The Book of Mormon

[mormonman]

Nutshell says God doesn`t change his mind.

Yes, God is unchanging. This doesn't mean that His ordinances or practices that He ordains can't be revoked once they're established. If He couldn't revoke old ordinances He would cease to be God. What about when God gave Moses the higher law and then the lower law because of the iniquities of His people, or when the law of Moses was revoked because Christ fulfilled it.

 

[DeepShadow]

I hoped all of this would become another thread, but oh well.

This supposed "contradiction" in our scriptures goes away if one reads the entire passage from Jacob in the Book of Mormon:

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So we have it right there that while monogyny was the rule, the Lord would command otherwise from time to time, for a specific purpose. He did so for King David, according to the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 12: 8), with the expection of Bathsheba. Whether the need has passed is a matter of debate between the FLDS and the LDS, but I agree we're both equally entitled to the name "Mormon." It's just a nickname, after all.

 

[DeepShadow]

Thats known as a strawman DS and it has no place in this context.

It's known as a mistake, that's all. I misunderstood your position. I truly appreciate you pointing out my errors, though--frubals to you! It's your tone that can be taken as insulting. You don't give any benefit of the doubt that this was a simple mistake.

it would be like whatever was written on Moronis golden plates and not like a text that was written centuries later.

Then this is a double bind. If you can't state a condition as to what the translation ought to look like, then what you have here is a double (or multiple) bind, i.e. a choice with no right answer: if the translation looks exactly like the KJV passages, it's a forgery. If it doesn't look anything like the KJV passage, it's a forgery. If it's half and half, its a complex forgery. Unless you can explain circumstances under which the BoM Isaiah passages could not be a forgery, then your approach is unfalsifiable and unscientific.

I have no need to because yet again you attempt to change the debate.

I'm merely trying to find out what condition the translation would have to be in in order to be declared correct. As far as I can tell, there is no such condition. I was asking you--as the starter of this thread and one of the directors of its dialogue--to help me find such a condition. What if we compared it to earlier translations of Isaiah, would that help? Does anyone know if Isaiah passages were found among the scrolls at Qumran?

I cannot know what the translation should have looked like because I have never had access to the Golden Plates.
It`s my assertion that no one ever had access to Moronis golden plates because they did not exist.

This is called confirmation bias, while we're pointing out each other's fallacies. You have to fail to disprove your hypothesis in order to truly confirm it. This requires you to have a criteria for failure that the hypothesis does not meet. (Margaret W. Matlin, Cognition, Harcourt College Publishers, 1998, p 394.)

If they did exist it is highly unlikely that the tone, context, and verse structure of a text translated from reformed Egyptian(whatever that is) would be exactly the same as KJV english which is unique in itself for the time.
However what we find is what appears to be someone following their concept of KJV English in the BoM.

The problem here is that we already know that Joseph's influence is evident in the translation--the Nephites didn't speak in KJV English! We should expect to find the influence of a 19th century American in these passages, chosing the words that most closely resemble the passagese he's familiar with.

I have a question.

Has "reformed Egfyptian" ever been found to be used in Egyptian culture at any time?

If you're done answering your own question, the answer is "yes." Egyptian has been "reformed" from time to time. In addition to demotic and heiratic, the Caananites under Egyptian rule had a practice of altering Egyptian names so they could be adapted to Caananite speech. Their name for this adaptation, according to the Amarna letters, is "reformed Egyptian." (Knudtzon, Amarna-tafeln 117, 123, 132, 1566, 1222.)

This is Egyptian reformed for Caananite speech; Egyptian reformed for Hebrew speech would be much different. For example, it would have to create a character for "l" so that the Her-Amon could be rendered "Helamon" or "Helaman." Further, the reformation process would be exclusive to the group, thus the Book of Mormon is perfectly accurate in saying no one else knows their language. How did Joseph Smith know that this term already existed for adapting Egyptian, when it was discovered in the Amarna letters over fifty years after the Book of Mormon was published?

Thats a bit dishonest, just a bit.
A large archeological find was uncovered in 1887 but Amarna was known of well before .
According to Wikipedia at least 1714.

Again, it could have been a simple mistake. You're right about the discovery of Amarna, Linwood, but I don't see what this gains you: the Amarna letters--which were the sources of names I was referring to, as cited on the "Faking History" thread--were not discovered until long after the Book of Mormon was published. How did Joseph use proper names or political references from these letters? The same applies to Elephantine; it may have been known about before the BoM was published, but the Elephantine papyri were not discovered until afterward. This still begs the question, how did Joseph know to avoid Baal-names as he was "plaigerizing" Hebrew names from the Bible?

Both Elephantine and Amarna were well known archeological find before the BoM was written in 1830.

Yes, but the actual documents I've been referencing were discovered afterward, namely the Amarna letters (1887 according to your data) and the Elephantine papyri (unearthed at various times, all after 1890.)

What I am doing is shedding light on an outright lie told by those who would defend their faith.

An "outright lie?!" ROTFL! Jonny can defend himself, but I was guilty of nothing more than an obscure pronoun. The "they" in your quote refers to the names, not the sites.

For someone who doesn't cite his own source when repeatedly asked, Linwood, you hold a pretty high standard for your opponents. To hear you talk, all mistakes--even grammatical ones--are part of a conspiracy! I hope you don't work for the NSA! Fnord.

When one must fabricate evidence to defend their faith their faith is weak.

Who said anything about defending faith?! As for me, this has never been about faith at all. No amount of evidence could ever fully prove the Book of Mormon is the Word of God! Even if we found all the archaeological evidence we ever wanted, one could still claim that Joseph and his cohorts had the help of time travelers, aliens, or recalled memories from past lives. When chiasm were discovered in the Book of Mormon, several students in the discoverer's class immediately suggested that Joseph Smith was a reincarnated Hebrew scribe. I can't refute that, nor the claim that Satan helped Joseph write the book.

Furthermore, even if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the plates were delivered to him by an angel, that doesn't mean the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is anything it claims to be. Joseph could have fallen from grace after the translation, and if not him, any of the subsequent prophets could have fallen astray and led the church into apostasy.

My testimony of the Book of Mormon has never rested on archaeological data, but on my personal relationship with God through the book.

The issue is the assertion that they were "unknown" prior to the BoM is a lie or at best a convenient misunderstanding.

Again, the "they" here is the names, Linwood, not the sites. These names, along with certain political and naming conventions, were unknown prior to the discovery of the Amarna letters and the Elephantine papyri. Saying the sites were known beforehand is a pointless distraction from the facts.

 

[Fade]

Who said anything about defending faith?! As for me, this has never been about faith at all. No amount of evidence could ever fully prove the Book of Mormon is the Word of God! Even if we found all the archaeological evidence we ever wanted, one could still claim that Joseph and his cohorts had the help of time travelers, aliens, or recalled memories from past lives. When chiasm were discovered in the Book of Mormon, several students in the discoverer's class immediately suggested that Joseph Smith was a reincarnated Hebrew scribe. I can't refute that, nor the claim that Satan helped Joseph write the book.

Furthermore, even if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the plates were delivered to him by an angel, that doesn't mean the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is anything it claims to be. Joseph could have fallen from grace after the translation, and if not him, any of the subsequent prophets could have fallen astray and led the church into apostasy.

My testimony of the Book of Mormon has never rested on archaeological data, but on my personal relationship with God through the book.

So you use archaeoloical data but only when it supports your argument. Then when it is contradictory it is no longer valid?

 

[Aqualung]

Nobody has yet shown contradictory archaelogical data.

 

[mormonman]

I think we've won :woohoo: :clap

 

[DeepShadow]

So you use archaeoloical data but only when it supports your argument. Then when it is contradictory it is no longer valid?

Where did I state archaeological evidence was no longer valid?! I said this was not about faith, and I meant it. I'm reading City of the Sacred Well right now, by T.A. Willard, and it's phenomenal in how it reinforces the Book of Mormon point of view, but it's archaeology, and archaeology is a poor thing to rest faith on, no matter what.

I've been arguing archaeology with Linwood and others because I like archaeology and I like the Book of Mormon as an archaeological document. I like it as a religious document as well, but for totally different reasons.

It's funny, though, I've been reading for spiritual guidance lately, and I'll think something like, "Sheesh, that's just how Thompson describes it!" and I'll have to stop and pray and then resume my reading without the archaeological commentary. It's like reading two different books!

I guess that's why I fruballed Linwood, and I'm likely to do so again to anyone who plays devil's advocate,either here or on the "Faking History" thread. Linwood, you've helped me be a better scholar and have a deeper understanding of myself. Thanks again.

 

[DeepShadow]

I think we've won :woohoo: :clap

I don't know if anyone ever wins a debate like this. It's a matter of what you get out of it, and as far as that's concerned, I feel like a winner.

 

[linwood]

It's known as a mistake, that's all. I misunderstood your position. I truly appreciate you pointing out my errors, though--frubals to you! It's your tone that can be taken as insulting. You don't give any benefit of the doubt that this was a simple mistake.

My apologies.
Truce DS, I just want you to understand that in debating theists of all stripes I often get tons of obfuscation, misdirection, and outright lies thrown at me which I have to waste time exposing before I can get on with the actual points at hand.
This can get a bit exasperating and I`ll give the benefit of the doubt that this is not what you were doing.

Then this is a double bind. If you can't state a condition as to what the translation ought to look like, then what you have here is a double (or multiple) bind, i.e. a choice with no right answer: if the translation looks exactly like the KJV passages, it's a forgery. If it doesn't look anything like the KJV passage, it's a forgery. If it's half and half, its a complex forgery. Unless you can explain circumstances under which the BoM Isaiah passages could not be a forgery, then your approach is unfalsifiable and unscientific.

If what you say is true then every plagairised thesis known to man would have earned a doctorate yet they haven`t.
I`ve never said that the translation is a forgery if it has no resemblance to the KJV.
If it had no resemblance to the KJV we wouldn`t be having this debate.

I can explain a circumstance under which the BoM Isaiah passages could not be a forgery.
If there were no KJV Isaiah passages within the BoM no argument could be made that KJV Isiah passages were in the BoM, thus...no forgery.

I'm merely trying to find out what condition the translation would have to be in in order to be declared correct. As far as I can tell, there is no such condition. I was asking you--as the starter of this thread and one of the directors of its dialogue--to help me find such a condition. What if we compared it to earlier translations of Isaiah, would that help? Does anyone know if Isaiah passages were found among the scrolls at Qumran?

The translation in it`s present form (with KJV passages intact) cannot ever be declared a seperate independant document from the KJV as the BoM contains passages that from the KJV that were written centuries before the KJV was written.
This is physically impossible unless you can find an earlier source that also holds these passages.
Unfortunately no such source does or can exist as this text is unique to the KJV.

This is called confirmation bias, while we're pointing out each other's fallacies. You have to fail to disprove your hypothesis in order to truly confirm it. This requires you to have a criteria for failure that the hypothesis does not meet. (Margaret W. Matlin, Cognition, Harcourt College Publishers, 1998, p 394.)

This is called hogwash.
I cannot disprove my hypothesis without having access to the original golden plates and as I cannot have access to the original golden plates (because they do not exist)I cannot disprove my hypothesis.
I might perhaps be able to partially falsify my assertion with access to some other independent text using reformed Egyptian which is identical to what Smith wrote in the Anthon transcript.
I don`t think this is possible either as I have been unable to find any source for reformed Egyptian other than the Anthon transcript .
However it is also true that I cannot disprove leprachauns unless I can catch one or at the very least get verifiable images of his pot of gold with the rainbow flowing out of it.

My overall point is that I cannot disprove the alleged origins of the BoM anymore than I can disprove god or the fact that you are really conversing with me from your mothership orbitting 300 miles above Jupiter.
I don`t seek to disprove the BoM I seek to show how irrational it is to believe it is "truth" and not a fraud.

The problem here is that we already know that Joseph's influence is evident in the translation--the Nephites didn't speak in KJV English! We should expect to find the influence of a 19th century American in these passages, chosing the words that most closely resemble the passagese he's familiar with.

Joseph Smith didn`t speak in KJV English either and they were not the words he was most familiar with.
What makes you think 19th century Americans were running around speaking literary KJV English, a language used almost exclusively in the text of the KJV?

All this is besides the point anyway considering that the Italics in the KJV could have in no way been written on the golden plates.
Rebuttals like these are why I think you attempt to obfuscate.
It`s irrelevant.

If you're done answering your own question, the answer is "yes." Egyptian has been "reformed" from time to time. In addition to demotic and heiratic, the Caananites under Egyptian rule had a practice of altering Egyptian names so they could be adapted to Caananite speech. Their name for this adaptation, according to the Amarna letters, is "reformed Egyptian." (Knudtzon, Amarna-tafeln 117, 123, 132, 1566, 1222.)

Then your BoM is wrong..

Mormon 9:32-34
And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

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.


Those passages sound more like someone covering their butt than any necessary scripture.
Does any other religious scripture explain the language it is written in?
I don`t know of any.
Odd that..

Again I am inclined to think you being disingenious DS.
There is no other historical example of reformed Egyptian.
Why isn`t there any use of it among the original Americans at the very least?

Has any culture in the history of the world ever entirely abandoned a written language for glyphs anywhere else?

Yes, but the actual documents I've been referencing were discovered afterward, namely the Amarna letters (1887 according to your data) and the Elephantine papyri (unearthed at various times, all after 1890.)

Then perhaps you should have actually referenced what you were talking about instead of stating a falsehood.
Either way it doesn`t matter to me as it is not a part of my argument.

For someone who doesn't cite his own source when repeatedly asked, Linwood, you hold a pretty high standard for your opponents.

Please point out where I have failed to cite my sources.
I do not recall being asked to cite any sources that I failed to provide so I`d appreciate you linking me to those posts as well.

 

[linwood]

I think we've won :woohoo: :clap

This cannot be "won".
But if I`m correct in thinking your definition of winning is when your opponent tires of wading through obfuscation and strawmen enough to quit the thread then yes..you will win shortly.

 

[linwood]

Linwood, you've helped me be a better scholar and have a deeper understanding of myself. Thanks again.

You`re welcome.

 

[linwood]

Nobody has yet shown contradictory archaelogical data.

That depends upon when you think steel was invented.

 

[nutshell]

That depends upon when you think steel was invented.

Please explain.

 

[dan]

Linwood, I thought you were LDS?

 

[linwood]

Please explain.

Workable flexible steel wasn`t created until around 200 BC yet the BoM has Nephi breaking a steel bow around 600 BC.

1 Nephi 16:18
And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

You can make the argument that "steel" was being forged centuries earlier but carburized steel/iron is not much different than iron in it`s properties.
One of those properties being that it is unyeilding and inflexible.

You cannot make a working/flexible bow out of carburized steel/iron.

It`s also quite odd that native Americans would have lost the skill of metallurgy as they must have if the BoM is to be believed.
They seem rather derelict to me, forgetting the language of their culture and forgetting all forms of metalurgy also.

Pretty slack those native Americans

 

[linwood]

Linwood, I thought you were LDS?

I`m an atheist.

 

[linwood]

Yes, God is unchanging. This doesn't mean that His ordinances or practices that He ordains can't be revoked once they're established. If He couldn't revoke old ordinances He would cease to be God. What about when God gave Moses the higher law and then the lower law because of the iniquities of His people, or when the law of Moses was revoked because Christ fulfilled it.

You didn`t answer my question.

Do you believe that the FLDS are Mormons?

 

[Fade]

Nobody has yet shown contradictory archaelogical data.

Nobody has yet shown confirmatory data :jam:

 

[mormonman]

You didn`t answer my question.

Do you believe that the FLDS are Mormons?

If you would read my posts, I think I answered this quite adequately. Read through it slow this time so you'll understand. Those who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are Mormon. To tell you the truth the only reason that I care that other factions don't use the name Mormon is they bring us LOTS of bad publicity. This is kind of obvious since some on this forum still think that we STILL practice polygamy. If the renegade fations want to call themselves "apostate mormons", have at it, because they are all apostate.

 

[Fade]

I'd say Christians feel the same way about Mormons