Why is Mormonism the big discussion topic in this forum?

[why_me]

None of the scribes ever said they saw Joseph sitting with the plates while translating, including Emma. In the same interview you cited, she also said, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” I agree; this is very unlike a traditional translation process. It’s also very unlike the depiction of the translation process found in LDS lesson manuals (which all assume he used the plates, and not his hat and peepstone).

NS

I like the hat trick. I think that it can be very faith promoting for mormons. The painting of the translation process that you alluded to was done by a member of the lds church.

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM,
My kids in high school do better research than you. But your casual research has gotten you what you wanted. Way to go!

ParkerD - you might take it as a task to correct the Wikipedia entries on the Golden Plates and the origin of the Book of Mormon since they’re providing some evidence that supports my belief that there was a fraud at work. Correcting Wikipedia would be a better use of time for you rather than arguing here, as I see it.

 

[Stephen168]

I think the LDS believers are sincere and friendly.

ReggieM,
My kids in high school do better research than you.

 

[reggieM]

It’s true also that I’ve seen things turn to personal insults … as you pointed out.

ReggieM,
My kids in high school do better research than you.

I hope I made it clear that if I laugh at the stories of Mormonism, I’m not directing comments towards the believers themselves.

 

[why_me]

Here’s a Wikipedia entry:

David Persuitte, in his book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon, presents a large number of parallels between passages in View of the Hebrews and in the Book of Mormon, but notes no instances of direct copying. However, the parallels between the two books that Persuitte presents cover a broad range of topics, including religious ideas about the responsibility of the American people in convincing the Indians of their “Israelite” origins and converting them to Christianity. Moreover, Persuitte quotes from View of the Hebrews Ethan Smith’s theory about what happened to the ancient Israelites after they arrived in America. That theory is also essentially a summary of the basic story line of the Book of Mormon, including the idea that the ancient Israelite immigrants to America split into two factions: a civilized group and a savage group that subsequently exterminated the civilized group. Persuitte also quotes from the two books several similar descriptions of structures built by the civilized faction and wars that were fought between the two factions, as well as numerous other similarities. According to Persuitte, the ideas that can be found in View of the Hebrews are sufficient to have “inspired” Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon had he read it.[33] Joseph Smith himself mentioned Ethan Smith and cited passages from View of the Hebrews in an article published in the Times and Seasons in June 1842.[34]

Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were distantly related through their mothers (3rd cousins, 1 time removed).[35] Cowdery was educated and trained as a typesetter/printers assistant in the 1800s and worked at the Poultney Gazette in the summer of 1823 (the paper became known as the Northern Spectator in December 1823), the year that Ethan Smith published the first edition of View of the Hebrews. Cowdery’s family, including father William and stepmother Keziah, were noted as being longstanding members of Ethan Smith’s congregation in Poultney when he arrived and assumed leadership in November 1821. Even prior to his book’s publication, Ethan Smith advocated his views regarding the origins of Native Americans in sermons to his congregations. In 1825, Ethan Smith published the much-enlarged second edition of View of the Hebrews, the same year that Cowdery left Poultney for New York State.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

That seems like more than just a coincidence to me.

No one saw Smith with pen and paper and no one saw any manucript in the translation process. As far as the view of the hebrews is concerned:

farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=9&num=1&id=247

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_view.htm

lightplanet.com/response/answers/view.htm

 

[why_me]

It’s true also that I’ve seen things turn to personal insults … as you pointed out.

I hope I made it clear that if I laugh at the stories of Mormonism, I’m not directing comments towards the believers themselves.

I just read a book about the sex lives of the popes. It made me laugh but I wasn’t directing my laughter toward my catholic brothers and sisters.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s true also that I’ve seen things turn to personal insults … as you pointed out.

I hope I made it clear that if I laugh at the stories of Mormonism, I’m not directing comments towards the believers themselves.

ReggieM,
Teachers encourage students to do better research all the time. If you think every correction or comment that a teacher makes has insulted the student, then I suppose that’s how you would view my comment. I was not attempting to insult you. I was suggesting you have done inadequate research. I don’t think that is unfriendly or hurtful. Sorry if you took it that way.

Wikipedia is OK as far as it goes. I have written articles there, but I long since stopped doing that. Any researcher has plenty of adequate sources about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.

Sorry again if I offended you. Bye.

 

[why_me]

ParkerD - you might take it as a task to correct the Wikipedia entries on the Golden Plates and the origin of the Book of Mormon since they’re providing some evidence that supports my belief that there was a fraud at work. Correcting Wikipedia would be a better use of time for you rather than arguing here, as I see it.

The wiki can be edited and reedited. It is a waste of time. However if you go to fairlds.org and click on the fairwiki you will get a different wiki.

 

[NewSeeker]

I like the hat trick. I think that it can be very faith promoting for mormons. The painting of the translation process that you alluded to was done by a member of the lds church.

Yes, and the painting was based on folklore about Joseph translating directly from the plates. But, as you know, this was not so, just as there were no eyewitnesses to Joseph wearing the breastplate with urim and thummim spectacles attached. But it doesn’t matter in the end. Whether it was peepstone in hat or staring into space with no plates in sight in a trance, the facts are consistent with the idea that Joseph was merely dictating a well-practiced series of stories worked out over many years based on well-known theories about Hebrew origins for native americans, with the dictation interspersed with plagiarism from the KJV from behind a curtain whenever writer’s block (or dictator’s block, in this case) would ensue, when a curtain between Joseph and scribe was employed.

NS

 

[reggieM]

No one saw Smith with pen and paper and no one saw any manucript in the translation process. As far as the view of the hebrews is concerned:

farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=9&num=1&id=247

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_view.htm

lightplanet.com/response/answers/view.htm

Actually, rather than trying to refute the charges that Joseph Smith plagiarized from The View of the Hebrews (which appears as totally obvious), I find it more refreshingly honest to simply admit it.

From wikipedia:

Adherents to the Book of Mormon do not find the instances of purported plagiarism troubling; to the contrary, they feel that the repetition further proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon[43]—that God reveals similar, if not the same teachings, to all people since, as the Bible states, He is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8, KJV)—and that the repetition fulfills prophecy that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1, KJV).

LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball further stated, “Prophets say the same things because we face basically the same problems.”[44]"[For example,]…warnings must be repeated. Just because a truth is repeated does not make that truth any less important or true. Indeed, the opposite is true."

Sometimes it’s better to just admit the obvious and not try to argue something that is impossible to defend.

The copying of passages from the King James version is another major problem, since that is not even a good translation of the Holy Bible itself.

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM,
Teachers encourage students to do better research all the time. If you think every correction or comment that a teacher makes has insulted the student, then I suppose that’s how you would view my comment. I was not attempting to insult you. I was suggesting you have done inadequate research. I don’t think that is unfriendly or hurtful. Sorry if you took it that way.

Wikipedia is OK as far as it goes. I have written articles there, but I long since stopped doing that. Any researcher has plenty of adequate sources about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.

Sorry again if I offended you. Bye.

Apology accepted, ParkerD.

 

[why_me]

Actually, rather than trying to refute the charges that Joseph Smith plagiarized from The View of the Hebrews (which appears as totally obvious), I find it more refreshingly honest to simply admit it.

From wikipedia:

Sometimes it’s better to just admit the obvious and not try to argue something that is impossible to defend.

The copying of passages from the King James version is another major problem, since that is not even a good translation of the Holy Bible itself.

I accept your defeat in this matter.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/King_James_Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf

“When ‘holy men of God’ quote the
scriptures,” notes Nibley, “it is always in the received
standard version of the people they are addressing…”12
Likewise, the scriptural language of Joseph Smith’s day was
King James English. Quite often when other ancient texts—
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls—are translated into English,
they—like the Book of Mormon—are rendered into King
James English.13 One can hardly chide Joseph for doing the
very same thing that modern scholars often do when
translating ancient religious texts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I accept your defeat in this matter.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/King_James_Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf

“When ‘holy men of God’ quote the
scriptures,” notes Nibley, “it is always in the received
standard version of the people they are addressing…”12
Likewise, the scriptural language of Joseph Smith’s day was
King James English. Quite often when other ancient texts—
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls—are translated into English,
they—like the Book of Mormon—are rendered into King
James English.13 One can hardly chide Joseph for doing the
very same thing that modern scholars often do when
translating ancient religious texts.

Except the small detail that JS was not a scholar translating ancient texts in the manner that scholars do. The Mormon claim is that he was translating via divine revelation.

 

[why_me]

Yes, and the painting was based on folklore about Joseph translating directly from the plates. But, as you know, this was not so, just as there were no eyewitnesses to Joseph wearing the breastplate with urim and thummim spectacles attached. But it doesn’t matter in the end. Whether it was peepstone in hat or staring into space with no plates in sight in a trance, the facts are consistent with the idea that Joseph was merely dictating a well-practiced series of stories worked out over many years based on well-known theories about Hebrew origins for native americans, with the dictation interspersed with plagiarism from the KJV from behind a curtain whenever writer’s block (or dictator’s block, in this case) would ensue, when a curtain between Joseph and scribe was employed.

NS

If you ever read the book of mormon you will see that such a trick would be impossible. You can try to stick your head in a hat and dictate a story with a scribe copying it down and see how you do. And then of course, we have the witnesses and their statements. We would need at least 13 or 14 people in on the fraud and all keeping their mouths shut throughout their lives about the fraud. Sounds impossible when one considers human nature.

 

[why_me]

Except the small detail that JS was not a scholar translating ancient texts in the manner that scholars do. The Mormon claim is that he was translating via divine revelation.

The process would be the same with language usage.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The process would be the same with language usage.

Really? Please provide the original documents so that this can be verified.

 

[reggieM]

I accept your defeat in this matter.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/King_James_Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf

“When ‘holy men of God’ quote the
scriptures,” notes Nibley, “it is always in the received
standard version of the people they are addressing…”12
Likewise, the scriptural language of Joseph Smith’s day was
King James English. Quite often when other ancient texts—
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls—are translated into English,
they—like the Book of Mormon—are rendered into King
James English.13 One can hardly chide Joseph for doing the
very same thing that modern scholars often do when
translating ancient religious texts.

This argument will go nowhere with Catholics since the KJV is an unauthorized and incorrect text. But JS wouldn’t know that because he had no experience with Catholicism (and yet claimed he was called to reform the Christian church?).

 

[why_me]

Actually, rather than trying to refute the charges that Joseph Smith plagiarized from The View of the Hebrews (which appears as totally obvious), I find it more refreshingly honest to simply admit it.

Usually, people like yourself just ignore the links that I post and stick to their tag line. I can understand why. The book of mormon is not so simple as the internet portrays. It is quite complicated. The view of the hebrews was around at the time the book of mormon was published but it did not make such an impact on the book of mormon or JS. People usually just did not see a correlation between the two. In fact, many had the idea that sidney rigdon wrote the book of mormon since they knew that JS could not do it.

 

[CJ_Nick]

You can try to stick your head in a hat and dictate a story with a scribe copying it down and see how you do. .

Hello why me ,

I have taken your challenge and stuck my head in a hat. I am saddened to inform you that all I got was the knowledge that I have bad breath and it is dark in there.

Sorry, Just my lame attempt to lighten up this thread a little, no offense intended.

Peace,
CJ

 

[reggieM]

Except the small detail that JS was not a scholar translating ancient texts in the manner that scholars do. The Mormon claim is that he was translating via divine revelation.

When some pages were lost, JS was worried that a second translation wouldn’t match the first. But if the translation came from divine revelation then the words should have been the same.