Changes to the Book of Mormon

[Hughes]

Now Hughes. I find it difficult to believe that you could genuinely be so obtuse as to fail to understand a rather simple argument.

I also note that it is a standard anti-Mormon canard to respond to this argument with hysterical cries of "Help! Help! That Mormon attacked the Bible!"

Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that you yourself are trying to run this canard.

However, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and take the time to explain it to you.

1. If the argument you are using to attack the Book of Mormon is valid, then it also undermines the authenticity of the Bible.
   
2. However, we agree that the Bible is authentic.
   
3. The Bible cannot be authentic if the argument is valid.
   
4. The Bible is authentic.
   
5. Therefore the argument is not valid.
   
6. Therefore any honest critics of the Book of Mormon (if such there are, or ever could be) will at once cease to try to use it against the Book of Mormon.
   

Capisce?

Nice try, but we're not nearly foolish enough to allow you to deflect our response that easily. You'll either have to deal with it, or abandon your attack.

The third alternative is that you can keep trying to use that line of attack, and stand indicted as a shameless hypocrite.

You choose.

Regards,

Pahoran

First, the two are separate question or arguments.

The Bible is not connected in any way, nor does it rely on the Mormon texts.

The Mormon text rely on the reliability of the biblical text, not the other way around.

If the Mormon text is found in error, this doesn't reflect on the Biblical text at all. However,

if the Biblical text is found in error, this could reflect on the Mormon Text.

Further. Since the "translation" and transmission and events surrounding the Mormon text are completely different from those that the Biblical text uses and are surrounded by, they are completely different questions.

Which brings us to the "argument" based on changes in the text.

The argument is that since the words used in the original "translation" have a backwoods style to them, and since they were changed only 7 years later by Joseph Smith, then the feeling is that the document he produced didn't come from God.

Can this argument be used against the Biblical text?

No.

The text doesn't contain a backwoods style. It contains the original languages used when the writer wrote.

Was the text changed to make it sound more authentic?

No. The textual changes that might have occurred through time are more attributable to errors in copying than anything else. No one is asked to have a "witness" for the book of John for example.

There, now you've diverted attention from the BoM by making me talk about the biblical texts.

[Jeff K.]

It's interesting to me that people who support the accuracy of the BoM think that if they can't refute or support their arguments for the accuracy for the BoM, then if they can somehow show that the Bible has some discrepancies in it, then they think they've somehow supported the strength of the BoM.

They are, and always will be two separate academic questions. Which is why I say, if you want to discuss the Bible, start a new thread.

Actually we show that your double standard undermines the credibility of your argument. You hold the scriptures of the Bible to be true, and accurate, and yet you have not one original copy of the text and claim an inerrancy from those who do not even practice your sect of Christianity. Indeed, as has been shown in the past, Bible books have been changed and lost to a much greater extent than your mere quibble regarding the precision of a word.

So your argument is really, "your house isn't clean enough, and don't look at my house". It reeks with a double standard that Christ would have rejected, but you wholeheartedly accept.

[Robert F. Smith]

Since Joseph Smith claims it was translated by the gift and power of God, and yet it had to be changed in 1837 to remove the backwoods type phrases, leads me to the simple conclusion it didn't come from God.

Further, since there's no way to verify what was on the plates or not, we are left trusting that Joseph Smith was both completely honest and accurate in his translation or that he even translated anything at all.

So you are suggesting that the archaic phrasing of the KJV means that it is a poor translation, and that God is a liar when he claims to speak to us in our language (whether we are poorly educated country bumpkins or no), and only speaks a very high quality English to us. Why then does God's Word vary so widely in style and vocabulary in the Hebrew Bible? Perchance each prophet spoke in his own language and style as moved by the Spirit of God? Does God dictate or inspire? Does he give it to us word-for-word, or does he leave that up to the individual prophet? You have not adequately addressed these issues, and you have not faced the hard evidence for God giving wide latitude to his prophets to speak according to their unique language and culture.

Your apparent version of the gift and power of God would eliminate the human element entirely, and for that there is no evidence in the history of the mighty acts of God in his dealings with man. A more reasonable person might very well conclude that there is nothing suspicious in Joseph learning some of the principles of standard English in the years since his 1829 translation of the Book of Mormon and applying such principles to a new edition. That's what people normally do.

As to your claim that "there's no way to verify what was on the plates or not," have you ever heard of the Anthon Transcript? Perhaps you'd like to translate it for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

We don't see the translators of the KJV running behind closed doors changing those words you quoted.

Thousands of changes in spelling and orthography and wording have been made in the KJV since the first edition came out in 1611. Yet it was the work of the best minds in England at that time. So, why would it need to be changed? Is that a scandal? Is this fact a slap at inerrancy?

[zerinus]

Unfortunately your arguement hurts Joseph Smith more than it helps him. His actions expose his true feelings. Because if it was already a KJV practice, why did he feel the need to edit it? Why did he think it was a mistake? Obviously he didn't feel it was from God other wise he wouldn't have changed it. He was trying to make it sound more authentic. We don't see the translators of the KJV running behind closed doors changing those words you quoted.

Here's more evidence for you to chew on.

"Joseph Smith had a habit of using the word "was" instead of "were":

[volgadon]

While Smith was still living, under his direction, four words were changed in that single verse. This demonstrates extensive rewriting. Why? According to this revelation given through Joseph Smith, in April of 1830,

And [God] gave him [Joseph Smith] power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon (Doctrine and Covenants 20:8 ).

If God

[ELF1024]

First, the two are separate question or arguments.

The Bible is not connected in any way, nor does it rely on the Mormon texts.

The Mormon text rely on the reliability of the biblical text, not the other way around.

If the Mormon text is found in error, this doesn't reflect on the Biblical text at all. However,

if the Biblical text is found in error, this could reflect on the Mormon Text.

Further. Since the "translation" and transmission and events surrounding the Mormon text are completely different from those that the Biblical text uses and are surrounded by, they are completely different questions.

Which brings us to the "argument" based on changes in the text.

The argument is that since the words used in the original "translation" have a backwoods style to them, and since they were changed only 7 years later by Joseph Smith, then the feeling is that the document he produced didn't come from God.

Can this argument be used against the Biblical text?

No.

The text doesn't contain a backwoods style. It contains the original languages used when the writer wrote.

Was the text changed to make it sound more authentic?

No. The textual changes that might have occurred through time are more attributable to errors in copying than anything else. No one is asked to have a "witness" for the book of John for example.

There, now you've diverted attention from the BoM by making me talk about the biblical texts.

You know Hughes, the number of times you have been shown that your argument is beyond ignorant; you think you would have learned by now. I guess the only question that remains is how long the mods are going to tolerate your continued presence.

[Hughes]

Actually we show that your double standard undermines the credibility of your argument. You hold the scriptures of the Bible to be true, and accurate, and yet you have not one original copy of the text and claim an inerrancy from those who do not even practice your sect of Christianity. Indeed, as has been shown in the past, Bible books have been changed and lost to a much greater extent than your mere quibble regarding the precision of a word.

So your argument is really, "your house isn't clean enough, and don't look at my house". It reeks with a double standard that Christ would have rejected, but you wholeheartedly accept.

Let's see... your argument says, "You hold a double standard (as I define it)" Therefore the BoM is supported as true...

sorry false. No matter how much of a double standard you think I have, it doesn't automatically mean the BoM is supported.

So you are suggesting that the archaic phrasing of the KJV means that it is a poor translation, and that God is a liar when he claims to speak to us in our language (whether we are poorly educated country bumpkins or no), and only speaks a very high quality English to us. Why then does God's Word vary so widely in style and vocabulary in the Hebrew Bible? Perchance each prophet spoke in his own language and style as moved by the Spirit of God? Does God dictate or inspire? Does he give it to us word-for-word, or does he leave that up to the individual prophet? You have not adequately addressed these issues, and you have not faced the hard evidence for God giving wide latitude to his prophets to speak according to their unique language and culture.

Your apparent version of the gift and power of God would eliminate the human element entirely, and for that there is no evidence in the history of the mighty acts of God in his dealings with man. A more reasonable person might very well conclude that there is nothing suspicious in Joseph learning some of the principles of standard English in the years since his 1829 translation of the Book of Mormon and applying such principles to a new edition. That's what people normally do.

As to your claim that "there's no way to verify what was on the plates or not," have you ever heard of the Anthon Transcript? Perhaps you'd like to translate it for us.

All I'm suggesting is that it doesn't sound like it came from God, *to me*. It sounds like it came from a guy who is trying to make it sound like it came from God.

The Anthon Transcript is a list of characters right? It doesn't claim to be a copy of the plates.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It appears I have not missed anything over the weekend here. Hughes is still trumpeting is lame argument that has been defeated out of the gate.

[Hughes]

Yet even by polishing the grammar the meaning in that verse wasn't changed. You'll notice that D&C 20:8 does not say that God garaunteed that every aspect of syntax and grammar would be perfect.

BTW you obviously have little experience with either writing or translating.

I'm not saying that the meaning was changed. I'm saying that it sounds to me like it didn't come from God, based on all these changes. That's all.

You know Hughes, the number of times you have been shown that your argument is beyond ignorant; you think you would have learned by now. I guess the only question that remains is how long the mods are going to tolerate your continued presence.

I'm guessing that you think "beyond ignorant" people, such as you're calling me, should be banned?

Instead of refuting my arguments, you would rather I just go away?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Stay or go. Unless you do something to get yourself banned the choice is up to you. However I do find your arguments full of double standards and outright misrepresentations of what I believe. So you are not do yourself any favors.

[ELF1024]

I'm not saying that the meaning was changed. I'm saying that it sounds to me like it didn't come from God, based on all these changes. That's all.

I'm guessing that you think "beyond ignorant" people, such as you're calling me, should be banned?

Instead of refuting my arguments, you would rather I just go away?

I didn't say you were "beyond ignorant", I said that the arguement was, that is well within the rules. I've refuted your arguement several times, as have others here on the board. To do so again, would be to show myself to be insane.

As Einstein defined:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

People who are unwilling to learn, and keep bringing up the same tired and refuted arguements should be given the opprotunity to find a new place to troll.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 January 2011 - 09:20 PM, said:

Actually we show that your double standard undermines the credibility of your argument. You hold the scriptures of the Bible to be true, and accurate, and yet you have not one original copy of the text and claim an inerrancy from those who do not even practice your sect of Christianity. Indeed, as has been shown in the past, Bible books have been changed and lost to a much greater extent than your mere quibble regarding the precision of a word.

So your argument is really, "your house isn't clean enough, and don't look at my house". It reeks with a double standard that Christ would have rejected, but you wholeheartedly accept.

Let's see... your argument says, "You hold a double standard (as I define it)" Therefore the BoM is supported as true...

sorry false. No matter how much of a double standard you think I have, it doesn't automatically mean the BoM is supported.

Actually you have missed the point (something that appears to have surprised no one here). My position is that the means by which we know our scriptures to be true are definately superior to the means you use for scripture veracity, mainly that our copies and any grammatical changes for clarification have not changed the meaning, but you (and I presume you view the Bible and true and without error), and your belief as to the veracity of the Bible rests upon some fairly difficult assumptions.

1-Historically we know books were lost.

2-Historically we know the Bible has been changed by various groups for various reasons.

3-The earliest fragment of three words is almost 300 years after the first copy of the Bible has been printed.

4-The changes that occured were made, not by people of your Christian sect, but by those that can at best be called "Greek Orthodox" a religion your group has rejected, whose very foundation is the book you claim is accurate.

6-Unless you claim that various Greek Orthodox and later Roman Popes and innumerable monks were completely honest, completely above board, and also revelatory prophets who knew what to write and what to leave out, logic would require you to entail more doubt in what they have left than what you feel Joseph Smith might or might not have done.

In the Book of Mormon we have a translation that is recent.

In the Book of Mormon we have all documented changes and know there was no context lost.

Your presumption regarding the translation by Joseph Smith is negative without evidence of falsehood. Meanwhile your confidence in Christian religious sects your group has long ago abandoned and have even called evil is somewhat ironic.

I suggest that in fact you ply a double standard because you know that holding an equal standard would leave you bereft of the only document by which you can place your doctrinal hat.

I understand, you don't like Mormons, you don't like their religion, but given the depth and breadth of taint in the scriptures you have confidence in, the scriptures of the Mormon church are relatively white and pure in comparison. Something you and those who live with you in that glass house of yours might want to think about when throwing rocks.

The question of rocks raises an interesting point of Christs teachings which you seem to reject in a wholesale fashion. Mary was about to be stoned for adultry. Christ asked that the person who has not sinned toss the first stone. In other words, standards of veracity and truth should be the same among all under the law. Do you therefore reject Christ's teaching?

I wonder if you still won't get it. But I will reserve judgement on the issue.

[Hughes]

Actually you have missed the point (something that appears to have surprised no one here). My position is that the means by which we know our scriptures to be true are definately superior to the means you use for scripture veracity, mainly that our copies and any grammatical changes for clarification have not changed the meaning, but you (and I presume you view the Bible and true and without error), and your belief as to the veracity of the Bible rests upon some fairly difficult assumptions.

1-Historically we know books were lost.

2-Historically we know the Bible has been changed by various groups for various reasons.

3-The earliest fragment of three words is almost 300 years after the first copy of the Bible has been printed.

4-The changes that occured were made, not by people of your Christian sect, but by those that can at best be called "Greek Orthodox" a religion your group has rejected, whose very foundation is the book you claim is accurate.

6-Unless you claim that various Greek Orthodox and later Roman Popes and innumerable monks were completely honest, completely above board, and also revelatory prophets who knew what to write and what to leave out, logic would require you to entail more doubt in what they have left than what you feel Joseph Smith might or might not have done.

1- Books that were lost are few. And of no relevance or comparison to the BoM.

2 - Changes can be tracked, thankfully by the fact of so many copies

3 - Not sure what you're referring to. The first printing of the Bible was with the Gutenberg press.. earliest fragment is 125 AD

4- The changes again can be tracked

5- Since we have almost 6 thousand extant copies we aren't left trusting any one group or one person.

In the Book of Mormon we have a translation that is recent.

In the Book of Mormon we have all documented changes and know there was no context lost.

Your presumption regarding the translation by Joseph Smith is negative without evidence of falsehood. Meanwhile your confidence in Christian religious sects your group has long ago abandoned and have even called evil is somewhat ironic.

I suggest that in fact you ply a double standard because you know that holding an equal standard would leave you bereft of the only document by which you can place your doctrinal hat.

I understand, you don't like Mormons, you don't like their religion, but given the depth and breadth of taint in the scriptures you have confidence in, the scriptures of the Mormon church are relatively white and pure in comparison. Something you and those who live with you in that glass house of yours might want to think about when throwing rocks.

The question of rocks raises an interesting point of Christs teachings which you seem to reject in a wholesale fashion. Mary was about to be stoned for adultry. Christ asked that the person who has not sinned toss the first stone. In other words, standards of veracity and truth should be the same among all under the law. Do you therefore reject Christ's teaching?

I wonder if you still won't get it. But I will reserve judgement on the issue.

When a claim is made, evidence is expected to support that claim.

If I claimed that the rapture was to occur on May 21st, you'd expect me to come up with some sort of evidence to support my claim.

If I claimed that I had gold plates and heard directly from God, then you'd rightly expect that I produce some sort of evidence to back up my claim.

Well, given that there is no evidence at all of gold plates, we're left with circumstantial evidence.

The type and manner of speech used to "translate" the supposed plates are circumstantial evidence in the negative. As are Joseph Smith's actions after it's pointed out how poor the grammar was. As are the use of "prophecy" to make Martin give up his money to have the book printed.

So, you are correct, I take these negative evidences as evidence of falsehood on his part.

Does this mean I don't like Mormons, and don't like their religion? Not at all. I work with Mormons everyday. I enjoy their company and we have many things in common.

I just happen to disagree that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[thesometimesaint]

I thought we to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Books missing from the KJV of the Bible.

The Apocrypha.

* The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel (Exodus 24:7).

* The book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14).

* The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18).

* The book of the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25).

* Possible books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon (1 Kings 4:32,33).

* The acts or annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).

* The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29).

* The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29).

* The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29).

* The visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29).

* The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15).

* The story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22).

* The book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34).

* The Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 26:22)

* Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19)

Book of Enoch.

.a missing epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); .and a missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). These writings were important enough to quote or refer to in subsequent writings preserved now as scripture. In addition, Matthew 2:23 cites a now fulfilled prophecy from "the prophets" that Christ would be a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), but this prophecy is not found anywhere in any existing Old Testament canon. Matthew was citing scripture which is missing now. Another example of missing scripture is the text containing the words of Christ that Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This saying of Christ appears in none of the Gospels. Here Paul was writing to foreign converts who were not around to hear Christ preach, so how were they to "remember" those words? Paul obviously must have been citing it from a sacred writing that they had. We no longer have that writing. Something is missing.

No we can't track the changes they are lost in antiquity.

The first printing of the Bible on movable type was the Gutenberg.

No they can't be tracked.

The Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

[Jeff K.]

1- Books that were lost are few. And of no relevance or comparison to the BoM.

2 - Changes can be tracked, thankfully by the fact of so many copies

3 - Not sure what you're referring to. The first printing of the Bible was with the Gutenberg press.. earliest fragment is 125 AD

4- The changes again can be tracked

5- Since we have almost 6 thousand extant copies we aren't left trusting any one group or one person.

1- Books that were lost are few. And of no relevance or comparison to the BoM.

Books that were lost were few? How do you know? How many books were originally considered? How many books were lost? You don't know this and therefore it is a false statement.

I would also point out it isn't just the quantity of the books but their importance. What if one book lost stated clearly that the Holy Trinity were three separate beings? Again, it seems you don't really understand the implications. That alone would give it strong relevance to the Book of Mormon.

2 - Changes can be tracked, thankfully by the fact of so many copies

Copies of copies or copies of the original written manuscript or translation? Again we speak ot the idea of copies of copies and lost books.

3 - Not sure what you're referring to. The first printing of the Bible was with the Gutenberg press.. earliest fragment is 125 AD

Again, which books were left out, which copies were used versus and finally a fragment is not a book, five words do not verify a book, five words in a fragment 125 years after the event does not verify the Bible or even the context and work of the one book from whence the Bible was taken.

4- The changes again can be tracked

No, some changes have been tracked, others have not, and with lost books, those changes which can be verified via other copies of copies (which is not very accurate) can only be used for those passages not entirely lost.

5- Since we have almost 6 thousand extant copies we aren't left trusting any one group or one person

So you are telling us that you inherently trust the Greek Orthodox Church, the Emperor Constantine and of course the Roman Popes.... Interesting,

When a claim is made, evidence is expected to support that claim.

And yet you can provide no originals, or even first generation transcripts of the originals for the Bible but when shown a first generation transcript for the Book of Mormon you doubt it? Double standard.

If I claimed that the rapture was to occur on May 21st, you'd expect me to come up with some sort of evidence to support my claim.

Do you claim that the Bible is accurate and nothing has been changed contextually from the original transcriptions? Because if you do not accept it as accurate, you have no place asking whether or not the Book of Mormon meets a standard you do not accept yourself.

If I claimed that I had gold plates and heard directly from God, then you'd rightly expect that I produce some sort of evidence to back up my claim.

We have witnesses, just as the Bible has witnesses that speak to Christ rising from the dead. Or perhaps you reject Christ's resurrection?

The type and manner of speech used to "translate" the supposed plates are circumstantial evidence in the negative. As are Joseph Smith's actions after it's pointed out how poor the grammar was. As are the use of "prophecy" to make Martin give up his money to have the book printed.

They aren't even circumstancial evidence given the translation of the King James Version and so many other versions of the Bible. I wonder how poor the grammar of Christs followers were when their works were transcribed and then later changed to "clarify". I suggest you read up on Iraenus sometime.

Does this mean I don't like Mormons, and don't like their religion? Not at all. I work with Mormons everyday. I enjoy their company and we have many things in common.

You have a double standard, which reflects a certain contempt for a people when you cannot deal honestly and equally with those you disagree with.

[Pahoran]

First, the two are separate question or arguments.

The Bible is not connected in any way, nor does it rely on the Mormon texts.

The Mormon text rely on the reliability of the biblical text, not the other way around.

If the Mormon text is found in error, this doesn't reflect on the Biblical text at all. However,

if the Biblical text is found in error, this could reflect on the Mormon Text.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

As you perfectly well know Hughes, because you work yourself into such a state of high dudgeon over it: I am referring to the fact that your arguments against the Book of Mormon could just as easily be used against the Bible as well, in the hands of someone determined enough.

Further. Since the "translation" and transmission and events surrounding the Mormon text are completely different from those that the Biblical text uses and are surrounded by, they are completely different questions.

In your opinion; but since that opinion is predetermined by your irrational prejudice against the Book of Mormon, it's not really worth anything. The fact is that the Bible has equal or greater problems of translation and transmission as the Book of Mormon does. A very great problem is that the oldest copies are far removed from the presumed Urtexten; in most cases by centuries. The number of variations between those copies is very large; there is no way to definitively establish what the originals looked like; there is no way to prove who the actual authors were.

Which brings us to the "argument" based on changes in the text.

Yes, I'd put that "argument" in scare quotes, too.

The argument is that since the words used in the original "translation" have a backwoods style to them, and since they were changed only 7 years later by Joseph Smith, then the feeling is that the document he produced didn't come from God.

So all your "argument" can actually produce is a feeling?

Actually I have produced a valid argument in response to your "feeling," and you chose to ignore it. For your convenience, I reproduce it here:

Doctrine and Covenants

Section 1

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

You will, no doubt, retort that you don't believe the Doctrine and Covenants to be authentic revelation; fine, but that means your rejection is simply circular. The fact is that we have an internally consistent explanation for the "backwoods language" at which you so superciliously sneer.

You see, Hughes, there is simply no such thing as a perfect human language; such a thing cannot exist. Therefore, when God chooses to communicate with mortals in any human language, He is necessarily using an imperfect medium. Now God could choose to couch His communications in terms that would gain the approval of the learned professors at Oxford; or He could instead choose to express Himself in terms that His servants are equipped to understand.

Once we ponder this, we realise that your "argument" is not an argument at all; it is merely an expression of snobbery on your part. And I'm afraid that being a grammar snob is a rather untenable position for you to take, Hughes, given your own very distant acquaintance with the canons of English grammar and/or American spelling.

There, now you've diverted attention from the BoM by making me talk about the biblical texts.

No-one has made you do anything, Hughes. You are the one choosing to run this desperately flawed line of argument; you are free to walk away from it any time you like.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hughes]

And yet you can provide no originals, or even first generation transcripts of the originals for the Bible but when shown a first generation transcript for the Book of Mormon you doubt it? Double standard.

Do you claim that the Bible is accurate and nothing has been changed contextually from the original transcriptions? Because if you do not accept it as accurate, you have no place asking whether or not the Book of Mormon meets a standard you do not accept yourself.

We have witnesses, just as the Bible has witnesses that speak to Christ rising from the dead. Or perhaps you reject Christ's resurrection?

They aren't even circumstancial evidence given the translation of the King James Version and so many other versions of the Bible. I wonder how poor the grammar of Christs followers were when their works were transcribed and then later changed to "clarify". I suggest you read up on Iraenus sometime.

You have a double standard, which reflects a certain contempt for a people when you cannot deal honestly and equally with those you disagree with.

Are you claiming to have copies of the original transcript, a copy of that which was on the gold plates (yes I'm speaking of "reformed Egyptian")? If not, then the double standard attack fails.

Your "witnesses" don't provide any material evidence. Their "witness" simply speaks of their faith.

[Pahoran]

Are you claiming to have copies of the original transcript, a copy of that which was on the gold plates (yes I'm speaking of "reformed Egyptian")? If not, then the double standard attack fails.

Your "witnesses" don't provide any material evidence. Their "witness" simply speaks of their faith.

That's clearly and unequivocally false. They testify of seeing and handling the plates. That is material evidence. Additionally, three of them report seeing an angel who told them that the translation was true.

By contrast, the famous 500 by whom you have tried to conjure are not, in evidentiary terms, witnesses at all. None of their statements have come down to us in any form, and we don't even know who any of them were.

Tell us, Hughes: when Peter and Mary Magdalene report seeing the risen Lord, were they providing "material evidence" or "simply speaking of their faith?" I ask this because I want to know what you mean by "material evidence."

Actually, I'm getting a feeling of d

[Hestia]

Actually, I'm getting a feeling of d

[ElderDarionBevan]

there never any doctrinal changes to the book of mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

1- Books that were lost are few. And of no relevance or comparison to the BoM.

2 - Changes can be tracked, thankfully by the fact of so many copies

3 - Not sure what you're referring to. The first printing of the Bible was with the Gutenberg press.. earliest fragment is 125 AD

4- The changes again can be tracked

5- Since we have almost 6 thousand extant copies we aren't left trusting any one group or one person.

When a claim is made, evidence is expected to support that claim.

If I claimed that I had gold plates and heard directly from God, then you'd rightly expect that I produce some sort of evidence to back up my claim.

Well, given that there is no evidence at all of gold plates, we're left with circumstantial evidence.

The type and manner of speech used to "translate" the supposed plates are circumstantial evidence in the negative. As are Joseph Smith's actions after it's pointed out how poor the grammar was. As are the use of "prophecy" to make Martin give up his money to have the book printed.

So, you are correct, I take these negative evidences as evidence of falsehood on his part.

Does this mean I don't like Mormons, and don't like their religion? Not at all. I work with Mormons everyday. I enjoy their company and we have many things in common.

I just happen to disagree that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

You mention "copies" of the Greek New Testament. Within those thousands of Greek manuscripts, there are upwards of 150,000 variant readings which scholars group and profile in useful, genealogical ways. In addition to that, the American Bible Society has counted over 24,000 differences among six separate editions of the KJV Bible published before 1830. I have alluded to this before, but you seem to ignore any evidence which you find distasteful.

Perhaps also, you misunderstand the nature of evidence. Circumstantial evidence is often the most powerful form of evidence, carrying far more weight than the eyewitness, direct testimony of humans (who might lie or remember incorrectly). Murder convictions can rightly be obtained in the absence of a body, provided that other (circumstantial) evidence can be brought to bear in a convincing manner. Of course, that assumes that the jurors hearing the case keep an open mind, and are prepared to deliberate with sincerity once they are given the case by the judge.

You appear to have decided before the fact that Joseph is a liar and have sought to find "evidence" (literally anything, no matter how absurd) which will fulfill that need.

You apparently reject the notion that God can choose unlettered people as prophets and apostles, even though the Old and New Testaments prove you wrong.

You are certainly free to reject Joseph Smith as a prophet. I have no problem with that. What I do not understand is that you feel free to foist upon us a fabricated case against Joseph that would do justice to a lynch mob of the kind which has haunted this country for a long time. That is very reminiscent of the white evangelical christian churches of the Southern States which during most of the 19th century and much of the 20th sought to justify from Scripture a number of propositions and abominable acts which would be an obscenity to recount here.

I recall asking my mother about a particularly horrific act committed by some good old boys in the deep South back in those days (I was just a teenager). She told me simply that "It takes a long time for people to change." You are probably too young to remember those awful times, but you are not too young to keep an open mind and to exercise fair judgment. True dialogue requires no less.

[mapman]

For some more information about changes from an expert see this arcticle: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

[tana]

Firstly, I have no intention of picking up where Hughes left off and championing the cause, but I do have a question.

I grew up in the 70's being taught that the BoM was translated exclusively using the Urim and thummim. It came as a bit of a shock to me to discover a few years ago that this isn't the case, but that a seer stone in a hat was the main format.

My question is; from what I can tell, either way, Urim and thummim or stone in hat, J.S. wasn't translating or "interpreting" one language to another, he was simply reading words that were appearing before his eyes. These words stayed on the medium before his eyes until it was established that they had been copied down correctly by a scribe.

If this is the case, I can see how it would appear to the outsiders that there should be no reason for errors or alterations.

I haven't really scoured the thread for the answer to this question, so if it has been asked and answered....I apoligize.

Curt

[Robert F. Smith]

Firstly, I have no intention of picking up where Hughes left off and championing the cause, but I do have a question.

I grew up in the 70's being taught that the BoM was translated exclusively using the Urim and thummim. It came as a bit of a shock to me to discover a few years ago that this isn't the case, but that a seer stone in a hat was the main format.

My question is; from what I can tell, either way, Urim and thummim or stone in hat, J.S. wasn't translating or "interpreting" one language to another, he was simply reading words that were appearing before his eyes. These words stayed on the medium before his eyes until it was established that they had been copied down correctly by a scribe.

If this is the case, I can see how it would appear to the outsiders that there should be no reason for errors or alterations.

I haven't really scoured the thread for the answer to this question, so if it has been asked and answered....I apoligize.

Curt

The main thing to bear in mind, Curt, is that the term "urim & thummim" was not used in the early days, and it later came to be used interchangeably with seer stone. So there is naturally going to be quite a bit of confusion. After all, none of the principals were biblical scholars.

The theory of translation you are referring to is usually called "plenary dictation," which simply means that Joseph was supposedly an unthinking conduit for the words which magically appeared on the stone in his hat until correctly written. Another theory is that Joseph's mind (and spirit) was the conduit for the translation, i.e., that his mind diffracted the inspired meaning in his unique way and according to his own understanding of grammar and vocabulary -- just as his scribe would spell the words he heard according to his own knowledge of English -- and from there was displayed on the stone in his hat via a kind of light emitting diode (LED), as it were. Modern technology gives us a number of analogies.

One has simply to ask, which theory best accounts for the evidence in the manuscripts as well as for statistical analysis of various authorship patterns in the Book of Mormon? I have tried to deal with some of these questions in my paper on "Translation of Languages," online at http://www.scribd.co...on-of-Languages . You'll find plenty of discussion of such issues elsewhere online as well.