T
tkdnick
Guest
Yes, please check, because I am not totally positive. I was posting that from memory, and it’s been a while since I looked at the BoM.
- Status
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
How can a book be accurate without its contents (doctrines and covenants) being true?
T
tkdnick
Guest
Dr. Colossus:
The BoM and Doctrine & Convenants are 2 separate books. One written in 1827, the other being revelations to Joseph Smith over a period of time covering approximately 1830-1844.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Most modern scholars believe that Urim and Thummim were stones used to cast lots. Urim means “the white” and Thummim means “the black”. The stones were placed into a small bag and the priest would reach in and take out a stone. White meant yes and black meant no. The stones were carried in the breastplate of the high priest. Only when no satisfactory answer to a problem could be found would the high priest ask a question and choose a stone from the bag, trusting that God would provide the answer.
Joseph Smith was enamored with folk-magic, including the concept of “seer stones” - crystals which would allow the seer or wizard to gaze into the future or find treasure. Joseph had a crystal, given to him by his older brother Alvin, which he claimed was a seer stone. Alvin found the crystal while digging a well and, knowing that Joseph was interested in such things, gave it to Joseph as a gift.
Joseph said that the gold plates came with “urim and thummim” which Joseph said were crystal spectacles in wire rims. These spectacles would allow a person to translate an unknown language.
Strangely enough, according to Joseph and his BOM scribes, he used his seer stone that Alvin gave him, rather than the urim and thummim, to translate the gold plates.
Paul
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Ah, my mistake. Thanks.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Actress Ally Sheedy wrote a best-selling novel when she was 12. It is called *She Was Nice to Mice * and was my daughter’s favorite when she was little. It is a very involved story about a family of mice who live in Buckingham Palace and influence British history. It is more believable than the Book of Mormon.
Paul
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Dr. Colossus:
As time progressed it is possible that Joseph strayed and began to invent things that catered to his way of thinking. The D & C I found mind-boggling and immediately took them as speculative at best. On the other hand, The Book of Mormon itself I found compelling and couldn’t put it down.
Look at the breadth of it all. I’d have to look at my copy, but there are books upon books in this “Book of Mormon”. It’s an extensive library of individual books very similar of course to the Holy Bible. For one young boy to do what he did with this is truly remarkable - even if it is false?
Yeah, they are really three distinct “books”. My personal opinion is that the Book of Mormon is at least partially true. There are some places that seem odd.
As time progressed it is possible that Joseph strayed and began to invent things that catered to his way of thinking. The D & C I found mind-boggling and immediately took them as speculative at best. On the other hand, The Book of Mormon itself I found compelling and couldn’t put it down.
Look at the breadth of it all. I’d have to look at my copy, but there are books upon books in this “Book of Mormon”. It’s an extensive library of individual books very similar of course to the Holy Bible. For one young boy to do what he did with this is truly remarkable - even if it is false?
F
flameburns623
Guest
The official story is that the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of books actually written by the people whose names appear in the titles of each ‘book’. (That’s an oversimplification–I Nephi through Omni were writtten dirrectly onto blank gold plates transported to the New World. The remainer of the ‘books’ of the BofM were written on some other form of material, and then abridged. largely by Mormon and to a lesser extend by his son Moroni onto freshly-forged gold plates, near the end of the 4th century AD).
The ‘style’ of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly inescapable for an unbiased reader to believe that the BofM had more than one author, and that person not especially familiar with the grammatical rules of Elisabethan English. My candidate would be Joseph Smith himself. I suspect he purloined a lot from the King James Bible and other contemporaneous sources, but I think the BofM is fully within his purview to have accomplished. Compare the BofM to the style of the Doctrine and Covenants–Joseph Smith’s direct revelations from God. Also–the Bof M was not transcribed until Jospeh Smith was a young adult. He DID receive his ‘First Vision’ at age 14, but did not gain custody of theplates nor the means to ‘translate’ them until he was already 18.
The ‘spiritual eyes’ claim may be spurious, and there are multiple accounts of what the Official Witnesses did or did not see. They seem NOT to have ever denied what they claim to have seen–though some second-hand reports of persons knowns to be biased against Mormonism may indicate otherwise. The Official Witnesses were not the only ones claiming to have seen the plates–Smith’s wife, Emma also saw them, as did Smith’s father I believe. There may have been others. The ‘Official Witnesses’ are simply the signatories of two separate affidavits–one which claims that the plates were shown them by an Angel, the other that the attestants simply viewed the plates on a table.
The Jaredites did not cross to the New World in ‘submarines’ but in boxlike vessels which would apear to have been highly unstable and not especially seaworthy. There were ‘airholes’ in the top and bottom, ‘plugged’ in some fashion. If the air in the vessel grew stale, the occupants were to open one of the plugs: if water came in, they were to plug it up again and then try the other side. Of course, a box tumbling through the waves over thousands of miles would likely as not have severely—even fataly–damaged it’s cargo long before it arrived at it’s destination, one would think. But Joseph Smith was no seaman. And modern LDS consider this an example of Divine protection. It all depends upon one’s faith: if one believes the BofM to be of Divine origin, then the events it describes are accepted no matter how unreasonable they seem.
The ‘style’ of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly inescapable for an unbiased reader to believe that the BofM had more than one author, and that person not especially familiar with the grammatical rules of Elisabethan English. My candidate would be Joseph Smith himself. I suspect he purloined a lot from the King James Bible and other contemporaneous sources, but I think the BofM is fully within his purview to have accomplished. Compare the BofM to the style of the Doctrine and Covenants–Joseph Smith’s direct revelations from God. Also–the Bof M was not transcribed until Jospeh Smith was a young adult. He DID receive his ‘First Vision’ at age 14, but did not gain custody of theplates nor the means to ‘translate’ them until he was already 18.
The ‘spiritual eyes’ claim may be spurious, and there are multiple accounts of what the Official Witnesses did or did not see. They seem NOT to have ever denied what they claim to have seen–though some second-hand reports of persons knowns to be biased against Mormonism may indicate otherwise. The Official Witnesses were not the only ones claiming to have seen the plates–Smith’s wife, Emma also saw them, as did Smith’s father I believe. There may have been others. The ‘Official Witnesses’ are simply the signatories of two separate affidavits–one which claims that the plates were shown them by an Angel, the other that the attestants simply viewed the plates on a table.
The Jaredites did not cross to the New World in ‘submarines’ but in boxlike vessels which would apear to have been highly unstable and not especially seaworthy. There were ‘airholes’ in the top and bottom, ‘plugged’ in some fashion. If the air in the vessel grew stale, the occupants were to open one of the plugs: if water came in, they were to plug it up again and then try the other side. Of course, a box tumbling through the waves over thousands of miles would likely as not have severely—even fataly–damaged it’s cargo long before it arrived at it’s destination, one would think. But Joseph Smith was no seaman. And modern LDS consider this an example of Divine protection. It all depends upon one’s faith: if one believes the BofM to be of Divine origin, then the events it describes are accepted no matter how unreasonable they seem.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Second Nephi, starting in about the middle of the book. It even tells you in the preambles to each chapter which chapter of Isaiah is being quoted.
Bear in mind that the LDS Church believes the KJV to be the most perfectly translated version of the Bible available in English today–it is in some ways even more accurate than the manuscripts from which it was translated, say some LDS apologists. The translators were in other words divinely guided in their translation, even where they erred vis’a’vis the manuscript evidence available to them. The KJV is not considered a ‘perfect’ translation, mind you, but the best translation, apart from Joseph Smith’s own attempts at translation (interupted by his martyrdom at Carthage Illinois), available to modern speakers of English.
For speakers of non-English languages, there are a variety of alternatives: in some cases, traditional translations are employed which were based upon manuscripts similar to those used by the translators of the KJV–what is commonly called the Textus Receptus manuscript family. (I believe that these include the traditional Protestant translations extant in French, German, and Spanish, among other European languages).
In other cases, non-English speakers use translations which were based NOT on the original languages but on the King James Bible. (Many Protestant missionaries and missionary societies, finding it impossible to gain ready access to translators fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and whatever receptor language they were working with among Native peoples, Asians, Polynesians, etcetera, made do with translators who were fluent in King James Version English and in the receptor language. This was usually intended as a stop-gap measure, to put some version of the Bible into the hands of converts in their own languages, and were (I am told) usually adverted as ‘paraphrases’ ratrher than as direct translations. Often these have become the mainstay translations for conservative Protestants in those languages, for various reasons. The LDS Church often relies upon these KJV-based translations where these exist).
C
Cubsfan
Guest
And I thought it was a guy named Murray in Buffalo…
T
tkdnick
Guest
I have read a few different books that say Joseph Smith actually wrote a letter to one of his friends stating that his translation of the KJV was complete. These authors said that the RLDS church uses the Joseph KJV version, but the LDS church does not because it clashes with modern LDS beliefs. One of these authors was Isaiah Bennett who is considered to be a VERY knowledgable Catholic authority on Mormonism. Another author I read this from was a former LDS who is now an Evangelical Protestant dedicated to ministering to the LDS. Can’t remember if I’ve read it elsewhere…
T
tkdnick
Guest
I think I need to make a correction…Everyone else has been talking about gold plates and I said brass. I was obviously wrong. To the LDS members reading/posting please do not take this a derogatory, it was an honest mistake. Sorry!
J
juno24
Guest
Thanks, Paul. So where does the idea that the Urim and Thummim of the Bible were anything like the glasses used by Joseph Smith come from? Where did the idea that the Biblical Urim and Thurrim were used for translating previously unknown languages come from?
Judy
P
PaulDupre
Guest
There is no biblical evidence whatsoever that urim and thummim were anything but stones used for casting lots.
I know that many people in the early 1800’s (even Christians) were heavily influenced by folk magic, spiritism and other aspects of the occult, including crystal gazing. It may have been a common notion back then that urim and thummin were akin to seer stones, just as it was a common notion among Protestants of that time that the Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.
As for translating unknown languages with them, Joseph probably borrowed that idea from Rev. Ethan Smith’s (no relation) book A View of the Hebrews and some of Rev. Josiah Spaulding’s writings, both of which were well known in Joseph’s time. Ethan and Josiah were classmates in seminary school and both wrote extensively on the theory that the Indians were the lost tribes; and both wrote novels in which a modern man finds an ancient record engraved on plates or scrolls and translates it from Hebrew or Egyptian to tell the story of the ancestors of the American Indians.
Even Mormon scholars admit that the similarities between Ethan Smith’s and Josiah Spaulding’s work and the Book of Mormon are striking.
God bless you,
Paul
D
Dismas2004
Guest
Simply put,
Man and only Man.
Man and only Man.
B
BYU-BOY
Guest
I had an interesting experience when I served a two year LDS mission. One day while knocking doors I knocked into a family who invited my companion and me in. While talking to the wife I found out that she and her husband were devout Catholics. Being an arrogant 19 year old kid I was gearing myself up to bash with them concerning their beliefs. Before I even had the opportunity this woman related to me that her next door neighbor had for years tried to get her to watch some anti-mormon videos. However, she informed me that she refused because she felt that it was her “God duty” to judge an individual by their life rather than by their creeds.
This Catholic woman did a great service for your church because she taught me the real meaning of Christlike love. I remember feeling greatly ashamed of my intentions to try to show her what I thought the fallacies of her beliefs were. I also remember feeling the sweet peace of the Holy Spirit in her home. When I parted from this family I had become a better person and a better Mormon!
I must admit that I am rather discouraged by what has been posted here and in other threads. If I felt that your intentions were to discover what Mormons believe I would labor dililgently to explain. However, my experiences these last few weeks have shown that the intentions of these forums have been to build personal pride and degrade others beliefs. You do not care what the Mormons believe, you only care to prove them wrong.
In an earlier thread I stated that I am used to people disagreeing with my beliefs and opinions. I am not writing this because your viewpoints disagree with mine. I write this because you are not looking to understand anothers viewpoint as you claim you are. You seem only to be trying to validate your own.
You may quite possibly be right in your assumption of having the complete truth. However, you are absolutely dead wrong on how you practice your beliefs, at least from what I have witnessed on this site.
This Catholic woman did a great service for your church because she taught me the real meaning of Christlike love. I remember feeling greatly ashamed of my intentions to try to show her what I thought the fallacies of her beliefs were. I also remember feeling the sweet peace of the Holy Spirit in her home. When I parted from this family I had become a better person and a better Mormon!
I must admit that I am rather discouraged by what has been posted here and in other threads. If I felt that your intentions were to discover what Mormons believe I would labor dililgently to explain. However, my experiences these last few weeks have shown that the intentions of these forums have been to build personal pride and degrade others beliefs. You do not care what the Mormons believe, you only care to prove them wrong.
In an earlier thread I stated that I am used to people disagreeing with my beliefs and opinions. I am not writing this because your viewpoints disagree with mine. I write this because you are not looking to understand anothers viewpoint as you claim you are. You seem only to be trying to validate your own.
You may quite possibly be right in your assumption of having the complete truth. However, you are absolutely dead wrong on how you practice your beliefs, at least from what I have witnessed on this site.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
BYU…
Look it’s not that we are “out to get” your church, & frankly we would love to have your views on what you believe. I am glad you encountered that very wise & devout lady… MOST of us have had some encounters w/ Mormons (& other non-Catholics) who “jump” us like you planned to do that lady, so please forgive us all is we seem a little defensive sometimes.
Just know that you are quite welcome here, & that I (for one) will gladly dialog w/ you to your hearts content.
T
tkdnick
Guest
BYU-BOY:
Obviously you hold a different belief than us about who wrote the BoM, why, how, etc. BUT, when no one from the LDS faith posts their beliefs, we have nothing to go on but what we have been told, read, heard, etc. WIHTOUT the LDS (name removed by moderator)ut, we don’t get the LDS view. There are obviously people who hold negative/hostile beliefs toward your church. Not all though. Carry on the conversations with those who look, or who are charitable and ignore those who are not. That would be the only way to keep conversation and understand eachother.
Obviously you hold a different belief than us about who wrote the BoM, why, how, etc. BUT, when no one from the LDS faith posts their beliefs, we have nothing to go on but what we have been told, read, heard, etc. WIHTOUT the LDS (name removed by moderator)ut, we don’t get the LDS view. There are obviously people who hold negative/hostile beliefs toward your church. Not all though. Carry on the conversations with those who look, or who are charitable and ignore those who are not. That would be the only way to keep conversation and understand eachother.
B
BJ_Colbert
Guest
Tkdnick,
I haven’t posted for two days because the other subject got worn out and in searching for a new one, I found this the most interesting discussion to me. I agree with you there are some really brilliant, educated children who can and do write books.
But, Joseph Smith was an uneducated farm boy with no experience that would prepare him to write such a book.
Also, the part about the word adeau(sp?) in 2nd Nephi, of course they did not speak french in BC America, but they didn’t speak english either. Oliver Cowdery did and he was using his words to write the translation. He being a teacher also might have used Shakespearean type writing to put a particular thought across to the reader, as for instance the hyroglyphic character might mean that a particular person was dying and they would instead of just saying he died, would make it a little bit more interesting by using english, french, Shakespeare or whatever descriptive words would make it easier to understand. My, my you are using a fine tooth comb to find two spots that don’t seem right to you. I suppose we could pick through the Bible and find a few phrases that don’t seem quite like they would have said it back then. But, the persons who translated the Bible from the original form spoke english and used words such as thee and thou that we do not use today except when speaking of deity. If we did people would look strangely at us.
When I read scriptures be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon, I am reading to learn of God, and become a more spiritual person. Not to disprove either set of Scriptures. I have faith in God and in his Prophets old and new. The Bible teaches us to be good Christians and so does the Book of Mormon. By reading them you are spiritualy fed and can become a better Christian.
Happy Thanksgiving to all !!!
I haven’t posted for two days because the other subject got worn out and in searching for a new one, I found this the most interesting discussion to me. I agree with you there are some really brilliant, educated children who can and do write books.
But, Joseph Smith was an uneducated farm boy with no experience that would prepare him to write such a book.
Also, the part about the word adeau(sp?) in 2nd Nephi, of course they did not speak french in BC America, but they didn’t speak english either. Oliver Cowdery did and he was using his words to write the translation. He being a teacher also might have used Shakespearean type writing to put a particular thought across to the reader, as for instance the hyroglyphic character might mean that a particular person was dying and they would instead of just saying he died, would make it a little bit more interesting by using english, french, Shakespeare or whatever descriptive words would make it easier to understand. My, my you are using a fine tooth comb to find two spots that don’t seem right to you. I suppose we could pick through the Bible and find a few phrases that don’t seem quite like they would have said it back then. But, the persons who translated the Bible from the original form spoke english and used words such as thee and thou that we do not use today except when speaking of deity. If we did people would look strangely at us.
When I read scriptures be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon, I am reading to learn of God, and become a more spiritual person. Not to disprove either set of Scriptures. I have faith in God and in his Prophets old and new. The Bible teaches us to be good Christians and so does the Book of Mormon. By reading them you are spiritualy fed and can become a better Christian.
Happy Thanksgiving to all !!!
T
tkdnick
Guest
Well that other thread got a little heated too! There’s an interesting thread about Muslim and Mormon similarities. Not sure if anything said there is true, but people have certainly brought up some interesting things. Might be a good place to let people know your beliefs.
Not sure if this was directed at me, but just for clarification…I didn’t bring these up. Someone else did. I just commented on the fact that finding those similarities was interesting. I haven’t read the BoM all the way through, nor studied it enough to have picked out something that small. Nor do I have the knowledge of language…ESPECIALLY French and Shakespearian.
- Status