Since the original thread is now locked I wish to continue the discussion here. If there is a previous thread on the same topic please point me to it.
Anyway, my contention was Joe Smith made it up. It doesn’t matter if the tablets did exist or not: there are only two possible explanations.
The first one is indeed Joe Smith received the tablets from the Judeo-Christianity god. Even if we set aside the obvious question “Why?” there remains an equally obvious question “Really?”
Suppose the tablets did exist. They are not in itself evidence that they came from YHWH. Joe Smith could have made them up. Those who think that the tablets are divine have the burden of proof.
The second explanation is Joe Smith made the whole thing up. This appears to be the more sensible and logical explanation.
[P.S. I am lumping other supernatural and/or extraterrestrial souces with exlanation number one]
I was alluding to the snide manner in which you presented your case, Urban Ranger.
I am also fully aware that those who don’t believe the LDS explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon essentially believe that Smith made up the story.
Let’s look at the Resurrection in the New Testament. “It’s all bunk.” One who doesn’t believe that the Resurrection happened could easily say that.
There is another way to go about these discussions. You’re a grownup now, ain’t ya? So you must know what that way is.
But you can demonstrate this with practically any god-based religion you care to name, UR. “Where did your religion come from?” you ask the Believers, and they’ll tell you, “God gave it to us”, or words to that effect, and if you then ask them, “How do you know it was God?” all they’ll be able to tell you is, “We believe it was God,” and if you ask them to prove that it was God, they won’t be able to.
I can’t think of a god-based world religion offhand that can prove anything at all concerning where their religion came from, other than the Muslims being able to prove that Mohammed really existed, and that he really did write stuff down in the Quran. But as for the divine revelations that he received from God and wrote down in the Quran, well, where’s their “proof” for for divine inspiration for any of that? The Christians can’t prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, either.
It’s the same with the LDS, or Judaism. Nobody can prove that God started their religion, certainly not to Straight Dope standards. Asking, “Where are Joseph Smith’s golden plates?” is like asking, “Where are the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments?” And saying, “Since we can’t find the golden plates, that proves that he made it all up” is like saying, “Since we can’t find the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, that proves that the Jews made it all up.”
It’s beside the point. It’s “religion”, not “science”. It doesn’t have to prove anything.
One thing that’s always puzzled me about the Book of Mormon is why it seems to be written in psuedo-King James English. The KJV of the Bible is written in that language because that was the literary style that prevailed when the translation was made (first decade of the 1600s, IIRC). The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was put to paper by Joseph Smith in the early 19th Century.
This makes me suspicious. One must either accept that God speaks like a very literate Englishman of the late 16th/early 17th Century, or that Joseph Smith thought his discovery would be more plausible if it sounded more “Biblical,” so he copied the style of the Bible with which he was familiar.
Early Out, Another problem is that the KJV is a translation and actually God originally inspired Greek and Hebrew writers. The Book of Mormon probably holds the designation of being the only “Book” originally inspired in english. Not knowing anything about Greek and Hebrew I can’t say if different dialets exist, between the other books of the bible. This may be a good argument as to why there should not be any other english translations, since God prefers the KJV style.
kniz, certain christian sects argue that the KJV was divinely inspired, and as a result, all other non-KJV translations are subject to error. Some sects even argue that as a result, all other biblical texts in any language, even the ones earlier than the KJV, are faulty.
That would be so if Joseph Smith had confined himself to metaphysics; after all, the Pre-Existence is not a testable concept, so you either believe it or you don’t.
But Joe Smith went further. Like other 19th-century figures, who had all been raised on the Old Testament, Smith played the “What Happened to the Lost Tribes of Israel?” game. Unfortunately for him, he went with the theiory that the American Indians were the long-lost Israelites. In the BoM, he created a fantasy of Israelites coming tothe New World and setting up vast kingdoms and fighting horrifc wars. At the time. smith’s guess was as good as any becuase nothing was known of the origins of the Indians. Now, of course, we know that the Americas were peopled theough migration of Siberian tribes over the Bering land bridge in the last Ice Age.
In the time period covered in the BoM, there were Mayan city states in the Yucatan, Belize and Guatemala. The Toltecs were building Teotehuacan. yet, nowhere in the BoM is there any mention of these states, which surely must have had contact with the Nephites and Lamanites.
Moreover, the BoM is chockful of errors, inconsistenices, and anachronisms. From this site:
No archeolical relics from the time the event in the boM supposedly happened have shown up. There are no ruins of Lamanite of Nephite cities, no inscriptions with Lamanite or Nephite names, no clothing, no pottery, nothing. Moreover, there were no chariots, no horses, cattle, or goats, no old world plants, which contradicts the text of the BoM.
I do not wish to give offense to Mormons, but there is no evidence to support the BoM, and a wealth of evidence that contradicts it.
Gobear, I just have to correct one thing you said; I have no time to tackle your list, besides which even I am starting to get tired of this topic! (new Halloween film: The Thread that Wouldn’t Die!) But the BoM is not about the lost Ten Tribes, which is surprising if, as you say, it’s a fake. It’s just about one small family group leaving Jerusalem. The BoM doesn’t mention the Ten Tribes.
About the King James language in a 19th century work–let’s remember that the KJV was pretty much the Bible translation back then, and it was considered scriptural language (heck, you still get that now). Joseph Smith, whether he was translating or writing himself, would have a) naturally written it down in pseudo-KJV language, because to him, it was how scripture sounded, and b) known that the same would apply to the people reading the BoM. If it was going to be accepted at all, it would need that.
Incidentally, it doesn’t come off as a ‘very literate Englishman of the late 16th century’–he got the grammar wrong plenty of times, as you would expect for someone writing in an unfamiliar way.
The point is that that isn’t really a sticking point for Mormons. We don’t know exactly how the translation process worked, but the general consensus is that while the concepts would have been in Smith’s mind, he would have had to use his own words to express them. So it isn’t really surprising to most of us that he didn’t get the grammar quite right, or that the Isaiah passages are similar (not identical–there are important differences) to the KJV version.
Skipping through gobear’s post, I also see
Interestingly (to us Mormons, anyhow), within the past couple of years, a river just like the one described has been found. Also a couple of green spots that are perfect candidates for the land Bountiful in Arabia, which no one knew about before. I’ll look up the citation for you; I saw photos of the spots recently.
The BoM may not specifically mention the Ten Tribes, but there’s no doubt that Smith would have been influenced by that topic.
But word-for-word? Please!
Bring it on.
Ultimately, no matter how many cites each side produces, the true believers will never change their minds because, as with astrology or creationism, faith trumps logic 10 times out of 10.
There’s an index at the top of the page, and the 3rd and 4th links are the relevant ones. Of course, I haven’t seen the videos mentioned, so I don’t know all that much about it, but you could order them if you like.
Good grief gobear, that list is bad. You really should be more careful what you quote. This is pathetic, but I can’t stand misinformation like this. I might as well start at the beginning (it’s a very good place to start).
The correct name is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Note the hyphen and lower-case “d”. You might think this is trivial, but there is an offshoot church which has the name quoted, which is not the Utah-based LDS church.
This is an old and, frankly, stupid claim–probably from the same people who say “If Jesus spoke English, it’s good enough for me.” The LDS claim is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon in the 1820’s, long after the French language had existed. Hence “adieu” is not an anachronism.
Funny, when I read the statements, they don’t appear to be verbatim. Furthermore, it’s stating the simple principle that the righteous will be saved and the wicked will not. This is repeated hundreds of times in the scriptures. Why is it unlikely that this would be similar?
Sigh. The BoM clearly states that the 3 days of darkness was a sign for them, not for the whole earth. See 1 Nephi 19:10. The reference in Helaman also restricts the “three days” sign to Samuel’s (the speaker) audience.
(Can the critic even decide whether the BoM is plagiarism from the Bible or not? This is not a detail that anyone familiar with the NT would get wrong.)
Nephi stated that he was quoting the writings of Isaiah which were contained on records they took with them from Jerusalem. It is not surprising then that the wordings are similar. However, I have personally gone through each and every verse that exists in both Nephi’s writings and Isaiah’s (as found in the Old Testament) by way of comparison. I marked every difference between the Old Testament text and Nephi’s text–and there are many, some of which are very subtle. For instance, see this quote, paying especial attention to this footnote. Oh, by the way, I’m currently teaching the Sunday School class at our church on Isaiah, and I’m very familiar with this topic.
Um, people have had breakable windows for millenia. They weren’t necessarily made of glass. The reading in Ether 2 is entirely consistent with windows that were shutters (i.e. that you could open and close, but which were not transparent), which wouldn’t have the structural integrity necessary for the voyage.
(Steel is another issue, and I’ll address it later instead of inline.)
Some background on the Book of Mormon is important here. Again, reading links that LDS have provided would clear this up as well, but it appears that most anti-Mormons are lazy (I guess most people period are lazy–oh well). The Book of Mormon presents itself as an abridgement of history, made by Mormon and his son Moroni (in roughly 400AD, and translated by Joseph Smith). It’s pretty common (especially in Moroni’s part) for the narrative to clearly move into the voice of Mormon or Moroni as they insert their commentaries on what they’re recording. Ether 6 is clearly marked as being in Mormoni’s voice *in the very first verse of the chapter*. Again, there is no anachronism.
Again, can the critic decide whether Smith was plagiarizing or not? Yes, everyone knows Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Fortunately, the book of Alma doesn’t contradict this. The full quote is “he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”, which clearly is speaking of Jerusalem and its environs. Not surprisingly, this criticism was first raised and debunked about 170 years ago in 1835. You’d think the anti-Mormons would cross their complaints off their list as they’re debunked, but that would require too much honesty.
Good grief again. Context is everything. Alma spends chapter 12 talking about Adam and Eve and the foundation of the world. When he says “I would cite your minds forward”, he is clearly speaking with respect to his comments about the beginning of the world.
Where does the word Christ come from? You do know that it’s the greek equivalent of “Messiah” don’t you? The fact that we’ve transliterated it today doesn’t changed the fact that Christ would be called Messiah among the Nephites and that Smith would translate that concept as Christ (and followers be labeled “Christians” even though that literal word wouldn’t be used comtemporaneously). Finally, the role of Christ in God’s plan was very clearly spelled out in the BoM, long before Christ was born (in fact, one clear example is in the self-same chapters 12 and 13 of Alma from point 9). Indeed, all Christianity (AFAIK) claims that precisely such prophecies were made before Christ was born–in fact the book of Matthew makes a point of showing how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled those prophecies.
You see how we LDS might get tired of refuting these same tired old claims over and over?
er. So Joseph Smith was so subtle that he put in the Ten Tribes by not mentioning them at all? OK. Sure, whatever you like. Of course he would have known about the idea; the Ten Tribes were being discussed all over his neighborhood. The logical thing to do would have been to write the BoM about them–but he didn’t.
Now that I’ve had time to actually look at your list of objections, I have to agree with emarkp that it’s pretty bad. Have you seen the new anti book out that begs people to quit putting out the same tired ol’ stuff? I’ll have to find the title for you–though I posted it in the last enormous thread.
"Another amusing thing is that when looking at the link that genie provided about Book of Mormon evidences has a link which lists “Apparent Problems in the Book of Mormon”–and it is very similar to the list gobear presented.
Indeed, the list of evidences is quite impressive. In particular it enumerates several things people pointed out as “obvious problems” with the Book of Mormon which now are in fact stronger evidences that the BoM is authentic. I suggest that anyone who’s seriously interested in the issue take a look.
Sigh. I’d hoped for at least an “oops” from gobear, but I suppose it’s not to be…
Now, as I mentioned, on to steel. I hold in my hands an article from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 9, #2. The article is about Nephite metallurgy. It points out that the melting point of iron is too hot (1535 degrees C) for a primitive charcoal furnace. However, carburized steel only requires a temperature of 1200 degrees C, which is attainable with a simple forge and bellows. Nephi refers to the sword of Laban as made of “the most precious steel” which suggests that the steel wasn’t commonplace even back in Jerusalem.
The short version is that the Bible mentions steel also, in contemporary settings (Jeremiah 15:12 for example) as well as earlier (2 Samuel 22:35 for instance). So the objection that Nephi couldn’t have had steel is flat out wrong. The famous Damascus steel, too, was this type of carburized steel.
So the only argument about steel that remains is that there is no archealogical evidence for steel smelting sites or artifacts of worked steel AFAIK. If the Nephites and Lamanites covered the entire land of North and South America then it would seem reasonable that some artifact would have been found, so goes the claim.
However, there is no claim in the Book of Mormon that Lehi’s descendents filled two continents. In fact, there are no recognizable references to geography that we can draw reasonable conclusions about in the new world from the BoM. Notably, the same article mentions that in one of the sites that researchers (LDS of course) believe is a viable location for Bountiful (the land Lehi and family stayed in for a while before leaving for the new world) has today two veins of iron ore. Fascinating, no?
Some apologists (quiz: what does apologist mean? No, it doesn’t mean apologizing…) suggest that when the Nephites refer to steel, they are referring to another hard/sharpenable material fashioned into weapons (like obsidian axes for instance). There is some convincing narrative in the BoM that would strengthen the argument. Specifically, a group which repents from many killings and buries their weapons in the ground, that they might not be “stained” from the blood of their murders, after having been “brightened” by their repentence. Of course, steel cleans quite easily, and so the concept of the physical weapons being stained doesn’t fit very well with steel weapons–hence the support for a non-steel “steel”. That then explains why no steel artifacts have been found. Personally, I don’t buy that argument–there is a specific promise mentioned in the BoM that if they do not repent, their treasures and weapons would be taken away from them. This would be an internally consistent reason for the lack of steel artifacts. And though many object to appeal to supernatural means–this is a book delivered to Joseph Smith by an Angel, translated by the power of God, which testifies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not exactly a typical archaelogical record anyway. Oh, and please don’t try to compare it to the young-earth creationists claim that God obscured evidence of creation/flood/etc.–this claim is made specifically by the BoM to explain the events it talks about. Not the same as making up an ad-hoc theory to explain differences between the geologic and Biblical record.
Okay, now that we’ve responded to claims against the Book of Mormon, how about investigating the postive evidences? Two of the most interesting cases are names in the BoM and chiasmus.
One of the early criticisms of the BoM was the name “Alma” (a feminine word in Latin) being applied to a man. However, “in 1961, a prominent scholar in Israel, Professor Yigael Yadin, discovered an ancient document that proved to be a land deed from the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in Palestine, placing it in the general era of Lehi and Nephi. Prof. Yadin translated one of the names as ‘Alma the son of Judah.’” Critics have stopped complaining about this one, but they’ve failed to note that putting such an “obviously erroneous” name in the BoM which turned out to be correct is positive evidence that Joseph Smith wasn’t simply making things up. (There are several other name issues–go ahead and read the link.)
Chiasmus is a semitic form used frequently but that wasn’t known well until many years after the BoM was published. So why is it that chiasmus are so common in the BoM? Why is an entire chapter one big chiasmus?
I suggest before cutting and pasting more anti-Mormon claims, that anyone serious interested in the origin of the BoM read up on the other evidences, and then do as the book exhorts–read the book and pray about it.
I checked the website just in case you’d made an error in your transcription, but you’re right! That website really does say "the Kung James Version"!! :eek:
I wonder if it tastes anything like Kung Pao chicken…
