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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
would this be the same Emma who claimed there was no revelation on polygamy ad that it was all Brigham young’s idea? the same one who claimed the Utah LDs were all wrong and following a false prophet and started her own church?

apparently someone saw JS working on a book since emma, martinn harris and oliver all wrote about it. he called it a “translation” but all the descriptions are pretty much the same thing one would see if they were writing a book from scratch. it certainly required paper and ink. JS and emma certainly collaborated, oliver and harris may have been duped or may have been collaborators as well. rigdon certainly played a major role in later LDS “scriptures”
No one saw JS working on a book. The translation was done with a scribe present. But no manuscript was seen or heard of. JS lived in a small community and if he were bookish and buying paper, it would have been noticed. The point is: No one saw JS working on a manuscript. No one had any suspicion that he was. And so: He wasn’t. Hence, the idea that a third person wrote the book.

Emma was no fan of polygamy. Truth: Emma did not gain at all from the book of mormon. When Joseph and his brother were murdered, she left the fold and did not want anything to do with mormonism until asked by the reorganize church to be involved. She joined but kept a low profile in that church, never denying the book of mormon but denying the polygamy of her late husband JS.
 
Brodie didn’t debunk the theory. There is more and more research being done which confirms the theory as the Criddle article demonstrates. For example people did not know in Brodie’s time that Rigdon and Spalding shared the same post office in Pittsburgh. Read the entire Criddle article as well as some of Dale Broadhurst’s research (Google him) and perhaps you will begin to see how much more sense the Spalding theory makes than anything else out there. Mormon historians like to claim Spalding has been debunked so they don’t have to deal with it seriously. You might want to look at Vernal Holley’s work, especially the maps:

solomonspalding.com/docs2/2001vern.htm

Just be Catholic why me. Mormonism can’t be trusted.
I have often responded to Dale over at mormonapologetics. His case is based on hypothetical illustrations which are not the best evidence to draw from. Uncle Dale, as he is known on the internet is a good guy who is just interested in researching the loose ends of mormonism but he has not proven anything substantial to my knowledge. But he does give a lot of ‘wouldas, couldas, and shouldas’ in his research.
 
What do you mean? even if the story of it being translated are true there would still be paper and ink. And if he was so busy out on the farm how did he have time to do the translation?
The translation process did not take long. But no one saw him writing a book before the translation process. No huge purchases of ink and books for research etc. And he was not known to hang out in libraries.
 
Hello Why me,

I realize this does not follow the topic per say, ( sorry for that )

After reading and posting a few times on this topic, I must say that ( even though I do not think the BoM as well as the " translation" of JS has historical or consistent Merit.
( quite the contrary)

I do commend you for all your efforts ( responses) that have been done in a respectfull and warm manner.

It seems to me , that given the obstacles and ( sometimes ) insults you have faced, You have, in my opinion, treated other posters ( me included ) as I think we should all treat eachother.

For that ( if nothing else ) I do applaud you

God bless,
Carl
Thank you. I am only giving the case for the other side. Mormonism is complicated and its early history is very interesting. The witnesses are a good case for mormonism and a needed one. The critics have tried to debunk them but they have failed miserably.

Mormonism has survived because of its history. If it were a fraud, it would have only taken one witness to recant his testimony. Not to mention the wife of JS etc. But all stuck to their story.

I can’t explain it but to brush the witnesses away would also be a mistake.

There are three or four cases about the book of mormon:
  1. JS wrote it through a process that resembled automatic writing.
  2. JS wrote it plagarizing other people’s works.
  3. Sidney wrote it but gave all the glory to JS, when in fact, he was a respected pastor in his own right before he joined the lds church.
  4. Hyrum Smith had a hand in it since he was the brains in the family
  5. All other possible explanations that have accumulated over the years.
And yet, how to get so many people to go along with the fraud???

And that leaves number 6:

It is just as JS said it was, he instructed to find the gold plates and translate the book of mormon.
 
And then there is this:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=21&table=transcripts

The story is very complicated and interesting but one thing is for sure, the witnesses, if a fraudsters did not benefit from any fraud and two, if what they claim is true, are a witness for the truthfulness of the book of mormon, until otherwise proven.

As for myself, I do not know what to believe but I do keep an open mind and find it all fascinating.
 
Emma, Joseph Smith’s wife had claimed that no manuscript was present. Also, no one to my knowledge ever saw JS working on a book.
True, but several people saw Sidney Rigdon working on a book. It was well known among his familiars that Sidney had obtained a manuscript and would lock himself in his study for hours at a time with that manuscript and lots of paper and pens. This was in the years before the publication of the BoM.

It is all in the Criddle book.

Paul
 
No one saw JS working on a book. The translation was done with a scribe present. But no manuscript was seen or heard of. JS lived in a small community and if he were bookish and buying paper, it would have been noticed. The point is: No one saw JS working on a manuscript. No one had any suspicion that he was. And so: He wasn’t. Hence, the idea that a third person wrote the book.

Emma was no fan of polygamy. Truth: Emma did not gain at all from the book of mormon. When Joseph and his brother were murdered, she left the fold and did not want anything to do with mormonism until asked by the reorganize church to be involved. She joined but kept a low profile in that church, never denying the book of mormon but denying the polygamy of her late husband JS.
except the manuscript for the BoM. what do you think they handed to the publishers? it was a manuscript… that JS and associates produced. of course he bought paper and ink. how else did it get there? emma gained property, money and power from the BoM. keeping the copyright to the JST and helping her son to be the next “prophet” is not what i would call a low profile. she denied quite a lot of LDS doctrine. of course she maintained the BoM was true. it was her families livelihood.
 
I have often responded to Dale over at mormonapologetics. His case is based on hypothetical illustrations which are not the best evidence to draw from. Uncle Dale, as he is known on the internet is a good guy who is just interested in researching the loose ends of mormonism but he has not proven anything substantial to my knowledge. But he does give a lot of ‘wouldas, couldas, and shouldas’ in his research.
which is pretty much all that jeff lindsay, FAIR and FARMS provide as well.
 
The translation process did not take long. But no one saw him writing a book before the translation process. No huge purchases of ink and books for research etc. And he was not known to hang out in libraries.
actually he read quite a bit and his family had tried teaching school at various times and had their own books. you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that he wasn’t bookish or that he didn’t go to libraries. for that matter you have yet to show evidence that he wasn’t buying paper and ink and writing either. the “translation” process took long enough to produce a manuscript that could be published. which happens to be long enough to write a book as well.
 
Thank you. I am only giving the case for the other side. Mormonism is complicated and its early history is very interesting. The witnesses are a good case for mormonism and a needed one. The critics have tried to debunk them but they have failed miserably.
this claim is false. none of those witnesses have been shown to be credible by anyone. their own actions afterwards and JS own criticism of them calls into question there already shady character.
Mormonism has survived because of its history. If it were a fraud, it would have only taken one witness to recant his testimony. Not to mention the wife of JS etc. But all stuck to their story.
this doesn’t wash. islam could make the same claim and so could hinduism, sihkism, bahai and even scientology for that matter. Mormonism has survived because of a unique set of circumstances that let it exist as a separate culture under totalitarian rule until it was inculcated into an entire generation of people.
I can’t explain it but to brush the witnesses away would also be a mistake.

There are three or four cases about the book of mormon:
  1. JS wrote it through a process that resembled automatic writing.
  2. JS wrote it plagarizing other people’s works.
  3. Sidney wrote it but gave all the glory to JS, when in fact, he was a respected pastor in his own right before he joined the lds church.
  4. Hyrum Smith had a hand in it since he was the brains in the family
  5. All other possible explanations that have accumulated over the years.
And yet, how to get so many people to go along with the fraud???

And that leaves number 6:

It is just as JS said it was, he instructed to find the gold plates and translate the book of mormon.
it’s easy to get people involved in a fraud, especially if you have duped some of them into believing it.once again your argument is no different than the claim of many older, larger movements.
 
And then there is this:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=21&table=transcripts

The story is very complicated and interesting but one thing is for sure, the witnesses, if a fraudsters did not benefit from any fraud and two, if what they claim is true, are a witness for the truthfulness of the book of mormon, until otherwise proven.

As for myself, I do not know what to believe but I do keep an open mind and find it all fascinating.
if what you say were true then islam is true and the Koran the word of God.

all of the “fraudsters” in the BoM origin DID benefit (or perceived that they would) don’t forget the probability that some of them were actually fooled themselves. who has proven that L Ron Hubbard didn’t speak to extraterrestrials? that he wasn’t telling the truth in dianetics? why to this day no one has proven scientology isn’t true!

here you say you don’t know what to believe and that you keep an open mind yet you are on record as bearing testimony that you know the BoM is true and JS was a prophet. you consistently attack the catholic church and defend the LDS. i think we can all see the truth here.
 
which is pretty much all that jeff lindsay, FAIR and FARMS provide as well.
I think Broadhurst and those working on this research have brought forth a lot of important information. There used to be a denial that Rigdon and Spalding could have known each other. Now we know they had boxes in the same Pittsburgh post office. We also know that Rigdon and Spalding both shared relationships with the Patterson printing firm where Spalding took his manuscript. It’s not very hard to connect the dots. The fact the part of the Book of Mormon which replaced the lost pages reflects the Campbellite doctrine of Rigdon is also significant. These pages were replaced at the same time Rigdon was taking a specific stance on issues like baptism. And they all show up in the Book of Mormon!
 
  1. A good part of the BoM is sheer copying from the KJV–the edition Smith’s mother had apparently (including the Deutercannonicals as an appendix–and at least one story from the DT’s was “adapted” into the BoM). So Smith has access to at least once source text.
  2. Palmyra NY was a “boom town” of 16,000 people (Erie Canal construction) with a for-pay lending library of several thousand volumes
  3. Testimony from the Smith’s neighbor’s that JSjr was a “tale-spinner” prior to his “discovery” of the plates–including two men who said that Smith told him of witnessing the ghost of some Spanish man with a cut throat who told him about gold plates. No angels, NO mention of a “first vision” exerience until YEARS after.
  4. In addition to Smith’s fortune-hunting/vision scam, evidence that the Smiths were part of a popular folk-magic tradition–including Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph’s mother) recounting how they would use “abracadaba” recitation as a good luck charm
 
Here are some more:

Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2004) Richard Lloyd Anderson discusses the strength and consistency of the Book of Mormon witnesses and responds to common criticisms of their testimonies. (2004 FAIR Conference presentation.)

Michael R. Ash, “Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 1: Motives,” (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Critics often dismiss the first-hand testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses by questioning their motives.

Michael R. Ash, “Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 2: Oliver Cowdery,” (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Because Oliver Cowdery had a falling out with Joseph Smith and left the Church for a time, should his testimony of the Book of Mormon be suspect?

Michael R. Ash, “Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 3: Martin Harris,” (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Martin Harris, a witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, has been maligned and dismissed by critics. What is the real story?

Michael R. Ash, “Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 4: David Whitmer,” (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. David Whitmer left the Church and never rejoined. Did he recant his testimony of the Book of Mormon?

Michael R. Ash, “The Book of Mormon,” Mormonism 201 (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR) Ash rebuts the charges made in Mormonism 101 concerning the Book of Mormon (including issues, such as, the Three Witness, the Fullness and the Fullness of the Gospel).

Which can be found here:

fairlds.org/apol/ai109.html

The first one by Anderson is very good. 🙂
Thanks for the link to the articles. These articles, however, all relate to the witness to the Book of Mormon. I was more interested in the actual process of the translation. The article which I had linked to is a very well researched and intelligent study of the actual process of translation, which I think is very interesting, and I am inclined to agree with his conclusions.

zerinus
 
Thanks for the link to the articles. These articles, however, all relate to the witness to the Book of Mormon. I was more interested in the actual process of the translation. The article which I had linked to is a very well researched and intelligent study of the actual process of translation, which I think is very interesting, and I am inclined to agree with his conclusions.

zerinus
Of course, you are assuming there was some kind of translation. My guess would be if it were an actual translation the Book of Mormon would conform more to the facts on the ground with regards to Native Americans. That the Book of Mormon and studies in archaeology, linguistics and DNA don’t agree makes the idea of a translation from an ancient document highly doubtful. I suspect we should be talking about a method of creation rather than a method of translation. In that regard the idea of a collusion between Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey, Joseph Smith and perhaps Parley P. Pratt makes a lot more sense. We know for a fact that Cowdrey and Smith worked together. We also have many eye-witnesses who claimed they saw Rigdon with Smith prior to 1830. Pratt may have worked as a go-between for all of these participants. When you consider there is no ancient evidence which confirms the Book of Mormon, the idea of a collusion between the folks mentioned above makes a lot more sense than some translation of an ancient text.
 
I am Catholic and I think the Catholic Church is the awesomest religion in the world.

However, the Mormon religion is rather awesome in itself. First of all it is a very American religion. When Joseph Smith wrote his book, there was a lot of Masonry and anti-Masonry in this country. There were also many, many Protestent sects, as well and Deists, who believed God could be found in nature. Also, there was a lot of speculation about where theAmerican Indians came from. Most people read the Bible back then, so they speculated about the lost tribes of Israel. I think Smith just came up with a brilliant synthesis of all the ideas flowing back then. Whether he was divinely inspired or not, is not my call.

I believe that Mormons today have great faith in Jesus Christ and are indeed Christians. I think we should concentrate more on our commonality than our differences.

The one thing I do not like about the Mormon religion is the enforced titheing (which is not exclusive to them). I believe that Christians should give out of the goodness of their hearts, and not expect tax breaks for tithes. When I contribute to my church, I do not expect to get a tax break for it.
 
I am Catholic and I think the Catholic Church is the awesomest religion in the world.

However, the Mormon religion is rather awesome in itself. First of all it is a very American religion. When Joseph Smith wrote his book, there was a lot of Masonry and anti-Masonry in this country. There were also many, many Protestent sects, as well and Deists, who believed God could be found in nature. Also, there was a lot of speculation about where theAmerican Indians came from. Most people read the Bible back then, so they speculated about the lost tribes of Israel. I think Smith just came up with a brilliant synthesis of all the ideas flowing back then. Whether he was divinely inspired or not, is not my call.

I believe that Mormons today have great faith in Jesus Christ and are indeed Christians. I think we should concentrate more on our commonality than our differences.

The one thing I do not like about the Mormon religion is the enforced titheing (which is not exclusive to them). I believe that Christians should give out of the goodness of their hearts, and not expect tax breaks for tithes. When I contribute to my church, I do not expect to get a tax break for it.
Hi Christine77,

With all due respect ( I mean that ) As a self pronounced Catholic,
Have you read this entire thread before making the comments you have on the " commonalities and one thing you don’t like being , of all your choices, titheing)

God bless,
Carl
 
Code:
                 Originally Posted by **zerinus**
I am interested, and here is what I have read so far:During the translation process, the witnesses were able to observe, in an open setting, the following:
•Joseph Smith placing the interpreters (either the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone) in a hat and placing his face into the hat;
•Joseph dictating for long periods of time without reference to any books, papers, manuscripts, or even the plates themselves;
•Joseph spelling out unfamiliar Book of Mormon names;
•after each dictated sequence, the scribe reading back to Joseph what was written so that Joseph could check the correctness of the manuscript;
•Joseph starting a dictation session without prompting from the scribe about where the previous session had ended.

The translation process that these witnesses observed was an open one—that is, others in the room could observe the dictation from Joseph Smith to the scribe. But early on in the translation, from late 1827 to early 1828, it appears that Joseph used a different process while translating. During this early period, Joseph would first copy some of the characters directly from the plates onto sheets of paper, from which sheets he would then translate his transcribed characters into English by means of the Urim and Thummim. During such a process, the plates were uncovered while Joseph translated (or at least while he copied the characters from the plates to paper); and since no one was permitted to see the plates until later, Joseph took precautions to prevent anyone from seeing him working directly with the plates. Martin Harris, in a couple of early statements, said that a blanket or curtain separated Joseph from him at the time he (Martin) obtained a sample transcript and translation to take to Professor Anthon in New York City.

In place of this early procedure, Joseph Smith soon turned to a method of translation that depended directly on the interpreters alone, so that the plates did not have to be viewed, and thus the translation could be done openly. All witnesses that refer either to the translation of the lost 116 pages or to our own current Book of Mormon (Emma Smith, Martin Harris, and members of the Whitmer family) openly observed this translation process—one without a curtain or blanket separating Joseph from his scribe. In fact, according to Emma, the plates were wrapped up and not directly used.
The article so far is priding itself on the fact this was an “open process” but I fail to understand how this process is “open” when Smith took “precautions” so that people would not see the plates at all. I am getting conflicting information so far as to just how much he read out of a hat, the last LDS article downplayed the hat, this LDS article makes it sound as if that is how the great majority of “translating” took place.

Ill try to read and comment on the rest later on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top