Changes to the Book of Mormon

[Jeff K.]

So if a book is changed because of language clarification, whether formal or informal it therefore cannot have been revealed as revelation by God. You know the Muslims say something along those lines and encourage everyone to know the original Arabic. So, how is your Greek? Aramaic? Latin? Hebrew? Do you hold yourself to the same standards you place on others?

[Hughes]

So if a book is changed because of language clarification, whether formal or informal it therefore cannot have been revealed as revelation by God. You know the Muslims say something along those lines and encourage everyone to know the original Arabic. So, how is your Greek? Aramaic? Latin? Hebrew? Do you hold yourself to the same standards you place on others?

Since we don't know if the BoM is representative of what was on the plates, we can't know if the changes were a clarification or not. And the backwoods style of the original leads me to think that the contents came from Joseph Smith not God. You trust 100% in Joseph Smith. I do not.

[zerinus]

Not sure what this has to do with the Bible?

My reasoning is thus:

1) Joseph Smith claimed,

[CQUIRK]

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.

Really? Well in that case, we can claim the same thing about the various translations of the Bible. And there's also a new claim that in the original Greek, the number of the Beast was actually 616.

So the same arguments can be applied to the Bible here.

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.

Same thing with those scholars that have translated the KJV- the same logic applies. Obviously your argument is a double-edged sword for you.

[mapman]

... And the backwoods style of the original leads me to think that the contents came from Joseph Smith not God. You trust 100% in Joseph Smith. I do not.

So you don't think that God would commune with backwoodsmen? Or do you think that the Spirit of God will make him talk in "proper" English or something? Just so you know the books in the New Testament aren't written in perfect Greek.

You seem to be stuck with preconcieved notions of what a prophet and scriptures should be which don't reflect reality. You're like Nathanael who couldn't imagine anything of value coming from the town in Galilee, so far from all the educated Pharisees in Jerusalem.

"And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see." (John 1:46)

We can liken this scripture: "Can there any good thing come out of Palmyra, New York?"

And yet both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith were born and lived in humble situations:

"Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise. And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls." (Alma 37:6-7)

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1 Cor. 1:26-29)

[Jeff K.]

Since we don't know if the BoM is representative of what was on the plates, we can't know if the changes were a clarification or not. And the backwoods style of the original leads me to think that the contents came from Joseph Smith not God. You trust 100% in Joseph Smith. I do not.

We have Book of Mormons that are close to a transcribed version as revealed to Joseph Smith. So we have a copy (from your perspective) of a lost original. Care to show us the original text of the New Testament?

[Hughes]

We have Book of Mormons that are close to a transcribed version as revealed to Joseph Smith. So we have a copy (from your perspective) of a lost original. Care to show us the original text of the New Testament?

All you have to do is say you trust in Joseph Smith a 100 percent.

You don't have any way of verifying the "close" version is any closer than the published versions are. No one can. You not only have a lost original, you have lost copies of the original. All you have is trust in Joseph Smith that his translation is accurate.

[Hughes]

I presume you meant to say "unidiomatic". Evidently it is not. Similar constructs are found in the KJV, which proves that it is not unidiomatic in the English of the KJV, or else it is a literal translation from the Hebrew. I cannot quote examples offhand, and it is difficult to search for in computerized scriptures; but I know that I have come across such a construct several times int the KJV.

Don't care what you call it. The changes needed to a document that was supposedly translated by the gift and power of God, only 7 years later, make the point.

"It

[urroner]

Hughes, I don't think you are aware of the total weakness of your argument...well, either that or you are simply choosing to pretend that it has no strength at all.

I work at the Kennedy Space Center and I work with some very intelligent people, people who exhibit great logic in their work, but when it comes to discussing religion, sometimes this logic just gets thrown out the window.

There are certain people who, when they first start working with me and finding out that I'm Mormon, want to "discuss" the wrongness of my beliefs vs. the correctness of their beliefs. I inform them that I have had this type of discussion many times before, but I'm willing to do it again, but if they use an argument or logic to demonstrate that what I believe is wrong, that I have the right to apply that same argument or logic to their beliefs and see if it passes muster. They can cherry pick the arguments, but these arguments will cut both ways and inevitably, they run into problems very quickly and I usually have a group of people listening in on this discussion who will act like judges if we have a problem of rather there has occurred a misapplication of logic. I call them the logic testers, LT for short.

For example:

Standard 1: Your Mormons rely too much on emotions while we true Christians don't.

If I'm subjected to this standard, I ask the person if they are saved and I have yet to hear one person say no. Well, how do you know you are saved? Did God personally visit you and tell you so? Did an angel appear to you and tell you so? Did God even send a letter to let you know? Of course, none of this happened, so their belief that they are saved is based on emotions just as much as my belief is that I am right. They try to get around this argument by saying that they know it in their head and not their heart. The LTs start shaking their heads, usually, right there.

Standard 2: Your church is a cult and not Christian.

This standard quickly fades away because when asked what is a "true" Christian, they always end up throwing one of the LTs, whom they consider to be very Christian, under the bus. The problems are their definitions. These are some of the "true" Christian tests I have been subjected to and failed as well as many of the LTs. The works vs. grace problem, the OSAS discussion, the all "true" Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and then there is the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible argument. It seems that Catholics can't be Christians or many of the orthodox Christian religions of the orient.

Standard 3: Something very similar to the topic of this thread, the Book of Mormon can't be true because there have been corrections in it.

The second this argument is presents, some of the LTs tell them to not even go there because they will lose that argument. It turns out that the people trying to show me I'm wrong will usually try to forge ahead, knowing that their logic is sound and flawless. It doesn't last very long.

So Hughes, if you insist upon subjecting the BofM to a certain standard and you introduce that standard into a discussion, we should have the right, not only the right, but the duty to show you the weaknesses and inaccuracies of your argument. You can't introduce a weak and unsound argument into a discussion and tell the other side they are demonstratively wrong by this simple logic and then not expect them to flip that argument on you and tell you that you are demonstratively wrong by this simple logic. Sorry Hughes, but that dog don't hunt none. What is good for the goose in good for the gander.

[urroner]

Don't care what you call it. The changes needed to a document that was supposedly translated by the gift and power of God, only 7 years later, make the point.

"It

[Pahoran]

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.

There's that idiotic Deckerite argument again. This is called a "non sequitur." Your "conclusion" follows from nothing at all except your own wishful thinking. As you and I both know, you would reach that conclusion even if Joseph had initially translated the Book of Mormon exactly as it appears in the 1981 edition.

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.

And of course, you keep mindlessly chanting that Hughesian "blind faith" mantra of yours. Are you incapable of recognising that you likewise have Hughesian "blind faith" in the Bible, or are you simply not candid enough to admit it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

From the Title Page of the Book of Mormon: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

[zerinus]

Don't care what you call it. The changes needed to a document that was supposedly translated by the gift and power of God, only 7 years later, make the point.

"It

[NauvooSaint]

The following is a link to Zarahemla Research Foundation & the Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon (RCE):

http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Manuscripts+%26+Editions&DOC=History+of+the+Manuscripts+of+the+Book+of+Mormon

We use to sell the RCE & another book, 'Book of Mormon Manuscripts & Editions' in our Nauvoo bookstore. Although the RCE is not recognized as an official version of any Latter Day Saint churches that I'm aware, it's quite an interesting work. It was the attempt of those involved to restore as closely as possible the text of what remains of the Original Manuscript & the complete Printer Manuscript of the BofM. The format or layout of the text is also in a poetry style & Hebrew poetry/Chiasms are more easy to recognize. I don't personally accept the RCE, because those involved held strongly to a 'Oneness' theology in the godhead & so any revision made by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the Kirtland edition to clarify 'son of god', etc. were not retained in the RCE.

'Book of Mormon Manuscripts & Editions' compares verses in the Original & Printer's Manuscripts, early editions & several editions by different Latter Day Saint churches.

When one realizes how short of a time was involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon to begin with (really quite a miracle), then it's reasonable to consider some errors occuring in the text. It's my understanding that there weren't too many revisions made between the Kirtland & Nauvoo editions of the BofM. I do question the extent of corrections being made in the 1830 Palmyra edition as the printing was in progress...creating so many variants between copies.

[Pahoran]

The "previous source" is simply wrong. "I was a journeying" is a perfectly legitimate KJV English construct. As I said, I cannot remember specific examples offhand, and it is hard to search for it using the computerized scriptures; but I know that it exists in the KJV. Perhaps somebody else can remember some specific examples.

Did you mean something like this?

St John

Chapter 21

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee.

And thus, Hughes' so-called "argument" turns out to be nothing but an expression of his "Huge" prejudice.

Your "previous source" is wrong on many points. If you want to blindly follow an anti-Mormon source, that says something also about you.

Indeed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

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.

Given the fruits of his labors I have no trouble with that.

[ERayR]

Since we don't know if the BoM is representative of what was on the plates, we can't know if the changes were a clarification or not. And the backwoods style of the original leads me to think that the contents came from Joseph Smith not God. You trust 100% in Joseph Smith. I do not.

I feel sorry for you as you are missing so much that could enrich your life.

[urroner]

Since we don't know if the BoM is representative of what was on the plates, we can't know if the changes were a clarification or not. And the backwoods style of the original leads me to think that the contents came from Joseph Smith not God. You trust 100% in Joseph Smith. I do not.

Hughes, do you trust 100% in any man, including the writers of the books in the Bible?

BTW, congrats on creating the most excellent example of the logical fallacy known as the Straw Man.

[zerinus]

Did you mean something like this?

St John

Chapter 21

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee.

And thus, Hughes' so-called "argument" turns out to be nothing but an expression of his "Huge" prejudice.

Yes, thank you. "A whoring" is another one that has just popped into my head:

Exodus 34

:

15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go

a whoring

after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice

16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go

a whoring

after their gods, and make thy sons go

a whoring

after their gods.

Leviticus 17

:

7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone

a whoring

. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

Leviticus 20

:

5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go

a whoring

after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go

a whoring

after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Numbers 15

:

39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go

a whoring

Deuteronomy 31

:

16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go

a whoring

after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Judges 2

:

17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went

a whoring

after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so.

Judges 8

:

27 And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither

a whoring

after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.

33 And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went

a whoring

after Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god.

1 Chronicles 5

:

25 And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went

a whoring

after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed before them.

2 Chronicles 21

:

13 But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go

a whoring

, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself

Psalms 73

:

27 For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go

a whoring

from thee.

Psalms 106

:

39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went

a whoring

with their own inventions.

Ezekiel 6

:

9 And they that escape of you shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captives, because I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me, and with their eyes, which go

a whoring

after their idols: and they shall lothe themselves for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations.

Ezekiel 23

:

30 I will do these things unto thee, because thou hast gone

a whoring

after the heathen, and because thou art polluted with their idols.

Hosea 4

:

12 My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone

a whoring

from under their God.

Hosea 9

:

1 Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone

a whoring

from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

I am sure there are a few more, if somebody can remember them.

[Hughes]

Hughes, I don't think you are aware of the total weakness of your argument...well, either that or you are simply choosing to pretend that it has no strength at all.

I work at the Kennedy Space Center and I work with some very intelligent people, people who exhibit great logic in their work, but when it comes to discussing religion, sometimes this logic just gets thrown out the window.

There are certain people who, when they first start working with me and finding out that I'm Mormon, want to "discuss" the wrongness of my beliefs vs. the correctness of their beliefs. I inform them that I have had this type of discussion many times before, but I'm willing to do it again, but if they use an argument or logic to demonstrate that what I believe is wrong, that I have the right to apply that same argument or logic to their beliefs and see if it passes muster. They can cherry pick the arguments, but these arguments will cut both ways and inevitably, they run into problems very quickly and I usually have a group of people listening in on this discussion who will act like judges if we have a problem of rather there has occurred a misapplication of logic. I call them the logic testers, LT for short.

For example:

Standard 1: Your Mormons rely too much on emotions while we true Christians don't.

If I'm subjected to this standard, I ask the person if they are saved and I have yet to hear one person say no. Well, how do you know you are saved? Did God personally visit you and tell you so? Did an angel appear to you and tell you so? Did God even send a letter to let you know? Of course, none of this happened, so their belief that they are saved is based on emotions just as much as my belief is that I am right. They try to get around this argument by saying that they know it in their head and not their heart. The LTs start shaking their heads, usually, right there.

Standard 2: Your church is a cult and not Christian.

This standard quickly fades away because when asked what is a "true" Christian, they always end up throwing one of the LTs, whom they consider to be very Christian, under the bus. The problems are their definitions. These are some of the "true" Christian tests I have been subjected to and failed as well as many of the LTs. The works vs. grace problem, the OSAS discussion, the all "true" Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and then there is the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible argument. It seems that Catholics can't be Christians or many of the orthodox Christian religions of the orient.

Standard 3: Something very similar to the topic of this thread, the Book of Mormon can't be true because there have been corrections in it.

The second this argument is presents, some of the LTs tell them to not even go there because they will lose that argument. It turns out that the people trying to show me I'm wrong will usually try to forge ahead, knowing that their logic is sound and flawless. It doesn't last very long.

So Hughes, if you insist upon subjecting the BofM to a certain standard and you introduce that standard into a discussion, we should have the right, not only the right, but the duty to show you the weaknesses and inaccuracies of your argument. You can't introduce a weak and unsound argument into a discussion and tell the other side they are demonstratively wrong by this simple logic and then not expect them to flip that argument on you and tell you that you are demonstratively wrong by this simple logic. Sorry Hughes, but that dog don't hunt none. What is good for the goose in good for the gander.

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.

[Hughes]

This reeks of the old and refuted "adieu" argument. So Hughes, are you saying that all the words and phrases used in the KJV or any other English/German/French/Japanese/Dutch/Chinese/etc Bible were used by prophets living at the time of Christ?

It's like the old saying they have here in the south, if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Thankfully we can translate the words used by the prophets of old, from their languages. We can't do that for the BoM, so we can't know what phrase was originally used. We can tell that Joseph Smith's backwoods english was used.

There's that idiotic Deckerite argument again. This is called a "non sequitur." Your "conclusion" follows from nothing at all except your own wishful thinking. As you and I both know, you would reach that conclusion even if Joseph had initially translated the Book of Mormon exactly as it appears in the 1981 edition.

And of course, you keep mindlessly chanting that Hughesian "blind faith" mantra of yours. Are you incapable of recognising that you likewise have Hughesian "blind faith" in the Bible, or are you simply not candid enough to admit it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Sorry, if it wasn't changed 7 years after it supposedly came from God, the argument that it came from God wouldn't be undercut by the poor usage of english.

Hughes:

From the Title Page of the Book of Mormon: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

We won't condemn the things of God, that is if we could verify what was from God and what was from Joseph Smith.

What translation method did he use? Dynamic Equivalence? Word for word?

[Pahoran]

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.

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?

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.

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

[Vance]

Did you mean something like this?

St John

Chapter 21

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee.

And thus, Hughes' so-called "argument" turns out to be nothing but an expression of his "Huge" prejudice.

Indeed.

Regards,

Pahoran

And like this from,

http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/a001.html

A hunting we will go, a hunting we will go,

Heigh ho, the dairy-o, a hunting we will go!

. . .

[Hughes]

Yes, thank you. "A whoring" is another one that has just popped into my head:

Exodus 34

:

15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go

a whoring

after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice

[snip for brevity]

1 Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone

a whoring

from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

I am sure there are a few more, if somebody can remember them.

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":

[Pahoran]

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.

Your mind-reading is defective and your argument is circular. It only works if we accept your assumptions about the "real" origin of the Book of Mormon; assumptions that have yet to be supported by any actual evidence.

On the other hand, we have this:

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 see Hughes, you don't know anything at all about how God works; but God does.

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":