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.
This thread has been pruned of off topic post. Please remain on topic or the thread will be closed.
MF
 
Catholic_Dude said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are talking about. The article does not “pride itself” on anything. It is factual, scholarly study into how the translation was done as far as that can be determined from what has been said by those who in some way were involved with it. By “open” he means that whatever Joseph was doing could be seen by others. The plates were kept hidden because the Lord had commanded Joseph not to show them to others. The process of translation was a miraculous one. He neither knew the original language of the plates, nor was he schooled enough in English to be able to produce a literary work of this nature. He needed a special help from the Lord to be able to accomplish it. That help could only be provided by a miraculous process. You either believe that miracles can happen and did happen. or you don’t. You can’t argue with a miracle.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
I don’t know what you are talking about. The article does not “pride itself” on anything. It is factual, scholarly study into how the translation was done as far as that can be determined from what has been said by those who in some way were involved with it. By “open” he means that whatever Joseph was doing could be seen by others. The plates were kept hidden because the Lord had commanded Joseph not to show them to others. The process of translation was a miraculous one. He neither knew the original language of the plates, nor was he schooled enough in English to be able to produce a literary work of this nature. He needed a special help from the Lord to be able to accomplish it. That help could only be provided by a miraculous process. You either believe that miracles can happen and did happen. or you don’t. You can’t argue with a miracle.

zerinus
Click to expand...
You certainly CAN argue with a “miracle” when it has more holes in it than a swiss cheese. Snake oil, zerinus.😛
 
zerinus said:
I don’t know what you are talking about. The article does not “pride itself” on anything. It is factual, scholarly study into how the translation was done as far as that can be determined from what has been said by those who in some way were involved with it. By “open” he means that whatever Joseph was doing could be seen by others. The plates were kept hidden because the Lord had commanded Joseph not to show them to others. The process of translation was a miraculous one. He neither knew the original language of the plates, nor was he schooled enough in English to be able to produce a literary work of this nature. He needed a special help from the Lord to be able to accomplish it. That help could only be provided by a miraculous process. You either believe that miracles can happen and did happen. or you don’t. You can’t argue with a miracle.

zerinus
Click to expand...
But thats just it, they couldn’t really see what Smith was doing. These are supposed to be trusted scribes and yet he hides the plates behind a blanket or in another room while he either brings out a paper copy or reads out of a hat.

What is so hard about having the plates right in front of him and reading off the text to a scribe? Is that any less miraculous?
 
Catholic_Dude said:
But thats just it, they couldn’t really see what Smith was doing. These are supposed to be trusted scribes and yet he hides the plates behind a blanket or in another room while he either brings out a paper copy or reads out of a hat.

What is so hard about having the plates right in front of him and reading off the text to a scribe? Is that any less miraculous?
Click to expand...
Because God Had commanded him to not let anyone else see the plates. The miraculous powers God had given him had enabled him to translate without having the plates physically in front of him.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
…He neither knew the original language of the plates, nor was he schooled enough in English to be able to produce a literary work of this nature. He needed a special help from the Lord to be able to accomplish it. That help could only be provided by a miraculous process. You either believe that miracles can happen and did happen. or you don’t. You can’t argue with a miracle.
zerinus
Click to expand...
From someone who could and did argue that Smith’s “literary work” was not particulay “advanced”

*"…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…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 NewTestament. 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"

For full text: readprint.com/chapter-10727/Mark-Twain
 
zerinus said:
Because God Had commanded him to not let anyone else see the plates. The miraculous powers God had given him had enabled him to translate without having the plates physically in front of him.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Hi Zerinus,

No direspect intended ( you have always responed to me in a kind manner and I am trying to return that courtesy )

having said that , and trying to keep an open mind to the birth of the BoM, I STILL CAN NOT EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE ( let alone the entire LDS ) could have joined and support the history and very foundation of JS and the BoM.

With ALL the inconsistency from the very begining ( I SIMPLY JUST DON"T GET IT)

This last reply you posted ( yet again makes no sense )

Let us ( for a moment ) say God did command him to NOT LET anyone see the plates and let us ( again for a moment ) say that God also gave JS miraculous powers to translate the plates without having them physically in front of him.

( IF NO ONE was to see said plates and JS did NOT NEED the plates to be present when he “translated”, gave birth to the BoM)

THEN WHAT PURPOSE DID THE PLATES HAVE AT ALL.

God bless,
Carl
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
From someone who could and did argue that Smith’s “literary work” was not particulay “advanced”

*"…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…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 NewTestament. 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"

For full text: readprint.com/chapter-10727/Mark-Twain
Click to expand...
And this is what Mark Twain said about the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
  • Letters from the Earth
The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a picture of these people’s Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward.
  • Letters from the Earth
The Christian’s Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes…The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry…There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.
  • “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice,” Europe and Elsewhere
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
  • Mark Twain’s Notebook
From: twainquotes.com/Bible.html

And this is what he said about God:

More than once I have been humiliated by my resemblance to God the father; He is always longing for the love of His children and trying to get it on the cheapest and laziest terms He can invent.
  • letter to Clara Clemens, quoted in My Husband Gabrilowitsch)
…the swindle of life and the treachery of a God that can create disease and misery and crime–create things that men would be condemned for creating–that men would be ashamed to create.
  • quoted in Isabel Lyon’s Journal, 2/2/1906
God pours out love upon all with a lavish hand–but He reserves vengeance for His very own.
  • Mark Twain’s Notebook
To trust the God of the Bible is to trust an irascible, vindictive, fierce and ever fickle and changeful master; . . .
  • Mark Twain, a Biography
God’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.
  • Notebook, 1898
What God lacks is convictions- stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something- not try to be everything.
  • Notebook, 1898
None of us can be as great as God, but any of us can be as good [implying that God is evil!].
  • Mark Twain’s Notebook, 1902-1903
We have to keep our God placated with prayers, and even then we are never sure of him – how much higher and finer is the Indian’s God…Our illogical God is all-powerful in name, but impotent in fact; the Great Spirit is not all-powerful, but does the very best he can for his injun and does it free of charge.
  • Marginalia written in copy of Richard Irving Dodge’s Our Wild Indians
From: twainquotes.com/God.html

Mark Twain’s criticism of the Book of Mormon brings honor to the book. Your quotation of him brings dishonor to you. I will let you keep company with Mark Twain. I will keep company with what Mark Twain hates: the Bible and the Book of Mormon—and God!

Birds of a feather, flock together! 😃

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
And this is what Mark Twain said about the Bible: (edited for brevity)

Mark Twain’s criticism of the Book of Mormon brings honor to the book. Your quotation of him brings dishonor to you. I will let you keep company with Mark Twain. I will keep company with what Mark Twain hates: the Bible and the Book of Mormon—and God!

Birds of a feather, flock together! 😃

zerinus
Click to expand...
My particular citation from Roughing It was a response to your claim that the BoM’s composition would have been beyond Smith’s capacities. Letting aside (just for the moment) the high probability Smith was colluding with Cowdrey and Rigdon in it’s writing, the BoM’s style remains what Twain saw: an amatuerish creation, with turgid and dull script, excepting where it blatantly copies far better source material. In other words, the sort of writing a first time author (educated or not) might compose if he had no regard for the laws of plagarism.
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
My particular citation from Roughing It was a response to your claim that the BoM’s composition would have been beyond Smith’s capacities. Letting aside (just for the moment) the high probability Smith was colluding with Cowdrey and Rigdon in it’s writing, the BoM’s style remains what Twain saw: an amatuerish creation, with turgid and dull script, excepting where it blatantly copies far better source material. In other words, the sort of writing a first time author (educated or not) might compose if he had no regard for the laws of plagarism.
Click to expand...
My previous post still applies. No further comment is required.

zerinus
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
Because you cant think of anything to counter the charge the BoM is the plagarizing work of an amatuer?
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon is neither plagiarising nor is it the work of an amature. It is a book of scripture and the work of God.

The Book of Mormon is a book of high class literature equal to the KJV. Mark Twain is not is qualified to judge any aspect of the Book of Mormon any more than of the Bible, including its literary qualities.

As for plagiarism, prophets quote from each other. The Bible is full of it. The books of 1 & 2 Kings are mostly identical to the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are mostly copied from the same sources and are for the most part identical with each other. The Prophets and Psalms are full of quotations from each other and from other parts of the Bible. That just shows up your multitude of ignorance.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
The Book of Mormon is neither plagiarising nor is it the work of an amature. It is a book of scripture and the work of God.

The Book of Mormon is a book of high class literature equal to the KJV. Mark Twain is not is qualified to judge any aspect of the Book of Mormon any more than of the Bible, including its literary qualities.

As for plagiarism, prophets quote from each other. The Bible is full of it. The books of 1 & 2 Kings are mostly identical to the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are mostly copied from the same sources and are for the most part identical with each other. The Prophets and Psalms are full of quotations from each other and from other parts of the Bible. That just shows up your multitude of ignorance.

zerinus
Click to expand...
first i would state that the KJV is very poor, error filled version of the bible which is missing substantial portions. the BoM is NOt scripture and it certainly isn’t the work of God.

biblical prophets quote scripture at times to make a point and some books are in fact other accounts of the same events to gain a different authors perspective for better understanding. none of those involve rote copying of another book, especially with anachronistic errors. (the Bom alleges to be written in biblical times yet repeats errors unique to the KJV)

only mormons find the literary quality of the BoM to be significant. the structure and grammar are not consistent with a polished writer. that in and of itself doesn’t necessarily disprove it as scripture but it does prevent it form being categorized as “high class literature”. it is more properly compared with the Koran, baghavad gita, and other such manmade religious writings.
 
zerinus said:
My previous post still applies. No further comment is required.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Mark Twain was certainly correct about the BOM, regardless of what he said about the Bible. His literary criticism of the BOM was dead on. You would think that Almighty God, allegedly using JS as His mouthpiece, would have done a better job on the structure, content and grammar of the work. and why were there so many errors in the book? And so many outright lies? Well, either God was having a bad literary day, or Joseph Smith and his henchmen made up the whole foolish thing. I am inclined to believe the latter. zerinus, is gullibility one of the Temple endowments?
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
My particular citation from Roughing It was a response to your claim that the BoM’s composition would have been beyond Smith’s capacities. Letting aside (just for the moment) the high probability Smith was colluding with Cowdrey and Rigdon in it’s writing, the BoM’s style remains what Twain saw: an amatuerish creation, with turgid and dull script, excepting where it blatantly copies far better source material. In other words, the sort of writing a first time author (educated or not) might compose if he had no regard for the laws of plagarism.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge Mark Twain was not known for his good natured personality. I think just the opposite. His comments about the bible prove the point. I also believe that he was not very relgious in his outlook. But I could be wrong about this. However, critics often point to Mark Twain as a reference point for the book of mormon which is quite amazing really. He was not at all religious in outlook, if I am not mistaken.
 
PaulDupre said:
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
Click to expand...
Sidney was rather a smart guy and if he was writing a book or writing sermons, it doesn’t prove anything. Many preachers were engaged in writing. However, to have sidney locked away in his study writing a book in order for JS to be a prophet and to give JS all the credit, seems just a little far fetched. And then fake his coversion when LDS missionaries came to his door seems a little far fetched too. Sidney, I believe, was not known to take a back seat. When JS was murdered, he wanted to be the next leader. Sorry, but I just can’t see Sidney doing what you are claiming he did.

Also, anything said at this time by people who were alive at that time is suspect. It seems that everyone had agendas and there are many second or third person accounts by people who were not very favorable toward the lds church. The antimormons in putting hyptheticals into the story and mormons with more faith promoting versions. I am afraid that the lds church will stand on its own and so far, it is succeeding.
 
It takes just as much speculation to believe Joseph Smith’s story as it does to believe the many stories about how Joseph Smith came into possesion of his story. The bottom line is does anyone really want to trust their immortal souls to speculation and extreme controversy when we already have a credible salvation story based on 4000 years of revelation, heroic persecution of the saints and uncountable miracles that we have in The Bible and the sacraments and teaching of The Apostolic Catholic Church? If Mr. Smith is selling snake oil I have to ask “what for and who needs it and more importantly why does God need it”?

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
It takes just as much speculation to believe Joseph Smith’s story as it does to believe the many stories about how Joseph Smith came into possesion of his story. The bottom line is does anyone really want to trust their immortal souls to speculation and extreme controversy when we already have a credible salvation story based on 4000 years of revelation, heroic persecution of the saints and uncountable miracles that we have in The Bible and the sacraments and teaching of The Apostolic Catholic Church? If Mr. Smith is selling snake oil I have to ask “what for and who needs it and more importantly why does God need it”?

James
Click to expand...
I sure didn’t – that’s why I became Catholic. The Mormon story simply lacks credibility. It’s probably more helpful to look at the result of Joseph Smith’s work, the Book of Mormon, than the process of how it came to be. The result is very disappointing. The Book of Mormon fails in so many ways that it would be foolish to put your eternal salvation at risk to embrace it. Linguistics is just one of the areas in which the Book of Mormon fails completely – there is no connection between any of the Native American languages and Hebrew or Egyptian. mtDNA studies show that Native Americans descend from Asians, not Middle Eastern peoples. There is no credible archaeological evidence that reflects any migration from the Middle East. There is more and more evidence contradicting the Book of Mormon. If it were true you would think there would be at least some evidence being compiled to back up Joseph’s story.
 
CentralFLJames said:
It takes just as much speculation to believe Joseph Smith’s story as it does to believe the many stories about how Joseph Smith came into possesion of his story. The bottom line is does anyone really want to trust their immortal souls to speculation and extreme controversy when we already have a credible salvation story based on 4000 years of revelation, heroic persecution of the saints and uncountable miracles that we have in The Bible and the sacraments and teaching of The Apostolic Catholic Church? If Mr. Smith is selling snake oil I have to ask “what for and who needs it and more importantly why does God need it”?

James
Click to expand...
Hello James,

VERY well said ( I ABSOLUTLY AGREE)

God Bless,
Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top