Tell me what you think of this chapter in the Book of Mormon

[Pahoran]

Hi Bart: I’ve directed a cult apologetics ministry in NJ before moving out west - and although my expertise wasn’t at that time in Mormonism, since moving out west, I’ve become somewhat of an expert in it.

Hello AG. I hope you enjoy your experience here on CAF as much as I have.

It has been my experience that real experts generally don’t see the need to advertise themselves as such.

It has also been my experience that anti-Mormons who parade themselves as “experts” on Mormonism are really only telling us that they know the pat, standard anti-Mormon talking points.

For example:

What you need to remember is that the Book of Mormon has many anachronism - in other words, passages which simply do not fit the time period or the historical setting. Much of Joseph Smith’s book was plagiarized from the King James Bible, which (according to the supposed timeline of the Book of Mormon) hadn’t even been written when Nephi and others were using King James language.

Don’t tell me, let me guess: you think “adieu” is a valid argument against the Book of Mormon, don’t you?

I know of no definition of “plagiarism” that includes giving explicit credit to the work being “plagiarised.” Do you? No? In which case, the sad, tired, malicious old accusation of “plagiarism” falls rather badly on its face, doesn’t it?

The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation of an ancient document. Does it actually claim that “Nephi and others were using King James language?”

Well no, it does not.

Does anyone more “expert” than the average eleven-year-old Primary child actually imagine that the Nephites spoke English of any kind?

Of course not.

Is the fact that the translator chose to render his translation in the idiom he associated with holy writ somehow inconsistent with the book’s claim to be a translation?

No.

It is not.

The primary work exploring Mormon history and doctrine is “Mormonism - Shadow or Reality” by the Tanners available from Utah Lighhouse Ministry. The Tanners were both Mormon, and have an incredible amount of documentation and photocopies in their book -and have a lot more information available on their site: utlm.org/ Also, “The Kingdom of the Cults” by the late Walter Martin is packed full of information and is often available in public libraries.

Thank you for explaining the sources of your “expertise.”

Martin. And the Tanners.

ROTFL!

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Thank you, Pahoran. I will be eager to read it. I’m always willing to make changes in response to my critics. Obviously, the changes will not necessarily please you, but I do want to plug as many holes as I can.

Actually I can tell you right now how to improve your book: ditch the malice and start again from scratch.

Then it will be a completely different book.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[ParkerD]

Woops. Complimenting you does have its consequences.

Solomon Spalding is said to have written in KJE. In fact, upon reading the BoM one of his friends said “Old ‘It came to pass.’ has come back alive.” Many passages from the Bible were lifted verbatim. Others were paraphrased.

LJ,
Solomon Spaulding wrote in what I would call “James Fenimore Cooper” English, not King James English. There is a huge difference.

As I have written before, what you or anyone making such a casual remark with not the slightest depth of knowledge of the changes in “persona” within the Book of Mormon nor for the depth of authentic feeling conveyed by fathers talking or writing to their sons, and by a Captain writing to his government leaders, means that you don’t know what authenticity is, and can’t recognize bad writing from good writing.

Spaulding’s writing was simply bad writing–nothing authentic about it, and nothing “King James English” about it.

Of course Biblical-backgrounded people who loved God and loved the prophets are going to use those writings in their teachings.

 

[LongJourney]

Sorry, Parker, but you are adhering to the belief that there was only one Spalding story. And the one in existence still has significant parallels, both in plot and in language usage, with significant parts of the BoM.

a Captain writing to his government leaders,

The authenticity of those letters may have to do with the possibility that the content was borrowed from Revolutionary War-era letters. Although they are well-integrated with the content of the chapters before and after, some are not as distinctly Spalding-esque as the context. I agree. One in particular, so angry and badly written, certainly seems authentic.

Spalding’s writing might have been bad, but the plot, as I see it, was well-conceived.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, Parker, but you are adhering to the belief that there was only one Spalding story. And the one in existence still has significant parallels, both in plot and in language usage, with significant parts of the BoM.

The authenticity of those letters may have to do with the possibility that the content was borrowed from Revolutionary War-era letters. Although they are well-integrated with the content of the chapters before and after, some are not as distinctly Spalding-esque as the context. I agree. One in particular, so angry and badly written, certainly seems authentic.

Spalding’s writing might have been bad, but the plot, as I see it, was well-conceived.

LJ,
These “language usage” and “Revolutionary War-era letters” assertions you make ought to be able to be demonstrated without someone having to read your book. Go ahead, show some “significant” examples of your assertions. This is not hard stuff–it is elementary stuff.

(I don’t care about “plot” assertions, since anyone could write a book with wars in it, and with exploring unknown lands, including imagining ancient Hebrew peoples involved. That would not be “plot parallels”, just someone using their brain to craft a story, however badly written as Spaulding’s was.)

 

[LongJourney]

I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time now. I am going ahead with the rest of my life.

If you don’t want to download my book, and read it, even to look at where I discuss those things, that is your loss. I did go through the BoM chapter-by-chapter, so you would have no problem finding my discussion of that very interesting and authentic letter.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time now. I am going ahead with the rest of my life.

If you don’t want to download my book, and read it, even to look at where I discuss those things, that is your loss. I did go through the BoM chapter-by-chapter, so you would have no problem finding my discussion of that very interesting and authentic letter.

Sorry, LJ (Jerusha),
I have neither the time nor the interest (because of the authenticity issue that underlies the Book of Mormon throughout the book, as compared with Spalding’s writing, parts of which I have read and is nothing at all remotely like the Book of Mormon) to download your book, nor high-speed internet while I am on this forum. But if you ever want to post something significant from it that really goes into the depth that backs up your assertions using clearly valid scholarship methods, then I’ll read the paragraphs if I happen to see the post.

Bless you and your family, also, and may you find peace in your life through the grace of the Savior.

 

[Pahoran]

Sorry, Parker, but you are adhering to the belief that there was only one Spalding story.

Which is entirely reasonable, given that there’s no real evidence for any more. The so-called “second manuscript” is an ad-hoc hypothesis, necessary to explain away the fact that the real Manuscript Found bears no meaningful resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

And the one in existence still has no significant parallels, either in plot or in language usage, with significant parts of the BoM.

There. Fixed it for you.

The authenticity of those letters may have to do with the possibility that the content was borrowed from Revolutionary War-era letters.

What “Revolutionary War-era letters” are those?

I wonder how many Revolutionary war generals wrote to Congress demanding to know if the members could think to sit upon their thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Anglican_Gal]

Hello AG. I hope you enjoy your experience here on CAF as much as I have.

It has been my experience that real experts generally don’t see the need to advertise themselves as such.

It has also been my experience that anti-Mormons who parade themselves as “experts” on Mormonism are really only telling us that they know the pat, standard anti-Mormon talking points.

For example:

Don’t tell me, let me guess: you think “adieu” is a valid argument against the Book of Mormon, don’t you?

I know of no definition of “plagiarism” that includes giving explicit credit to the work being “plagiarised.” Do you? No? In which case, the sad, tired, malicious old accusation of “plagiarism” falls rather badly on its face, doesn’t it?

The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation of an ancient document. Does it actually claim that “Nephi and others were using King James language?”

Well no, it does not.

Does anyone more “expert” than the average eleven-year-old Primary child actually imagine that the Nephites spoke English of any kind?

Of course not.

Is the fact that the translator chose to render his translation in the idiom he associated with holy writ somehow inconsistent with the book’s claim to be a translation?

No.

It is not.

Thank you for explaining the sources of your “expertise.”

Martin. And the Tanners.

ROTFL!

Regards,
Pahoran

You used to post on another site, did you not? CARM? And on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion board - or do you just have a similar name?

Of course, you are not here to proselytize, I assume. That would be contrary to the rules. I simply mentioned by background to provide a basis for what I say. If you can find anything wrong or in error with what I posted, you are welcomed to post a rebuttal and provide evidence that I am wrong. Please cease with the unnecessary ad homs. We are dealing with facts, not your opinion of those Christians who reveal what Mormonism actually teaches.

 

[Pahoran]

You used to post on another site, did you not? CARM? And on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion board - or do you just have a similar name?

No, that’s me.

Of course, you are not here to proselytize, I assume. That would be contrary to the rules.

You’re right, I’m not.

And attempts to intimidate me into silence by waving the “proselytizing” stick have not worked yet, but you’re welcome to try.

I think the mods here are quite intelligent enough to tell the difference between apologetics and proselytizing. In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret: I rather think you are too. And that you know quite well that when I respond to your stock standard anti-Mormon polemics, I am doing apologetics.

I simply mentioned by background to provide a basis for what I say. If you can find anything wrong or in error with what I posted, you are welcomed to post a rebuttal and provide evidence that I am wrong.

Well, I already did. For example, I rebutted your silly “plagiarism” libel. I also rebutted the silly straw man argument that “Nephi and others were using King James language.” Actually I can rebut most of the standard anti-Mormon talking points, in which your expertise resides, without any more effort than leaning back in my chair.

Please cease with the unnecessary ad homs. We are dealing with facts, not your opinion of those Christians who reveal what Mormonism actually teaches.

Hey, I will if you will. Just so you know: the correct term for “Christians who reveal what Mormonism actually teaches” is Latter-day Saints. The denial that we are Christians, and the vile old libel that we “deceive” people about our doctrines, would seem to fall under the rubric of “unnecessary ad homs,” wouldn’t you agree?

Or would you consider them to be necessary ad homs, given that your polemical enterprise collapses without them?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Anglican_Gal]

One of the most interesting pieces of information I came across while researching Mormoism, is this statement by Sidney Rigdon’s grandson, Walter. Remember, that it was Sidney Rigdon who was a close associate of Smith in the earliest days of the church, and whose whole Campbellite congregation in Kirtland, Ohio, just happened to embrace Mormonism after Rigdon, their pastor, supposedly first read the Book of Mormon.

This text is from a reporter named Beadle of the Tribune who interviewed Walter Sidney Rigdon, a son a Algernon. These are excerpts of that interview in 1888:

**Sidney Rigdon’s Grandson Says Their Family Understood it to be a Fraud.

– EDITOR TRIBUNE: – In the intervals of my literary labors here I have many talks with men who were in Utah at a very early day, and occasionally with original Mormons or their sons… [M]y chance talks with one of these are so agreeable that I report him briefly for you. Mr. Walter Sidney Rigdon is a citizen of Carrolton, Cattaraugus County, N. Y., and a grandson of Sidney Rigdon, the partner of Joe Smith. He talked with old Sidney hundreds of times about the “scheme of the Golden Bible,” and his father still has many of the old Sidney’s documents. “Grandfather was a religious crank,” says Mr. Rigdon, “till he lost money by it. He started in as a Baptist preacher, and had a very fine congregation for those days, in Pittsburgh. There was no reason at all for his leaving, except that he got ‘cracked.’ At that time he had no ideas of making money. Indeed, while he was with the Mormons, his chances to make money were good enough for most men; but he came out of it about as poor as he went in.”

[Mr.] Beadle, the reporter: – “But how did he change first?”

“Well, he tried to understand the prophecies, and the man who does that is sure to go crazy. He studied the prophets and baptism, and of course he got ‘rattled.’ Daniel and Ezekiel and Revelations will ‘rattle’ any man who gives in his whole mind to 'em – at any rate they did him, and he joined Alexander Campbell. Campbell then believed that the end of the world was nigh – his Millennial Harbinger shows that they ‘rattled’ all who listened to him in Ohio and other places; then grandfather got disgusted and decided on a new deal. He ‘found’ Joe Smith and they had a great many talks together before they brought out the plates. None of us ever doubted that they got the whole thing up; but father always maintained that grandfather helped get up the original Spaulding book. At any rate he got a copy very early and schemed on some way to make it useful. Although the family knew these facts, they refused to talk on the subject while grandfather lived. In fact, he and they took on [a] huge disgust at the whole subject…”

I only report that part of Mr. Rigdon’s talk which shows the history of the “Golden Bible,” as accepted in the family. Of course, if Sidney Rigdon had wanted the world to believe the Smith story of the plates, he would have told them so. But, though the family do not care to ventilate it, he evidently taught them to treat the whole thing as a fraud.
J. H. Beadle. – New York, April 7, 1888.
“The Golden Bible” (Salt Lake Tribune, 1888 – full text on web) **

Gleaned from this website: sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm

The Book of Mormon is chocked full of Campbellite doctrines and ideas. Campbellism was a “restorationist” movement founded by Alexander Campbell and others and which survives today in the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and the Christian Church (the denomination by that name). Rigdon, a former Baptist minister who had gone over to Campbellism, held views conflicting with Campbell’s (the restoration of apostolic gifts, angelic visitations, etc.). Interestingly, the Book of Mormon reflects much of Rigdon’s personal views which were opposed by Campbell - which seems to support his grandson’s contention that the book was a collaboration between Smith, Rigdon (and I believe, Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s cousin). Rigdon, it is believed, had access to at least one Spaulding manuscript, which may have formed the basis of some of the BoM narrative (along with Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews).

More information on this subject can be found at: youtube.com/watch?v=utDU45lm210

Additional videos follow, I believe.

 

[LongJourney]

Ahhh yes. Craig Criddle. Good series of U-tube videos.

 

[BartBurk]

After studying this for many years I also came to the conclusion that Sidney Rigdon was heavily involved in producing the Book of Mormon. Evidence I’ve read points to the existence of a Spaulding manuscript which is no longer available which contributed to the Book of Mormon. It was no doubt destroyed after the Book of Mormon was published. There are also likely contributions from View of the Hebrews and some of the other writings which linked the ancient Americans to Israel.

 

[Anglican_Gal]

After studying this for many years I also came to the conclusion that Sidney Rigdon was heavily involved in producing the Book of Mormon. Evidence I’ve read points to the existence of a Spaulding manuscript which is no longer available which contributed to the Book of Mormon. It was no doubt destroyed after the Book of Mormon was published. There are also likely contributions from View of the Hebrews and some of the other writings which linked the ancient Americans to Israel.

And, Bart, after reading the biography of Olver Cowdery (who was a cousin to Smith), I’m convinced that he made some plates for Smith, which were those kept hidden beneath the cloth, and the ones viewed by the “witnesses.” Cowdery’s father was a blacksmith, so he had some expertise in that area. Furthermore, he and Smith colluded on the bogus baptims and “priesthood” ordinations under the hand of John the Baptist and the later high priest (Melchizedek) ordinations by Peter, James and John (supposedly).

Cowdery had to have a part in the establishment of this group, because Smith couldn’t have done it without him, or without Rigdon (who provided the really first large conversion pool from his Kirtland Church and the early theology).

 

[SteveVH]

BD,
(I wrote this as a response yesterday, and it applies to your comment as well.)

The LDS believe that William Tyndale was definitely inspired as he translated the Holy Bible into English “that a plow-boy could read”. As students of the Bible are usually aware, William Tyndale’s translation became the major basis for the King James Translation of the Holy Bible when that translation was completed.

This was a period of time of major solidifying of English usage, meanings, and expanded language–contributed to in a major way by the King James Bible translation, and also by such notable and gifted writers as the author who used the name “William Shakespeare”, John Milton, John Bunyan, and several others who refined and enhanced the English language.

The idea of having scripture written in that refined, standard-setting language that is not paralleled in modern language usage, makes complete sense to me as being inspired by God. The scriptures should elevate the mind, and the language of communication used for the scriptures should thus be elevating, and set a standard that should hold firm for generations, giving children a basis for maintaining the deep roots of their language, even if it doesn’t match how they talk every day.

So, my answer is that Joseph Smith (familiar with the King James Bible but still a young man as he translated) was inspired in the translation of the Book of Mormon, just as William Tyndale was inspired in the translation of the Holy Bible, and the two scriptural books join for those who study them both as another means of standardizing the preservation of elegant, inspired language patterns. Translations into other languages would seek to do that also, I would surmise, as a means of also preserving standardized, elevated usage patterns in those other languages as well.

So the short answer is that God has an interest in uplifting language and communication, and in preserving the roots of beautiful, poetic and deeply meaningful language of every “mother tongue”.

One is not “inspired” when translating different languages. An atheist may be a better linguist, and therefore a better translator than a believer. One is inspired when receiving revelation from God. The writers of Sacred Scripture wrote in their own language common in that time of history. That is why Joseph Smith’s use of old English is suspect to many of us. My guess is that he thought that King James English sounded holy because that is the language in which his Bible was written. He thought others would feel the same and therefore it would appear to be more legitimate. But that is only my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Bart: I’ve directed a cult apologetics ministry in NJ before moving out west - and although my expertise wasn’t at that time in Mormonism, since moving out west, I’ve become somewhat of an expert in it. What you need to remember is that the Book of Mormon has many anachronism - in other words, passages which simply do not fit the time period or the historical setting. Much of Joseph Smith’s book was plagiarized from the King James Bible, which (according to the supposed timeline of the Book of Mormon) hadn’t even been written when Nephi and others were using King James language.

As far as the chapter you site, consider that it is in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon, totally anachronistic, since Christ had not been born. Jews in America were supposed to be practicing Chritianity prior to Jesus’ birth, and teaching New Testament concepts before the Lord’s incarnation, even performing baptisms. This would be a giant alert that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon (and I believe, personally, that it was compiled by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, using some pre-existing material, including View of the Hebrews) had the New Testament at hand and attempted to retroject Christianity into a New World, Old Testament setting.

It’s important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church, with good reason, does not accept the “baptisms” performed in Mormon churches, since Mormonism denies the Blessed Trinity, the full Deity of Christ (they believe he had to “attain” godhood), and calls the Roman Church the great and abominable church. Mormonism’s goal is to appear Christian, and their missionaries attempt to project that appearance, however an indepth study of their doctrine reveals that Mormonism is far from Christian.

Mormons believe they can become gods and goddesses in the Celestial Kingdom (they believe there are three heavenly destinations in the afterlife), and eternally procreate spirit children who will be sent to experience mortal life and populate an earth over which their parents will rule, the father “god” being their “heavenly father.” They believe, likewise, that the “heavenly father” of this earth had a father god, who in turn had another father god, etc. In Mormonism there are a multitude of gods ruling over various kingdoms - it is, therefore, polytheistic.

The Book of Mormon contains none of this information, because Mormonism developed as Joseph Smith felt “inspired,” and the true doctrines of Mormonism are found in Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham, which Smith claimed to have translated from mummy wrappings has been proven to be a typical Egyptian funeral document used to send the dead on their way to the afterlife, and has nothing to do with Abraham at all. This has been a major embarassment to the LDS.

Unless you have access to information exposing the errors of Mormonism, and bone up on that prior to reading the Book of Mormon, it’s probably best not to read the Book of Mormon (which contains none of the unique doctrines of Mormonism - such as baptism for the dead, men becoming gods, etc.). There are sound sites on the internet which offer an overview of Mormonism from a non-sectarian basis, including Mormons in Transition, which you might wish to consult since the site is run by former Mormons who have come to realize that Mormonism is cultic.

The primary work exploring Mormon history and doctrine is “Mormonism - Shadow or Reality” by the Tanners available from Utah Lighhouse Ministry. The Tanners were both Mormon, and have an incredible amount of documentation and photocopies in their book -and have a lot more information available on their site: utlm.org/ Also, “The Kingdom of the Cults” by the late Walter Martin is packed full of information and is often available in public libraries.

Just so you know, I’m Anglican (also known as Catholic retreads!)

As a Ph.D., member of an editorial board for an academic religion journal, and Mormon converting to Catholicism, I’m inclined to weigh in on this.

Neither the Tanners’ materials nor Martin’s materials deserve their reputation by former Mormons, and the Spaulding theory is, to put it mildly, a complete joke.

There is, in my opinion, a little something to the Ethan Smith theories, and especially in regards to Ethan Smith’s use of James Adair’s book.

If you want to read credible material that is critical of Mormons, read the materials put out by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. Their edited volume with Beckwith, The New Mormon Challenge, is quite good. It’s from a Protestant perspective.

The book to read, though, is *Studies of the Book of Mormon *by B.H. Roberts. Roberts was a President of the Seventy in the LDS Church. FARMS and Mormon apologists are still reacting to his book 80+ years after the fact. It behooves a serious critic of the Book of Mormon to read it.

If anyone is interested in my opinion of how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, please ask. I’ll be happy to elaborate.

My RCIA classes have started up and so far I’m enjoying them.

 

[Sunstone]

Since I mentioned, Adair, I’ll give you a snippet from his 1175 book, History of the Indians. The following quote from p. 83-84 details a “breastplate,” "Urim and Thummim, "and the “precious stones of Urim,” which are featured in Joseph Smith’s accounts of his finding and translating the goldent plates:

The Mosaic ceremonial institutions, are acknowledged by our best writers, to represent the Messiah, under various types and shadows; in like manner, the religious customs of the American Indians, seem to typify the same; according to the early divine promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; and that it should bruise his heel. – The Levitical high-priest wore a breast-plate, which they called Hosechim, and on it the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections; for they are the plurals of ???], Awóra, (which inverted makes Erowa ) and ???],

Thòràh, the law, as it directed them under dark shadows, to Messiah, the lamp of light and perfections. In resemblance of this sacred pectoral, or breast-plate, the American Archi-magus wears a breast-plate, made of a white conch-shell, with two holes bored in the middle of it, through which he puts the ends of an otter-skin strap, and fastens a buck-horn white button to the outside of each, as if in imitation of the precious stones of Urim, which miraculously blazoned from the high-priest’s breast, the unerring words of the divine oracle. Instead of the plate of gold, which the Levite wore on his forehead, bearing these words, ???], Kadesh li Yohewah, “holy, or separate to God,” the Indian wears around his temples, either a wreath of swan-feathers, or a long piece of swan-skin doubled, so as only the fine snowy feathers appear on each side.

B.H. Roberts goes into some detail about this, as you might imagine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As a Ph.D., member of an editorial board for an academic religion journal, and Mormon converting to Catholicism, I’m inclined to weigh in on this.

Neither the Tanners’ materials nor Martin’s materials deserve their reputation by former Mormons, and the Spaulding theory is, to put it mildly, a complete joke.

There is, in my opinion, a little something to the Ethan Smith theories, and especially in regards to Smith’s use of James Adair’s book.

If you want to read credible material that is critical of Mormons, read the materials put out by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. Their edited volume with Beckwith, The New Mormon Challenge is quite good. It’s from a Protestant perspective.

The book to read, though, is *Studies of the Book of Mormon *by B.H. Roberts. Roberts was a President of the Seventy in the LDS Church. FARMS and Mormon apologists are still reacting to his book 80+ years after the fact. It behooves a serious critic of the Book of Mormon to read it.

If anyone is interested in my opinion of how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, please ask. I’ll be happy to elaborate.

My RCIA classes have started up and so far I’m enjoying them.

Mormonism stands or falls on Joseph Smith, and it is easy to see he wasn’t a prophet. So his book falls with him. Who wrote it becomes, at least for me, a whodunit. I think it is clear he didn’t act alone, and relied on multiple sources. Just as he did for his religion, he took a piece of this from here and a piece of that from there, and called it “worthy and of good report”. I’m not convinced he believed his own material.

Welcome home.

 

[LongJourney]

Who wrote it becomes, at least for me, a whodunit. I think it is clear he didn’t act alone, and relied on multiple sources. Just as he did for his religion, he took a piece of this from here and a piece of that from there, and called it “worthy and of good report”

Agreed. The Spalding theory has an inherent weakness in that we don’t have access to the book upon which the BoM was apparently based. It really doesn’t matter, since the textual similarities with Clavigero and Maccabees are sufficient to prove that [whoever] borrowed a bit from here, a bit from there, to make a confused mess, with spots of brightness.

 

[ParkerD]

One is not “inspired” when translating different languages. An atheist may be a better linguist, and therefore a better translator than a believer.

SteveVH,
I disagree 100%, and if there were such a thing as 200%, then I would disagree 200% with each of those statements.

One is inspired when receiving revelation from God. The writers of Sacred Scripture wrote in their own language common in that time of history.

Actually, they didn’t necessarily write in the common, everyday language. You can research that and find out about it.

That is why Joseph Smith’s use of old English is suspect to many of us. My guess is that he thought that King James English sounded holy because that is the language in which his Bible was written. He thought others would feel the same and therefore it would appear to be more legitimate. But that is only my opinion.

Indeed, that is an opinion that could be formed by someone who reads the Bible intellectually and tiny snippets of the Book of Mormon intellectually and thinks they have done a credible job of getting a feel for the authenticity and the doctrinal clarity of what they were supposedly reading for spiritual insights in their life, from God.

But it’s fine for anyone to form an opinion and legitimize the decisions they have already made.

I love “King James English”, so I of course would have a different view going in–nor do I think that the Book of Mormon uses strictly King James English. It has some sentences that are far more complex than any sentence in the King James Bible.

Peace to all, and to you, SteveVH.