The golden plates from which the BoM was translated were taken back by the angel Moroni, to be returned at a future date for further translation. (A portion of the plates was sealed and JS was not allowed to translate that portion.)
Why doesn’t God reveal Himself in a way that no one can dispute His existence? Why doesn’t He just say, “Look, here I am; here’s irrefutable proof that I exist!” and show Himself to us all? The answer to that, as well as to your question is, faith is required of all of us. It’s only after our faith has been tested that we receive answers to such questions.
I’d say faith has not been a problem where preserving the Bible is concerned. There has been plenty of that.
You may know that stone walls and “steles” survive from millennia ago, from Egypt and other ancient civilizations; we have clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions, preserved splendidly, from Akkadia, Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, etc. But their message is a dead message. The Bible, on the other hand, was written out on parchment or vellum–but written and rewritten (read “copied”) over the centuries because people cared enough to preserve it. (Note Gamaliel’s admonishment to the priests in the fifth chapter of Acts.) The Jewish Sopherim were so meticulous in their recopying they counted not only the words but the letters–and even noted a letter in the Hebrew word for “belly” in the 11th chapter of Leviticus as the middle letter of the Pentateuch!
People have said I have a photographic memory; in any case, I have seen countless copies of the Book of Mormon in libraries and used bookstores, and all have the same typeface, obviously printed from the same stereotypes. (That’s a term used in typography for a plate printing a whole page.)
On the other hand, I know that the Catholic Church found a manuscript of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible, now known as Vatican MS. No. 1209, in the 16th Century. They would not allow non-Catholic scholars to examine it, until the late 19th Century, when the Codex Sinaiticus appeared; the Church produced facsimile copies of No. 1209 lest it be eclipsed. And you say the golden plates were taken away. All I can say is–if the shoe fits wear it.
I refuse to take responsibility for actions performed by the angel Moroni, who was acting for God when he took the plates. If you don’t like God’s actions, take Him up on it, not me.
Gee, Dougie; if you’re going to reject the BoM or PoGP because something in it contradicts something in the Bible, won’t you then have to reject the Bible itself since it contradicts itself?
Yet how many people without faith actually accept the Bible as truth? Some people wouldn’t believe it was true if the dead rose from their graves and started preaching it on street corners. You need more than external evidences to accept spiritual truths, IMHO.
To Monty: I have been over the issue of the Bible’s alleged contradictions–I’ve read it through five times and found none–so many times I consider the notion to be redundant and not worth resuscitating.
I think I missed a point earlier when I referred to Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, Verse 8: “We accept the Bible as the Word of God so far as it is translated correctly…” I should have pointed out to the person who tried to rebut this statement that, contrary to his point, the verse refers to the Bible’s translation, not its textual integrity; and that is fully established so far as I am concerned. This person tried to tell me that there are textual deficiencies in the Bible.
Therefore, it’s interesting that the Book of Mormonborrows passages from the Bible:
1 Nephi 10:18; 2 Nephi 27:23; Alma 31:17; Mormon 9:9; Moroni 10:19–Hebrews 13:8.
1 Nephi 20, 21–Isaiah 48, 49.
1 Nephi 22:25–John 10:9, 14, 16.
2 Nephi 7, 8–Isaiah 50-52:2.
Alma 31:37–Luke 12:22.
Alma 34:36–Psalm 95:8, 11; Hebrews 3:8-11, 9:27.
Helaman 10:7–Matthew 16:19.
3 Nephi 20:23-25–Acts 3:22-25.
3 Nephi 12:3-18, 21-28, 31-45–Matthew 5:3-18, 21-28, 31:45.
And so on.
3 Nephi duplicates, in chapters 24 and 25, the 3rd and 4th chapters of the book of Malachi. If you look in a Jewish translation of Malachi, you will find that the 6 verses that appear as Chapter 4 in the King James Version are just the last 6 verses in the third chapter. The 4th chapter division did not appear until the Middle Ages.
The chapter and verse divisions we are familiar with in the Bible were not added generally until the invention of printing in the 15th Century; but the Masoretic Hebrew text, dating from the 9th Century, did use verse divisions.
On the basis of this evidence the text of the Book of Mormon is suspect, and to me it seems that Moroni could do better.
The point of the above is that, although Mormons seem to question the Bible’s textual integrity, the Book of Mormon seems to contradict such questioning, in that it duplicates so much of what is already in the Bible.
Dougie_monty, did you know that there are actually verses in the New Testament that quote the Old Testament? Heresy! You seem to be saying, “If God said it twice, it can’t be true!”
Actually, Mormons don’t believe that the whole text of the Bible is in error (obviously, since the BoM quotes from it so often). Most of it has survived intact and error-free. But according to the BoM, many “plain and precious truths” have been lost from the Bible, which are restored in the BoM. Are you so offended by the concept of biblical errancy that you can’t concede that the original text could have been modified in the slightest way down through the ages?
Alleged? You must really be from another planet if you think that facts which have been proven are merely alleged to be true!
I’ve no idea what your background is; however, statements such as yours above are exactly what I’m accustomed to seeing from badly homeschooled fundies! Please note that I said “badly homeschooled” and not merely “homeschooled.”
To Monty,
I am prepared to bolster my assertion with documentation but this is not the proper forum for it. E-mail me at montgomerydou55@hotmail.com and I will send you the documentation.
Furthermore, the other point I was trying to make was that, on one hand the Book of Mormon borrows many passages verbatim–and very long ones too–from books of the Bible–and from a centuries-old, error-ridden English translation at that. This suggests to me that Joseph Smith was totally taken in by those who think the King James Version was brought down from Heaven in 1610. (I assure you that, according to Book of a Thousand Tongues, the KJV of 1610 looked radically different from editions published today, along with containing the apocryphal books; Smith wouldn’t recognize it, most likely).
Besides–and here is a more cogent point–compare the dates of writing assigned to book of the Book of Mormon with the generally accepted dates of completion of the New Testament–A.D. 41 for Matthew; A.D. 50-75 for most of the other NT books; A.D. 96-98 for John, 1, 2, and 3 John, and the Revelation. I intend to do this myself and locate a number of anachronistic quotations–they’d have to be anachronistic when the assigned times of writing are compared.
Dougie, the thing you seem to be missing is that the Book of Mormon was written by inspired men, and thus they were given the correct words to write by direct inspiration of God. And unless you believe that God is not omniscient, you have to admit that Deity could see the future as well as know exactly what He would say to biblical prophets in the future, and give this information to the writers of the BoM.
Say you made a time machine out of a DeLorean and travelled back to 600 B.C.E. Once there, you discovered that one of the Jewish prophets knew all about automobiles in the future and could describe how they worked perfectly. What would be your explanation of this miraculous foreknowledge? Could God possibly have given that prophet this information, or is Deity’s foresight limited? Could this be called an “anachronism”?
Anyway, if God is truly all-seeing, then it stands to reason that He is able to quote passages of scripture that haven’t been written by others yet, and still use the exact wording and style that He would give to the future prophet. Check out 2 Nephi chapter 29 for God’s answer to the contention that He can’t speak the same words twice to two different nations, at two different times. There are no anachronisms to God if He is fully aware of the future and chooses to reveal part of that future to His prophets.
I find it difficult to believe that the Book of Mormon is written by inspired men, as you claim, when, right at the start it says “I make it [the record] of my own hand,” in 1 Nephi 1:3. (Compare this to 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.”)
You may have read Why I Am a Mormon by Wallace F. Bennett. In it he says, “We recognize the Bible’s limitations as well as its value. We do not ascribe final authority to any of its statements because we believe that God has reestablished the authority to speak in his name and has given it to righteous men.” It seems difficult for me to reconcile such a deprecation of the Bible with the plethora of borrowed passages from it, in the Book of Mormon. Besides, Galatians 1:8 lays a curse on anyone–even “an angel from Heaven”–who shall attempt to propagate an extra-Biblical message that lays claim to being a Christian revelation.
Joseph Smith’s mother Lucy wrote, in Joseph Smith, the Prophet, that “Martin Harris, the first person to take an active interest in the golden plates” was a dreamer and a fanatic, and affirmed he had visited the moon! I can’t imagine Moses or David or Ezra or Luke or John making such a wild claim–one corroborated by one of his own relatives.
Yes, Nephi made his record with his own hands. So did Paul in his epistles. Are Paul’s writings suspect too, simply because he wrote them with his own hands?
Actually, Galatians 1:8 says the curse will be on anyone who “preach[es] any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you …” In other words, anyone who preaches anything else than the [restored] gospel of Mormonism (if you will) will be cursed. I have no problem with this passage and I see no discrepancy, as I believe that the LDS faith is the same faith as Paul preached.
It all boils down to one question: is there such a thing as modern revelation, both to prophets and to everyone else? If so, then you can find out for yourself whether the BoM is true, directly from God. (James 1:5; Moroni 10:3-5). If not, what happened to God’s ability to speak to man? Did He somehow lose it?
I think I should digress here, Snark, to the posting on November 20th by Smiling Jaws, * supra;* you read his posting and then tell me 1) Where the blame rests and 2) If this is the religion commanded by God. --Titus 1:6.
The blame for the Mountain Meadows Massacre rests solely on those who did it. As for other alleged atrocities (and remember, SmilingJaws is quoting an anti-Mormon who uses loaded words and propaganda to get his points across), they are the works of individuals, not of the LDS church. [sarcasm]God forbid that any traditional Christian has ever committed an atrocity! [/sarcasm]
Like I said, Dougie, it all boils down to, do you accept modern revelation as valid or not? If so, you can with faith ask God whether the LDS church is the true religion or not, and whether or not the Book of Mormon is true (again, see James 1:5 and Moroni 10:3-5). If not, what happened to the God who is “the same yesterday, today and forever”? Is God’s mouth stopped?
Let me put it this way: I refer again to Galatians 1:8, as well as prohibitions in Deuteronomy and Revelation (almost at the very end) against adding to God’s word. (Note that at the very end of the Gospel of John–which, as reckoned above, was the last book of the Bible canon to be written–John says that very likely the scrolls containing all the things that Jesus did would be so many and so voluminous the whole world couldn’t contain them.)
That said, I answer that no, I do not accept modern revelation. At the very least, you can tell by what I have written that in that regard I assert that the Book of Mormon does not pass muster.
Interesting that Deuteronomy should have a prohibition against “adding to God’s word.” I was of the notion that there is more to the Bible beyond the book of Deuteronomy. Obviously, that prohibition is against adding to the book of Deuteronomy, not against adding to the Bible. Same with the scripture in Revelation.
So help us all out here, will you? You’re saying that the Book of Revelations prohibits adding more books to the Bible. Yet, you’re also saying that the Gospel of John was written after the book prohibiting additions?
Gee, that means the Gospel of John isn’t part of the Bible!
Here is the Mormon Bishop John Lee’s memoirs http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm
Again, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but I do believe “the truth will set you free.”
I think it’s a shame that the LDS church is still trying to hide their roots. It was heartening that they finally admitted that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. Unfortunately, the track record for LDS admitting to the past is poor. I know of no better proof than the excommunication of scholars like Michael Quinn and Fawn Brodie, devote Mormons, who published works of historical accuracy that were considered heretical because they reported facts rather than dogma.
Please don’t say that Lee’s testimony is of an anti-mormon–he was a Mormon Bishop.
I don’t understand why the LDS church tries so hard to had the past–why can’t they just admit that many of their beliefs were just plain wrong and that their leaders–including Joseph Smith–did some quite wicked things in the name of God. I doubt they would lose many members and they would gain respect for truthfulness.
