mormon prophet on Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember going to church with a Mormon friend one time years ago and listening to a Sunday School lesson about the translation of the Book of Mormon. As I recall, the means of translation involved some magic rocks that Joseph Smith peered at held inside a hat. Somehow he was able to translate the golden plates this way. Always sounded rather strange to me. Are the magic rocks the Urim and Thummin or do the magic rocks have another name? (Sorry to call them magic rocks, that’s not meant to be critical, just the only thing I could think of to call them since I don’t remember what they were called in the lesson so many years ago.)

Melanie
 
Allweather said:
OK, but whether oral or written, these records were subject to human error, according to the same presumptions Mormons are making about the Bible. How could it be that the BoM is any less subject to the errors of human transcription, to say nothing of translation, than the Bible?
Click to expand...
All records kept by human beings are subject to error, no question about it. But there is a big difference between a document as it was originally penned by its original author, and one that has been copied and recopied a thousand times. All ancient documents that have reached us from antiquity have been transmitted through that process. Let me give you an example. Plato’s Republic was written many centuries before Christ, and it is one of the most influential books in human history that have ever been written. Scholars would give an arm and a leg to get hold of a copy of the book as it was originally penned by Plato; but they are unlikely to ever, because such a manuscript has not survived. The oldest manuscripts that have survived are a copy of a copy of a copy of … the original. That is also true of the Bible; but not so of the Book of Mormon.
How do Mormons know that “plain and precious” parts of the BoM weren’t removed by unknown hands?
Click to expand...
In the same way that we know that the book is true in the first place. Believing in the Book of Mormon is a matter faith to begin with. If anybody wanted to doubt that “plain and precious parts” were removed from the Book of Mormon, he would have no cause to believe in it in the first place. But having had the faith to believed that it is true in the first instance, he would not have any reason to doubt the integrity of the book either. It is an unjustifiable question.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Believing in the Book of Mormon is a matter faith to begin with. If anybody wanted to doubt that “plain and precious parts” were removed from the Book of Mormon, he would have no cause to believe in it in the first place. But having had the faith to believed that it is true in the first instance, he would not have any reason to doubt the integrity of the book either. It is an unjustifiable question.

zerinus
Click to expand...
I presume, then, that Mormons, who according to your past statements, believe that the Bible is the word of God and of equal validity to the BoM, also accept it as a “matter of faith” to begin with.

Why would Mormons believe as a “matter of faith” in the BoM, that it has not had parts removed/altered by hands unknown, that it is a word of God, yet believe that the Bible has had plain and precious parts removed/altered from it? Since both are equally valid collections of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, and since both have been subjected to human handling in transmission and translation, why do Mormons accord the BoM a level of accuracy not also accorded the Bible? Both collections are viewed through the eyes of faith.

Given the time spans both collections were written over, I don’t see why the BoM has any greater claim to being error-free than the Bible has.
 
Allweather said:
According to the D&C reference you gave earlier, the BITB, and its counterpart, the stupor of mind, would, it seems obvious, not permit there to be any errors during the translation process. Moreover, God supposedly was carrying on a direct conversation with Joseph Smith over a period of many years, giving him detailed instructions in words that were written down, on a wide variety of subjects. Anyone in so direct communication with Almighty God couldn’t possibly be subject to errors in translation. Also, since the plates were taken back into heaven, how could Joseph Smith be sure he was making valid corrections to the manuscript later on? Was he relying on memory?
Click to expand...
Okay, go and find me all the corrections that Joseph Smith made in the first edition of the Book of Mormon (which is what we are talking about here) and we will discuss them. I am not going to discuss this subject with you in “abstractions” “generalizations”.
Does the original manuscript still exist?
Click to expand...
There were two manuscripts: the original one that was written at the dictation of Joseph Smith; and printer’s manuscript, which was a copy of the original made by Oliver Cowdery for the printer. The Printer’s manuscript has largely survived intact. The original one has partially survived, but most of it has perished.
Is there anywhere a complete catalog of all the “errors” that came to be between the original manuscript and the first published and printed edition?
Click to expand...
Yes, here is a quote from the Wikipedia on the Book of Mormon:

Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001, contains transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, in four parts (3 already published since 2005) contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Meanwhile, volume 3, not yet published, is to describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.

The two original manuscripts previously mentioned have also been published, if I remember correctly with detailed comparison of the differences, but I can’t recall the title and author of the books.
Also, to repeat my earlier question, since, according to the D&C reference you cited the BITB is the key to accuracy in translation, and was a gift given not only to Joseph Smith, but to others, such as Cowdery, how does the urim and thummin fit into this process?
Click to expand...
As I explained earlier, the role of the Urim and Thummim and how they were used in the translation process is not described in detail in Church history.
I was under the impression that this device(s) were given in the container with the plates in order to facilitate the translation, presumably to allow Smith to read the ancient and arcane language on the plates.
Click to expand...
That is partly right. The Urim and Thummim are essentially instruments of revelation, and there is only one person on earth at any one time that is entitled to use them, and that is the President of the Church. Now don’t ask me if Gordon B Hinckley has them or not! He hasn’t told us, and I don’t think he is ever likely to.
Since they were divinely provided for that purpose, why would there need to be any intellectual involvement by Smith or Cowdery, or anyone else, at all?
Click to expand...
Because that is the way God likes to works with mankind.
BTW thanks for all this information. I am learning a lot.
Click to expand...
You are very welcome.

zerinus
 
MelanieAnne said:
I remember going to church with a Mormon friend one time years ago and listening to a Sunday School lesson about the translation of the Book of Mormon. As I recall, the means of translation involved some magic rocks that Joseph Smith peered at held inside a hat. Somehow he was able to translate the golden plates this way. Always sounded rather strange to me. Are the magic rocks the Urim and Thummin or do the magic rocks have another name? (Sorry to call them magic rocks, that’s not meant to be critical, just the only thing I could think of to call them since I don’t remember what they were called in the lesson so many years ago.)

Melanie
Click to expand...
that is what they are called 🙂
 
Allweather said:
I presume, then, that Mormons, who according to your past statements, believe that the Bible is the word of God and of equal validity to the BoM, also accept it as a “matter of faith” to begin with.

Why would Mormons believe as a “matter of faith” in the BoM, that it has not had parts removed/altered by hands unknown, that it is a word of God, yet believe that the Bible has had plain and precious parts removed/altered from it? Since both are equally valid collections of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, and since both have been subjected to human handling in transmission and translation, why do Mormons accord the BoM a level of accuracy not also accorded the Bible? Both collections are viewed through the eyes of faith.

Given the time spans both collections were written over, I don’t see why the BoM has any greater claim to being error-free than the Bible has.
Click to expand...
That is an unreasonable, illogical, and unjustifiable question. I am not going to get into an endless back and forth with you in nonsensicalities. I am always ready to answer peoples’ reasonable questions. See my answers previously given.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Okay, go and find me all the corrections that Joseph Smith made in the first edition of the Book of Mormon (which is what we are talking about here) and we will discuss them. I am not going to discuss this subject with you in “abstractions” “generalizations”.
Click to expand...
LOL, I have no idea where even to begin looking. I was assuming that you’d have more information on this, and that is why I asked you. I’ve often read others make reference to changes in the BoM, not only those made by JS, but also those made by others in the years subsequent to his life. Some have said there are “thousands” of changes. You yourself made the following statement in this very thread this morming:

““I told you before; they are not that many, and they are not theologically very significant, and they are not necessarily “errors” either. Joseph Smith, like any translator, was entitled to improve upon his own translation.””

I emphasize the words that catch my eye. To say the changes are not very significant is not to actually quantify or qualify their significance, but rather to give a matter of personal opinion, with which others may choose to disagree.
There were two manuscripts: the original one that was written at the dictation of Joseph Smith; and printer’s manuscript, which was a copy of the original made by Oliver Cowdery for the printer. The Printer’s manuscript has largely survived intact. The original one has partially survived, but most of it has perished.
Click to expand...
Are scholars able to identify a significant number of variations between what is left of the original dictated by JS, and the copy made by Cowdery? Is there enough left of the original document to reach any conclusions? Where are these documents kept today? Are there any complete copies of the first printing of the BoM still in existence?
Yes, here is a quote from the Wikipedia on the Book of Mormon:
Click to expand...
Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001, contains transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, in four parts (3 already published since 2005) contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Meanwhile, volume 3, not yet published, is to describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. That’s an odd statement. “Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published in 2001…” Meanwhile, volume 3 hasn’t even been published yet. What was going on between 1989 and 2001? And since this is such an important issue, one upon which so much criticism of Mormonism appears to be based, why would the LDS church wait until 2001 to begin publishing details?
As I explained earlier, the role of the Urim and Thummim and how they were used in the translation process is not described in detail in Church history.
Click to expand...
Section 10 of D&C starts this way: ““Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim…””

It therefore seems that the Urim and Thummim were critical to the translation process.
That is partly right. The Urim and Thummim are essentially instruments of revelation, and there is only one person on earth that is entitled to use them, and that is the President of the Church. Now don’t ask me if Gordon B Hinckley has them or not! He hasn’t told us, and I don’t think he is ever likely to.
Click to expand...
So, it is possible that Gordon Hinckley has these in his possession? Were these not taken back into Heaven along with the plates?
Because that is the way God likes to works with mankind.
Click to expand...
That seems so. In the past I belonged to a fundamentalist sect that believed that the Bible was dictated to the inspired writers by some process which made certain that the exact words God wanted in the Bible were written down. I can’t remember what this theory is called, but it isn’t at all uncommon among Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals. These people actually believe that the human writers of the Bible were merely conduits, and that their intellectual powers were not involved in the process.
 
zerinus said:
That is an unreasonable, illogical, and unjustifiable question. I am not going to get into an endless back and forth with you in nonsensicalities. I am always ready to answer peoples’ reasonable questions. See my answers previously given.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Well, then, let me rephrase it in simpler terms. Sorry if my syntax gets a little cluttered.

Mormons accept the BoM on faith. Mormons believe the BoM is free of error.

Mormons accept the Bible on faith. Mormons believe the Bible is tainted by error, error caused by humans in transmission, translation, and perhaps by deliberate action.

Given the facts of transmission and translation already presented in this thread, by you and others, that the BoM was handled by humans over a period of some 1,000 years before being “abridged” and buried (by a human), and then translated and copied by hand (by humans), how can Mormons claim that the BoM is any more error-free than the Bible is?
 
zerinus said:
You are wasting your time. This only questions the method of its transmission, not the book itself as a divinely inspired book of scripture and the word of God.
zerinus
Click to expand...
Its divinely inspired but corrupted such that it could never be trusted alone. Given that, you need to make the fact you believe it is corrupted and insufficient very clear when you talk to people about it. The Articles of Faith give the impression the only concern is that it be “translated” correctly, not that its corrupt with parts pertaining to salvation missing.
 
Don’t forget the role of the seer stone. too many people confuse it with the Urim and thummim. The descriptions of each by Joseph Smith make it clear that they are not the same item(s). the seer stone IS in the Possession of the LDs church. it has in the past been displayed at BYu and photographs are available. How IT was used can be somewhat seen in the D&C where it appears to be used for some of those sections. Older LDS versions of their church history indicate that it was used quite extensively in the “translation” of the BoM.
 
majick275 said:
Don’t forget the role of the seer stone. too many people confuse it with the Urim and thummim. The descriptions of each by Joseph Smith make it clear that they are not the same item(s). the seer stone IS in the Possession of the LDs church. it has in the past been displayed at BYu and photographs are available. How IT was used can be somewhat seen in the D&C where it appears to be used for some of those sections. Older LDS versions of their church history indicate that it was used quite extensively in the “translation” of the BoM.
Click to expand...
According to Martin Harris, Smith used a “peep stone” to find the BoM plates in the first place. The following is culled from an interview with Martin Harris, the text of which is found at this web site:

utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/harrisinterviewtiffanysmonthly.htm

““Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase…It was by means of this stone that he first discovered these plates…(Joseph) had before described the manner of his finding the plates. He found them by looking in the stone…The family had likewise told me the same thing.”” From One Nation Under Gods, by Richard Abanes.

So, he not only used one of several peep stones to translate the language supposedly engraved on the plates, he used one to find the plates in the first place. Very interesting.
 
Is zerinus the best FARMS has to offer? I just now prayed about the book of mormon. God told me clearly it wasn’t true. There, that should end all debate.
 
OK, I guess the “magic rocks” I referred to earlier are properly called “seer stones”. Thank you for the clarification and I beg your pardon for any slight. And I’m sorry if I sound critical but GIVE ME A BREAK ~ someone actually claimed to translate documents that can no longer be located using “seer stones” that they peered at inside a hat? And THAT is the basis for “scripture”? And you want to claim that as valid as well as saying it supplants 2000 years of history of the True Church?

And I will go further. The Mormons claim they have “restored” the Church and “restored” the Gospel. And that’s fine. I just have one request about “restoration”. Please SHOW ME THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. Because you see, lots of the Bible and the Early Church have these records to support their existence. Where is the EVIDENCE of the church that the Mormons “restored” with these scriptures that no longer exist and that were translated using “seer stones” held in a hat and dictated? I have never seen any evidence that such a church existed and, in fact, I doubt its existence.

Actually “doubt” is not the right word. I reject the claim that it ever existed. So REJECT is the right word. I don’t mean that to say that anyone who believes these things is a bad person as I have many friends who do believe them living here in “Mormon Land” (California) (Did you think all the Mormons were in Utah? You would be wrong! There are more, in terms of numbers, in California!) But the bottom line is that I seriously doubt the existence of the original “church” that was supposedly “restored” and NO ONE to my knowledge has ever produced any proof that it existed, much less provided any evidence of the beliefs of said original “church” are in any way related to the “Book of Mormon”. It is a mystery to me why no one ever asks these questions. But perhaps they have and I have just missed the answer? Or perhaps no one has asked? I don’t know.
 
zerinus said:
The oldest manuscripts that have survived are a copy of a copy of a copy of … the original. That is also true of the Bible; but not so of the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
40.png
zerinus:
There were two manuscripts: the original one that was written at the dictation of Joseph Smith; and printer’s manuscript, which was a copy of the original made by Oliver Cowdery for the printer. The Printer’s manuscript has largely survived intact. The original one has partially survived, but most of it has perished.
Click to expand...
So neither have survived fully intact

How is that different to the Bible then?
 
MelanieAnne said:
OK, I guess the “magic rocks” I referred to earlier are properly called “seer stones”. Thank you for the clarification and I beg your pardon for any slight. And I’m sorry if I sound critical but GIVE ME A BREAK ~ someone actually claimed to translate documents that can no longer be located using “seer stones” that they peered at inside a hat? And THAT is the basis for “scripture”? And you want to claim that as valid as well as saying it supplants 2000 years of history of the True Church?

And I will go further. The Mormons claim they have “restored” the Church and “restored” the Gospel. And that’s fine. I just have one request about “restoration”. Please SHOW ME THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. Because you see, lots of the Bible and the Early Church have these records to support their existence. Where is the EVIDENCE of the church that the Mormons “restored” with these scriptures that no longer exist and that were translated using “seer stones” held in a hat and dictated? I have never seen any evidence that such a church existed and, in fact, I doubt its existence.

Actually “doubt” is not the right word. I reject the claim that it ever existed. So REJECT is the right word. I don’t mean that to say that anyone who believes these things is a bad person as I have many friends who do believe them living here in “Mormon Land” (California) (Did you think all the Mormons were in Utah? You would be wrong! There are more, in terms of numbers, in California!) But the bottom line is that I seriously doubt the existence of the original “church” that was supposedly “restored” and NO ONE to my knowledge has ever produced any proof that it existed, much less provided any evidence of the beliefs of said original “church” are in any way related to the “Book of Mormon”. It is a mystery to me why no one ever asks these questions. But perhaps they have and I have just missed the answer? Or perhaps no one has asked? I don’t know.
Click to expand...
You are not missing anything there is no proof.
 
The Urium and the Thirum were not originally part of the mythology of the BoM’s translation. One of Smith’s followers, years after he authored the BoM, starting using those terms for Smith’s peep stones. The original reference is obviously the Old Testament. Most scholars agree the Urium and Thirum were part of the priest’s vestments, the text itself doesn’t provide a great amount of details about them. There are no Jewish references to googles used to translate non-existant languages however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top