Mormonism Is Not Confirmed By the Bible

[Returning_Home]

It was a complicated process. You have Nephi getting excited about the words of Isaiah as he read them from the brass plates, and taught them to his people. You have him writing the transcription of Isaiah’s words which had been written in ancient Hebrew, in a new symbolic writing style they made up using Nephi’s learning of Egyptian forms of writing, since the new writing style took up less space than writing ancient Hebrew. You have William Tyndale who translated from the Latin and Greek into English in the 1600’s. You have Joseph Smith who was familiar with the King James Bible translation. You have the complication that the inspiration guiding the translation process was coming into his mind as well as being seen through the seer stone, and that the word “Lucifer” was already known and in use in the English usage of 1828, like many other Latin-origin words.

It looks things haven’t changed much since I’ve been away; you’re still telling tall tales as if they were reality. Let me shed a few facts on this.

Since we know that the BOM is a literal translation of the fictional plates, there can’t realistically be any of Smith’s own influence in the text. Therefore, having Lehi and Nephi both using the exact same wording we find in the Bible, and not just any Bible, but the KJV with which we know Smith was very familiar, it’s odd to note that the the BOM contains phrases and entire sentences from the New Testament. How could that happen?
How could the earliest parts of the BOM, written around 600 BC, contain the exact language we find in a book as-then not yet written by people not yet born on a continent 5,000 miles away and then translated into the regional-specific version first published in 1611? That’s about 2,200 years that separate the BOM and the KJV and yet we find the same language contained in both when the BOM was supposedly written in the “Reformed Egyptian” which came from the original Hebrew! Miraculous indeed!

Not only that, but we find that “Reformed Egyptian” exists nowhere outside of Mormonism and Hebrew nowhere in the pre-Columbian world. And yet you still believe this tripe! Amazing!

We also have Smith claiming that the BOM didn’t contain Latin or Greek words and yet we find them used regularly: Christ, which is Greek in origin and even “Adieu,” which is French derived from the Latin vernacular.

David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses who attested to having seen the gold plates said: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the BOM was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear and then another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus, the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any man.” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887)

In the July 1993 Ensign, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “He (Martin Harris) also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the BOM with a seerstone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seerstone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear.”

When one applies simple reason to the claims of Joseph Smith, the lies are easy to see. Sorry to dispel the illusion.

 

[ParkerD]

It looks things haven’t changed much since I’ve been away; you’re still telling tall tales as if they were reality. Let me shed a few facts on this.

Since we know that the BOM is a literal translation of the fictional plates, there can’t realistically be any of Smith’s own influence in the text. Therefore, having Lehi and Nephi both using the exact same wording we find in the Bible, and not just any Bible, but the KJV with which we know Smith was very familiar, it’s odd to note that the the BOM contains phrases and entire sentences from the New Testament. How could that happen?
How could the earliest parts of the BOM, written around 600 BC, contain the exact language we find in a book as-then not yet written by people not yet born on a continent 5,000 miles away and then translated into the regional-specific version first published in 1611? That’s about 2,200 years that separate the BOM and the KJV and yet we find the same language contained in both when the BOM was supposedly written in the “Reformed Egyptian” which came from the original Hebrew! Miraculous indeed!

Not only that, but we find that “Reformed Egyptian” exists nowhere outside of Mormonism and Hebrew nowhere in the pre-Columbian world. And yet you still believe this tripe! Amazing!

We also have Smith claiming that the BOM didn’t contain Latin or Greek words and yet we find them used regularly: Christ, which is Greek in origin and even “Adieu,” which is French derived from the Latin vernacular.

David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses who attested to having seen the gold plates said: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the BOM was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear and then another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus, the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any man.” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887)

In the July 1993 Ensign, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “He (Martin Harris) also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the BOM with a seerstone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seerstone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear.”

Returning Home,
I understand that the idea of “translation” brings with that word an impression that is filled with assumptions. I’ll take what you wrote and add the clarifications that need not be so difficult to figure out:

“we know that the BOM is a literal translation” bringing the thoughts, descriptions, ideas and teachings that were extent among a people who came from the Old World and brought a record with them that was one day going to be translated from Hebrew into that part of the Old Testament beginning with Genesis and ending with Isaiah. The translation was going to bring into the language in use in 1829, the religious and other teachings and descriptions that would be familiar to the audience who was going to read the book, since translation is to bring over into the new language the intent and meaning of the writer from the original language.

“Therefore, having Lehi and Nephi both using the exact same wording we find in the Bible, and not just any Bible, but the KJV with which we know Smith was very familiar, it’s (interesting) to note that the the BOM contains phrases and entire sentences from the New Testament. How could that happen?” Could prophets really get the same impressions through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that Christ and the apostles taught? Could it be that some texts that were extent among these people are not extent among us today, and that the Nephite group had those texts as did Christ and the apostles? Yes–that is possible. Some phrases could have come from a common earlier source that we don’t have. We can find several examples of prophets cited and quoted in the Nephite text as being part of the Brass plates of Laban, that we don’t have today–full texts as much as several pages long.

“Reformed Egyptian” was a short-hand form of writing used by religious leaders, not by the common people, and used on the sacred record that was being kept by them for the specific purpose of having some of the history and the religious teachings of those people come forward as a testimony of Christ and His gospel in the latter days. Also, the Lamanite remnant people were absolutely intent on destroying all religious records or symbolic evidences of the Nephites, as described in the Book of Mormon. They did this with a vengeance. There would not be matching “Reformed Egyptian” writings that we could expect to find through archeology. Any such writings would have been destroyed with thoroughness by the Lamanite remnants.

Any word in use among English speaking people in 1828, from whatever origin that word might be, would be totally acceptable to convey the meaning that was going to match the ideas being conveyed by the prophet-leader in the original text that was being translated. It would be expected that some of those words, brought into English usage from other languages, would be distinctive as coming from a European language since English is a composite language.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of previous post:

The hat was used to block out extraneous light sources so that the seer stone could be easier seen, just like we sometimes use methods such as pulling down blinds on windows when we are about to watch a movie in a theater or a home theater where there are windows. The blinds screen out the natural light and we turn out the lights. The hat screened out the natural light so that there wasn’t a glare on the seer stone since the seer stone was somewhat like an LCD “screen”. Some people just don’t seem to get this–yet I don’t see why it is such a hard concept to grasp.

Have a good day. You might try living by the principle taught by Christ to “not look back” when putting your hand to the plow with your new faith. Your new faith ought to bring you so much light and enthusiasm that looking back at what you left behind, though a natural reaction in life, would not be part of your thinking, especially since the Savior taught not to do that. But that’s only a suggestion on my part for you to think about and decide for yourself.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Returning Home,
I understand that the idea of “translation” brings with that word an impression that is filled with assumptions. I’ll take what you wrote and add the clarifications that need not be so difficult to figure out:

“we know that the BOM is a literal translation” bringing the thoughts, descriptions, ideas and teachings that were extent among a people who came from the Old World and brought a record with them that was one day going to be translated from Hebrew into that part of the Old Testament beginning with Genesis and ending with Isaiah. The translation was going to bring into the language in use in 1829, the religious and other teachings and descriptions that would be familiar to the audience who was going to read the book, since translation is to bring over into the new language the intent and meaning of the writer from the original language.

That is not even close to realistic. Your “prophet” allegedly translated plates he never looked at while translating (he had his head buried in a hat) from a language no one has ever heard of, and coming out with words that Lehi and nephi would have never known, in a dialect used by King James that just HAPPENED to be be the same dialect of the Bible he copied from. He got the plates from either an Old Spaniard, a salamnder, or an angel ( the kind God warned us about in Galations). He was not allowed to go to the next page of the plates until the page he was working on was totally correct…(which begs the question of the over 4000 errors and changes). It has been sworn to that the book was written with stolen material. We have affidavits from people people who saw both The B of M and Spaulding’s Book. I have seen no one with evidence that those people lied, yet we have it from the mouth of Joe himself that the witnesses to the plates were liars who could not be trusted.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home,
I understand that the idea of “translation” brings with that word an impression that is filled with assumptions. I’ll take what you wrote and add the clarifications that need not be so difficult to figure out:

“we know that the BOM is a literal translation” bringing the thoughts, descriptions, ideas and teachings that were extent among a people who came from the Old World and brought a record with them that was one day going to be translated from Hebrew into that part of the Old Testament beginning with Genesis and ending with Isaiah. The translation was going to bring into the language in use in 1829, the religious and other teachings and descriptions that would be familiar to the audience who was going to read the book, since translation is to bring over into the new language the intent and meaning of the writer from the original language.

You’ve failed to explain how the BOM account of Isaiah is almost word-for-word identical to the KJV account of the same, which doesn’t make sense having gone through the filter of another language, Deformed Egyptian. This also doesn’t account for the fact that we have Elizabethan English showed up as part of Lehi and Nephi’s regular speech, which would’ve been many years in the future from their day and at least a hundred years in the past for Joseph Smith.

Could prophets really get the same impressions through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that Christ and the apostles taught? Could it be that some texts that were extent among these people are not extent among us today, and that the Nephite group had those texts as did Christ and the apostles? Yes–that is possible. Some phrases could have come from a common earlier source that we don’t have. We can find several examples of prophets cited and quoted in the Nephite text as being part of the Brass plates of Laban, that we don’t have today–full texts as much as several pages long.

I agree with this sentiment, but since we have no evidence of Lamanites, Nephites, Jaredites, or any other person, place, or thing mentioned in the BOM, your assumption is over-reaching and thus premature at best.

You’re getting into maybes here, but as we know, none of those have ever panned out for Mormon apologists so let’s just stick to the facts, shall we?

“Reformed Egyptian” was a short-hand form of writing used by religious leaders, not by the common people, and used on the sacred record that was being kept by them for the specific purpose of having some of the history and the religious teachings of those people come forward as a testimony of Christ and His gospel in the latter days. Also, the Lamanite remnant people were absolutely intent on destroying all religious records or symbolic evidences of the Nephites, as described in the Book of Mormon. They did this with a vengeance. There would not be matching “Reformed Egyptian” writings that we could expect to find through archeology. Any such writings would have been destroyed with thoroughness by the Lamanite remnants.

It’s already been noted by me that no such langauage exists outside of Mormonism nor has any indication ever been found in the pre-Columbian New World at any time in any place.

Nice play on your assertion that the fictional Lamanites destroyed all of the Nephite records, thus addressing the fact that no evidence has ever been found to support your church’s claims. It doesn’t hold any water but I’ll give you an A for creativity.

This, of course, doesn’t even begin to address the fact that there should be some sort of evolutionary and intermediate form of this “Reformed Egyptian” in the Old World, something that’s curiously absent on that side of the Atlantic as well. Do you see a pattern here?

Any word in use among English speaking people in 1828, from whatever origin that word might be, would be totally acceptable to convey the meaning that was going to match the ideas being conveyed by the prophet-leader in the original text that was being translated. It would be expected that some of those words, brought into English usage from other languages, would be distinctive as coming from a European language since English is a composite language.

Your point here is also empty because Smith clearly stated that there were no Latin or Greek words in the BOM. That’s a fact. What’s also fact is that he was wrong and now you’re just trying to cover for him.

The two quotes I provided make it clear that Smith’s own language and ideas weren’t part of the ‘translation’ process. I can also provide quotes from Lucy Mack Smith and Emma Smith to further prove my point if you like.

 

[Returning_Home]

Continuation of previous post:

The hat was used to block out extraneous light sources so that the seer stone could be easier seen, just like we sometimes use methods such as pulling down blinds on windows when we are about to watch a movie in a theater or a home theater where there are windows. The blinds screen out the natural light and we turn out the lights. The hat screened out the natural light so that there wasn’t a glare on the seer stone since the seer stone was somewhat like an LCD “screen”. Some people just don’t seem to get this–yet I don’t see why it is such a hard concept to grasp.

Have a good day. You might try living by the principle taught by Christ to “not look back” when putting your hand to the plow with your new faith. Your new faith ought to bring you so much light and enthusiasm that looking back at what you left behind, though a natural reaction in life, would not be part of your thinking, especially since the Savior taught not to do that. But that’s only a suggestion on my part for you to think about and decide for yourself.

You’re right on the head-in-the-hat part, but it’s part of old American folk magic, which we know that the Smith family was heavily involved with. This is confirmed through several sources, including Smith’s trial (‘Smith the Glass Looker,’ 1826) for fraud.

No, it’s not a difficult concept to grasp; he simply took the old familiar things and incorporated them into Mormonism as he went. Not hard to grasp at all.

And then you conclude your post with a please-be-gentle approach? That’s odd coming from a member of church that knocks on my door, asks me to read a book that tells me I belong to the church founded by Satan, and that my Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’