Book Of Mormon Stumbling Block


inactivetx
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul6150

You are right, there is alot of grey areas concerning the translation of the BoM.

I read part of the wikipedia article that was mentioned earlier, but it seems to favor the stories told by Emma Smith. Although many might say she was probably the most credible source, because she was the wife of Joseph Smith, the fact that she broke off from the Church after the death of J.S. excludes her from being a reliable source; because she would try to tell things in a way to prove that her movement was right.

I did however read the personal journal of Joseph Smith, and the seerstone was never mentioned; only the urim and thummim. I did read in another book on the life of John Taylor that told about another man who claimed to find a seer stone and some other plates, and he broke off and started his own religious movement. It seems like Oliver Cowdery broke off and followed this man. Perhaps someone got the two stories crossed.

I'm sure this doesn't answer your question, but perhaps it will shed some light on where the two stries came from.

The much wordiness of the BoM coming from 2" of plates could not be used as a factor to prove it right or wrong, because it does say in the BoM that they chose to write in that language because of it's efficiency; considering the limited space they had to write on; therefore the message wasn't as pure and complete as it could have been. Who is to say that there was or wasn't such a language in existence as we don't have the plates to prove it.

But like you say, there is much evidence stacked against it. However I don't believe that the evidence for it or against it proves it either direction. One would just have to depend on what they interpret as the spirit telling them what's right.

I also stand behind you 100% concerning the fact that modern doctrine cannot contradict earlier doctrine. Otherwise it is false. Many peolple have so many different ways of interpreting scripture nowadays to fit what they believe, it's hard to know what is true. But for me, I believe in most cases that the most literal interpretation is the most correct, except for parables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to pop in and let you all know I am reading the responses and thank you for attempting to answer my concerns. I can only do so much with a 5 month old & a 3 year old - it's enough to read the BoM, much less write about it on a message board KWIM? Have only 15 pages left btw. Anyways, I found another odd thing in 3 Nephi - the 'Lords Prayer' is incomplete - why? Can anyone recommecd a good commentary?

Again thanks for the replies!

Inactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 15 2005, 04:45 PM

Paul6150

    You are right, there is alot of grey areas concerning the translation of the BoM.

I read part of the wikipedia article that was mentioned earlier, but it seems to favor the stories told by Emma Smith. Although many might say she was probably the most credible source, because she was the wife of Joseph Smith,  the fact that she broke off from the Church after the death of J.S. excludes her from being a reliable source; because she would try to tell things in a way to prove that her movement was right.

    I did however read the personal journal of Joseph Smith, and the seerstone was never mentioned; only the urim and thummim. I did read in another book on the life of John Taylor that told about another man who claimed to find a seer stone and some other plates, and he broke off and started his own religious movement. It seems like Oliver Cowdery broke off and followed this man. Perhaps someone got the two stories crossed.

    I'm sure this doesn't answer your question, but perhaps it will shed some light on where the two stries came from.

  The much wordiness of the BoM coming from 2" of plates could not be used as a factor to prove it right or wrong, because it does say in the BoM that they chose to write in that language because of it's efficiency; considering the limited space they had to write on; therefore the message wasn't as pure and complete as it could have been. Who is to say that there was or wasn't such a language in existence as we don't have the plates to prove it.

  But like you say, there is much evidence stacked against it. However I don't believe that the evidence for it or against it proves it either direction. One would just have to depend on what they interpret as the spirit telling them what's right.

  I also stand behind you 100% concerning the fact that modern doctrine cannot contradict earlier doctrine. Otherwise it is false. Many peolple have so many different ways of interpreting scripture nowadays to fit what they believe, it's hard to know what is true. But for me, I believe in most cases that the most literal interpretation is the most correct, except for parables.

LIONHEART

So of I understand your last post correctly you basically "write off" the testimonies of those key individuals that were there with JS (Martin Harris, David Whittmer, Emma Smith and I am sure there are others) when the "translation process" occurred simply because they didn't follow Brigham Young to SLC. As you said Emma Smith "was probably the most credible source, because she was the wife of Joseph Smith" and she believed in him. Just because she joined the RLDS after the death of JS doesn't exclude "her from being a reliable source". She still believed in her husband and the BOM till her death so how can one exclude her testimony.

Along with this thought then why does every copy of the BOM still contain David Whittmer's testimony as one of the 3 witnesses. You can't have it both ways. :ahhh: Whittmer never rejoined the LDS like some say Cowdery and Harris did which that is up for debate also. In fact many of the 8 witnesses never went the LDS route either do you throw out their testimony also? Seems like a double standard to take their testimony in one area and not take it in another.

You said you have read "the personal journal of Joseph Smith, and the seerstone was never mentioned; only the urim and thummim." I think you are a bit naive in thinking that JS never used the "seer stone". There is far too much testimony from friend and foe alike that state JS used a seer stone. He was even convicted in court for "glass-looking". In fact if you check it out I believe there are 3 of JS's seer stones in the LDS Presidents Vault. I can't think that a rational person could ever say "perhaps someone got the two stories crossed".

You ask "Who is to say that there was or wasn't such a language in existence as we don't have the plates to prove it." Hey, you are right in the fact that the plates are not here as we are told they were given back to "Moroni". But if the ancestors of the Aztecs, Inca and Maya Indians were these "Nephites and Lamanites" then why doesn't the descendants still use this language? Why do they not have any evidence of religious or historical writings that are on metal plates? Where is the archeological evidence that this language existed? They didn't live in a vacuum, surely there would be some supporting evidence somewhere in "BOM territory". Can you point to some credible evidence that such a language existed?

I am glad you "stand behind you 100% concerning the fact that modern doctrine cannot contradict earlier doctrine. Otherwise it is false." So you need to go in with "eyes open" to seek the truth. Ask the Lord Jesus to help you look at the "fine points of deception" as He asked me several years ago to do. Be one who studies to prove themselves as a profitable servant of the Lord.

Along with the stumbling blocks regarding the "gold plates" I ask you go back and read my earlier posts (Posts 34, 38 and 42) to see some other stumbling blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul6150

It is my understanding that Emma Smith did not merely join the RLDS but she and her son Joseph Smith III are the ones who started it. I could be wrong about this, but I know she at least had a big part of it. It is also my understanding that she later married a promiscuous non-mormon and then SHE later began to confirm stories that Joseph Smith was into witchcraft. Yes, this would cause one to question her reliability. And if I remember correctly, I did not say anything about writing off the testimonies of those other men; and I did not say Emma Smith was the most credible source; I said some may say she was. So I would invite YOU to go back and read my post again except OPEN your EYES this time and pull the eye patches off and put your glasses on. I'm sure you will find that I did not contradict myself.

And forgive me if I never mentioned that I am not up to speed with all of the stories circulating around about how the plates were translated. I thought I would do you a favor and offer what I knew concerning the incident. I never assumed that you would jump to all manner of conclusions and begin trying to dictate what I was actually thinking.

Anyway, what is it that you really want? You claim that God commissioned you to search out the truth, but it sounds to me like you have already made up your mind about the matter. Your persistence on this subject appears to me like you are just trying to get a rise out of people by trying to discredit their beliefs. We already told you what we know about it. I made it very clear that one must rely on what they perceive as the holy spirit to confirm the truthfulness of it; as there is evidence for it and against it. I hoped that would satisfy you, but apparently not. So it leads one to believe that you have a different, darker purpose in mind.

If I'm wrong about this, then please accept my apologies, and I invite you to read a post by TaoistSaint under the topic "Book of Mormon Challenge". Perhaps that will be of interest to you.

But as for me, I'm done with this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inactivex, in answer to your question about the Lord's prayer being incomplete, the part that was left out was "Thy kingdom come". Now I don't have an official source for this but I would assume that the reason for this is because before Jesus appeared to the nephites and lamanites, he had already instructed Peter and the others to organize the christian church over in Jerusalem. So if his kingdom had come, would there be any use in praying for it anymore?

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sugarbay

Originally posted by inactivetx@Dec 15 2005, 05:37 PM

Just wanted to pop in and let you all know I am reading the responses and thank you for attempting to answer my concerns. I can only do so much with a 5 month old & a 3 year old - it's enough to read the BoM, much less write about it on a message board KWIM? Have only 15 pages left btw.  Anyways, I found another odd thing in 3 Nephi - the 'Lords Prayer' is incomplete - why? Can anyone recommecd a good commentary? 

Again thanks for the replies!

Inactive.

If you have been voraciously reading all the posts, you will see that you have now opened up the proverbial can of worms. Sometimes it gets like the Pharisees in heated debate. Sit back and enjoy! B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Ok Paul:

First of all, HI!!, its been a long month since we talked, but as to to this.

Concerning your claim of fraud because of using both terms of steel and arms not possibly known to them:

Well, it seems weird that a group of hebrews would develope anything different from what they already brought, so what do we find in our preacious bible? 2 Sam. 22: 35

35 He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

Job 20: 24

24 He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.

Ps. 18: 34

34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

Jer. 15: 12

12 Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?

Thats concernig STEEL, now concerning IRON:

Gen. 4: 22

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every bartificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Lev. 26: 19

19 And I will break the apride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

Num. 31: 22

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

Num. 35: 16

16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to bdeath.

Deut. 3: 11

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deut. 8: 9

9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Deut. 27: 5

5 And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.

Deut. 28: 23

23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.

Deut. 28: 48

48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a ayoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

Deut. 33: 25

25 Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be.

Josh. 6: 19

19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.

Josh. 6: 24

24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Josh. 8: 31

31 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

Josh. 17: 16

16 And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have achariots• of iron, both they who are of Beth-shean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.

And a lot more, so concerning our nephites friends, will they forget all their experience with metals just for going to another continent? Deut. 4: 20

20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of ainheritance, as ye are this day.

So here where do we leave your statement of: "The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The earliest form of steel was produced in the Catalan furnace in the 1300’s…in the mid-19th century, cast iron and wrought iron were the basic materials for industry and technology…Steel was difficult and costly to produce, by the only processes known at that time, until the Bessemer process (1856) and the Open-Hearth process (1860’s) were developed.” ?

And as to iron, which of course, the bible says it started with Cain descendandts, where do we leave your statement of : The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, states the following about iron and steel production: “True iron metallurgy began among the Hittites some time between 1900 and 1400 B.C. …Iron replaced bronze in implements and weapons beginning in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe about 1200 B.C. Pure iron is about as soft as copper and is of little structural value, but it is greatly hardened by the addition of small amounts of carbon. Steel contains up to 2 percent carbon; higher carbon content creates cast iron. Steel making is a melting, purifying (refining) and alloying process carried out at approximately 1600oC (2900oF) under molten conditions.” ?

As to indians knowing of such things:

(taken from Jefflindsay.com) See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

In November 2000, a team of archaeologists led by Professor Dorothy Hosler from the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began excavation of a pre-Columbian site in the remote mountains of northern Guerrero, Mexico.

This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler . . . who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas).

We anxiously await further information about this new discovery. The smelting site in Guerrero is in southern Mexico (see the location on a map). Also note the recent discovery in Peru proving use of metals before 1000 B.C. (or see the article at ABCnews.com. This discovery pushes the date of metal use in the Americas as far back as 1400 B.C.

As to cement:

Mesoamerican work with cement involved more than merely applying a veneer to buildings. Important structural elements were made with cement, and the use of cement in Mesoamerica dates to about the time when the Book of Mormon reports its development (46 B.C.). John Welch provides further data in his article, "A Steady Stream of Significant Recognitions" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. D.W. Parry, D.C. Peterson, and J.W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), pp. 372-374:

No one in the nineteenth century could have known that cement, in fact, was extensively used in Mesoamerica beginning largely at this time, the middle of the first century B.C.[1]

One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." [2] This is consistent with the Book of Mormon record, which treats this invention as an important new development involving great skill and becoming something of a sensation.

After this important technological breakthrough, cement was used at many sites in the Valley of Mexico and in the Maya regions of southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, which very well may have been close to the Nephite heartlands. Cement was used in the later construction of buildings at such sites as Cerro de Texcotzingo, Tula, Palenque, Tikal, Copan, Uxmal, and Chichen Itza. Further, the use of cement is "a Maya habit, absent from non-Maya examples of corbelled vaulting from the southeastern United States to southern South America." [3]

Mesoamerican cement was almost exclusively lime cement. The limestone was purified on a "cylindrical pile of timber, which requires a vast amount of labor to cut and considerable skill to construct in such a way that combustion of the stone and wood is complete and a minimum of impurities remains in the product." [4] The fact that very little carbon is found in this cement once again "attests to the ability of these ancient peoples." [5]

John Sorenson has further noted the expert sophistication in the use of cement at El Tajin, east of Mexico City, in the centuries following Book of Mormon times. Cement roofs covered sizable areas: "Sometimes the builders filled a room with stones and mud, smoothed the surface on top to receive the concrete, then removed the interior fill when the [slab] on top had dried." [6]

Footnotes for the above passage:

1. See Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch, "Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon," Insights (May 1991): 2.

2. David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), ii, sec. 6, p. 7.

3. George Kubler, The Art and Architecture of Ancient America, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975), 201, emphasis added.

4. Tatiana Proskouriakoff, An Album ofMaya Architecture (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), xv.

5. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements, sec. 6, p. 5.

6. John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon," Ensign, October 1984, 19.

AS TO SWORDS

One of the more common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the claim that "swords" were unknown in the ancient Americas, in contrast to references to swords among the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites. Many of you may have read about the actual "swords" among Mesoamericans that as described by the Spaniards. For example, here is an excerpt from my Mormon Answers response to the question about swords on my page about Metals in the Book of Mormon:

Q. Isn't the mention of swords in the New World another anachronism?

A. Many say that it is. Certainly swords were known in the ancient Old World, but the Book of Mormon speaks of swords used for centuries in the New World, where it is "common knowledge" that swords as we know them were not in use prior to the time of Columbus. But the ancient peoples in Book of Mormon lands, especially in Central American lands, definitely did use weapons that qualify as swords and were even called "swords" by Europeans who later saw them in use. These New World swords were non-metallic, incorporating obsidian blades. Examples of such swords from the Aztecs are discussed in the online article, "A Technological Mystery Resolved" by Terry Stocker at http://www.cmog.org/page.cfm?page=278.

A well known form of these pre-Columbian New World swords is the macuahuitl or the macana. Though the macuahuitl has been described as a "war club with sharp rocks embedded in it" by a Book of Mormon critic, the Spaniards that came to Central America consistently described it as a sword, not a club, as is shown by Matthew Roper in the article, "Eyewitness Descriptions of Mesoamerican Swords," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1996, pp. 150-158. Roper notes that the early Chroniclers of Mesoamerica, Durán and Clavijero, regularly called that weapon a sword. . . . [continue reading]

As an update, this year I also learned about related club-like weapons further north in the Americas. For example, theNew Georgia Encyclopedia has an article about the archaeology of the ancient Indians in the Georgia area entitled "Indian Warfare." This article discusses weapons and describes "the atassa, which was actually a wooden sword shaped like a pirate's cutlass." A helpful drawing is also provided. The word "sword" in this article is not Mormon spin.

A related article is "Warclubs and Falcon Warriors: Martial Arts, Status, and the Belief System in Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdoms" by Wayne W. Van Horne, Kennesaw State College, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Anthropological Society, Beloit, Wisconsin, March 20, 1993. This scholarly overview has the following passage:

During the Mississippian and early historic periods Southeastern warriors used the warclub as their primary weapon, and they were experts in using it. The wide variety of warclub types that existed is part of the evidence of their importance in warfare. Warclub types included utilitarian types that were constructed for use as actual weapons, and ceremonial types, which were clearly non-functional and were used for culturally symbolic purposes. Utilitarian warclubs can be categorized into several general types based on construction. The first type is a stick that is one to two feet in length with an inset projection at the striking end made from a flint blade, animal tooth, or bone or antler fragment. The second type is a globe-headed warclub one to two feet in length with a thin handle and a ball shaped head that sometimes has an inset projection on the striking surface. The third type is the atassa, a wooden broadsword that is one to three feet in length and is shaped like a European broadsword, or falchion, without a hilt. The atassa was the most prevalent form of warclub in use in the protohistoric period. [emphasis mine]

Again we encounter the theme of wooden swords among the ancient Americans.

If the swords used by Lamanites were at least partly made from wood, then a once puzzling discussion of such swords in the Book of Mormon makes sense, as noted by Matthew Roper in "Swords and Cimeters in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 34-43. The passage is in Alma 24:12-15, where a group of converted Lamanites make an oath to bury their swords and "stain" them no more with blood:

Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.

Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.

Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.

Metal swords are easily cleaned and do not stain with blood, but the wooden handles of a macuahuitl or other sword-like weapon could absorb blood and become stained. They would be difficult to clean - and would almost take a miracle to remove the stains, much as the converted Lamanites understood that it was the miracle of Christ's grace that had removed the stain of blood from their souls. I think the reference to the swords being made "bright" could be a metaphor referring to a lighter color or bleaching of the cleansed swords as a whole or to the shiny brightness of the cleaned obsidian blades.

In any case, I am intrigued by the richness of weapons used in the ancient New World and the possible correspondance to weapons in the Book of Mormon. This post only scratches the surface of this fascinating topic.

As to elephants:

First friend Pau, i taje that your reading of our Book is as careful as can be but i will help you. You said that the BoM does not call the elephants but "another name". Ok.Then.

Ether 9: 19

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were ELEPHANTS and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

But dont worry, I'll support it. Elephants are mentioned only once (Ether 9:19) as having been "had" by the ancient Jaredites. This occurrence is at an early point in the history of the Jaredites, probably well before 2500 B.C. based on the chronology proposed by Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Is this an obvious blunder? Mastodons and mammoths, a form of elephants, lived across North America and part of South America. It is widely believed that they went extinct before Jaredite times. However, there are other indications:

Experts agree that the mammoth, and mastodon could have survived in favored spots much later than the time normally assigned for their extinction. The mastodon has already been dated as late as 5000 B.C. at Devil's Den, Florida, and around the Great Lakes to 4000 B.C. Then there is the remarkable discovery of the remains of a butchered mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ [J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11-12.]. In its light, the radiocarbon date around 100 B.C. of horse, mammoth and mastodon remains at St. Petersburg, Florida, does not seem impossible [Jim J. Hester, "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene Extinctions," p. 185]. The Jaredite mention of the elephant a single time - very early in their lineage history - hints that the creature became extinct in their area soon thereafter. Perhaps the Jaredites themselves killed off the last of the beasts within their zone. But the Jaredites might not have been the only people to record the presence of the big animal. Some North American Indians have recounted legends of "great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down" and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head [H. P. Beck, "The Giant Beaver: A Prehistoric Memory," Ethnohistory 19 (1972):117; William Duncan Strong, "North American Indian Traditions Suggesting Knowledge of the Mammoth," American Anthropologist 36 (1934):81-88]. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these "elephants." The later the beasts survived, the easier it is to accept the reliability of the tradition. In any case, it is possible that the mammoth or mastodon hung on in Mexico at least as late as 2500 B.C.

(John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.)

Hugh Nibley has some interesting comments on this issue in his book, Since Cumorah, p. 255:

What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?

At the moment, I think that the single mention of elephants among a very early group of New World people could be accounted for plausibly by surviving mammoths or mastodons, which later became fully extinct. Failure to find abundant elephant remains from the Jaredite period need not be taken as proof against the Book of Mormon.

For more information about elephants on this continent, see Glen Chapman's page on elephants in the Book of Mormon - now including scanned images from various publications.

P.S. - In our local paper, the Post-Crescent, an Associated Press article was printed on Oct. 30, 1996 about the discovery of several mammoth skeletons in San Miguel Tocuila, Mexico. Though scientists believed it lived between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, it is further evidence of the presence of mammoths in ancient Mexico - and perhaps others survived into Jaredite times. Along with several mammoth skeletons, fossilized bones of bison, flamingos, and other wildlife were found.

JUST TO ADD:

There is NO authentic proof for Jesus'existance, even the order of Cesar to collect the names of the citizens of Jerusalem is in conflict with the time that HISTORY(of men) date it. No records, no names, conflict in every word of he bible(and please dont be absurd and accept the bible has far more contradictions than the BoM- if not then read "101 Myths from the Bible"written by the President of Biblical Arqueology Assosiation in New York, and see the work of a very well expousure of the "blunders'of Jew and christian writters), and you have to use absolutely your faith, if wanting to believe in Jesus. Although Josephus the jew, and far more historians MENTION Him, that is no proof of HIM existant, for -how many other things are MENTIONED in History that didnt occur?-, pal, i know your faith as much as you have shown here, and i feel is extremely great, but please, give the BoM a break, and PRAY.

Anyways these are just considerations, my testimony of truth is not found within the reconciliation of Men's knowleadge and the Word of God, but on God alone.

Regards,

Serg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

paul.... i could feel that you are in big doubt, even if you're telling that you want to gain a testimony of the BOM, before you want to find an answer you have already closed your mind with any spiritual confirmations. doubt and faith cannot occur at the same time, you have to choose only one among the two coz faith and doubt dispels each other too. don't contradict what is/are wrtten in the holy scriptures, don't bash yourself against them. instead have faith and be believing...

Hi! Hope someone can help.

I am an inactive member and am trying to gain a testimony. So, I have taken up Hinkley's challenge to read the BoM and everything is going smoothly until I hit a speed bump and I find whatever small testimony I was gaining being whisked away in an instant - leaving a bad taste in my month. Here is an example:

Alma 38:13-14: "Do not pray as the Zoramites do, for ye have seen that they pray to heard of men, and to be praised for thier wisdom. Do not say: O God, I thank thee that we are better than our brethren..."

Hello?! Didn't Jesus say this exact thing to the Pharasees 100 year years later??? in Luke 18:11 (btw the footnotes direct you to Luke 18:13)? So, was Jesus quoting Alma? or was Alma quoted Jesus 100 years in the past?

It's these little moments of deja vous in the BoM that make me go hmmmm. And don't get me started on the book of Ether. Last time I read that book, I put away the Book of Mormon for months! So am I nervous about reading it again.

Is there a good reason why the BoM relies so heavily in its narrative on the Old/New Testament stories?

I truly want a testimony of the BoM. I have prayed, and am obviously reading and occassional get the warm feeling of the spirit like w/ Alma 32 or other doctrinal passages, but then it is torn to shreads over things like this.

Can anyone help me?

TIA - InactiveTx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sorry Josie but Jesus wasn't the teacher in all the BOM passages I included in my last post. In fact the majority of them were in 1 and 2 Nephi. How can you explain that it was Jesus speaking to them there?

I know this is an old post, but I want to reply to it anyway, I hope no one minds.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus Christ was with God from the beginning, of course he could have spoken to the prophets in 1 and 2 Nephi. Unless you believe that God and/or Jesus have limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Nephi 4:26 -- the term “brethren of the church…” is not an Old Testament term used in ancient Judea. The word “church” is a New Testament term.

The word church may be a New Testament term but we know that Moses was in the church at Mount Sinai.

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Act 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

in response to the complaint about there being french in the book of mormon...

and i really am not trying to come off as a jerk here...

it's just that your complaint makes you sound like a moron on so many levels. I'll give you two.

1. When the Old Testament was written nobody spoke English. Yet nobody complains that there are English words in the bible. It's probably because most people realize that its a translation. And when you translate, you put it into words that people will understand. For example, if I was translating something into english and I needed to express " the illusion of having previously experienced something actually being encountered for the first time", I would use the word deja vu. Would you accuse me of not being able to translate correctly because the word deja vu is actually french? No, because we all know what it means, and its the best way in that instance to express it.

2. Adieu - Middle English (from Old French a dieu: I commend you) to God:

a, to (from Latin ad.) + Dieu, God (from Latin deus. See dyeu- in Indo-European Roots).

So... Adieu actually is Middle English (above is from dictionary.com). It has latin roots just like most english words.

QED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello davewilkins,

I jumped in on this thread late so I’m sorry if this has been addressed earlier. I first asked about my limited knowledge on what Jason brought up about the golden plates and the "stones and a hat." Which one was it? I hope you can answer my question. There is also something that I’m having a hard time reconciling that relates to this thread and that is about God being the "Alpha and Omega." That one is hard for me to reconcile with the story of the BOM being translated into English from reformed Egyptian (whatever that is) and using Greek words for "the first and the last." Why didn't it translate into "first and last." Why would it use the same term used in Biblical translations for people that would know what that meant in their own language. It seems a little conspicuous at the least. I’m not asking for an explanation of “why this is the way it is” but maybe a reasonable understanding of how you reconciled this oddity for yourself.

Thank you,

Dr. T

Thanks,

Dr. T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello davewilkins,

I jumped in on this thread late so I’m sorry if this has been addressed earlier. I first asked about my limited knowledge on what Jason brought up about the golden plates and the "stones and a hat." Which one was it? I hope you can answer my question. There is also something that I’m having a hard time reconciling that relates to this thread and that is about God being the "Alpha and Omega." That one is hard for me to reconcile with the story of the BOM being translated into English from reformed Egyptian (whatever that is) and using Greek words for "the first and the last." Why didn't it translate into "first and last." Why would it use the same term used in Biblical translations for people that would know what that meant in their own language. It seems a little conspicuous at the least. I’m not asking for an explanation of “why this is the way it is” but maybe a reasonable understanding of how you reconciled this oddity for yourself.

Thank you,

Dr. T

Thanks,

Dr. T

I got a better one for you,

3 Ne. 12:22, That verse, taken almost verbatim from the King James Version of Matthew 5:22 except for the deletion of the words "without a cause," reads:

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (3 Ne. 12:22).

The use of the Aramaic word Raca [raka], a term of opprobrium, would be meaningless to New World people who are depicted as speaking either Hebrew or reformed Egyptian. A further disparity lies in the phrase "shall be in danger of the council." In the Gospel account the reference is to the Jewish governing body, the Sanhedrin, a term which would have no historical point of reference in a New World context.

I love how Joseph Smith can "translate" Reformed Egyptian into English...except for one word which he leaves in Aramaic :lol:

Josh B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a better one for you,

3 Ne. 12:22, That verse, taken almost verbatim from the King James Version of Matthew 5:22 except for the deletion of the words "without a cause," reads:

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (3 Ne. 12:22).

The use of the Aramaic word Raca [raka], a term of opprobrium, would be meaningless to New World people who are depicted as speaking either Hebrew or reformed Egyptian. A further disparity lies in the phrase "shall be in danger of the council." In the Gospel account the reference is to the Jewish governing body, the Sanhedrin, a term which would have no historical point of reference in a New World context.

I love how Joseph Smith can "translate" Reformed Egyptian into English...except for one word which he leaves in Aramaic

Josh B)

We discourage plagiarism here. You got this from IRR's (anti-Mormon) web site, so you need to acknowledge their input instead of presenting the work as your own.

As I've said, you'd have more respect here if you put half as much effort into gaining an understaning of LDS beliefs as you do trying to "disprove" them... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

I got a better one for you,

3 Ne. 12:22, That verse, taken almost verbatim from the King James Version of Matthew 5:22 except for the deletion of the words "without a cause," reads:

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (3 Ne. 12:22).

The use of the Aramaic word Raca [raka], a term of opprobrium, would be meaningless to New World people who are depicted as speaking either Hebrew or reformed Egyptian. A further disparity lies in the phrase "shall be in danger of the council." In the Gospel account the reference is to the Jewish governing body, the Sanhedrin, a term which would have no historical point of reference in a New World context.

I love how Joseph Smith can "translate" Reformed Egyptian into English...except for one word which he leaves in Aramaic

Josh B)

We discourage plagiarism here. You got this from IRR's (anti-Mormon) web site, so you need to acknowledge their input instead of presenting the work as your own.

As I've said, you'd have more respect here if you put half as much effort into gaining an understaning of LDS beliefs as you do trying to "disprove" them... :rolleyes:

I'm not allow to give links to the site where I got it from,

why don't you answer the question? :)

Josh B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not allow to give links to the site where I got it from,

Josh B)

Rules of Operation

This site is set up for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Friendly nonmembers are invited to listen or participate as they desire, but antagonistic visitors are not welcome. Please keep in mind that this is a private site and not a public forum. We welcome those of other faiths to share their beliefs with us in an appropriate manner. Remember to be kind an courteous to all who participate.

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted on the forums or in the chat rooms. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message.

The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this site.

Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. Each message on the forum has a link to report the post. We encourage you to use this link if you find anything questionable. If it is a matter which needs immediate response, please contact Heather on MSN Messenger ([email protected]).

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this site to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violation of any law.

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this site.

Dual posting for the purpose of hiding your identity will not be tolerated, please PM a moderator if you have any information of someone abusing this rule.

Bashing ones church or faith will not be permitted.

-- Including disrespectfully discussing Temple Ceremonies.

Offensive name calling of any sort to anyone on this site will not be tolerated.

Links to Anti LDS or anything else offensive will not be tolerated, this includes cut and pasting articles from or by anti. If you want to discuss something put it in your own words and discuss.

Comments of offensive, disrespectful, or ill nature towards the leaders of ones faith or church, that bother members of this board are not acceptable.

Rude nicknames, or use of rude language will not be tolerated anywhere on this site. This Includes all sexual, dirty, swear words, and other inappropriate words. This is a family safe site, and anything that would be be appropriate for a family setting will not be tolerated.

Open discussion of religious views is permitted; however, out of respect to others, any lengthy and/or heated discussions on religious differences should be taken to private messages or a private chat room.

Consequences to these rules could result in the following, and are determined on a case by case/post by post basis.

Offender be placed on moderator status for no less than 2 weeks.

Post will be locked for no less than 24 hours if has gotten out of hand.

We try to have the agreement of at least one other moderator, if not more before making final decisions.

Please make a conscious effort to stay on topic and respect your fellow posters, and please report and problems you have, That’s what we’re here for and we want to make this a better place for you.

This list is ever changing and updated as we see necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not allow to give links to the site where I got it from,

why don't you answer the question? :)

Josh B)

You're not allowed to cut-and-paste from anti sites, either, but you did that... :lol:

I did answer it, on the other thread where you posted the material in question.

But to help you out:

Now as to the accusation Josh provided from the anti site which makes an issue of 3 Nephi 12:22. Some scholars have speculated that when Joseph Smith saw the passage before him on the gold plates and recognized it as the same as a known passage of scripture he simply adopted the more familiar language of the KJV in his translation.

We then assume that it is the retelling of an almost identical sermon in the New World which had already been delivered in the Old World and had been preserved in Matthew.

It is one of the less impressive arguments against the BOM in my opinion.

My answer to your objection to this explanation is also on the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Wow, way too many examples of certain words and phrases to respond to with the little time I have.

How about this one......the Book of Mormon did not use any English words at all. It was written in a reformed Egyptian language. It was a hard language to engrave, according to the prophets who did the engraving. They hoped that us "Gentiles" would not condemn or mock them because of their mistakes.

All the Old and New Testament phrase grabbing was completely appropriate. When a certain section was up for translation by Joseph, rather than go over the tedious engravings, rephrasing the message, the Lord sufficed that he just use common phrases from the Old and New Testament. Nothing is new under the sun, and in 1829-30, the book of Mormon was no exception......with the exception that is was the most doctrinally correct book on earth, and it still is.

Grammatical errors published in the 1830 edition? Tons. Over 4,000 in fact. Does that make the book "false", a work of Joseph, a grand deception? No. It makes it human, just as the original writers made it plenty human.

So in 1837 the grammar was changed, was corrected. The Old and New Testament wording, and even the French word, "adieu" (may blessings attend you) remained. So what?

The Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". That is its mission, and it is wildly successful in that mission worldwide. So who cares that whole chunks of Isaiah are in 1st and 2nd Nephi? Who cares that phrases from the Old and New Testaments are used in it's context of witnessing for Christ? The Lord can pull and English He wants from any source for a translation. Won't it be fun one day to understand reformed Egyptian and to read the actual gold plates if we so desire? The brass plates are coming back. The rest of the gold plates are yet to come (the vision of Jared's brother and other amazing things). Oh, the best is right ahead of us, so I for one and not going to haggle with the Lord about His phraseology. Especially when the original was never written in English. And what of the translations of the Book of Mormon from English into 140 other languages? Good grief!

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To put it simply, "adieu" was the word Joseph Smith chose to use to represent what Nephi? (was it?) said or meant when he said what he said.

For those who don't know, a prophet usually speaks with his own words while expressing the thoughts he is given from the Lord, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, our Lord and the Holy Ghost don't always give prophets the exact words to use when giving inspiration and revelation, and instead they usually give thoughts and impressions which are interpreted into words by the prophet who receives them.

And for those who want some evidence of this, study the words of the prophets and you should be able to notice that every prophet has their own way of saying or writing certain things, even though they are all basically saying the same things, and even though some prophets give a little more detail or express their thoughts in words that are easier for others to understand.

And btw, Joseph Smith was fairly familiar with the Bible both before and after he was ordained as an apostle of our Lord, and sometimes he chose to use some of those words in the Bible to translate what the Nephites had written in their scriptures. For instance, the Nephites didn't speak in the King James vernacular either.

Anyway, you simply need to understand the process whereby we receive revelation, while trying to understand what someone says to you when they explain how they believe it was done.

<div align="right"></div>

I agree with your analysis, Ray which is why I don't get bent out of shape with horses, cement or adieu. Joseph could have simply used the word(s) from HIS frame of reference to express what the Spirit was telling him.

But this is inadequate to describe the use of old/new testament scenarios appearing in the BoM. In my example, it is simply more than just 'Jesus teaching timeless truths'. It is an almost word for word quote of Christ talking to the Pharisees with just the names changed to charge the guilty - 100 years before Christ uttered the complaint. In Ether a glaring example:

Ether 8: 10

10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the ahead• of my father, the king.

Compare with Mark 6 and the beheading of John the Baptist by a tempting dancing daughter:

How interesting that an almost identical scenario occurs twice in scripture?

Don't get me wrong - I WANT to believe. I am one of the strange people who love Mormonism but can't quite make myself believe it lock, stock and barrel. But I am trying. Situations like these don't make my job any easier.

InActiveTx

Dear InActiveTx,

Sometimes we as God's children just do too much damn thinking! When things in the scriptures just don't make sense that is when you have to rely on faith. I believe that you are sincere so go to your Father in Heaven, be honest with Him, tell Him you just don't get it but will He give you a witness of whether or not it is true. When you get your answer hold on to it! The rest will come. You are trying to convince yourself.... instead of letting the Holy Spirit soften your heart and lead you. Here is a story: before my 6 year old could read she would get frustrated because she knew that those little black symbols at the bottom of a page meant something but try as she might it just didn't make sense. My heart ached for her, so I told her that she would have to be patient and trust me that these symbols really were words and that one day she would read on her own.She had to go on faith until she learned on her own. The Book of Mormon is true!! Not a portion here and a portion there.... the whole book is true! You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to convince yourself. Go on faith, go to the Father. The rest will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share