You rightly point out though that this would not prove the Book of Mormon. Yet this sits at the tip of a rather lengthy list of other historical anomalies which, taken as a whole, point strongly to a human vs divine origin of Mormonism.
Your comments on Smith’s statements are understood, but where (as in the case for the statement, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil.”) Smith seems to be asserting higher knowledge, that creates a quandary. He is here not saying it is his understanding (as Paul clearly does in a couple of his letters), but rather that he is ‘taking away a veil’ and revealing something that has been shown to him. This does not require a reply, but I ask you to lift up to God the question; Was Joseph Smith your prophet? ...and to test him against what scripture tells us about discerning prophets.
The source is always an important consideration. The person and life of Jesus Christ are a unique witness in this regard.
(Grig wrote) Interpreting the oneness of the Father and the Son as them being two persons but one being of one substance is a misinterpretation. One that leads to the false doctrine of the trinity. The doctrine that the sacrament as literally becoming the body and blood of Christ is likewise based on a misinterpretation. Original sin, the idea that baptism is optional, that there is to be no more scripture after the Bible, these also are the results of misinterpreting the Bible.
Some of your comments here are very denominational (it appears mainly Roman Catholic) in nature... transubstantiation for example, which I would suggest is not ‘misinterpretation’, but rather reliance on human tradition and wisdom vs what is presented in the Bible. Men are fallible though, and it is not human wisdom we rely upon but that of God.
Let’s narrow the field by giving a definition of Christianity. You are correct that there have been many who have claimed to be ‘Christian’ throughout history, yet who have drawn their inspiration not from the God of the Abraham and Isaac. I’ll present this as a statement of what followers of Christ throughout the ages have been in clear agreement on. These words are not mine, but I stand behind them as a true representation of what I believe through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the one, holy, sovereign, creating and redeeming God, eternally existing in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I believe in the divine inspiration and the entire trustworthiness of the Bible, its infallible teaching and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct, and its normative value for all people, at all times, in all cultures.
I believe that all people without distinction are made in the image of God, but all are now sinners and have incurred both God`s holy wrath and their own shame and guilt. All are therefore in utter need of redemption.
I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, the incarnate Son of God, uniquely God-man and the only Savior. I believe in his virgin birth, sinless life, sacrificial death, bodily resurrection and ascension. I believe he has achieved the final defeat of Satan and all evil powers.
I believe in the justification of sinners by God`s grace, through faith in Christ alone.
I believe in the Holy Spirit and in his convicting, regenerating, sanctifying and reviving work. He guides and empowers individuals and churches in their service to God and man.
I believe in the unity and priesthood of all believers who together form the one, holy, universal, apostolic church.
I believe in the visible, personal return of Jesus Christ in power and great glory to judge both the living and the dead. We believe that the Scriptures set out only two destinies for humanity: the joyful prospect of eternal life in the presence of God for those who have received Christ, and the agonizing prospect of eternal separation from God for those who have rejected him.
“Yet this sits at the tip of a rather lengthy list of other historical anomalies which, taken as a whole, point strongly to a human vs divine origin of Mormonism.”
Whatever you may personally think of such discoveries as I’ve pointed to, the fact remains that they exist and they increase the plausibility of there being a civilization such as described in the BoM.
Arguing that a lack of evidence indicates a human origin is logically invalid. The Nephite civilization existed for a very short time, only 1000 years (and it was nearly destroyed after the first 600 years by natural disasters) in a relatively small area, it went though a long, bloody and devastating war that destroyed their civilization and where the survivors descended into barbarism, then we have no record of what went on for more than 1000 years after that. It’s quite possible for such a civilization to be gone without sufficient evidence left to indicate it ever existed.
“Smith seems to be asserting higher knowledge, that creates a quandary. He is here not saying it is his understanding..”
There is no quandary from our POV. It doesn’t matter how emphatically someone claims something, it is not our doctrine unless accepted by the process I previously stated. If he wanted to assert it as doctrine received by revelation, he could have started that process himself but he did not do so.
“Was Joseph Smith your prophet? ...and to test him against what scripture tells us about discerning prophets.”
I absolutely believe Joseph Smith to be a true prophet of God. I’m well aware of what the Bible say of prophets, and I’m also well aware of how some try to twist that, and/or twist Joseph’s words to manufacture an accusation against him. You might find this article interesting: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html
“transubstantiation for example, which I would suggest is not ‘misinterpretation’, but rather reliance on human tradition and wisdom vs what is presented in the Bible.”
They claim it is supported by scripture, and that is based on a min-interpretation of those verses.
“Let’s narrow the field by giving a definition of Christianity... I’ll present this as a statement of what followers of Christ throughout the ages have been in clear agreement on.”
Christianity is any religion that holds that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Son of God. The dictionary is pretty clear on that and doesn’t require the acceptance of the trinity or any other specific doctrine.
What you present as a list of things Christians have followed through the ages is only a list of what defines the current view of what is orthodox Christian theology. In the first century subordinationalism, not trinity, was orthodox. At the same time theosis was orthodox, but today we Mormons are called heretics for it. Authority came from living apostles, not from books that men can interpret this way or that based on their bias and traditions, likewise the ‘priesthood of all believers’ is not something found in original Christianity or the Bible.