[PeterPrinciple]

he copyrighted the Book of Mormon,

Didn't know that..............

[ConservativeMind]

Thanks be to Sidney Rigdon, the man who had the most behind the scenes in crafting the travesty of "The Book of Mormon".

He was the most linguistically skilled, having gone crazy from playing second-fiddle to Alexander Campbell, the man who ultimately provided the most scathing review of the original "Book of Mormon" in an 1831 issue of the "Millennial Harbinger".

[sirchtruth]

I am not aware of anyone in the first group of biblical experts who are anti-Mormon. If anything, real biblical scholars who know Mormon theology have a profound sense of admiration for it and are usually astonished that so many facets of Mormonism reflect authentic biblical teachings.

Amazing what one can do by plagerising whole text! Joseph Smith was probably one of the most genius con artist ever to be born, but not without those peeping stones!

[restornu]

[newheart]

I am an evangelical Christian who, for the past six years, has worked in a company based in Salt Lake City. The company is primarily comprised of members of the LDS church. I count many of these people among my dearest and closest friends.

However, I wish to respectfully disagree with Dr. Nibley on several points. (And since this is not a devotional thread, I assume that discussion is okay?)

First, the reason why it is not so astonishing that a supposedly inexperienced and uneducated Joseph Smith might have produced such a work as the Book of Mormom is, quite probably, because he did not produce it.

There is a considerable body of evidence that suggests that the text of the Book of Mormon was, in fact, a sort of composite of several books from the same period. Among those books are "A View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith, "A View of Nature" by Josiah Priest and an unpublished manuscript entitled "A Manuscript Found" by Solomon Spaulding. Side by side textual comparisons of the first two books with the BOM clearly raise some serious questions to the objective reader.

Consider what might have happened if Dan Brown had come forward with his book the DaVinci Code and claimed that the contents had been delivered to him on golden plates. Given the current cultural desire for anything which would cast doubt on the truth of the real Gospel of Jesus Christ, Brown himself might have wound up as the founder of a new religion. And with 40 million copies sold, plus movie rights he would certainly have the money to finance such a cult.

It is a curiosity to me that much of what is truly inconsistent with orthodox Christian doctrine in Mormonism does not come from the Book of Mormon itself (though a case can be made for its lack of adherence to orthodox principle). Instead those things which are heretical tend to come from later works of Smith (and others). That these writings are inspired by God is demonstrated on the face of it by it's contradiction with the Old and New Testament as well as significant internal contradictions.

Still, the Mormon church clearly inspires incredible loyalty among its adherents, many of whom I have found know very little about the real doctrines of the church. They are taught practically from birth not to question information that comes to them from up the chain of the command. They have a certain peace (naivete?) about that. I on the other hand was taught to test all things and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I agree with Dr. Nibley that reading one anti-Mormon book does not make one an expert. However, I would strongly suggest that even Mormons take the time to explore some of the contrarian literature. Most of it (though sadly not all) is written with the utmost respect for Mormon individuals. consider the works of Richard Abanes, Wayne Cowdrey, or Francis J. Beckwith. These are serious works of scholarship and as I said, they are very respectful. They simply conclude that the historical evidence would suggest that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

Having said all of that, I think it is important to state one more thing. As I mentioned above, I count many practicing Mormons among my close friends. It is not my place to question their salvation. I am convinced that one is saved by the work of Jesus on the cross and not based on one's correct understanding of doctrine. These people (though clearly not all) Mormons do indeed trust Jesus as their Savior. When he returns, he will sort out the doctrinal problems once and for all.

[Macoraba]

Bottom line is that there is no need to explain the BoM nor was there a need for any restoration. The Gospel was never lost. Our Lord established the Catholic Church, built upon Peter the Rock, and promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail. And they haven't!

[Diego1618]

First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with.

From what I understand this is your explanation of John 10:16. Tell me.....why is this not a better Explanation? Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, Lines 5,6 &7.

The two remaining tribes in Judea, under the influence of the Romans, of course would be, Judah and Benjamin and a portion of Levi. As Josephus writes.....the Ten tribes are yet beyond the Euphrates....and a number not to be estimated. Sounds to me like that pretty much accounts for most of the Lost Tribes.

The Apostles were given the commission to go to the Lost Tribes and Jesus himself says, He was sent only to the Lost Tribes and Peter also says that's exactly where he is writing from (beyond the Euphrates) and writing to another contingent of Israelites along the shores of the Black Sea. Notice these folks have a "Foreknowledge of God"....they are not just your average Gentile as most folks portray and believe them to be.

[kerryusama04]

Mormonism to these scholars is the only faith that preserves the characteristics of the early chosen people.

I grew up in the heavily Mormon Las Vegas, where there is a Mormon Church across the street from nearly every middle and high school. I had a bunch of Mormon friends. And I know nothing about Mormonism. A crying shame since they are a really family values bunch.

What is the Mormon position on the 4th Commandment? I think they are Sunday keepers, which makes the whole "tribe of Israel" thing really hard to take.

Regarding Smith "making it up", just because something doesn't come from God doesn't mean it came from man:

2Co 11:13 For such ones are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 Did not even Satan marvelously transform himself into an angel of light? 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

I'm not saying Mormonism is Satanic, I'm just saying that something miraculous happening doesn't necessarily mean God did it.

[Wallace T.]

Noteworthy in this article is the higher regard that this Mormon apologist has for liberal, nonbelieving Biblical scholars of the type you might find at Harvard Divinity School or in the Jesus Seminar than in evangelical Biblical scholars such as Kenneth Barker, the general editor of the NIV translation, or Daniel Wallace, Greek scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary. He claims the liberal scholars are unbiased. Such a notion flies in the face of the actual statements of liberal scholars. For example, the late Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, stated, "We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God." Funk had an agenda based on his worldview and metaphysics as much as does any evangelical or fundamentalist Christian.

The author of this article does no service to the Mormon religion or apologetics.

[Old_Mil]

Teenagers are perfectly capable of plagarism. That's essentially what the book of Mormon is, after all...Joseph Smith's "Empire Strike's Back", to God's "Star Wars".

[Colofornian]

After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon

Of course, Nibley had to add this parenthetical statement, because he knows of the thousands of changes made in the so-called sacred dictation since the 1830 edition. Listen, if this was a letter for letter or word for word dictation, why all the changes?

I mean the LDS History of the Church claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English through the gift and power of God. He said that it is "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" So why does "the most correct of any book on earth" need 4,000+ changes, even if most of them are spelling and grammatical changes?

According to the Institute of Religious Research:

Changes in Doctrine. Key Passages on Deity in the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon were changed in the 1837 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of Deity. Joseph originally taught that Jesus and the Father were the same person and that God had always been God, but later developed the idea that the Father and Son were separate Gods, each with a tangible body. Smith taught that both God the Father and Jesus had been mortal men. What follows are specific examples from the original 1830 first edition Book of Mormon (which did not have verse divisions) compared with the altered text of recent versions.

Original 1830 Text vs. Current, Altered Text Anything that is italicized in ALL CAPS is text NOT in the original 1830 version and has been added "to the most correct of any book on earth."

Compare 1830 1 Nephi 3 vs. current 1 Nephi 11 (* is included to indicate that the 1830 text did not have verse divisions):

1830 version: 1 Nephi 3, p. 25*: And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh vs. current 1 Nephi 11:18: And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of THE SON OF God.

1830 version: 1 Nephi 3, p. 25: And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father! vs. current 1 Nephi 11:21: And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even THE SON OF the Eternal Father!

1830 version: 1 Nephi 3, p. 26: And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world. vs. current 1 Nephi 11:32: And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea,THE SON OF the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.

1830 version 1 Nephi 3, p. 32: These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. vs. current 1 Nephi 13:40: These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is THE SON OF the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.

Other Changes to the Book of Mormon. A variety of other changes have been made that also alter the meaning of the text.

Original 1830 Text vs. Altered Text

1830 version Alma 15, p. 303: yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,, according to their wills vs. current Alma 29:4: yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills

As explained by the IRR: NOTE: Later editions from at least 1840 to 1980 deleted without explanation these eight words. LDS leaders re-inserted the omitted words into all editions since 1981. It is possible Joseph Smith deleted this portion of the verse because it conflicted with a revelation he claimed to receive in 1831 found in Doctrine & Covenants 56:4,5 "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all of this upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants …"

Orginal 1830 version: Mosiah 9, p. 200: … King Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings … vs. current Mosiah 21:28 … King MOSIAH [Benjamin deleted] had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings …

1830 version Ether 1, p. 546 … and for this cause did King Benjamin keep them … vs. current Ether 4:1 … and for this cause did King MOSIAH [Benjamin deleted] keep them …

NOTE: According to Book of Mormon chronology, King Benjamin was already dead when these events took place. Apparently LDS leaders changed the name to Mosiah to eliminate the mistake.

1830 version 2 Nephi 8, p. 87 … and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not vs. current 2 Nephi 12:9 … and the mean man boweth NOT down, and the great man humbleth himself not … [NOT was added]

1830 version 1 Nephi 5, p. 52 … O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord … vs. 1 Nephi 20:1 … O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, OR OUT OF THE WATERS OF BAPTISM, which swear by the name of the Lord …

"White" changed to "Pure" 1830 version 2 Nephi 12, p. 117 … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people. vs. 2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition) … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a PURE and a delightsome people...

(Later editions until 1981) … WHITE and delightsome (1981 to current edition) PURE and delightsome

NOTE: Before 1978 dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach that dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being "cursed with a s[k]in of blackness" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272).

[Colofornian]

Above all, do not ever contradict yourself![Nibley]

You want to explain why the original 1830 version had King Benjamin listed in Mosiah 9 (p. 200) and Ether 1 (p. 546) when King Benjamin was already dead when these events took place?

Why did Mormon leaders then replace "Benjamin" with Mosiah?

Can they go in there today & replace any "historical" figure with whoever they want to? Don't we know that otherwise as "historical revisionism"--a common tactic of liberals?

Why do LDS leaders play around with a supposed sacred word for word dictation of God's Word?

Why was this alleged dictation written in King James English? Except for those who read from the KJV--or who wrote according to its background--no one in 1830 American spoke King James English. Folks in the 1830s spoke English closer to the 20th century than the 16th and 17th centuries.

[Diego1618]

Just curious if you are going to respond to my post #15? Your post #22 did not really address my questions. Thank you ahead of time for your kind response.

[Colofornian]

Nibley writes: Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described...

Do you want to explain how it is that in this passage to the desert, that in 1 Nephi 2:6 the people walked from Jerusalem to the river Laman in Arabia--some 250+ miles away--and did so in a mere 3 days even though senior citizens went with them and they were loaded down with supplies? [Somebody should have told Moses they had a shortcut!]

Let's say they rested/ate/went to the bathroom for only 2-10 total of those 72-80 hrs...Let's say they were on the move for 70 hrs. That means they were zoomin' @ 35 mph! [Why hasn't GM or Ford come out with a sporty car called the Camel in honor of them?)

So while it took them a mere 3 days to cross the desert, on the other hand, where the BoM says nothing about divine power helping them cross such a desert, it does point out that they had "furious winds" blowing their barges in the trip over the ocean. So how long does Ether 6:4-11 say it took them w/these furious winds? 344 days!

Okay. Joseph flunked maritime math. Others have pointed out that if you are being blown by furious winds toward the promised land speedily, as Ether 6 contends, and if you're only going 10 mph over 5,000 miles...then that 344-day trip could be condensed to three weeks.

Also, I suggest that if you're going to make a trip from the Middle East to the Americas, that you NOT make a hole in the bottom of the barge (as indicated in Ether 2:20), lest you have a mini-Titanic experience @ Laman Harbor.

The alleged Smith/BoM reason for such a hole in the bottom of the barge was so that it would provide air should the barges be turned over in the ocean storms. Okay, even if we could for a moment pretend that being in a barge with a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom would somehow stay afloat, imagine being turned over in an oceanic storm. Every time the barge flipped, what was happening to the supplies, people and animals?

If you doubt me, please go to your backyard pool or your bathtub, place a wooden barge with holes in the top & bottom, and then place pretend plastic people & animal & rocks (supplies) in them. Now flip them over like in a storm. Now tell me, minus any divine miracle, what happens? (Note that Jared wasn't instructed to cut holes in the barge so that God would work another sea-crossing miracle; rather, it's purpose was merely an air pocket in case they flipped...but if you flip in mid-ocean, you're immediate problem is not air, it's water...[and only as you're drowning does air become the problem].

Pray tell. Who has replicated brass compasses [the "liahona" as described in 1 Nephi 16:19; Alma 37:38-39, etc.]? Is brass an interchangeable compass part with an iron needle? [Gee, I always thought compasses were linked to the magnetic field of the earth & therefore needed iron needles...how ignorant of me]. But then again, what can you expect of a device that wasn't even't invented for another 1800 years? {The real compass was invented in the 13th century, not 600-592 B.C.) Maybe the magnetic aspect of the earth was only a latter-day development, eh?

[Colofornian]

Nibley writes They are frequently puzzled at how Joseph Smith could find out the real biblical teaching since modern Judaism and Christianity abandoned them thousands of years ago.

Wow! What an attack on Christianity!!! Somehow we find it too routine as we daily absorb LDS leaders' blasts and those who post their comments--comments which label Christians as those who abandon "real" Biblical teachings. Joseph Smith himself said all our creeds were an "abomination" to God and that our professing leaders were "corrupt."

Yet, somehow, some LDS folks get upset when their sacred books or doctrines are critiqued. You can't have it both ways. You can't call us betrayers, apostates, abominations, and corrupt, and then expect us to not object, can you?

We don't attack the person, like I was in an indirect way on an earlier post in this thread. But we do contest beliefs and doctrines and what portends to be the Word of God!

In our book, are LDS an "abomination" to God? No! They are the pearl of great price to Him, for He gives His own Son that they might live!

So, which gospel are we to believe? The "restored" version which in one fell swoop labels all of our creeds as an "abomination" and our leaders as "corrupt?" Or, rather, the one which says that all people made in God's image are so valuable that He would leave heaven to find that which is lost?

[Colofornian]

Nibley writes: Uniquely Mormon doctrines such as the anthropomorphic nature of God, the divine nature and deification potential of man, the plurality of deities, the divine sanction of polygamy, the fallacy of sola scriptura, the superiority of the charismatic leaders over the ecclesiastical leaders and their importance, the inconsequence of Original Sin because of the Atonement of Christ, the importance of contemporary revelation, and so forth are all original Jewish and Christian thought before they were abandoned mainly due to Greek philosophical influence.

So. The "restored" Gospel (the old truths that were supposedly "true" before Christians came and suppressed them were):

(1) God is made in the image of man ("anthropomorphic nature of God");

(2) We are gods in embryo ("the divine nature...of man")

(3) We are candidates for godhood ("deification potential of man") [How can we be both god-in-embryo and yet only have divine "potentiality"? I guess that's consistent at least with the "Pro-choice" worldview...embryos are only potentially human...and we all know where that doctrine came from!

(4) We all need to embrace polytheism ("the plurality of deities")

(5) "Polygamy as a divine sanction" (if not for time, then for eternity)

(6) "The fallacy of Scripture alone" [If Scripture doesn't at least need a pope or a church to interpret it, it at least needs an LDS living prophet because Scripture alone apparently just doesn't cut it, eh?...so much for 2 Peter 1:20: "Above all [in the Greek that means "Above all"], you must understand [in the Greek that means "you must understand"] that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation."

(7) "the inconsequence of Original Sin because of the Atonement of Christ" (the fact that "wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the way that leads to life" is now "inconsequential?" What? The majority of folks heading to eternal hell is inconsequential? [and the BoM describes hell in terms of eternal damnation, not a temporary spirit prison, mind you). Only in LDS land was sin a fall "upward" because it opened the door to godhood.

(8) "The importance of contemporary revelation" (What? Since when isn't the Living Christ "contemporary" enough for LDS leaders? "In the PAST God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but IN THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son...through whom He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Christ IS our Contemporary, Living Prophet and Living Revelation! While He may choose to send forth mouthpieces on His behalf, they are like undershepherds of the Chief Shepherd. We have no lack of a Living Prophet. No mere mortal usurps His place on the Prophetic Throne. He is still Prophet, High Priest and King as the prophets of old foretold!

[CholeraJoe]

If the Mormons are descendants of a tribe of Israelites, how come there are so many blue-eyed blonds named Sorenson in SLC and very few Goldstiens?

[WriteOn]

There are some similarities between Joseph Smith and Edgar Cayce. Cayce, too, was uneducated, etc. And Cayce produced voluminous amounts of transcription. Many odd predictions, amalgams of stories, etc. Smith's prodigy isn't unheard of.

http://skepdic.com/cayce.html

[vladimir998]

I think someone else could make up a "gospel" just as Smith did.

1) The idea that Smith did it in only a short time is misleading. He may have been thinking about the story line for years. When he lost the first 127 (or however many) pages to a good fireplace's worth of kindling he went on and completely ignored those dozens and dozens of lost pages. If that was scripture, inspired nu God, it would not have been skipped over the second time around. If it was made up nonsense then it shows how prolific Smith could be. Wasn't Dickens just as prolific? I wrote a huge chunk of a doctoral dissertation in just a few months while working full time.

2) Maybe somebody should ask these questions:

a) Why are there horses in the BOM when none existed in the Americas before Columbas in the last few thousand years?

b) Why is there steel in the BOM when none existed in the Americas before Columbas?

c) Why is there silk...

d) Why are there chariots...

e) Why is there not a single shred of evidence to support the BOM?

[Quester]

The Book of Mormon is often dismissed as gibberish by those who have never taken the trouble to read it. In fact, its very existence poses a serious puzzle if it is not what it claims to be - an ancient record. Below is the Book of Mormon Challenge, an assignment that Professor Hugh Nibley at BYU sometimes gave to students in a required class on the Book of Mormon. The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.11, Pg.221 - Pg.222:

Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.

Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done." - Hugh Nibley

Of course, ... this does not preclude the very real possibility that Joseph Smith was just a (perhaps even unsuspecting) front man ... for an elaborate deceit to be introduced to the world.

After all ... it was an angel of light (Moroni) ... which delivered the golden plates to Joseph Smith.

And ... Paul tells us very clearly that Satan, himself, ... can and does transform himself into an angel of light.

1 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Lastly, ... this very same Paul warns the NT christians ... that they are not to ... accept any other gospel ... other than what had been presented by Jesus and the Apostles in the NT ... even if it came by way of an angel.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.