An LDS Scholar Faces the Issues

[Trout]

After years of wrestling with the problems, Grant Palmer, retired LDS Institute of Religion director, has just published his research on the founding claims of Mormonism in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/xb092_aninsidersviewofmormonorigins.htm). His extensive treatment of questions of Book of Mormon authorship, translation process, modern influences, the witnesses, as well as a chapter on priesthood problems and the First Vision, presents a well-balanced, critical look at the beginnings of Mormonism. This is a great book to give to your LDS friends.



Mr. Palmer concludes:

That Joseph Smith literally translated ancient documents is problematic. He mistranslated portions of the Bible, as well as the Book of Joseph, the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, and a Greek psalter. There is no evidence that he ever translated a document as we would understand that phrase.

Furthermore, there are three obstacles to accepting the golden plates as the source of the Book of Mormon. First, although these records were said to have been preserved for generations by Nephite prophets, Joseph Smith never used them in dictating the Book of Mormon. . . .

Second, much of the Book of Mormon reflects the intellectual and cultural environment of Joseph's own time and place. We find strands of American antiquities and folklore, the King James Bible, and evangelical Protestantism woven into the fabric of the doctrines and setting.

Third, the only other conceivable reason for preserving the gold plates would have been to show the witnesses a tangible artifact. . . . Yet, the eleven witnesses gazed on and handled the golden plates the same way they saw spectral treasure guardians and handled their elusive treasures, in the spirit, not in the flesh.

The remaining foundational experiences are the first vision, the angel Moroni, and priesthood restoration. These appear to have developed from relatively simple experiences into more impressive spiritual manifestations, from metaphysical to physical events. (An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, by Grant H. Palmer, pages 259-260)

[Xmansmommy]

I presume Mr. Palmer is no longer LDS? Where did you find this info troutk? Would love to read more.

[Trout]

I presume Mr. Palmer is no longer LDS? Where did you find this info troutk? Would love to read more.

As far as Mr. Palmer goes, it would seem that old habits die hard. He's still active in the LDS church, I know quite a few Lds folks who like Mr. Palmer have removed themselves from the church intellectually speaking, but continue to participate for reasons other than truth. Here is a little background on Grant, taken from here (http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/gpalmer.htm).

Grant H. Palmer (M.A., American history, Brigham Young University) is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, a former instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations. He has been active in the Mormon History Association and on the board of directors of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. In his local LDS ward, he is the high priest group instructor. Now retired, his hobby is pigeon fancying. He has four children and eight grandchildren. He and his wife live in Sandy, Utah.

As far as information goes, two of the most wonderful Christian people I've ever known operate The Utah Lighthouse Ministry (http://www.utlm.org/). If you get a chance, visit their website, they also operate a bookstore where they sell the books that they've written over the years. They have been instrumental in bringing the gospel to many people over the years.

[Xmansmommy]

Thanks for the info troutk. I guess I'm a bit surprised that he could still be an active member of the LDS church after having written the things he has. :shrug: Anyway, I hope to check out the sources you provided later. Again, thanks. :thumb:

[themuzicman]

A liberal mormon theologian? :egad:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'll have to let my Jewish friend, Jew-POWELL, respond.

Jew-POWELL:
The arguments you make against the Mormons are similar to the arguments we Jews make against the Christians.

The best historical evidence indicates that the Gospel accounts were written long after the fact by anonymous writers, perhaps as late as the end of the 2nd Century A.D. Paul shows a distinct ignorance of the Gospel tradition. Likewise, the other early Christian writers of the first and second century. Justin Martyr quotes from some "Memoirs" that are similar to the Gospels, but they aren't the Gospels we have today. The Gospels are no more eye-witness accounts of what Jesus did than the Book of Mormon is a translation of engravings on golden plates. Joseph Smith apparently followed the pattern of the Christians who believed one could use a selection of beliefs circulating in the day, attribute statements to the characters in the narrative that were spoken by others, pull quotes from the scriptures out of context and call them "prophecies," make up things to fill in the gaps, and claim it to be the Word of God.

In criticizing the Mormons, you Christians would seem to be the pot calling the kettle black.

John Powell

[One Bad Pig]

POWELL:
I'll have to let my Jewish friend, Jew-POWELL, respond.

Jew-POWELL:
The arguments you make against the Mormons are similar to the arguments we Jews make against the Christians.

The best historical evidence indicates that the Gospel accounts were written long after the fact by anonymous writers, perhaps as late as the end of the 2nd Century A.D. Paul shows a distinct ignorance of the Gospel tradition. Likewise, the other early Christian writers of the first and second century. Justin Martyr quotes from some "Memoirs" that are similar to the Gospels, but they aren't the Gospels we have today. The Gospels are no more eye-witness accounts of what Jesus did than the Book of Mormon is a translation of engravings on golden plates. Joseph Smith apparently followed the pattern of the Christians who believed one could use a selection of beliefs circulating in the day, attribute statements to the characters in the narrative that were spoken by others, pull quotes from the scriptures out of context and call them "prophecies," make up things to fill in the gaps, and claim it to be the Word of God.

In criticizing the Mormons, you Christians would seem to be the pot calling the kettle black.

John Powell

Jew-POWELL :smile:,

On the contrary, the best evidence indicates that the Gospels and Acts were written before 70 AD. Paul on Trial, by John Mauck, shows how well the book of Acts reads like a legal brief, under conditions like those before Nero accused the Christians of setting the fire that burned Rome in AD 64. The Gospels have a different focus than the rest of the NT, so it's no surprise that the rest of the books would cover other things. What do you want, 27 carbon copies? Justin Martyr, as a disciple of John, could easily have been quoting John himself. I'm sure John spoke on more things than he wrote down, and it's no surprise that what he said would be similar to the Gospels - he was there!

[John Powell]

Jew-POWELL :smile:,

On the contrary, the best evidence indicates that the Gospels and Acts were written before 70 AD. Paul on Trial, by John Mauck, shows how well the book of Acts reads like a legal brief, under conditions like those before Nero accused the Christians of setting the fire that burned Rome in AD 64. The Gospels have a different focus than the rest of the NT, so it's no surprise that the rest of the books would cover other things. What do you want, 27 carbon copies? Justin Martyr, as a disciple of John, could easily have been quoting John himself. I'm sure John spoke on more things than he wrote down, and it's no surprise that what he said would be similar to the Gospels - he was there!

POWELL:
This is not the place to continue this discussion, but if you would like to debate whether Justin Martyr likely had copies of our Gospel of John or a similar, but different text, or whether the conversion of Paul narrated in Acts 9 matches his own account in Galatians 1, we should take it to the apologetics section. If you're interested, I'll start a thread on either of those topics. I would prefer debating the conversion accounts.

John Powell

[One Bad Pig]

POWELL:
This is not the place to continue this discussion, but if you would like to debate whether Justin Martyr likely had copies of our Gospel of John or a similar, but different text, or whether the conversion of Paul narrated in Acts 9 matches his own account in Galatians 1, we should take it to the apologetics section. If you're interested, I'll start a thread on either of those topics. I would prefer debating the conversion accounts.

John Powell

:hrm: I'd have to read up on Justin Martyr. I agree, this isn't the best place for these topics. I just couldn't let your comments slide. :smile: You can go ahead and start a thread on the conversion accounts.

[John Powell]

:hrm: I'd have to read up on Justin Martyr. I agree, this isn't the best place for these topics. I just couldn't let your comments slide. :smile: You can go ahead and start a thread on the conversion accounts.

POWELL:
Done. It's called "Paul's conversion in Gal 1 vs. Acts 9." I hope to see your answers to my seven questions as part of your harmonization of the two accounts.

John Powell