Jenda

Witnesses testify that he used both. Emma Smith testifies:"Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color." (Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March, 1870, Emma Smith Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. Published in The Return, (July 1894), Vol.4:2.) Oliver Cowdrey's testimony: These were days never to be forgotten-to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven...Day after day I continued uninterrupted to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record, called 'The Book of Mormon'. ( Messenger and Advocate, October, 1834, Vol.1:14.) Lucy Mack Smith and Martin Harris described the "interpreters" Joseph used in the beginning (which were also talked about in Mosiah 12:18 RLDS (Mosiah 28:13 LDS)And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.) Lucy's description: And upon examination, found that it consisted of two smooth three cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old-fashioned spectacles. (Joseph Smith The Prophet and His Progenitors, Lucy Mack Smith, (1912, Lamoni, Ed.) p. 116.)(Also printed by the LDS church as The History of Joseph Smith by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith.) Martin Harris' description: The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eights of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eights of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches. The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few grey streaks." (Martin Harris Interview, Tiffany's Monthly, 1859, p.164-5, Reproduced in Early Mormon Documents, (Vogel, Signature Books, 1998) Vol. 2:.305) I think that there are ample testimonies of the "interpreters", the name Urim and Thummim did not become attached to the "interpreters" till 1833 when the name was used by WWPhelps in an article in the Evening and Morning Star. He writes that "the plates were translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." (Evening and Morning Star 1st Ed.1:8 (January, 1833) p. 58:b.)

Miss Bug, I am not single, I am re-married, but I do remember some things from when I was single, and have some longings that continue into the married state that make me wish I had put a little more thought into it. I love my husband, don't get me wrong, but there are many ways we are incompatible that I wasn't as concerned about when we started dating. I thought maybe I would change regarding his attitude, or he would change regarding mine, or both, regarding several issues, but neither of it happened. The most important one, IMO, is our level of commitment go God, church, the gospel. The gulf that divides us is wide, and we are both members of my church (RLDS). My only suggestion to you, and you seem pretty well glued together, is to make sure what it is you believe and want, and get to know how the person you are dating feels about those same things, because down the line, if they are not in sync, you will be very out of sync with him, and there will be lots of pressures on you, you will do things alone, and it will make you very lonely. That is all I can say. Good luck with singlehood!

Using a source that has no credibility is logical? I am not interested in what the BoM has to say because there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than a work of fiction. Then skip over it and go on to the next post. This is a mormon discussion board, and we will use what scripture we want to discuss things with each other.

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight. Yes, I am familiar with that story. And he didn't send the characters to Anthon to ask if they were Egyptian, he sent them to him to ask if what he wrote could be a possible translation.PLEASE use the true facts when you want to argue? Why do you want to look like a fool?

Jenda--I've never understood why mormons would think that Chiasmus in the BoM is anything unusual. The Bible had it, JS was familiar with the Bible so he, either intentionally or subconscieously, included it as an aliterative style. I have NO problem believing that JS was an extremely bright guy, with an incredible memory and imagination. However, none of that makes what he did "super natural". The question is, did he have a little (or a lot) of the "con man" in him? Was he capable of "pulling a fast one on people"? The answer to that question is, clearly he did. As a young man he went around trying to convince people he could see buried treasure in a peep stone. The question is DID he do that when it comes to the BoM story? Let's put it this way, Jenda--do you think JS could actually see buried treasure in a peep stone as he told people he could? If you believe the rest of what he said, why don't you believe that? Chiasmus is a very specific form of poetry, and was not discovered till fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things.) Certainly after JS,Jr's time. While he might have been able to copy writing styles from the Bible, it is highly unlikely that he would have had the brilliance to come up with some of the chiasmus present that have been found in the BoM because some have been extremely intricate. It would have taken a lot more imagination than a 22 year old boy could conjure up to write a 777 page scriptural document, have the themes of the OT carry through to resolution, add the intricate Chiasmus (before anyone was aware of Chiasmus), know that languages deteriorate without the aid of written works to keep them pure, etc. Sorry, the definition you gave to Occam's Razor just doesn't fit. The definition that best fits is what JS,Jr. said. It was given to him from God. One more thing, Cal. But since you are so familiar with the BoM and all, I hate to bring it up, you know, but did you forget, or something, that it was the publisher who put in punctuation, versification, etc.

Jenda-- Maybe it is you that needs to study the whole issue and the circumstances around the production of the BoM. By the way I have read the BoM so many times I have lost track, so please don't make assumptions you haven't investigated. But--consider this---JS was intimately familiar with the Bible--he quoted it extensively in the BoM (or maybe you hadn't noticed--perhaps YOU need to read it a bit more with a more OBJECTIVE eye). Why do you think it so unusual that he would have repeated some of the patterns present in the Bible. The Bible was the primary literature of the 1800's and many people knew its contents. All it really took was a great imagination and the ability to weave an intricate story. The fact that someone writes something most of us couldn't hardly proves that it comes from a supernatural source. There is lots of impressive literature in the world--you don't need "other world" explanations for all of it. Give the human mind and imagination some credit. On top of that look at things like 1) the ultra-specific nature of prophesies of things that had ALREADY happened by JS' time and the shortage of anything SPECIFIC after as well as 2) many of the issues resolved by the BoM were issues hotly debated in the society of New England at the time of JS (what a coincidence that the Native Americans we discussing the same things 1500 years ago) 3) He described a Hebrew people whose scribes seemed to know little about common Hebrew customs--at least not even mentioned.. 4) The native americans the supposed Moroni described as Lamanites (and therefore Hebrews) have no genetic connection to the middle east. 5) When translating what was supposed to be Isaiah off the Plates of Laban, JS included the translation errors of the King James version. How interesting? These are raise serious questions about the authenticity of the BOM. Cal, First, I was not talking to you when I posted that post, so I was obviously not speaking of your knowledge of the BoM, now, was I? But now that you have mentioned it, it seems awfully strange that, since you have read it (numerous times, I might add) that you have made several bad mistakes in your post. Secondly, if you read what I wrote, you would understand that I was talking about the continuance of Biblical themes in the BoM, such as the Abrahamic Covenant, etc., being carried through to completion. Let me state it this way. I come from a different restoration background than the LDS. Our studies of the BoM have gone in different directions than our LDS cousins. There are times when I sit here and read what they believe about the BoM scriptures and I say "Huh? How did they get that?" Our church spent a lot of time immersed in the BoM and how it relates to Abraham, Moses, OT prophets, etc. since the peoples came from OT Jerusalem. And to see the carry-through and resolution of these themes, at least to me, is wonderful. Let me make a suggestion. I don't know what you are trying to bash here, the BoM or the LDS, but I would offer you a challenge. Try to ignore everything you have learned about the BoM from the LDS, and try to ignore all the anti crap you have read. Find a restoration branch of the RLDS church (since the CoC doesn't do serious scripture study (of any kind) anymore) and engage some members there about their beliefs and studies of the BoM. They are so completely un-LDS-like that you would be amazed. I am not saying that this will necessarily convince you of the truth of the BoM, but you will certainly see a different side of the book than you did before. If you are interested in taking this challenge, I can hook you up with a few, but I would only do it if you seriously wanted to learn about it and not find new ways to bash something that you don't know.

Don't really know about Mayan, but there is in other Native American cultures. There is a book that was published in 1823 by a fellow by the name of Ethan Smith called "A View of the Hebrews" This book is considered to be a possible book that Joseph Smith plageurized the BoM from. I read this book, and while there is one common theme (that the American Indians are the remnants of Judah (and even this theme is suspect)) there are really no other similarities. Anyway, this book contains a partial list of Indian words and compared them to Jewish words, and lots of it leaves you questioning. Well, lots of it may leave you questioning, but it doesn't leave me questioning. Here is the site of the book http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_main.shtml Here is the page that has the list http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_3a.shtml Scroll down to page 90.

I don't see any contradiction. The plates mentioned in 1 Nephi are the plates of Laban, and the reason they got these plates is so that they could continue to keep their language pure (their spoken language). It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that without a written record that the spoken language gets distorted over time. Ever hear of eubonics(sp?)?The verse from Mormon is the language of the plates that they were condensing onto. You do know that what we have as the BoM is the Readers Digest version of what happened to those peoples, not the whole history, right? Nephi's family were scribes, and they learned more than one language, why do you see a problem here?

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere. What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight. Eat crow. Mormon 9:34 34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. You know, as well as I do, that that is referring to the written language they were using, else they wouldn't have to be worried about God finding some way to have it interpreted in the future. Read with your eyes open, it helps.

Why don't you offer your "proof" here, Bat. This is nothing but drivel unless it can be backed up with proof. And since I already disproved one of the points your "critic" made, maybe you had better find a different critic to back up the rest of the points, because I can come up with other proofs to back up my claim that are much better than this, easily.Remember, burden of proof.

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Nope, they aren't ancient texts. But, as many before me have asserted, once Joseph translated the BoM, his speech patterned itself after that language when he received and transcribed revelations from the Lord. That happens in lots of cases. So I wouldn't use it to disprove it, either.

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history. You really must be kidding! If that is what you believe, then you have never really studied the BoM. You are making all your assertions about it being false on things you have heard other people say. The BoM weaves a timeline, and has themes and sub-themes, and is laced throughout with the Abrahamic Covenant in ways that it would take more than just "someone with a vivid imagination" to come up with. Not just that, but to have it rife with archaic Jewish poetry that was not even discovered as a type of poety till about 15 years ago, so good old Joe couldn't have thought it up. Do some real studying before you come here and spout nonsense.

Joseph Smith actually used what has come to be known as the U&T and the plates for the first 116 pages of the BoM (the ones lost by Martin Harris.) It was after this fiasco that the use of the U&T was taken from him and he was instructed to find another way to translate.For those of you who think using the stones in the hat is a joke and therefore detracts from the validity of the Book of Mormon, here is a concept. You write a 777 page book (or get someone else to write it for you.) Then memorize the whole thing (all 777 pages) and "read it" verbatim with your head stuck in a hat. For that matter, stick your head in a hat for 8 hours a day and don't do anything and see if you pass out from asphyxiation after a matter of minutes. Snow, I agree with your theory that the stones were devices that, in the beginning, helped channel Joseph's thoughts toward God, and after he became more comfortable with the role of prophet and seer, they became unnecessary.

What say you - if God were to act through not priesthood channels, does that then mean that the priesthood is superfluous? No. The power of the priesthood, especially the Melchesidic, is to stand in the stead of Christ, and is required for carrying out the ordinances of the church.

Jenda - That is very interesting. What do you mean by the manuscripts? M. I mean that when they put together that version, they did not consult the original manuscript or the printers manuscript. There is another edition that has been developed and printed by an outside individual (not related to either church (the individual is a member of the RLDS church, but the church was not involved in the publishing)) where both the original manuscript and the printers manuscript were consulted and changes made to harmonize with those manuscripts. It is called the Restored Covenant Edition. It keeps the RLDS versification because the LDS changed the versification from the original printing. IMO, the Revised Authorized Version is unauthorized in the most important way. It is definitely not Spirit-produced.

The Revised Authorized Version (the one I refer to as the Unauthorized Version) was first published in 1966, and is affectionately called the "1966 Version" or the "readers version". It actually had nothing to do with the manuscripts. The committee that did it went through and removed all of the "and it came to pass(es)" unless a significant period of time had come to pass, and a few of the other redundancies. It also ambiguized some of the passages, I know of one (because I had read a discussion on it) but cannot provide the reference at this point in time.

Not exactly Ohio. In answer to your question [Anyway, is this forum for only gospel and doctrine discussion or can we talk about anything related to the church or its members? Also can we have "off-topic" discussions or is there another forum for that?]; if you talk about something and can't directly tie it to the Church/gospel, the moderators will move the topic to the General Discussion forum. That forum doesn't get hardly any traffic because it is so far down in the forum order. This forum, Gospel Discussion used to come after General Discussion and so it hardly got any action. Then the moderators switch order and now neither forum gets much traffic. Snow, I assumed he was talking about LDStalk, and not just the gospel forum. Let me clarify. As long as you stick it in the appropriate forum, you can discuss anything. That better, Snow?

Ohio-Mormon, what exactly do you mean by off-topic? Maybe that can help clarify things. You can talk about anything. The gospel, the church, the weather, your next door neighbor, whatever. We only ask that you treat the discussions (and the discussees) with respect. I am sure Bat would be willing to PM you some information if there are some things you want to discuss that others find highly objectionable.

Uhm...how about this. YOU tell me how many times it has to be answered before you are going to stop asking the SAME QUESTION over and over? 10 times? 20? Just tell me, and I'll answer it all those times so you can stop asking the question. And seriously...it has been answered, numerous times. So maybe you need to start practicing what you preach. You can answer it one time. Don't be afraid. We'll walk through this together. Arm in arm. Antishock, how does your God allow this to happen? Maybe you could tell us that, and we can compare and contrast Gods.

Cal, I am not sure from reading your posts that you believe in any God at all. You attack anyone who claims to believe in a God and refuse to answer questions where you are asked to describe the God you believe in. If you believed in a God, I would assume that you feel some pull towards believing in some concept of a society where all are equal, there are no homeless and poor, and which everyone treats each other with love and respect (a society which the Mormons/Restorationist religions call Zion.) We all know the problems inherent in the government institutions of the different societies present here on the earth (kingdoms, communism, democracy, etc.), so maybe you could define just how you view that type of society. What it would look like, how it would be governed, how you would guarantee peace, etc. I don't think it is fair of you to pick apart someone elses personal view without defining your own so we have the same advantage. If you think your ideas are sooo much better than those presented here, I am all ears.

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power: Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads... Over our heads? Not at all. I think PD and I understand full well where you are coming from. You believe in a magical mystical world where things are as you WISH they were. We live in a world that actually exists. Like I said, its over your heads. I sooooooooo agree with you Peace. :) B)

And I can faithfully attest that Jenda did spam it. B)

What would be the purpose of asking if someone was fat unless you believe that fat people respond in certain ways? In what way could the answer to that question be of benefit to the discussion? Is the purpose of asking that question meant to demean the person asked?It all has to do with the ulterior motive of why the question was asked. So, again, the topics are up for discussion, the people aren't.

I liked it too. I am going to start spamming people with it. B)