The Most Correct Book On Earth

[LifeOnaPlate]

While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can tell me why the 1st edition said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor but in the 2nd edition he was listed as translator?

Wes, you are pretty clearly paroting arguments straight from anti-Mormon sources, else you would have the answers for easy ones like this. I really do expect more from you.

[ttribe]

Wes, you are pretty clearly paroting arguments straight from anti-Mormon sources, else you would have the answers for easy ones like this. I really do expect more from you.

Why? This has been his pattern since day one here.

[thesometimesaint]

wes:

The only parts of the BoM that approach copying the Bible are the parts that quote Isaiah. There are significant differences even there. You are losing credibility faster, and faster.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In addition to the many changes made in the BOM (which I believe are evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work),

So there goes the Bible...

it is also not considered good literature by anyone outside of LDS circles (that I am aware of).

The "not that I'm aware of" clause is crucial, in that you don't appear to be aware of much scholarship on the Book of Mormon (I don't consider anti-Mormon criticisms, generally, as good scholarship.) First, being considered "good literature" isn't really a proper gauge to judge God's word, no? Anyway, have you ever heard of a fellow named Harold Bloom? He seemed to like the Book of Mormon alright. Further, Penguin Books just released an edition of the Book of Mormon as part of its "classics" series. Hence, the BoM finds itself along side the works of Charles ****ens and Jane Austen. The assumption is that a text included in the Penguin series has become a stable part of the high-brow diet of books, or at least ought to be, according to some folks. Non-Mormon Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp supplies the introductory essay to this edition, noting the following:

Like all books that spur the imagination, the Book of Mormon presents new ways of viewing the world. Believers from the nineteenth through the twenty-first centuries continue to take it as divine truth. But whether one accepts this judgment or prefers to read the text as an inventive exercise in time travel that allows one to reflect differently on the present era (as in reading Mark Twainâ??s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurâ??s Court or Edward Bellamyâ??s Looking Backward, for instance), the Book of Mormon gestures to a remarkably complex layering of human civilizations, historical records, and editorial tasks.

[wes]

So there goes the Bible...

The "not that I'm aware of" clause is crucial, in that you don't appear to be aware of much scholarship on the Book of Mormon (I don't consider anti-Mormon criticisms, generally, as good scholarship.) First, being considered "good literature" isn't really a proper gauge to judge God's word, no? Anyway, have you ever heard of a fellow named Harold Bloom? He seemed to like the Book of Mormon alright. Further, Penguin Books just released an edition of the Book of Mormon as part of its "classics" series. Hence, the BoM finds itself along side the works of Charles ****ens and Jane Austen. The assumption is that a text included in the Penguin series has become a stable part of the high-brow diet of books, or at least ought to be, according to some folks. Non-Mormon Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp supplies the introductory essay to this edition, noting the following:

Interesting you would include something that mentions Mark Twain who was one of the BOM's harshest critics:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow,' so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

[ttribe]

Interesting you would include something that mentions Mark Twain who was one of the BOM's harshest critics:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow,' so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

That's it! My testimony is gone! Gone because Mark Twain didn't like the Book of Mormon! Oh the tragedy of it all!

[Flyonthewall]

Here is the quote:

â??I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.â? (History of the Church, 4:461.)

The last part of the sentence describes why he said it was the most correct book. He did not say it had perfect spelling. He did not say it had perfect grammer. He said it was the message, not the ink marks on paper.

[LifeOnaPlate]

wes:

The only parts of the BoM that approach copying the Bible are the parts that quote Isaiah. There are significant differences even there. You are losing credibility faster, and faster.

In addition to the Savior in 3 Nephi, and some other minor places. Given my view of the translation process, JS using KJV as model, I seen no significant problem there, no more than the alleged plagiarism that occurs in the Bible itself.

[selek]

Interesting you would include something that mentions Mark Twain who was one of the BOM's harshest critics:

It's interesting that you would cite Mark Twain to support your arguments- especially when you consider that Clemens' opinion of blacks was every bit as base, as low, as bigoted as you are wont to paint Brigham's.

[thesometimesaint]

wes:

The Saints have no problem quoting anyone when it is correct. We often quote C.S. Lewis, but that doesn't mean he was correct on ALL points.

[urroner]

So wes, which one did you mean and what did you mean by plagiarism?

Also, is there anything in the Bible that says that all scripture will be of the highest standard of literature or is this a doctrine that is non-Biblical?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting you would include something that mentions Mark Twain who was one of the BOM's harshest critics:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow,' so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

Yes, I am familiar with Twain's satirical glance at the Book of Mormon. (Incidentally, many of the it came to passes were subsequently removed. The phrase itself can be argued to be a reflection of translation, if you had interest to look into that. It appears you have Twain's same interest. Not understanding, but tearing.)

[cjwright]

But you just don't understand, it's a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't." wes is complaining that it's not up to the standard of Biblical literature and there are plenty of those who complain that it uses Biblical language in it. Who's right? Is wes right or are the others right? Can they both be right?

I do understand, with some people we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't", there is never one simple approach to people who won't be open minded enough to look at the actual evidence that contradicts their opinion - I've faced them most of my life when it comes to me being a member of the Church.

You ask who's right, is it wes or the others, there is a third option - they are both wrong. It is not the language used that is important, but the message that the scriptures contain that tells us the truthfulness of the Gospel.

[urroner]

You ask who's right, is it wes or the others, there is a third option - they are both wrong. It is not the language used that is important, but the message that the scriptures contain that tells us the truthfulness of the Gospel.

Sorry cj, but both of them can't be wrong, they are of the true sect of Christianity, therefore neither can be wrong, though they are diametrically opposed. It's one of those mysteries that we can't comprehend and they can't explain.

[Zakuska]

Interesting you would include something that mentions Mark Twain who was one of the BOM's harshest critics:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow,' so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

Intresting you would think Mark Twain was a friend to the Bible.

Lets see... Mark Twain "Translated" the Diaries of Adam and Eve?!

NOTE.--I translated a portion of this diary some years ago, and a friend of mine printed a few copies in an incomplete form, but the public never got them. Since then I have deciphered some more of Adam's hieroglyphics, and think he has now become sufficiently important as a public character to justify this publication.--M. T.]

http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk...om-adams-diary/

Sounds to me he poked fun of the Bible and those who adhere to it just as much as he did the BOM.

[wes]

Intresting you would think Mark Twain was a friend to the Bible.

Lets see... Mark Twain "Translated" the Diaries of Adam and Eve?!

NOTE.--I translated a portion of this diary some years ago, and a friend of mine printed a few copies in an incomplete form, but the public never got them. Since then I have deciphered some more of Adam's hieroglyphics, and think he has now become sufficiently important as a public character to justify this publication.--M. T.]

http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk...om-adams-diary/

Sounds to me he poked fun of the Bible and those who adhere to it just as much as he did the BOM.

Poking fun at a book is one thing, but his criticism of the BOM goes way beyond that.

[LDSMusic483]

Poking fun at a book is one thing, but his criticism of the BOM goes way beyond that.

And of course since Mark Twain is the end all authority on whether something comes from God or not...I guess the BoM is a fraud, huh?

[cjwright]

Sorry cj, but both of them can't be wrong, they are of the true sect of Christianity, therefore neither can be wrong, though they are diametrically opposed. It's one of those mysteries that we can't comprehend and they can't explain.

They are both wrong because one is wes's opinion that the BOM isn't up to the literary standard of the Bible, and the opinion of the BOM's literary prowess outside the Church is given under a bias view so is not credible. And when has literary standards any proof of God's word? The second point that people complain that the BOM contains Biblical language still doesn't hold water with respect to it being the word of God. Neither are substancial arguements against the Book of Mormon.

[wes]

And of course since Mark Twain is the end all authority on whether something comes from God or not...I guess the BoM is a fraud, huh?

Not at all, but his criticsim matches exactly the way I felt reading the BOM growing up in Mormonism. I was always bored out of my mind. I was amazed when I discovered that there were versions of the Bible written in a way that I could actually understand it. My only exposure to it in Mormonism was the KJV. The Bible continues to be interesting and profound in many ways each time I read it.

[Zakuska]

Poking fun at a book is one thing, but his criticism of the BOM goes way beyond that.

Intresting that you missed his distain for the Bible in the very quote you posted.

1) He claims the BOM is sleepy... yet then he says it was patterned after the OT.

So what does that say about his feelings for the Bible.

[LDSMusic483]

Not at all, but his criticsim matches exactly the way I felt reading the BOM growing up in Mormonism. I was always bored out of my mind. I was amazed when I discovered that there were versions of the Bible written in a way that I could actually understand it. My only exposure to it in Mormonism was the KJV. The Bible continues to be interesting and profound in many ways each time I read it.

Well it's good to know that once the Bible was dumbed down for you, you were able to enjoy it. Many can enjoy it (along with the Book of Mormon) without that happening.

[wes]

Intresting that you missed his distain for the Bible in the very quote you posted.

1) He claims the BOM is sleepy... yet then he says it was patterned after the OT.

So what does that say about his feelings for the Bible.

It says that King James English is difficult to read and understand and nothing more.

[wes]

Well it's good to know that once the Bible was dumbed down for you, you were able to enjoy it. Many can enjoy it (along with the Book of Mormon) without that happening.

I don't think I will be responding to any more posts by you if this is how you choose to interact.

[urroner]

I don't think I will be responding to any more posts by you if this is how you choose to interact.

You attack the Church, throw out old rehashed, zombified criticisms, and refuse to respond to any of our comments with sound arguments, dismissing all of our comments a priori, and you have the audacity to say that you are refusing to respond to any more posts by ldsmusic. Very interesting, especially since your attitude towards us LDSers makes his attitude look like what is describe in I Cor. 13.

So, are you going to respond to any of the questions I'm asking you?

[Zakuska]

It says that King James English is difficult to read and understand and nothing more.

You must have missed this...

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament."

Mark Tawain thought the Bible was imaginary History wes. Thats why he pocked fun at the Adam and Eve story with the added tid bit of "Translating Hyroglyphics". Possible poking fun at Joseph Smith and the BOM again.

But lets let Mark speak for himself...

"I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him. "

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Mark_Twain

As I said... Mark Twain was no friend to the Bible.