Moroni quotes a scribal forgery

[_stemelbow]

So God quoted what He knew to be a forgery to Joseph Smith and passed if off as scripture?

What is scripture? You seem to think that true principles as seen by God is not scripture to Him? What is forgery to God?

God also knew the passage would eventually be exposed as fraudulent, but quoted it anyway, even though He could foresee the trouble it would cause His church? That's like God quoting Hofmann forgeries to Pres. Kimball and calling them scripture! Good grief, that's absurd.

The passage teaches the message God intended. Of course, what trouble has it caused His Church? None in HIs eyes.

[_stemelbow]

In the end, it seems to me, if you are under the impression that God ought to technically be concerned about every little thing we think we can dig up, I find that silly. God doesn't care, or shouldn't care, if we think we can uncover a mistake He has made regarding the quoting of scripture. He just wants the true principles to be recorded and sent out to the world. Could He have used different wording in Mormon? Sure. Does it matter? Only to critics, methinks.

[_jon]

In the end, it seems to me, if you are under the impression that God ought to technically be concerned about every little thing we think we can dig up, I find that silly. God doesn't care, or shouldn't care, if we think we can uncover a mistake He has made regarding the quoting of scripture. He just wants the true principles to be recorded and sent out to the world. Could He have used different wording in Mormon? Sure. Does it matter? Only to critics, methinks.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish your posts from Simon's.

You are saying (it seems to me) that God ignored what Moroni actually wrote - unless Moroni wrote onto the plates the 'forged' bit of Mark in question (which we know he couldn't have done as it happened after he was dead).
And he did so because the forged bit of Mark better explains a pertinant bit of the Gospel, so all is well.

[_stemelbow]

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish your posts from Simon's.

That's too bad. Its a pretty easy thing to do, really. Ah well...any attempted put down should be expected.

You are saying (it seems to me) that God ignored what Moroni actually wrote

My goodness. No wonder you're having such a hard time distinguishing whether a post is in my name or Simon's. I never said this.

- unless Moroni wrote onto the plates the 'forged' bit of Mark in question (which we know he couldn't have done as it happened after he was dead).

Oh brother.

[/quote]And he did so because the forged bit of Mark better explains a pertinant bit of the Gospel, so all is well.[/quote]

God's sending the message of the gospel. its His choice what words to use. That doesn't mean its the best for us in our day, anymore than it means it was the best for Joseph Smith in his day. In translation, its the message that's important, not the exact wording. I fear you all will be unreasonably obtuse, since your posture is to deny and criticize. Oh well.

[_Chap]

God's sending the message of the gospel. its His choice what words to use. That doesn't mean its the best for us in our day, anymore than it means it was the best for Joseph Smith in his day. In translation, its the message that's important, not the exact wording. I fear you all will be unreasonably obtuse, since your posture is to deny and criticize. Oh well.

You should be aware that the assumption that the Book of Mormon really a genuine text from ancient America that is 'another witness of Jesus Christ' through which 'God's sending the message of the gospel' is one which people may reasonably doubt when they see that one of its authors. supposedly writing in a time and place when he could not have had access to the New Testament, quotes the words of the New Testament.

Sure, if it is God at work, he could do anything he wanted. You can 'explain' any difficulty that way. But it is much simpler to explain such an occurrence on the basis that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century forgery.

[_stemelbow]

You should be aware that the assumption that the Book of Mormon really a genuine text from ancient America that is 'another witness of Jesus Christ' through which 'God's sending the message of the gospel' is one which people may reasonably doubt when they see that one of its authors. supposedly writing in a time and place when he could not have had access to the New Testament, quotes the words of the New Testament.

I realize that, and have said much the same many times.

Sure, if it is God at work, he could do anything he wanted. You can 'explain' any difficulty that way. But it is much simpler to explain such an occurrence on the basis that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century forgery.

Fine. But this is criticism. If the argument is that its best explained as forgery, then fine by me. I'm just saying in defense, it might not be the case. Afterall, we are dealing with faith.

[_jon]

Fine. But this is criticism. If the argument is that its best explained as forgery, then fine by me. I'm just saying in defense, it might not be the case. Afterall, we are dealing with faith.

What alternative possibility would account for the fact that Nephi quoted passages from Isaiah that weren't even written until after Nephi himself had died?

[_stemelbow]

What alternative possibility would account for the fact that Nephi quoted passages from Isaiah that weren't even written until after Nephi himself had died?

I've been through this with Buffalo in the past. Its much the same. And the jury is still out regarding Isaiah. It really is. Surely there is evidence that it was written after Nephi. I'm cool with that anyway. Its just as easy to assume that with the Book of Mormon we can also think, if the Book of Mormon is true, that that from Isaiah which was written after Nephi, is based off of already written stuff, like from the brass plates.

[_jon]

What alternative possibility would account for the fact that Nephi quoted passages from Isaiah that weren't even written until after Nephi himself had died?

Surely there is evidence that it was written after Nephi. I'm cool with that anyway.

There is evidence that the passages that Nephi quotes verbatum were written after Nephi was dead and you are cool with that...

Stem, I take my hat off to you and wish you well for the future,
as Duncan Bannatyne would say 'I'm out'

[_Buffalo]

I'm not seeing any refutation of the two main challenges of the OP.

1. That Nephi quoted something that was only written after he was dead.
2. That Moroni quoted a passage that wasn't written until after he was dead and that was a fraud.

Please can someone expand a bit on the passage in Mark that is claimed was not written by the author of Mark and was inserted after?
(I haven't heard of this one before)

Thanks

The spurious passage from Mark that's quoted by Moroni was, I believe, written before Moroni was dead (forgetting for now that Moroni was a fictional character). But the fact remains it's not in the original gospel of Mark, and is a forgery.

The bigger issue is really Nephi's quotation from Deuetero-Isaiah. That was supposed to be on the brass plates, but that's an impossibility. It hadn't been written yet.