Is the Book of Mormon a 19th century production?

[_Baker]

MG - do you have the original source for the court story?

All the sources that I've seen refer to JofD and an address given by G.Q. Cannon.

Do you imagine that Oliver would have done well to admit himself a liar during a trial? Do you imagine that Oliver would have done anything but reaffirm his witness while seeking to rejoin the saints?

His was a consistent pattern of sticking to his testimony. Not just one or two isolated instances.

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, "Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.'' He died here in Richmond, Mo., on March 3d, 1850. Many witnesses yet live in Richmond, who will testify to the truth of these facts, as well as to the good character of Oliver Cowdery."

David Whitmer in An Address To All Believers In Christ.

Regards,
MG

MG - where are the JoD references? Did you check out my link from the apparent eyewitness? Earlier in the thread I mentioned that his deathbed testimony didn't come from an unbiased source, do you disagree? Did you read Whitmer's whole address? Do you agree with the qualification he imposes on acceptance of his Book of Mormon witness? Would you give the same deference to a competing religious claim?

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production. Believing otherwise requires a pre-existing belief based on something other than facts and evidence.

You mean like...the Bible? Or God? by the way, can we trust that all historical facts and evidence are accurate and complete, without bias, and/or will lead to the same hard and fast conclusions?

Regards,
MG

[_Aristotle Smith]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production. Believing otherwise requires a pre-existing belief based on something other than facts and evidence.

You mean like...the Bible? Or God? by the way, can we trust that all historical facts and evidence are accurate and complete, without bias, and/or will lead to the same hard and fast conclusions?

Regards,
MG

No, you can't trust all the historical facts. The fact remains however that they Bible DOES provide a context in which to place itself. Sometimes the Bible matches its purported context, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes the data are ambiguous. And, scholars of any belief system can take a look at the archaeology and the text and decide for themselves. The Bible does have a historical, cultural, and linguistic context outside of its particular faith claims. The Book of Mormon does not, at least not one outside of the 19th century context.

[_DarkHelmet]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production. Believing otherwise requires a pre-existing belief based on something other than facts and evidence.

You mean like...the Bible?

Regards,
MG

The Bible is a nineteenth century production?

[_mentalgymnast]

where are the JoD references?

George Q. Cannon September 18, 1881 in Journal of Discourses, 22:254

Did you check out my link from the apparent eyewitness?

Yes.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that his deathbed testimony didn't come from an unbiased source, do you disagree?

No.

Did you read Whitmer's whole address?

Years ago I read large chunks of it. Here is a relevant section to the topic at hand:

"It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

"To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:

"That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.

" 'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

Do you agree with the qualification he imposes on acceptance of his Book of Mormon witness?

I assume you are referring to:

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer.

He later said:

...to leave absolutely no doubt about the nature of the manifestation Whitmer explained, "I was not under any hallucination . . . . I saw with these eyes."
“Gold Bible, No. 6,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 16 (19 March 1831): 126–27

Would you give the same deference to a competing religious claim?

I'd have to consider it along with the rest of the attached religious package within context of what I consider to be a realistic and rational worldview.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

An English text under the title of The Book of Mormon was published in the 19th century. Nothing ties that text to an extant ancient record. Given those simple facts, there is no reason, aside from a spiritual testimony, to suppose that it is ancient in the first place.

Add to that the problems that CK and Aristotle Smith have raised, and I think the only thing that recommends continuing to entertain the idea that it might be ancient is a deep spiritual conviction that it has to be so.

[_why me]

This is the crux of the matter. Along with one or more of the scribes being in cahoots with the scam. I haven't seen any clear evidence of either. Unless you want to travel down Spalding Lane. The evidence that I've seen along the way points towards a 90 day translation period where things really got rolling after the short hiatus when the translation stopped. Oliver Cowdery was a major player during this time. He would have HAD to be in cahoots on the scheme. But the fact is that he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin or spilled the beans on Joseph. He had plenty of reason to do so especially early on with the Fanny Alger affair and such.

When Cowdery returned to the Church, he humbly expressed only the desire to be rebaptized and fellowshipped, and refused any position in the Church. Lack of funds and winter forced the family to stay in Missouri in 1849. Unfortunately, Oliver was suffering from a respiratory condition and died on March 3, 1850, before he was able to move to Utah with the rest of the Church. His last letter states that he accepted a call to lobby for the Church in Washington, though he was never able to fulfill this call. His wife recorded concerning him:

"From the hour when the glorious vision of the Holy Messenger revealed to mortal eyes the hidden prophecies which God had promised ... until the moment when he passed away from earth, he always without one doubt or shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon"

(Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, p.63).
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Oliver_Cowdery

Are you able to show that there was an extended Book of Mormon fabrication period previous to the 90 day time slot for translation that we're accustomed to hearing about and finding in the written record?

Regards,
MG

This is a problem for the critics. If Oliver was in on the scam, he would need to be the most awful sociopath in history. True, he never killed anyone without emotion but to have wife and child believe in a scam even after he left the scam, would be hellish. And then come back to the scam with his testimony on his deathbed and with his speech to the saints when he came back...would be worst than hellish.

[_why me]

MG - where are the JoD references? Did you check out my link from the apparent eyewitness? Earlier in the thread I mentioned that his deathbed testimony didn't come from an unbiased source, do you disagree? Did you read Whitmer's whole address? Do you agree with the qualification he imposes on acceptance of his Book of Mormon witness? Would you give the same deference to a competing religious claim?

Nothing related to the Book of Mormon comes from an unbiased source. Even the second or third hand accounts from people critical at that time. David Whitmer over and over again had to tell his story and bear his testimony as did the other witnesses who lived to a ripe old age. But in the end, they never denied what they saw with their eyes or felt with their hands.

And good ol david had his testimony put on his tombstone.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: You mean like...the Bible?

D.H. :The Bible is a nineteenth century production?

No.

Belief in the Bible would act as a catalyst or foundational literature that for some may give way to giving the Book of Mormon a chance. I was being a bit facetious knowing that beastie doesn't place value in the Bible as being a reputable or trustworthy source of God's dealings with mankind. Non-factual. Evidential value...low.

Sorry to confuse you.

Regards,
MG

[_why me]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production. Believing otherwise requires a pre-existing belief based on something other than facts and evidence.

Said with such force but without the proof necessary to close the case.