the consensus of entire disciplines arrayed against it. The Book of Mormon doesn't stack up in history, anthropology, linguistics, biology, physics, archeology, or geology, There is no measure in which there is any evidence of it being what it's purported to be.

Oh, I forgot: But three witnesses.

[huckelberry]

I thought it was standard apologetic that the Nephites had copy of Isaiah and included some of that in the plates so when Joseph arrived at those parts he just used the KJB to facilitate translation. Easy peasy no problem.

Perhaps more problematically suggestive is the material in the Book of Mormon which paraphrases or follows Biblical material which Nephites would not have had direct access to. Inspiration can be proposed to account for this.