How did Mark 16:18 get into the Book of Mormon?

[_Amore]

The easy answer is that Joseph didn't know this fact when he made his fiction up...but how do LDS apologists explain this away?

It is fiction - as is everything - even a good percentage of scientific "facts" turn out to be partly or entirely fiction. It would be nice if both sides of the fence came to see scripture as subjective writings - as all writings are, and take the spirit of it - and stop getting hung up on trivial nonsense.

Sorry, if this thread was supposed to be a vent about blind faith in the face of contrary subjectivity.
I've had plenty of those vents, so carry on.

[_Nevo]

The reason I think it is nonsense is now all scribes are inspired to speak for God (your assertion here). The problem I have with that is the scribe is deceiving us about who actually wrote the text and was not witness to the actual events. Do you really consider deception an inspired godly practice? And if that is true, why even have prophets and apostles at all?!? It would have been easier for God to just have inspired the scribes (since they ultimately were writing it anyway) to make it all up (and according to you it is just as good).

As far as I am aware, nearly all of the Old Testament was written by scribes, so no, I don't think it's impossible for scribes to produce inspired writings. It's also my understanding that none of the Gospels—which are anonymous compositions, by the way—were written by eyewitnesses. As far as inspiration is concerned, I take Moroni's view that "whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of [God]" (Ether 4:12; cf. Omni 1:25; Alma 5:40; Moroni 7:16).

[_Equality]

I take Moroni's view that "whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of [God]"

So Moroni's ethics were basically those of a secular humanist.

[_Kishkumen]

I am disappointed in you, Nevo. If Jesus speaks the truth, what need hath He to change it up to satisfy your unbelieving mind?

[_Tobin]

The reason I think it is nonsense is now all scribes are inspired to speak for God (your assertion here). The problem I have with that is the scribe is deceiving us about who actually wrote the text and was not witness to the actual events. Do you really consider deception an inspired godly practice? And if that is true, why even have prophets and apostles at all?!? It would have been easier for God to just have inspired the scribes (since they ultimately were writing it anyway) to make it all up (and according to you it is just as good).

As far as I am aware, nearly all of the Old Testament was written by scribes, so no, I don't think it's impossible for scribes to produce inspired writings. It's also my understanding that none of the Gospels—which are anonymous compositions, by the way—were written by eyewitnesses. As far as inspiration is concerned, I take Moroni's view that "whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of [God]" (Ether 4:12; cf. Omni 1:25; Alma 5:40; Moroni 7:16).

Oh my, what a fascinating little insight this is. So according to you, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't actually written by the apostles at all. They were made up by someone else entirely. But that's ok because made up books about events written by other people that weren't the actual people that carry their names are just as good as the real thing. After all, according to God, as long as it accomplishes good - the ends justifies the means. I guess next you'll tell me that the books of the Book of Mormon weren't actually written by Nephi and so on. Instead they were written by Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery. God just inspired them to pen them under Nephi, Ether, Omni, Alma and Moroni's name instead.

[_Craig Paxton]

Oh my, what a fascinating little insight this is. So according to you, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't actually written by the apostles at all. They were made up by someone else entirely.

Ahhhhh....yeah..it's pretty common knowledge that the gospels were not written by Mathew, mark, Luke or John. And not to shock you but nearly half of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul either... Sorry to enlighten you...but truth hurts sometimes.

[_Aristotle Smith]

This one is really quite bad for the Book of Mormon. Consensus in biblical scholarship is hard to come by. But, the longer ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultery in John are seen by conservatives and liberals alike as being not original to the text of the New Testament. Defenders of the Book of Mormon will find it tough going to find anyone willing to offer them a fig leaf of "it was TOO original" to cover the embarassment.

Ahhhhh....yeah..it's pretty common knowledge that the gospels were not written by Mathew, mark, Luke or John. And not to shock you but nearly half of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul either... Sorry to enlighten you...but truth hurts sometimes.

I think both sides overstate their case on this one. Defenders of the traditional view overstate antiquity of the attribution, while those arguing the other view tend to emphasize that it wasn't the 4 traditional gospel writers. Since they are formally anonymous, we simply don't know who wrote the gospels.

Mak will probably disagree, but I think the winds of change are blowing in the opposite direction on the deutero-Paulines (Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thesaalonians). It is correct to say that the majority view is that those are not Pauline, but I do think that the consensus is beginning to weaken on those.

[_Nevo]

So according to you, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't actually written by the apostles at all. They were made up by someone else entirely.

I think Mark and Luke probably were written by Mark and Luke, but they were not apostles. Matthew was probably not written by the apostle Matthew. As Ulrich Luz notes, "if the author had been an apostle, as an eyewitness he would not have used the book of a non-eyewitness [Mark] as his main source." That the apostle Matthew may not have written the Gospel of Matthew was admitted by emeritus Seventy Elder Alexander B. Morrison in a keynote address at a Sperry Symposium a few years ago, so I'm not completely off the reservation on that one. I'm more heterodox when it comes to the Fourth Gospel. Although I don't rule out John's authorship, which virtually all LDS scholars affirm, I'm not convinced of it either. Most New Testament scholars hold that the Apostle John did not write it.

I do think the Gospel writers used eyewitness testimony in compiling their accounts, if that helps. I find many of Richard Bauckham's arguments in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses quite persuasive.

[_Tobin]

So according to you, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't actually written by the apostles at all. They were made up by someone else entirely.

I think Mark and Luke probably were written by Mark and Luke, but they were not apostles. Matthew was probably not written by the apostle Matthew. As Ulrich Luz notes, "if the author had been an apostle, as an eyewitness he would not have used the book of a non-eyewitness [Mark] as his main source." That the apostle Matthew may not have written the Gospel of Matthew was admitted by emeritus Seventy Elder Alexander B. Morrison in a keynote address at a Sperry Symposium a few years ago, so I'm not completely off the reservation on that one. I'm more heterodox when it comes to the Fourth Gospel. Although I don't rule out John's authorship, which virtually all LDS scholars affirm, I'm not convinced of it either. Most New Testament scholars hold that the Apostle John did not write it.

I do think the Gospel writers used eyewitness testimony in compiling their accounts, if that helps. I find many of Richard Bauckham's arguments in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses quite persuasive.

I guess it all depends on who you wish to listen to and believe. I personally view most of these contentions that these books weren't primarily authored by the men that they are traditionally attributed to as being complete speculative nonsense. I think when you have such a long tradition of who the primary authors are, you need to meet an extremely high bar (and actually have proof) to overturn it. I don't believe any such proof exists. All we have are competing accounts (most likely regional aberrations) and textual analysis (which in many cases is hokum) which overall just muddies the waters, but doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that bar.

Now, I'm willing to acknowledge that these accounts had to be compiled from eye witness accounts since obviously the authors of these accounts clearly weren't present at all the events they depict (and yes, especially in Luke's case). Also, these men likely employed helpers such as an amanuensis, which I think goes a very long way in explaining discrepancies in the composition of these works. However, as I've said, I don't find any of that surprising or anywhere near compelling enough to come to the foolish conclusion that we need to reject the traditional view of who the authors were.

[_Chomsky]

Longer ending of Mark.... Check.

Deutero-Isaiah.... Check.