If a Mormon throws out the BoM, it is nearly impossible not to throw out the Bible on the same grounds. It is my opinion that Bible believers don’t put the Bible through the same gauntlet as they do the BoM. If they did, I think they would have to believe as Margie does.

I hold open that possibility, but so far I have found that there are generally sufficient answers when it comes to the Bible. You are correct that we see this differently since you put it in terms of putting both works “through the same gauntlet” and I suggest that the BOM doesn’t even get off the ground since it cannot be placed into a legitimate historical context. But we will probably just have to agree to disagree on that.

So, yes to be consistent, if one rejects the BoM, I don’t see how one can be anything but an atheist, or an agnostic. Perhaps one can still believe in God, but any Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist beliefs in this God must all be in error. At that point, a person would view all religion as man made.

I legitimately don’t understand this. To clarify, I understand the mindset that Mormonism is allegedly a higher form of Christianity, therefore if Christianity is not true, then neither is Mormonism… but the converse simply does not hold. Why not? Because Mormonism piggy-backs on Christianity, not the other way around. The claims of Christ came first. Joseph Smith came second. Joseph claimed to restore a Christianity that had allegedly lost it’s way, but there were/are plenty of people who disagree that a “restoration” was ever needed. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then sure, a restoration must have been needed, but if Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then his claims about a restoration are also false. Therefore the claims of Christ need to be evaluated separately to any claims of Joseph Smith and should rise or fall on their own merits regardless of anything Joseph claimed.

I do wonder, if you became convinced that Nahom was a legitimate BoM location, how would that affect your convictions on the Spaulding theory?

There would be at least three ways to view it…

1. The location is a valid BOM location which should prompt plenty of additional investigation and should lead to future finds

2. The location is a coincidence (yes, the coincidence argument works for critics too! LOL!)

3. Spalding, Smith, Cowdery or whoever wrote that section of the BOM (or whoever was plagiarized from to produce it) had access to that information and built it into the story

At this point I’d say #2 is most likely–especially considering that “Nahom” is a very Biblical sounding construction. BTW, the difference when Spalding advocates employ the coincidence argument vs. Spalding critics is the talley…. so far we’ve appealled to “coincidence” one time, whereas you guys are so familiar with it, it has become second nature to you! LOL!

All the best!

For a Mormon to reject the BoM on the basis of logic, then they must also reject the Bible based on logic. Once again, I know you don’t view it that way. My “attack” on the Bible was an attempt to get you to understand how a Mormon views the BoM and Bible. If a Mormon throws out the BoM, it is nearly impossible not to throw out the Bible on the same grounds. It is my opinion that Bible believers don’t put the Bible through the same gauntlet as they do the BoM. If they did, I think they would have to believe as Margie does.

That’s why I think it is so hard for a Mormon to leave Mormonism and accept any other faith, because rejecting the BoM is in essence, rejecting the Bible. I know you don’t view them as related, but for a Mormon, that’s how we view things. So, yes to be consistent, if one rejects the BoM, I don’t see how one can be anything but an atheist, or an agnostic. Perhaps one can still believe in God, but any Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist beliefs in this God must all be in error. At that point, a person would view all religion as man made.

Like you, I am not a Biblical literalist. This Yale course on the OT is VERY interesting. To clarify once again, I don’t view the Bible as simply plagiarism. I do wonder, if you became convinced that Nahom was a legitimate BoM location, how would that affect your convictions on the Spaulding theory? (I know this is off topic, but I have said all I want to say on Spalding for the foreseeable future.)

I don’t see a problem with either of us pointing out the other’s bad logic, but you seem to.

But what you’re pointing out–whether true or not–is irrelevant to what the S/R theory postulates. Craig, for example, is an atheist and accepts S/R (in fact he’s one of it’s prominent proponents). Are you saying the only way I could embrace S/R and still be consistent (in your opinion) is to become an atheist? Or do you think Craig’s views are inconsistent too?

You also seem intent on attacking the authenticity of the Bible, which I find a bit strange since, as far as I know, LDS accept the authenticity of the Bible. I understand the need to return fire, since I am attacking the authenticity of the BOM, but aren’t you undermining your own beliefs at the same time? If, as you seem to believe, the Bible is full of plagiarisms, how does that help the case for the BOM? Apparently you acknowledge that it doesn’t help, but actually hurts when you write:

If Jesus is not divine, then by necessity, the BoM is a fake. This means Jesus never visited the Nephites, just as he never visited Paul.

So it seems strange that you would take a critical approach toward attacking S/R that you freely acknowledge simultaneously undermines your own position. You continue:

One must have faith in Biblical stories. I do, and I believe you do as well.

Sure I do, but if I were to discover that the charges you are making against the Bible are true, it would impact my faith. I do not want to have faith in something that is not true.

I can’t prove Noah’s ark ever existed, you can’t prove that the ark of the covenant ever existed. Likewise, I can’t defend that the golden plates ever existed, and you can’t defend that Spalding had another manuscript.

Actually I can, and, with evidence that IS admissable in court… it’s called testimonial evidence from credible eyewitnesses combined with other circumstantial evidence. This is one of the main reasons I DO think the S/R theory would hold up better than the other two competitors in a legal setting.

I’m ready to put this to whole topic to rest. Neither one of us making any headway with the other person. I would like to leave you with one last link, and would love to have you comment there. Please comment on this link about Nahom.

If NHM really were the BOM Nahom, then that would indeed be something. Needless to say, I don’t think it is and it cannot be conclusively shown that it is. What we actually find is NHM. Could it be? Possibly, but not very likely.

You’re welcome to a rebuttal here, and you can have the last word on this topic. You’ve been a pleasant opponent, and I do hope you will comment on other topics here.

As have you.

(I’m spending so much time rebutting you, that I can’t seem to get my Balaam post done. I thought it was done yesterday, and then I accidentally erased it. )

Sorry about that! I hate it when that happens and I can empathize because I have lost plenty of posts like that!

I agree, we are both spinning our wheels at this point and not making progress. As I stated earlier, at the very least, at least maybe I’ve given you some new information to chew on. I likely will not post on other topics because I am researching S/R for the moment and want to keep my focus there as much as possible. If you come across any new and mortally wounding evidence against S/R, however, let me know!

All the best!

There are scholars who say the Old Testament was written anywhere between as late as the 3rd or 4th century BC to as early as 1200 BC. This would be at least 100-1000 years after the time of Moses, yet Moses is a considerable chunk. If we are generous, and assume the Bible was written in 1200 BC, that is still 2800 years after Adam. The time period between Lehi and Joseph Smith is 2400 years. Even if one concludes that Joseph faked a 2400 year old person named Lehi, the Bible has faked a 2800 person named Adam. Modifying your quote a bit, “the question of plagiarism becomes critical to evaluating the [Bible] because the possible sources we are considering are [13th or 3rd] century sources[, not 41st century sources]! (Assuming Adam lived in 4000 BC, which follows the Jewish calendar and seems supported by most Biblical scholars.)

There is zero evidence for either Adam or Lehi, zero evidence for Noah or King Noah, zero evidence for Moses or Abinadi. There is zero evidence for a missing Spalding manuscript, zero evidence for golden plates. There is zero evidence for Jesus divinity, let alone Jesus. If you think that the logic of Spalding Theory proves the BoM is plagiarism from a non-existent manuscript, there is ample evidence to conclude the Bible plagiarism from non-existent and existing manuscripts as well. If Jesus is not divine, then by necessity, the BoM is a fake. This means Jesus never visited the Nephites, just as he never visited Paul.

One must have faith in the Bible–as a historical record, it is terrible and filled with internal inconsistencies. While there are places we know in the Bible, there are plenty of places we don’t know. Where did Job live? Where is the Garden of Eden? We don’t even know where Mt Sinai is, and there is ample evidence what we call Mt Sinai today is not the actual Mt Sinai of Moses. Anything the Bible says prior to 700 BC is questionable, as well as many things after 700 BC. There is no evidence Christ was resurrected, we have no writings of his, we don’t have evidence of miracles. From an evidence standpoint, the Bible is very weak. Sure there are some insignificant things we know (where is Nazareth, or the Red Sea), but more things we don’t know (was Jesus divine, or was Moses a real person). Science and reason haven’t proved the Bible has meaning in your life, and never will. One must have faith in Biblical stories. I do, and I believe you do as well. I can’t prove Noah’s ark ever existed, you can’t prove that the ark of the covenant ever existed. Likewise, I can’t defend that the golden plates ever existed, and you can’t defend that Spalding had another manuscript. We can only conjecture, or have faith, none of which is satisfactory in a court of law, or the scientific community. I never tried to put the Bible or BoM in a courtroom–neither will hold up, nor will the Spalding theory.

I’m ready to put this to whole topic to rest. Neither one of us making any headway with the other person. I would like to leave you with one last link, and would love to have you comment there. Please comment on this link about Nahom.

You’re welcome to a rebuttal here, and you can have the last word on this topic. You’ve been a pleasant opponent, and I do hope you will comment on other topics here. (I’m spending so much time rebutting you, that I can’t seem to get my Balaam post done. I thought it was done yesterday, and then I accidentally erased it. )

Wow, I guess we’re overloading the system… either that or maybe God is trying to tell one of us to shut up. (No doubt it’s me!) LOL.

With regard to your last post, however… the title of this thread is: “Debunking the Spaulding Manuscript Theory.” I don’t see anything in that title indicating the topic was going to be “Roger’s alleged inconsistencies.” Suffice it to say that I do not see my logic as inconsistent, but whether it is or not is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I have already answered this alleged inconsistency charge in posts 14, 16, 23, 24, 26, 30 & 32. That you keep bringing it up seems to indicate that you prefer searching for some fault in a Spalding advocate because he is a Spalding advocate over confronting what the Spalding theory actually postulates… or am I wrong in coming to that conclusion?

The fact that the Bible is ancient is irrelevent to the question of plagiarism.

In the first place, whether or not there is plagiarism in the Bible is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is in the BOM. If, for example, Gilgamesh was copied by Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) that does not mean that Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spalding or Oliver Cowdery plagiarized any sources to create the BOM. Similarly, it also does not mean they didn’t. It is, therefore irrelevant. We can look for evidence in both cases, but concluding positive in one case does not imply we have to conclude it for the other… they are separate entities.

In the second place, the ancient question IS relevant to both cases. If you could show convincing evidence that the Biblical books were fabricated in the 19th century and did not exist prior to that time, it would demonstrate that the Biblical accounts are not trustworthy on their face since they proclaim to tell stories about real persons in real historical contexts that occured long before the 19th century. Instead, since they do mention real historical settings and persons that we can verify–ie. Nebuchadnezzar, Ceasar Agustus, Darius, etc, etc, their historicity is plausible and the contexts are real. So the debate then moves on to one of content rather than context. As I already stated, this is simply not the case with the BOM. Context has not been established for even one BOM book and so whether the text is legitimately ancient becomes a critical question when evaluating the BOM. If it cannot even pass this test, then there is no point in going any further.

In 1000 years, the BoM will be an ancient document. So by your logic, it won’t be plagiarism anymore because it is ancient.

Nonsense. The Biblical narratives describe events taking place thousands of years ago. The contexts of most of those events have been verified. There really is an Egypt, Isreal, Babylon, Assyria, etc. etc. There really were Pharaohs, there really was a Nebuchadnezzar (in fact I have a picture of myself standing in front of walls he constructed). Now… was there really a fiery furnace where three Hebrews were thrown and not consumed? Who knows? That is a matter of faith. But the stories were written by legitimately ancient people. EVEN IF they plagairized other sources (which has not been established) they would still be plagiarizing other ancient sources and the alleged plagiarism would have to be evaluated with that understanding.

But again, the question of plagiarism becomes critical to evaluating the BOM because the possible sources we are considering are 19th century sources! There is indeed a world of difference and I know you are smart enough to understand that. If, for example, Nephi plagairized from an Isaiah scroll he brought with him from Jerusalem, that is a huge difference from Joseph Smith (or Sidney Rigdon, etc.) producing what proclaims to be a translation of an ancient text but, instead, copying and embellishing material from the 19th century!

All the best!