J
jane_doe
Guest
Statistically speaking, there also weren’t a large number of Catholics in upstate New York at that time.
- Status
X
XuDan
Guest
It would seem Brigham Young disagrees with you:
Then there is what is taught at the ward and stake level, which I myself was taught regularly:
So there seems to be a difference of opinion between you and a “prophet of God” and the practices and teachings at the ward and stake level regarding if the Prophet can be wrong regarding spiritual matters. The LDS practice the same form of papal infallibility the Catholics do, except that the LDS equivocate it.
L
lax16
Guest
Perhaps I am misunderstanding? Wouldn’t the word of God be given for all to relate to, not just those living in a certain time and place? I am not referring to the writings of men, which would obviously be influenced by the region they were living in, but to the Book of Mormon.
No offense taken, I am just trying to understand your viewpoint.
L
lax16
Guest
…and you couldn’t get good pizza anywhere. Fortunately, that has changed!
X
XuDan
Guest
That would be a deal breaker…and you couldn’t get good pizza anywhere. Fortunately, that has changed!
L
lax16
Guest
Gotta love back east Italian food. Nothin’ like it.That would be a deal breaker
J
jane_doe
Guest
This forum needs a “laugh” or “like” button for posts like this.…and you couldn’t get good pizza anywhere. Fortunately, that has changed!
S
SteveVH
Guest
How about
S
Stevenrushing
Guest
Of course the word of God should speak to peoples across time, but it has to initially talk to someone. Also, it could be argued that KJV is certainly still very commonly found in protestant/evangelical churches, so the language found in the BoM is common enough even now.Perhaps I am misunderstanding? Wouldn’t the word of God be given for all to relate to, not just those living in a certain time and place? I am not referring to the writings of men, which would obviously be influenced by the region they were living in, but to the Book of Mormon.
No offense taken, I am just trying to understand your viewpoint.
H
Horton
Guest
So what I am understanding from the LDS on this thread is
- JS wrote the BoM in KJV language because that is the language God used to tell JS what He wanted him to write?
- What happened to the “golden plates”? What language were they written in?
- Did God tell JS what to write while he was looking in the hat behind the curtain?
- (the biggest take away from all this) What does it matter now anyway? A bit like Hilary & Benghazi don’t you think?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am not sure any of the statements you offer teach either inerrancy of scripture of infallibility of leaders.
I am virtually sure your quotes come from a website which purports to be about truth, but the page upon which your list exists was custom chosen to point in the direction of lack of error in church leaders. Here is a different perspective from a site that makes no bones about its intention to defend the CoJCoLDS from unfair criticisms.
en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible
I have only some issues with the quotes you offered (maybe a little more with generic “my stake president said,” one. My Catholic parish priest is and was quite clear that LDS, Wiccans, and Agnostic/Atheists can partake of the Eucharist - I did not out of respect for what I believe Catholics teach). But, none of the quotes actually teach that prophets or church leaders are infallible and I do not think they even touch upon inerrancy or lack of inerrancy in scripture.
XuDan, I now know more about your thoughts concerning the CoJCoLDS when you were a member. This is a mistaken thought, but I respect your right to judge LDS leaders by an infallibility standard. I will not be following you in this direction and thus my conclusions will be radically different than yours. Still, I wish you well in your journey.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I would have to look at what LDS are saying on this thread a little closer to know if all of these were in perfect alignment with their statements, but rather than doing that let me just say not for me.
2 - The Gold Plates were in “Reformed Egyptian.” Most scholars believe this is some type of pictographic Hebrew, but I do not think we can really know. The Gold Plates were returned to Moroni.
1 - While I believe God was involved in the BOM and if King James English was antithetical to His purposes He could have and would have made His will known, I really do not know if God made the choice or if that was an artifact of Joseph’s culture. In Joseph’s day it was somewhat common (and today it is still present in and out of the Church) to view King James English as a more reverent way of speaking to and about God. The Catholic Douay-Rheims only folks like the Protestant KJV only folks make this argument today and I think it was more common in Joseph’s day. So that forms the data for my best guess. I personally go both ways. Sometimes I pray using “Thee and Thou,” but sometimes the formal part of my brain is overwhelmed by the subject of my prayers and there is little “Thee and Thou.”
3. Some reports of the translation process involve the hat and the curtain. Others are a little different. Either no accounts or almost no accounts involve Joseph slaving over characters on the plates. How the words that became the BOM came through Joseph we do not know. There are theories, but those are theories.
4. For me personally, I find it virtually certain that there were plates and also virtually certain that they have not been found on this earth in 180+ years. I find the witness statements (official and unofficial) credible both when they report things that were very physical (like feel and sound of plates) and when they report things that were more spiritual (like the 3 witnesses). As I said earlier in this thread, I have a great deal of respect for numerous folks who know because they follow Moroni’s promise, but I personally spend lots of time with more naturalistic evidences. As such, I would say, if there was no rational way of responding to your questions, I would be troubled. But, knowing all the details of how words or concepts or ??? came through Joseph to the scribe is not essential to my faith.
Hope that explains well enough.
Two things. You are implying that inspiration of scripture is something that it just might not be. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think the man Joseph Smith is irrelevant in the divine assisted production of the BOM. Catholics do not believe Biblical inspiration created robots who wrote letters either.
Secondly, I hear you saying, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” And that you do! Of course the Jews simply KNEW that Christ would be the conquering King. (Why The Jews Rejected Jesus) They didn’t forget the Isaiah passage about a “suffering servant” because they already knew that the Jewish people were the “suffering servant.” Christ simply must be the conquering king. “A suffering servant! A suffering servant! We have got a suffering servant, and there cannot be (needn’t be) any more suffering servant.”
Charity, TOm
X
XuDan
Guest
Most LDS scholars perhaps, who are a minority of Christian Scholars. I doubt greatly that the majority of Christian scholars share this opinion. Then we have the issue of non-christian scholars. Saying “most scholars” is a generalization that can lead to misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
According to the the LDS church these are not theories they released a public statement on this: lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng There is no indication or implication by the LDS church hat these are only “theories.” They are statements based on testimony from Joesph Smith and those around him.
It’s relevant because if there is evidence suggesting forgery and plagiarism, then the whole restoration movement is in jeopardy because of it.The religion rises and falls with the authenticity of the BoM being what it is claimed to be.
Neither do I, his character and actions ARE important,especially when they speak to credibility.
X
XuDan
Guest
You can personally disagree with those last two as being actually taught, but I can confirm (as I mentioned in the post in question) that I have been taught many times in priesthood meetings, and from many a talks at the ward and stake level that we are not to question or doubt the President of the Church and that we are to act in faith upon his directives. Even if we disagree with them or if they violate the, and I quote, “laws of men.” In fact, the one that sticks out the clearest to me was a conversation about polygamy, which is illegal in the US. I was told that if the President (Hinkley at the time) told us all to take up the practice of plural marriage again, that even though it violated the laws of men,we would be spiritually obligated to obey - because he could not be wrong on such matters, that such a directive would be from the mouth piece of God and thus to be obeyed.
This is what I was taught at the WARD level. Disagree with it all you want - I have my direct experience to rely on to determine that the quote is not out of character from my own experiences in the LDS faith.
J
Jerusha
Guest
The problem with that is that no-one has the perseverance to track down the sources for a book that is compiled from bunch of pieces of this and that, creatively patched together. I wouldn’t necessarily call it plagiarism, but, rather, borrowing.
X
XuDan
Guest
Many LDS would have you believe that. Look at post 19. Any high-school teacher would call that plagiarism. Further: borrowing from a secular book and mixing in scriptures does not a new scripture make. It reminds me of a phrase oft heard in the LDS faith: “…philosophies of men mingled with scripture.”The problem with that is that no-one has the perseverance to track down the sources for a book that is compiled from bunch of pieces of this and that, creatively patched together. I wouldn’t necessarily call it plagiarism, but, rather, borrowing.
T
taylorf
Guest
Never heard this one before. So the BoM, the word of God, can’t stand on its own? God has to reveal His own truths in a specific linguistic style to give it credibilty?
H
Horton
Guest
yes exactly!
T
taylorf
Guest
This is the least interesting topic in my opinion. Supposed evidence or consistencies are always specific or isolated events and connections are extremely vague at best. Problem is…material evidences of an entire civilization are completely missing. Sorry, there’s just nothing there.
This is one of the greatest problems with Mormonism. The church is increasingly moving away from the credibility of its leaders’ revelations. You’re trying to correct the “philosophies of men” by direct revelation from God through fallible people/councils who, have in the past, supposedly mis-interpreted the revelation only to introduce more “philosophies of men”. There is no reliable authority in mormonism.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am not sure I am communicating very well.
Non-LDS scholars typically do not have an opinion on what language was present on the plates translated by Joseph as they do not believe there were any plates translated. Some suggest there were no plates some suggest plates as a prop only, but to my knowledge no non-Mormon suggests that plates were translated.
There is no indication or implication by the LDS church hat these are only “theories.” They are statements based on testimony from Joesph Smith and those around him.
Again, perhaps I wrote poorly. From your link:
My statement is intended to mean that theories beyond what is captured in the above are just theories. “Word for word from God,” “Like a movie before Joseph’s eyes,” “Concepts and proper names …” these means of “translation” have different merit based on witness testimonies, but Joseph didn’t explain how it worked.
Yes were the BOM explainable via a forgery/plagiarism theory that would be concerning to me. Over the last almost 20 years, I have encountered around 2 dozen books/documents that folks who have concluded that “books don’t come from angels” have put forth as possible sources for the BOM. I encountered the study you referenced more than a year ago. The reason I find these parallels to not be evidence of plagiarism is largely the same reason I do not find Kish the Olemec and Jaradite King evidence that the BOM is an ancient document. There are too many arrows in the air to be excited about a single name of a single king. When one hundred thousand 19th century works are used to search for parallels to the BOM which was “translated” or authored in the 19th century it is likely that some works will be found that have similarities. I find it unlikely that Jane Austin plagiarized The Officers Daughter. Now, if your claims are far more muted in that you are merely saying that God did not translate the BOM in a way that had nothing to do with King James English and/or nothing to do with the English and thought concepts of 19th century America (where the “translation” occurred) then I would agree with you. As I said before, “I do not think the man Joseph Smith is irrelevant in the divine assisted production of the BOM.”
This response either indicates you misunderstood what I meant and you quoted or you wanted to introduce another concept into this discussion. I will go with misunderstood for now. What I meant was the same as I meant when I just repeated the statement above. The inspired author of scripture be it Peter, Paul, Mormon, or Joseph Smith is involved in the authoring of the scripture IMO. The inspiration comes from God, but this does not mean that NOTHING comes from the men who were inspired.
Charity, TOm
- Status