LDS: The 'first copy' of the Book of Mormon??

[Catholic_Dude]

You’re getting your information from a rather profane secular cartoon.. Shouldn’t that be your first warning? Second warning when considering the validity of the source of your information, the T.V show is a comedy. The third warning is that the same T.V. show repeatedly misrepresents and bashes Catholic faith.

If you want to know what Mormons believe and why; ask an intelligent, educated Mormon. Then compare their claims with your faith.

There really is good reasons for why every religion believes what they believe, or else no rational being would belong to it.

Yet all that glitters is not gold.

I believe the Church has the answers, such wisdom! such depth!

I agree with what you are saying, but as Lion already said if the presentation is true and accurate then we cant argue.

My point? Lets see, those “gold plates” Smith says were of purest gold were about the size of that movie prop–I believe Hyrum Smith said the thing weight about 60 pounds–can we say
BUSTED!

VERY interesting.
Lets say each gold plate was 6 inches wide by 6 inches long by 1 inch deep. That would make each 36 cubic inches.
Here is a webpage which calcuates how much a given volume of gold would weigh.

After plugging in 36 into the cubic inches and clicking on calculate it says that this volume of gold would weigh 25 pounds.

If it was only 0.5 inches deep the weight would be 12.5 pounds. If there were 5 plates this size the total would be around 60 pounds. This is not that unrealistic, I guess. NOW the question is whether there is any information to give us an idea just how big these plates were and how many there were.

 

[PaulDupre]

NONE of them claimed the plates were in a hat? That is impossible if Joseph Smith had to read out of a hat and Mr Harris was right next to him writing stuff down.

That’s the weirdest part of the story. The “gold plates” were not even in the room when Joseph was “translating”. They were reportedly hidden in another place. Joseph had his seer stone in his hat and supposedly read the words as they appeared on the glowing stone.

It makes me wonder why Joseph went through the bother of a story about digging up gold plates when he never really used the plates in the translation process.

 

[Holly3278]

I think it is interesting to note that the current copies of the Book of Mormon have been drastically changed since the originals. Of course, any Mormon missionary would deny this in order to try and spread their faith. Whether they deny it out of ignorance or they are just plain lying, I do not know.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Who were these 11 and 8 people, and what did they say. I remember something on these forums a while back where some people retracted some claim they made (though I dont remember if it was in reference to the plates).

It’s should be pretty clear that they were the original members of the first board of directors and initial stock holders in the not-for-profit tax free sham that Smith invented out of thin air. How anyone with any level of intelligence can believe a single word of Mormonism just confirms the truth in PT Barnum’s old saying: “There’s a sucker born every minute”. Smith just looked around at all the competing Protestant sects and came to the conclusion that since private interpretation of God’s word was already a ratified and proven marketing concept that people would buy into it then it was easy to make up a plausible teat-for-tat competing theology if it pandered to people’s wants. And that he did while collecting a pretty penny on it; all while giving himself the moral license to pretty much do anything he wanted; including getting gullable woman to agree to polagamy.
The man was brilliant - but morally bankrupt.

Jesus warned us that these days would come when plausible liars would deceive many and false prophets would arise.

James

p.s. Is it any coincidence that Utah has the most secretive corporate structure in the USA where it becomes impossible to find out who owns a corporation formed in that state that declares itself “private”? Check into how many corps form themselves in Utah for that reason.

 

[rwoehmke]

If you want to know what Mormons believe and why; ask an intelligent, educated Mormon. Then compare their claims with your faith.

Talk about an pulling a rabbit out of one’s hat - this would be a good trick; and this may be a proof text for an oxymor(m)on. Excuse the intentional malapropism. James

I have at least four fairly close acquaintances who are Mormons. Every single one of them could be described as intelligent and educated (engineering degrees and such). I have talked to them about their faith from time to time and would comment that they can do a fairly decent job of telling what it is they believe, i.e. they are articulate and they are intelligent and educated. My difficulty is keeping a straight face during the process. It’s much wilder than claiming that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to things like character, integrity, honesty, concern for others, diligence, etc. I can say they compare well with the best. One thing they have never talked about is their rites or liturgical functions. One of my son’s friends married a Mormon girl. He had to convert first and the Christian parents and non-mormon friends could not attend the ceremony.

 

[Alma147]

Do mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus? Also, do they believe him to be born of a virgin?

LDS doctrine comes from LDS Scripture. Although I can’t vouch for what every Mormon believes, I can tell you what I believe as a Mormon and a scriptural source for that belief. The title page to the Book of Mormon says its purpose is to convince “Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD.” So, I’d say, yes we do believe in the divinity of Jesus.

The Book of Mormon also refers to Mary as a virgin after the birth of Jesus. “And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.” (1 Nephi 11:20)

Alma

 

[Alma147]

I think it is interesting to note that the current copies of the Book of Mormon have been drastically changed since the originals. Of course, any Mormon missionary would deny this in order to try and spread their faith. Whether they deny it out of ignorance or they are just plain lying, I do not know.

It would be interesting to note if it were true. I have electronic copies of both the first edition and today’s edition published by the LDS Church. It took a little work, (because of the size of the files) and I had Microsoft Word do a comparison between the versions. I didn’t care about the punctuation or capitalization because those conventions have changed even in the last 30 years since I graduated from college.

At any rate, I had Word do the comparison and show the additions and deletions by highlighting and strikeout. I then compiled it into a file for Microsoft Reader, a free program available from Microsoft. I think that any reasonable person can examine the changes and recognize that in no way do the changes qualify as “drastic.” I’m willing to email the MS Reader text of the Book of Mormon showing all the changes to anyone who asks via PM and they can see for themselves. It’s 511 KB.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

This is why I made this thread, obviously if a new copy could be made he should have done it and it would have been great proof for Smith and eternal shame (on the level of Judas’ betrayal) for the Harris people burning the writings of God’s most important prophet.

The same could be said for people who didn’t believe that Jesus was resurrected. He should have appeared to everyone and proved he was God. However, it doesn’t seem to me that’s how God establishes truth. “Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God.” (Acts 10:40-41)

This is part of what Im trying to figure out, just how many witnesses and more importantly what did they really see. If it was a lump in a blanket then that not only doesnt cut it, that is borderline deception.

Each copy of the Book of Mormon has statements by two groups of men: 8 witnesses and 3 witnesses stating what they saw. The statement of the 8 says:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; **and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; **and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. **And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, **and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I was under the impression the BoM was seen as the most perfect and uncorrupted book of all history.

The claim by Joseph Smith was that it “was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” That’s quite different than claiming perfection. I’d also say that his claim for its correctness had to do with doctrinal concepts rather than grammar.

That is hard to believe if you reject verbal inerrancy and even harder to believe if God didnt provide the translation because that would mean it wasnt so much a “translation” but rather someone’s opinion dictating what they THINK God meant.

Hopefully you now see that we don’t believe in “inerrancy.” Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the records into English–records that weren’t written by God but rather by prophets. In fact, the book in several places says that they made the record according to their understanding and language and there was certainly a possibility of error. I don’t believe there are doctrinal errors, but I wouldn’t claim perfection for it in any other consideration.

Does God want us to know what those plates say or not? I would assume that He would ensure a inerrant and consistent translation into English. It goes from what the plates actually say into what Joseph Smith THINKS they should say in English, that is a dangerous way of passing on the Truth.

Does God want us to know what the Bible says or not? Why didn’t He insure that every copy was inerrant?

to be continued–

 

[Alma147]

continued–

First of all the differences in NT manuscripts are minor, most often it is at most a verse or letter or word are altered. For arguments sake lets say the manuscripts are in 95% agreement with each other.

Have you ever compared two Greek manuscripts of the New Testament? I don’t know how you’d arrive at a percentage for variances, but one of my copies includes footnotes indicating alternate readings. There are easily a hundred notations per page.

Second problem is that the original Bible manuscripts were directly inspired by God and came out perfect when written by the human authors, they were NOT copies translations.

How would you know that the originals came out perfect unless you had one? That can only be a giant assumption with no possible way to prove it.

Any difference in copies of Biblical manuscripts is due to UNinspired human error. It should raise some eyebrows if the greatest prophet of all time didnt receive inspiriation or guidance to ensure a good and consistent translation.

I’ve never heard Joseph Smith referred to as “the greatest prophet of all time” yet you’ve written it twice in your message. That simply isn’t a concept proposed by Mormons.

NONE of them claimed the plates were in a hat? That is impossible if Joseph Smith had to read out of a hat and Mr Harris was right next to him writing stuff down.

No, the plates wouldn’t fit in a hat. Joseph Smith said that God provided with the plates two stones in a silver bow called the “urim and thummim” that would give him the ability to translate the plates into English. He learned that he didn’t have to have the plates together with the U&T in order to translate. There is no description provided by Harris about Joseph Smith using a hat. Those descriptions are of later episodes of translation after Harris was excluded from participation.

Who were these 11 and 8 people, and what did they say. I remember something on these forums a while back where some people retracted some claim they made (though I dont remember if it was in reference to the plates).

They were friends and family of Joseph Smith. That’s often discounted because they were friends and family (father, 2 brothers). I recall that Jesus selected Peter and Andrew and James and John–two sets of brothers, and Jude is referred to as the brother of Jesus. I doubt people are willing to discount their testimonies because they were friends and family as well.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

VERY interesting.
Lets say each gold plate was 6 inches wide by 6 inches long by 1 inch deep. That would make each 36 cubic inches.
Here is a webpage which calcuates how much a given volume of gold would weigh.

Invariably, these calculations are made using estimates of solid gold–which isn’t realistic. I have a friend who built a replica of the plates based upon the descriptions left by the witnesses. He made his out of brass. The witnesses said that a section of the plates was sealed and that Joseph Smith had not translated the sealed portion. In the replica, my friend took the weight of the brass plates he had made, computed the difference between gold and brass and added the difference in lead in the sealed portion. The plates weight about 63 pounds. Although they’re not something you’d carry back and forth to church, they aren’t that difficult to carry. I have often passed around the plates in classes I teach so that students can feel for themselves what they might have weighed. Incidentally, the witnesses who held them said they weighed between 40 and 60 pounds.

Alma

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

FACT: (sorry if this resembles the begining of *the Da Vinci Code): *There is no witness of the BoM’s transcribing where Smith was said to have the plates exposed in front of him, Smith reading from said plates like you and I would read from a book–so many LDS depictions of this event are missleading at the very least

FACT: All the witnesses of the “translation” (almost all of the them became Mormons) said Smith looked into a stovepipe hat where Smith had placed his favorite seerstone. The “plates” were either supposedly under a blanket or often not even in the room at all.

FACT: Smith reported the words of the BoM appeared before him (in the darkness of the hat) in words of light. Smith would call out the words of the text–and the text would not change until one of the scribes (Mrs Smith or Cowdrey) repeated them correctly.

Conclusion: This is NOT a work of translation–like a scholar would take a clay tablet and translate the Babylonian cuniform into English–this is a work of supposed direct revelation–with a sort of “proofreading” in the process. IF this is actually revelation, there is NO reason why Smith couldn’t have produced an exact reproduction of the lost manusript.

 

[adstrinity]

1. If the Native American’s are God’s chosen people who were marked, why are the chosen people in Israel still white?
2. Why didn’t God just tell Joseph Smith that the gold plates were in the one woman’s possession?
3. I would hardly compare Joseph’s Smith’s vision with Peter’s & John’s; the later were with Jesus when the Transfiguration happened.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

In bold & italics are commentary from over 100 years ago

Each copy of the Book of Mormon has statements by two groups of men: 8 witnesses and 3 witnesses stating what they saw. The statement of the 8 says:

*Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; **and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; ***and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. **And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, **and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

"And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but “hefted” them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."

The claim by Joseph Smith was that it “was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” That’s quite different than claiming perfection…

"The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle–keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate."

Hopefully you now see that we don’t believe in “inerrancy.” Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the records into English–records that weren’t written by God but rather by prophets. In fact, the book in several places says that they made the record according to their understanding and language and there was certainly a possibility of error. I don’t believe there are doctrinal errors, but I wouldn’t claim perfection for it in any other consideration.

***"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel–half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern–which was about every sentence or two–he ***ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet. "

readprint.com/chapter-10727/Mark-Twain

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1;3787191:

Do mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus? Also, do they believe him to be born of a virgin?

LDS doctrine comes from LDS Scripture. Although I can’t vouch for what every Mormon believes, I can tell you what I believe as a Mormon and a scriptural source for that belief. The title page to the Book of Mormon says its purpose is to convince “Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD.” So, I’d say, yes we do believe in the divinity of Jesus.

The Book of Mormon also refers to Mary as a virgin after

the birth of Jesus. “And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.” (1 Nephi 11:20)

Alma

Please explain the mormon interpretation of Mary’s conception.

Also, please tell me if the mormons believe God was an exalted man of flesh and bone?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Alma147]

FACT: Smith reported the words of the BoM appeared before him (in the darkness of the hat) in words of light. Smith would call out the words of the text–and the text would not change until one of the scribes (Mrs Smith or Cowdrey) repeated them correctly.

Interesting that you’re so sure of your “facts.” I’ve taught LDS history for nearly 20 years in a university setting and I’ve researched in quite a few libraries information about what Joseph Smith reported. I can say without hesitation that your claim above has no basis in fact. Joseph Smith never, ever explained the process of translation. A few others did, but long after Smith was dead. None of those who explained it as you purport Joseph Smith “reported” ever claimed that Joseph Smith explained it to them. Where do you come up with claiming this as something Joseph Smith stated?

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Alma147;3789632:

Please explain the mormon interpretation of Mary’s conception.

There is no “Mormon interpretation.” I believe there are many private interpretations, but the only “Mormon interpretations” are those explicit in Mormon scripture–as declared by Matthew, and Luke in the Bible and by Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Everything else is merely personal supposition.

Also, please tell me if the mormons believe God was an exalted man of flesh and bone?

Yes, with Jesus Christ being the perfect example of God being a Man of flesh and bone.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

As well with you.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

1. If the Native American’s are God’s chosen people who were marked, why are the chosen people in Israel still white?

Your premise is mistaken. There are Native Americans who arrived in America long after the end of the Book of Mormon (Navajo Indians arrived barely 600 years ago.)

1. Why didn’t God just tell Joseph Smith that the gold plates were in the one woman’s possession?

He may have. What difference would it have made?

1. I would hardly compare Joseph’s Smith’s vision with Peter’s & John’s; the later were with Jesus when the Transfiguration happened.

Well, that’s because you don’t believe Joseph Smith had a vision. The point I was trying to make was there is no reason to dismiss the reality of a vision simply by claiming it was a vision so it didn’t count. The reason I cited Peter’s and John’s were simply because they too were visions.

Alma

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no “Mormon interpretation.” I believe there are many private interpretations, but the only “Mormon interpretations” are those explicit in Mormon scripture–as declared by Matthew, and Luke in the Bible and by Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Everything else is merely personal supposition.

Yes, with Jesus Christ being the perfect example of God being a Man of flesh and bone.

As well with you.

Alma

Ok, if mormons believe God to be a man of flesh and bones because Jesus was a man of flesh and bones, what about the Father? Do you consider God the Father to be a man of flesh and bones? If so, is it the teachings of the mormon faith that there was intercourse for the conception of Jesus?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Alma147]

Ok, if mormons believe God to be a man of flesh and bones because Jesus was a man of flesh and bones, what about the Father?

I thought I answered that. This is what is found in LDS scripture regarding the Father and the Son and their corporeality:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

If so, is it the teachings of the Mormon faith that there was intercourse for the conception of Jesus?

That would negate the scripture I cited before that Mary was a virgin after Jesus’ birth. Although there are lots of comments implying such a circumstance published by private sources, there is no official teaching of the Mormon faith that such is the case. Teachings of the Mormon faith are found in our scriptures and in official Church publications. I suspect that someone might come back and produce a statement by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses or by Bruce R. McConkie from one of his books, but they don’t represent teachings of the Mormon faith because they weren’t produced by the Church.

Alma

PS: I misread a question from a previous post asking why God didn’t simply tell Joseph Smith that the woman had the gold plates. I replied “He may have.” Had I read the question more carefully, I would have replied, “Because she didn’t have the gold plates.”

 

[CentralFLJames]

Simon Arizona;3786502:

If you want to know what Mormons believe and why; ask an intelligent, educated Mormon. Then compare their claims with your faith.

I have at least four fairly close acquaintances who are Mormons. Every single one of them could be described as intelligent and educated (engineering degrees and such). I have talked to them about their faith from time to time and would comment that they can do a fairly decent job of telling what it is they believe, i.e. they are articulate and they are intelligent and educated. My difficulty is keeping a straight face during the process. It’s much wilder than claiming that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
…

I hear you. I have know a few personally too. I have never met a Mormon I have not liked on a personal basis. In general Mormons are what I would call “secularly good” people - they are lawful, respectful and conform in general to Christian morality. But as any Catholic knows - that is not sufficient for salvation. One must be not only a good person who obeys the social laws (as long as they are not contrary to God’s laws) but one must also be obedient to Jesus, Jesus’ teaching and the authority that Jesus conveyed through His apostles and passed down through the centuries to His Church - The Catholic Church. Mormons have no sacraments and are deprived of the graces necessary for salvation. Further they have fully embraced a literal “teaching of man” and have utterly rejected The Catholic Church. In so doing they are embracing a heretical teaching that probably comes from a combination of all three of the known sources of sin: Satanic/Demonic teaching, Worldly allure, and the allures of the Flesh. There is no such concept as a plurality of Churches in God’s eye. The Church is “the body of Christ” - there is only one body - not a legion of equivalent bodies.

The truth is very few people “make it to heaven” on a numbers basis. Many, in fact a majority of so called “Christians”, even those calling themselves “Catholics” go to hell thinking they are saved when they live in grave sin. The Scriptures prefigure quite clearly just how few are saved - the 8 on Noah’s Arc (prefiguring the Church), the few from Lot’s family saved from Sodom & Gomorrah’s punishment, the tithe required by Jewish Law to be left to the Lord after the harvest (grain, fruit etc.). People just don’t get it - salvation is a full time job. Many saints have revealed to us their own insights that fewer than 1 in 100,000 souls are saved. The good news is that those who want to be saved WILL be saved. But wanting requires wanting to hear the truth and acting on it.

Mormonism is one of the most vile lies ever conceived by man to bring millions to Satan. The man-made religion of Joseph Smith lures good meaning and secularly “decent” people into committing themselves to a false sense of security that they are good people and therefor God will reward them for being good. But they are only good in their own eyes not God’s eyes. Jesus warned us “those that reject you (the leaders of the Church) reject me.” Therefor it is as impossible to please God while rejecting His Catholic Church as it was for Cain to please God with an unacceptable and vain sacrifice.

With Christ and the apostles we had 12 independent apostles to teach us the truth as well as 2000 years of independent OT prophets ( There were 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses whose prophecies were recorded for posterity and many more not recorded for posterity and “private”). So anytime I see a Johnny Come Lately Religion with a sole prophet self proclaiming to be an oracle we immediately know that this is breaking God’s historical pattern of revelation. Two such religions are Mohammadism and Mormonism (or really “Smithism” ).

Bottom line - I am with you. I can’t hardly keep a straight face when a Mormon ( just like the JWs etc.) approaches me and starts parroting the party line and rhetoric of Joseph Smiths religion. The theology is so shallow and infantile that I simply can not believe that so many otherwise intelligent people fall for it.

The Apostles warned us explicitly about receiving a new gospel:
Galatians 1:6-9 says; “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Is sure sounds like the so called Angel of Light, “Moroni”, was exactly what we were warned about by the Apostles. Anyone know the etymology of the word Moron?

James