hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/16/90)
[Cindy writes about the visit of Martin Harris to Charles Anthon I will quote only part of the Anthon letter to Howe below and will then give my summary and response. HL] >**** Begin Quote **** > >New York, N.Y., Feb. 17, 1834 >Mr. E. D. Howe >Painseville, Ohio > >Dear Sir: ... >suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion >from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?? >leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It is not at all obvious to me why Anthon would decline giving a written opinion, particularly if he was interested in preventing a fraud as he claimed. ----------------------------- At this point I will attach some comments of my own: The Visit of Martin Harris to Charles Anthon In February 1828 Martin Harris visited Professor Charles Anthon in New York City, showing him some characters Joseph Smith said he had copied from the Book of Mormon Plates, together with the translation of some of them. This much is not in dispute. However, Harris and Anthon give drastically different accounts as to what happened during this visit: Harris: Anthon stated that the characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic and that the translation was correct. "He gave me a certificate" [to that effect]. However, when told that the plates had been found under the direction of an angel he asked for the certificate back, tore it to pieces and said that there was no longer any such thing as ministering of angels. Anthon: Harris did show him the characters but he found them to be clumsy imitations and advised Harris not to waste his money supporting such a cause, refusing however to provide the written opinion Harris requested. Clearly one of the 2 men was not telling the truth. The question is which? I think there are some things which can help us decide. First, what had each man to gain by what he said or could have said? Harris: Martin Harris was being asked to provide financial support for the publication of the book. If he believed it a hoax he would clearly feel no obligation to do so. There seems to be no reason for Harris to claim the characters were genuine if they were not. Calling the characters bogus would allow him to return to his normal life without the persecution and probable financial loss he would suffer by continued association with the book. However, calling them genuine if the were not would risk both his reputation and financial security. Anthon: As a "man of letters" he could reasonably worry about the adverse effect of this incident on his reputation. He would gain nothing by agreeing with Harris' story and might loose much. A professor supporting an unpopular religion, especially a story about the appearance of angels, might become the subject of ridicule. Even if Harris' account is true, he had to be tempted to deny it. Second, what about the honesty of the 2 men? Harris: Harris' honesty was not in question among his contemporaries and even Charles Anthon consistently recalled that he sought assurance that his possible investment of time and money in the Joseph Smith venture would be prudent. (Richard L. Anderson, _Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses_ SLC, Deseret Book, 1981, pp 95-120, 167-170, esp p108) Anthon: Charles Anthon was probably the best qualified person in New York in the Egyptian language, having probably the best library for the purpose in private hands in the U.S. His reputation for honesty however seems a bit lacking. He was regarded as a shameless plagiarist. (B.L. Gildersleeve, "Necessity of the Classics," _Southern Quarterly Review_, 10 [26] (July 1854) pp163-4,166. Also see Stephen Newmyer, "Charles Anthon: Knickerbocker Scholar," _Classical Outlook_, 59:2 (Dec-Jan 1981-82), pp41-44) Third, could anybody else shed light on the subject? Not many, but there was an Episcopal priest in Palmyra, Rev. John A. Clark who spoke to Harris on his return trip. Clark said that the description given then by Harris conveyed nothing of the supposed "discouragements which the professor threw upon his enterprise." (Clark, _Gleanings by the Way_, NY: R Carter/Phila.:W.K. & J.K. Simon, 1842, pp229, 238). Finally, what was the outcome of this visit? Martin Harris went home and morgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. Eventually he had to sell half the farm to pay that morgage. Hardly the action we expect of a man who has just taken a lot of trouble to investigate an enterprise and found it to be a hoax. While not definite proof, the evidence points to Harris as the more trustworthy of the 2 and his story as more in accord with the other known facts. Based on the evidence I believe Anthon was at best indulging in selective memory recall. Harris' story seems more likely to be true. [Maybe one of the two is lying. However it's surprising how two people can have different memories of the same incident. My suspicion is that Anthon may not have been quite so clear in his denials -- particularly as heard by someone who might not have followed all of his scholarly references -- as he later remembered. And that Harris may have been eager enough to have his wishes confirmed that he heard ambiguous language as confirmation. About tearing up the certificate: both reports agree that Anthon refused to let Harris leave with a written document. Anthon's somewhat odd comment about asking for written confirmation, which he refused to give, together with Anthon's story of the torn-up certificate, suggests to me that Anthon did in fact start out by writing something for Harris, but tearing it up. It's hard to be sure why. Again, I suspect that Anthon's statement may have been hedged in qualifications, and that during the course of the discussion he realized Harris would treat it as confirmation and use it in ways that would embarrass Anthon. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/17/90)
[This is my response to the second part of Cindy Smith's last posting (as received here). I sent in my response to the first part a bit ago, having split it in 2 to keep length down. Of course it is possible you may see this one before the other but I don't think it will make a lot of difference. hl] Cindy Writes: >6. "Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being in >possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of >flesh and bones..." (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1965, >p. 44). >7. "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the >beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the >earth" (Abraham 4:1). How about Gen 3:22, "And God said, Behold the man is become as one of *us*." [emphasis mine] I think you will find the plural used quite freely in reference to God in this part of the Bible if you investigate the original Hebrew. >10. "Christ was the God, the Father of all things...Behold, I am Jesus Christ. >I am the Father and the Son" (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon). I think you are trying to claim that the Book of Mormon says that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Not so, read the context. Jesus is Father in the sense that he is our redeemer and thus the "father of our salvation" and also in that God the Father delegated to him the actual creation of the earth. .................................................. [A lot of unofficial (and sometimes out of context) stuff deleted, purporting to show that LDS belief is that Adam was God.] The official LDS position on Adam is that he was Michael the archangel (D&C 27:11, 107:54, 128:21). This is not only official, being in cannonized scripture, but was written long before the unofficial sources you get from Walter Martin. (We believe that most angels are humans who have either not yet come to earth or have lived here and died. We believe that all of us lived as spirits before comming here. Thus having a man such as Adam identified with an angel fits right in.) Adam is also regarded as the father of the race and as such deserving of the honor due our first parent. However, he is not our God. >That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no >student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene creed and early >church theology on the Trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares: >"It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and >contradictions expressed in words as here...The immateriality of God as >asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with >the Scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's person >and attributes..." (p. 48). Certainly LDS belief rejects the God without body, parts or passions of the creeds. While this trinitarian view may indeed be historic is is less certain that the Trinity is the God of the prophets, many of us think it is more the God of the philosophers. There have been previous exchanges on the subject of Trinity here and on t.r.m. I think neither side could claim any clear victory. Since according to at least one scholar trinitarian doctrine originated 300-400 years after Christ, I think it is pushing things a bit to insist that all Christians must accept it. >................................ > > In Mormon theology, Christ as a pre-existent spirit was not only the spirit >brother of the devil (as alluded to in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4, >and later reaffirmed by Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. >282), but celebrated his own marriage to both "the Marys and Martha, whereby he >could see his seed before he was crucified" (apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of >Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 259-260). Cindy, would you care to explain what you are trying to say here? You seem to be addressing 2 rather unrelated subjects, even refering to different volumes of JOD, in the same sentence. What is your point? And how do the 2 unrelated quotes fit into it? > [Brigham Young]: "Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and >put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would >atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once >do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, i have no wife whom I love >so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it >with clean hands... > "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, >that they will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never >wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgements [sic.] of >the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to >atone for their covenants...All mankin love themselves, and let these >principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood >shed...I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously >slain, in order to atone for their sins...This is loving our neighbor as >ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is >necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill >it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. III,p. 247, and Vol. 14, pp. 219-220). Once again you mix things from different volumes without indicating which is which. I think you are also trying to compare this with your previous BoM and D&C quotes (separated from this in your posting by quite a bit of other stuff, I've brought it down here for reference): > In Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 the following statement appears: > "All those who humble themselves...and truly manifest by their works that they >have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall >be received by baptism in His church." > >[In the Book of Mormon]: "Yea, blessed are they who shall...be baptized, for >they shall...receive a remission of their sins...Behold, baptism is unto >repentance to the fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sins" >(3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11). Cindy, you have 2 different issues confused here (in addition to the confusion of your out of context and unofficial quotes). One is the forgiveness of sins for the repentant sinner, the other is the deliberate sinning by one who has had that forgiveness and made covenants with the Lord to follow him. If you want a strong statement about forgiveness not being available to those who deliberatly turn away from Jesus you need look no further than your Bible: Heb 6:4-6: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance; seeing tehy crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Heb 10:26-27: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. > > There's much more. Obviously, this author does not favor Mormonism. I quoted >his quotes of Mormons, along with some of his comments. (I hope I didn't quote >too much. I skipped around to find Mormon quotes. How much can you quote >directly from a book to generate discussion anyway?) > > LDS doctrine is really rather limited as to what members are > expected to believe. The cannonized scriptures and a few official > statements of the "First Presidency" are about it. However, we are > encouraged to think and study for ourselves and some of this gets > published. It is useful to give others something to think about but > in general is not official. [Cindy, I wish you would be a bit more careful about quotes and atributions. The above 6 lines are from one of my posts but are mixed in with your other stuff to the point that I suspect readers have a hard time figuring out which is which. hl] >Mormons knew what their theology taught they might not believe it. Most >Mormons, he maintains, are decent, clean living folk, who are largely unaware >of the inconsistencies and outrageous blasphemies of their religion. While there is certainly room for most LDS to learn more about their religion, most do know enough to know that Walter Martin's version of it is rather distorted. You (and he) seem to think that we don't know what we believe. Are you claiming we believe something but don't know it? > I think >Mormons want to be Christians, and believe they are Christians, but the >theology of the Latter-day Saints is simply not Christianity. Perhaps, over >time, the Mormon Church will continue to repudiate so many of the outrageous >statements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others that they will rejoin >the ranks of Christianity. An assertion as to the truthfulness and accuracy of >the Apostles Creed would be a good start. I am less concerned if you or Walter Martin believe I am a Christian than I am about if the Lord does.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/21/90)
[This continues the discussion on Charles Anthon's evaluation of material from the Book of Mormon brought to him by Martin Harris. Cindy Smith posted some quotations from Anthon, claiming that he had told Harris that the material was fradulent. Harris later claimed that Anthon validated it, but refused to give him anything in writing. Hal Lillywhite responded with claims that Anthon was known to be less than totally honest in his scholarship, and that Harris was the more credible of the two. I tried to come up with an interpretation that was consistent with what both said. I was able to do so under the assumption that Anthon had said things that were ambiguous enough to be taken as support by Harris, but refused to give Harris his written evaluation when he saw how it would likely be interpreted and used. --clh] I must agree that Anthon was concerned that he might be embarrassed. However I don't see how he would be embarrassed by a written statement that the characters were bogus. This would be similar to the debunking routinely done by learned men when presented with error. Of course had he said the characters were (or might be) genuine his concern would be quite valid. Whatever Anthon actually said, I am convinced that his attitude changed when he heard that angels were involved in this event. [My theory was that Anthon did not believe that the Book of Mormon was genuine, but that he may have been more interested in looking impressive than in giving Harris clear information. Suppose he made learned-sounding comments about similarities and differences with Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., characters, rather than giving a clear opinion. Such talk could easily have misled Harris into believing Anthon was confirming the document as ancient. Whatever Anthon had written out (which Harris interpreted as a "certificate") might have been similar, though it's not clear from what Harris says that he ever actually had a chance to read the "certificate", so we really don't know what it said. My assumption was that Anthon was deterred, not so much by hearing about angels, but by realizing that his name might end up being used in public as an endorser of the Book of Mormon. It's one thing if some farmer ends up getting the wrong idea, but if Anthon was quoted publically as a supporter, it could make him a laughing stock among his scholarly peers. Clearly my comments are wildly conjectural. I was simply trying to show that it was possible to come up with an explanation that was consistent with what both people said. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/24/90)
[Stephen Simmons posted a long article in an exchange with John Pimentel on the subject of errors in the Bible and other things having to do with LDS belief. I will try to respond to this but will delete much of it to keep this to a reasonable length. Stephen's main claim is that the Bible is quite accurate and that we have a lot of ancient manuscripts to back this up. hl] Stephen writes: >As the moderator pointed out, and as I tried to point out in the >previous posting, the original meaning has not been lost because we >still have manuscripts (even ones quite ancient) in the original >languages. This still leaves the question of how close those manuscripts are to the original which of course we do not have for any biblical text. Without that original we are reduced to trying to use the various versions we have to determine how accurate what we have is. The typical technique is to compare the various manuscripts, see how well they agree, and try to determine which makes most sense where they disagree. There's a bit of controversy here, some saying that the disagreements are minor while others claim they are significant. I can't help wondering how much one's viewpoint here is affected by previous acceptance of such things as "inerrancy." In fact, I've noticed that those who believe in "Bible only" tend to claim there are no significant errors while those who have rejected that viewpoint usually claim that the differences really mean something. This effect seems to affect scholars as well as lay people. Let me give an example of one case where we have evidence the copists changed the document accidently. I use this particular example only because I happened to read it last night in a new translation of Isaiah with commentary by Avraham Gileadi. Isa 28:1 in the KJV reads, "Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim...which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine." According to Gileadi this is a pretty good translation from the Masoretic text. However, the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) Isaiah (1QIs) has "the opulent" instead of "fat valleys" leading to the more sensible translation of the last part, "...on the head of the opulent overcome with wine." The difference in Hebrew is one repeated letter which gets left out of the Masoretic (haplography?) totally changing the meaning of some words. It is as though our word "been" were similarly robbed of one "e" and became ben. If we have no capitals readers might wonder where this guy Ben came from. Interestingly, in verse 4 we find the identical phrase with the identical problem. Again KJV has the term "fat valleys" while 1QIs gives "the opulent." I once posted a few quotes of the Bible contradicting itself. I could do so again but don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about inerrancy - I think most people realize there are some minor errors in it. The question seems to revolve more around what some refer to as "theological inerrancy." The claim seems to be that in spite of some errors the Bible has no errors of theology. One problem I have with this is that there is not even agreement in the Christian world as to what books are in the Bible, the Catholic and Protestants have different versions. Read any discussion on prayer for the dead, either here or on t.r.m. and you will find Catholics quoting Macabees to support their position while Protestants counter that it is not scripture. Since this subject came up in the context of LDS belief, you should know that part of the reason the LDS think the Bible alone is inadequate is a belief that "many plain and precious things" have been lost from it (see BoM, 1 Nephi 13:26-29). While it is true we believe there are some errors in the Bible, I think the main problem is what is *not* in the Bible. In fact, there have on occasion been postings here and on t.r.m listing books once considered scripture but not in our current Bibles, above and beyond the Catholic/Protestant differences. >If I may clarify, scholars preserved copies of these in the original >language. This is a pretty simple operation, and provided no mistakes >are made in the process, a perfect replica of the original (other than >the handwriting style) is produced. However, mistakes did creep in, >and the scribes and copyists were not ignorant of this possibility. >In fact, some of the extremes that the Jewish scribes went to to >preserve the quality of the O.T. text are almost unbelievable. They >kept counts of the total number of letters in each book and chapter of >the Old Testament. The kept track of the middle letter of each verse, >chapter and book. In this means the Talmudic and Masoretic texts of >the Old Testament were preserved. This kind of error checking >precludes many mistakes. Certainly we owe the Jews a debt of gratitude for their efforts in preserving the Old Testament. I'm sure these efforts did catch many mistakes but not all of them. Any manual error checking is itself prone to error. Our QA folks claim that inspection will catch at best 85% of the problems, 15% or more go undetected. >As you mentioned, the English Bible was translated in about 1540. It >was not translated from 16th century Greek manuscripts, however. It >was translated from 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th century Greek manuscripts >and 10th century Hebrew manuscripts. However, as time passed, some >remarkable discoveries were made, and our moderator has noted some of >these and modern translations have been largely translated from these. How many corrections were made as a result of the discovery of these older manuscripts? I don't know the answer but I suspect there were a few. If there were differences between the 7th-10th century manuscripts and the recent discoveries, why should we believe there are no differences between the recent discoveries and the originals? >Not all of these manuscripts are complete, but many are: ...[list of manuscripts deleted] >possible different mistakes. According to one (liberal, not >conservative) scholar, there are only about 40 uncertainties in the >New Testament that affect the meaning of the text. None of these >cover any major doctrine (such as some that the BoM disagree with). (A reference would be nice here. Who was this scholar and where did he make this statement?) The problem with anything other than the original is that both the copist and anybody checking his work tend to see what they think they should see. Make no mistake, this is tedious work. Your mind tends to go on autopilot and anything which can accidently be read to agree with prevailing belief probably will be read that way. I'm not sure it's worth arguing over how many NT uncertainties affect the meaning of the text. The fact that there are a few will suffice to justify the idea that we believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly." Please don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is remarkably accurate. I just don't think it is free of errors, theological or any other kind. >And the evidence I presented above concerning the New Testament does >not even consider the times that the Bible was quoted. A guy by the >name of Sir Richard Darymaple (I think that's his name) was posed this >question by his students: if all the copies of the New Testament were >destroyed before 300 AD, and all that was available to Christians of >that day were the writings of the early Church Fathers, how much of >the New Testament could be reconstructed? >After a bit of analysis (several years), the answer came: all but >eleven verses. The early church writers (before Eusebius, but not >including him) quoted the New Testament over 32,000 times that we >still have record of today, and of these quotations, all but 11 verses >of the New Testament are covered. Altogether, there are over 84,000 >quotations of the Bible from the time of Jerome or earlier (I'll have >to check this, though). Interesting. However, to evaluate the significance of this we need to know what other sources these Church Fathers quoted and how someone would know which were which. If we had only their writings we would probably pull out a lot of stuff not in our current NT and have no reason to consider it any less authoritative than what is now in the cannon. ... >[*** >End Bible Evidence -- Long >***] >Because of this "controversy," I have recently started reading the Book >of Mormon to see what it is about. Today, I read a verse that said >something to this effect: >"and an angel said it, wherefor can one doubt?" (I don't have the BoM >handy. I'll look it up for anyone who is interested). Probably 1 Nephi 4:2. The situation is that Nephi and his brothers had been sent to get a copy of the scriptures but had had some difficulty (like being robbed and nearly killed). His older brothers wanted to give up and beat Nephi and Sam, another brother, with a stick. An angel appeared, reprimanded them, and told them to try again, promising success. The older brothers continued to murmur. It is in this context Nephi says, "...an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt?" >Indeed, this verse disturbed me deeply. The writer of the text >trusted an angel because he was an angel. But that's in stark >contrast to the statement of the Bible: >"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to >you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:9. I think Paul was using hyperbole. Do you really think an angel from heaven is going to preach falsehood? Paul was emphasizing the importance of holding fast to the truth. After all, didn't John trust the angel speaking to him in Revelation? >Why? because, "And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself >into an angel of light." 2 Cor. 11:14 >"Now he who keeps His commandments abides iin Him, and He in him. And >by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given >us. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, >whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out >into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that >confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every >spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in he flesh is >not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have >heard was coming, and is now already in the world." 1 John 3:24-4:3. Do you really believe this? If so you will accept the Book of Mormon because it testifies strongly that Jesus has come in the flesh. >So now we come to the other part of the verse from Galatians: does the >Book of Mormon contradict the teachings of Paul: preliminary >investigations indicate that it does. Except you didn't bother to list any of these supposed contradictions. Evidence please. >Another very curious thing about the Book of Mormon. The name "Jesus" >is very rare. I have encountered it two or three times. Instead of >Jesus, I find Christ. Now, if you have read the New Testament, you >know that Paul almost uses the terms interchangably. In fact, he uses >Christ a bit more than Jesus. But the ratio that I have discovered in >the BoM is more like 40:1. And when there are direction quotations of >Jesus, so far, it has always been "and Christ said." This phrase >never occurs in the Bible. Not even in "Jesus Christ," but only >"Jesus said" or variants thereof. >What is the significance to this? In my experience, the name of Jesus >is a difficult name to say sometimes. Sometimes, even in front of >Christians it is difficult to say Jesus. Christ is very much an >easier word to say. And when I say difficulty here, I refer to the >fact that it takes spiritual effort to choose the word Jesus over >Christ. There is power in the name of Jesus that's not present in the >word "Christ." Even if you had not exagerated the ratio (which I believe you have done) I don't think this is significant. "Christ" means "the annointed one" or "messiah." Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, "God is help" or "saviour." "Christ" probably does distinguish him from a lot of other Jews named Joshua. >One more thing that I discovered: the prophet Nephi (about 600 BC), >and the brother of Jared (about 2200 BC) had great revelations of >Jesus Christ. They had many details about Jesus that no other >prophet, including Isaiah was given. Why is this surprising? Well, >look at the details: > Jesus death on the cross was clearly foretold; > The atoning purpose of the death was clearly foretold; > The fact that salvation would come to all men was clearly foretold >But if you read the Bible you find that "had they [Satan and his >forces] known [about the results of the resurrection] they would not >have crucified the Lord of glory." (I'll get the exact quote for any >interested party). And thus, that is why neither the purpose nor the >plan of Jesus' coming was given in detail in the Bible. This makes me >severely doubt that the book of Mormon (specifically Nephi & Ether) >was written before 33 AD, as the book supposes. Please get your reference. If it's what I believe it is, Paul was refering to certain of the Jews, not to Satan. Are you claiming that the OT prophets didn't know and prophecy of the Messiah? And quite clearly at that? To do so would undermine much of Christian belief. Some of this sounds like higher critisism of Isaiah. It must have been written later because Isaiah couldn't have known the name of Cyrus. >>From a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon, I find many things (I'll >provide a list of current "discoveries" to any one interested) that >are unacceptable to me because they contradict what the Bible says and >because some of them seem quite unhistorical. If I am misusing these >quotations and the BoM does not contradict the Bible, then, pardon me >& correct me; the BoM is only misleading, not incorrect. Since you haven't listed any real disagreements, it's kind of hard to show that they don't contradict. All you've done is said that the Book of Mormon is more specific than the Bible in giving the name of Jesus and describing his death before it happened. >Because of this, though, Mormons, like Muslims are forced to the >questionable conclusion that the Bible has many mistakes, whether >intentional or unintentional. But as I have shown, this is very >unlikely. And neither groups have given me a shred of manuscript >evidence to support their claim that the Bible is unreliable (although >to be fair, I have not dealt much with Mormons, and they may posses >such evidence somewhere). We just had a round of this on t.r.m. If you really want such evidence try something like Hugh Nibley's books: _An Approach to the Book of Mormon_ _The Prophetic Book of Mormon_ _Lehi in the Desert_, _The World of the Jaredites_, and _There were Jaredites_ (bound as a single book) >P.S. Does any one have a computerized version of the BoM? Yes (not me but it exists). You can get it along with the KJV Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price and a search "engine" for $70 or so from the church. You are also allowed to copy it from a friend if he has one provided you buy a license and instruction manual for about $35 (the "engine" is a commercial product from I don't know who and they are concerned with making money). If interested the best way to find this is probably to find some local LDS member who is into computers. Call the church listed in the phone book to start.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/27/90)
In article <Aug.24.04.26.47.1990.29704@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes (and writes and writes :-): >[Stephen Simmons writes] >>P.S. Does any one have a computerized version of the BoM? >Yes (not me but it exists). You can get it along with the KJV >Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price and a search >"engine" for $70 or so from the church. You are also allowed to >copy it from a friend if he has one provided you buy a license and >instruction manual for about $35 (the "engine" is a commercial >product from I don't know who and they are concerned with making >money). If interested the best way to find this is probably to find >some local LDS member who is into computers. Call the church listed >in the phone book to start. Well, about the day after I wrote this I got some email which I unfortunately threw away. The cost of this program is changing drastically for the better, it is now available for $34 including all diskettes. The license only cost is now $10. A new version (supposed to be much improved) will be available about the first of the year. Registered owners of the old version will receive the new version free. My now anonymous informant also tells me that there is a non-church version avaliable also but I don't remember the company which produces it. This version takes less disk space (about 4 Meg vs 12) but is apparently less user friendly than the church version. He has found a few typos in the non-church version but not in the church version (though it's hard to imagine a work of this magnitude having none at all). If he is reading perhaps he can post a full comparison with ordering information.