Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[omni]

If your head hurt before, mine does now.

Ha ha, thanks for doing the leg work for me.

[canard78]

When Joseph Smith composed his 1832 history, with all the meaningful allusions that Matthew Brown has discussed here:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

I find it helpful to consider that this was done in Kirtland in 1832 after an intense period of concentrated study, with Sidney Ridgon, that amounted to the majority of the work done on the inspired translation of the Bible. I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate the effect of that well documented focus and study back to Joseph's earlier years. According to Mother Smith, Joseph was the least inclined to read books of all her children, more inclined to mediation and deep study, as she put it. The opportunity for such focus wasn't there earlier. Think about chopping down 5,000 trees during the days of just getting ready for farming for instance, plus, all the nights supposedly spent digging. And of course, though Wilfred Poulson managed to reconstruct the Manchester lending library, there is still the problem of the Smith's not being members of that library, nor, living in Manchester, and the distance between Harmony, PA and Manchester NY, and the fact that Harmony did not have a library. And of course, the problem that even that library would not have been of much use. When the neighbors told stories about Joseph, we get characterizations as "the ignoramus", rather than, "always reading books... borrowing and never returning... you could tell that young know-it-all was up to something." Bookish kids are known and characterized as such by their peers. I've got personal experience on that score. They are not characterized as Joseph was by those who knew him. When the mob searched the house, they never reported, "No plates... just all these books, notes, and papers." And of course, Hamblin has pointed out just how much books could cost, something that the debt and mortgage situation makes rather urgent, in considering how much extra cash and time the young Joseph had.

It is clear, as Nibley and others have pointed out, the use of King James language makes it the identification of Biblical quotations both easy and obvious, just as the quotations of the Septuagint in the New Testament has that specific purpose. One of the promises of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel is that it would bring "all things to your remembrance," and D&C 1 declares that the revelations is to be in their own language and according to their understanding. Welch likes to point out that Emma, for instance, insisted that Joseph had no manuscript to read from, and that for the incident when the translation described a wall around Jerusalem, they had to go get a Bible to confirm it, all suggest that they didn't have a Bible around. I agree with Brant Gardner and other's that a physical text was not necessary to explain the quotations. Inspiration working upon memory is sufficient.

Trying to explain away the Book of Mormon as a whole by looking exclusively at the quotations (and ignoring significant variations, such as those observed by Welch and Tvedtnes) no more explains the Book of Mormon than the quotations in the New Testament explains those texts as plagiarism. The Melchizidek text from Qumran is largely composed of quotations. That does not mean it is not important, or that is is nothing but quotations.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks for the detailed input. I agree that the BoM doesn't stand or fall on KJV quotations alone. It's one of the things at the top of my list of nagging concerns. Especially something like the narration in the Sermon on the Mount or Mormon 9 having the same parting message (about poison and snakes) as one probably added to Mark 9 in 2nd C.

[canard78]

I would accept it. The problem I have is the fact that we have no original manuscript or historical evidence to suggest that portions of the Book of Mormon were in circulation nor do we have evidence that the persons mentioned in the book existed. Belief in the Book of Mormon, for me, is limited to the inconclusive notion that it is a 19th century work. I accept it as scripture and inspirational. However, its history is still open to debate. Copy and paste translation and transmission are deterrents to actual authenticity. I treat certain portions of the Bible just the same.

I can empathise with where you're coming from. It doesn't have to be the 'sudden death' position of a nasty, manipulative fraud or a perfectly 'as we are taught in Sunday School' origination. It can be divine/inspiring AND a partially self-created construct.

D&C 9 even teaches this. 'God, look what I made/thought up/wrote/decided... Do you approve?'

[canard78]

Well, there is that canard (sorry canard78) that what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.

No worries I really need to get around to changing my name. Who knew that a French duck would have such a negative rep on a Mormon message board.

[tagriffy]

Thanks for the detailed input. I agree that the BoM doesn't stand or fall on KJV quotations alone. It's one of the things at the top of my list of nagging concerns. Especially something like the narration in the Sermon on the Mount or Mormon 9 having the same parting message (about poison and snakes) as one probably added to Mark 9 in 2nd C.

You are going to start hating me, but why is it a nagging concern?

[canard78]

You are going to start hating me, but why is it a nagging concern?

Not at all. My testimony was built on the BoM. I got an answer to prayer about it age 10 and have loved it ever since. I still love it. I consider it divine, inspired and inspiring.

But a year or so ago I wanted to better understand the concerns of my less-active wife and threw myself into a study (mainly through NAMI/FAIR material) of the history and foundation of the church. When I talk of nagging concerns it's the significant issues that remain unanswered and substantial for me that stand as evidence that the story I was taught (and prayed about) was not what actually happened.

I recognise that for others the KVJ is a non-issue. I just can't reconcile it.

[tagriffy]

Not at all. My testimony was built on the BoM. I got an answer to prayer about it age 10 and have loved it ever since. I still love it. I consider it divine, inspired and inspiring.

But a year or so ago I wanted to better understand the concerns of my less-active wife and threw myself into a study (mainly through NAMI/FAIR material) of the history and foundation of the church. When I talk of nagging concerns it's the significant issues that remain unanswered and substantial for me that stand as evidence that the story I was taught (and prayed about) was not what actually happened.

I recognise that for others the KVJ is a non-issue. I just can't reconcile it.

Is it important that you reconcile it?

[Tacenda]

Not at all. My testimony was built on the BoM. I got an answer to prayer about it age 10 and have loved it ever since. I still love it. I consider it divine, inspired and inspiring.

But a year or so ago I wanted to better understand the concerns of my less-active wife and threw myself into a study (mainly through NAMI/FAIR material) of the history and foundation of the church. When I talk of nagging concerns it's the significant issues that remain unanswered and substantial for me that stand as evidence that the story I was taught (and prayed about) was not what actually happened.

I recognise that for others the KVJ is a non-issue. I just can't reconcile it.

I understand what you're going through, and I know that you aren't letting it consume you for any other reason than that you did have a testimony and don't want to let go that easily. Hopefully you find solace that maybe it's only through the Saviour and HF that we can get the full religious experience and perhaps HF guided you to have a testimony of the BoM at that period of your life. Maybe he reaches out to everyone at the moment someone is curious or delving into His words, wherever they might be. Maybe he spreads himself out over all religions and we just need to remember he's at the center and nothing or no one should come between.

[canard78]

Is it important that you reconcile it?

I'd been vaguely aware of the issues for years, but had never felt the need to engage because I knew it was true. Anything that contradicted this position would clearly be wrong.

But yes, at this stage of my life and faith journey it is important for me to reconcile it. I fully understand and respect why it's not important for others.

[tagriffy]

I'd been vaguely aware of the issues for years, but had never felt the need to engage because I knew it was true. Anything that contradicted this position would clearly be wrong.

But yes, at this stage of my life and faith journey it is important for me to reconcile it. I fully understand and respect why it's not important for others.

And I take it expansionist or environmentalist routes are not options for you?

[canard78]

I understand what you're going through, and I know that you aren't letting it consume you for any other reason than that you did have a testimony and don't want to let go that easily. Hopefully you find solace that maybe it's only through the Saviour and HF that we can get the full religious experience and perhaps HF guided you to have a testimony of the BoM at that period of your life. Maybe he reaches out to everyone at the moment someone is curious or delving into His words, wherever they might be. Maybe he spreads himself out over all religions and we just need to remember he's at the center and nothing or no one should come between.

Thanks Tacenda. I always feel honoured to be featured in one of your precious 12 posts.

For me there is one truth, one God, one path. Being LDS is my vehicle for travelling that path. I suit it. I enjoy it. I appreciate the merits in other vehicles but still believe Mormonism is the vehicle God currently wants me to use.

[canard78]

And I take it expansionist or environmentalist routes are not options for you?

I'm not sure what you mean? Beyond Mormonism you mean? LDS is my tribe and my community. Despite the things I can't reconcile I started the process of investigation and discovery of LDS origins fully intending to stay in. I wasn't looking for an 'out.' I've not yet read anything so conclusive that I would conclude it is a falsehood. But I have adapted perspectives on what Mormonism is. If the me of 4-5 years ago could have seen the me of today, I'd have scoffed at myself. Such is life.

[Nevo]

I'm not sure what you mean? Beyond Mormonism you mean?

I think by "expansionist" route, tagriffy probably means Blake Ostler's expansion theory (set out here, with an update here). I find Ostler's theory quite attractive myself. I'm not sure that it is entirely coherent (BYU professor Stephen Robinson wrote a blistering critique of it several years ago) but it allows me to leave open the possibility of an ancient substratum for the Book of Mormon.

[tagriffy]

I'm not sure what you mean? Beyond Mormonism you mean? LDS is my tribe and my community. Despite the things I can't reconcile I started the process of investigation and discovery of LDS origins fully intending to stay in. I wasn't looking for an 'out.' I've not yet read anything so conclusive that I would conclude it is a falsehood. But I have adapted perspectives on what Mormonism is. If the me of 4-5 years ago could have seen the me of today, I'd have scoffed at myself. Such is life.

No, I'm talking about interpretive paradigms the Book of Mormon. You have historicist approaches, which see the Book of Mormon as an ancient document and interprets it according to that understanding. The general approaches are the textual and ethnographic studies. See Judkins' "Recent Trends in Book of Mormon Apologetics: A Critical Assessment of Methodological Diversity and Academic Viability." Then you have the expansionist approach, which sees the Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an ancient source. See Ostler's "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source." The environmentalist approach sees Joseph Smith as the human author of the Book of Mormon and interprets accordingly. I wrote a paper some years back that I will post to my blog so you can see how that works.

Now in a previous post, you seemed to speak approvingly of an expansionist model when you wrote:

I can empathise with where you're coming from. It doesn't have to be the 'sudden death' position of a nasty, manipulative fraud or a perfectly 'as we are taught in Sunday School' origination. It can be divine/inspiring AND a partially self-created construct.

D&C 9 even teaches this. 'God, look what I made/thought up/wrote/decided... Do you approve?'

Yet you still seem to be refraining from that approach. Hence my question.

If you are having such a problem reconciling what you are seeing here, perhaps that suggests it is time for a paradigm shift. Kevin Christensen is probably our local expert on paradigms and paradigm shifts, so I'll leave it to him to correct I get wrong here. But basically, what you may need to do is shift the way you are looking at the text and see if different approaches will help solve the problem. For example, from my point of view, the problem is not whether Mormon 9 is using Mark 16, but how. If there is an expansionist on the board, he or she could describe how they would approach the problem. Maybe somewhere along the line you'll get the answer you need.

[canard78]

Nevo/Tagriffy. Thanks for the sources. I didn't realise where I'm moving towards in my perspectives had a name.

I'll read the links and get back to you both.

[tagriffy]

I think by "expansionist" route, tagriffy probably means Blake Ostler's expansion theory (set out here, with an update here). I find Ostler's theory quite attractive myself. I'm not sure that it is entirely coherent (BYU professor Stephen Robinson wrote a blistering critique of it several years ago) but it allows me to leave open the possibility of an ancient substratum for the Book of Mormon.

As you can now tell, you called it correctly. I didn't know Ostler had done much else with the theory, so thanks for the new link. Do you know if anyone has done any work on the Book of Mormon using his theory as a starting point?

[tagriffy]

Nevo/Tagriffy. Thanks for the sources. I didn't realise where I'm moving towards in my perspectives had a name.

I'll read the links and get back to you both.

You're welcome. I'll get my essay up as soon as I can.

[Johnnie Cake]

No, I'm talking about interpretive paradigms the Book of Mormon. You have historicist approaches, which see the Book of Mormon as an ancient document and interprets it according to that understanding. The general approaches are the textual and ethnographic studies. See Judkins' "Recent Trends in Book of Mormon Apologetics: A Critical Assessment of Methodological Diversity and Academic Viability." Then you have the expansionist approach, which sees the Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an ancient source. See Ostler's "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source." The environmentalist approach sees Joseph Smith as the human author of the Book of Mormon and interprets accordingly. I wrote a paper some years back that I will post to my blog so you can see how that works.

Now in a previous post, you seemed to speak approvingly of an expansionist model when you wrote:

Yet you still seem to be refraining from that approach. Hence my question.

If you are having such a problem reconciling what you are seeing here, perhaps that suggests it is time for a paradigm shift. Kevin Christensen is probably our local expert on paradigms and paradigm shifts, so I'll leave it to him to correct I get wrong here. But basically, what you may need to do is shift the way you are looking at the text and see if different approaches will help solve the problem. For example, from my point of view, the problem is not whether Mormon 9 is using Mark 16, but how. If there is an expansionist on the board, he or she could describe how they would approach the problem. Maybe somewhere along the line you'll get the answer you need.

So are you saying that these alternative approaches view the Book of Mormon as something other than what it claims to be?

[tagriffy]

OK, my essay is up. Am I allowed to post a direct link?

[Robert F. Smith]

--------------------------------------

or ouija boards (and I probably missed an equal number of similar practices) or as in Joseph Smith's case "seer stones" or "Urim and Thummin"

I view with deep distrust.

So, to be consistent and fair, you also distrust droid, iPad,and all the rest, right? And don't forget to distrust the translation apps - you know, the ones where you hold up your smartphone to the person speaking Chinese to you, and the phone immediately translates it into audible English. Certainly on a par with your ouija and peep stone . . .

..... Joseph Smith wrote a document now known as "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Not a single symbol or word matches any known work of actual Egyptian translation. These documents can now be found on church sites listed as "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers".

Maybe the Tanners knew it by that title, but that is in fact not its title, and Joseph wrote very little of it. Responsible scholars see it as a failed secular attempt to create either a translation key to Egyptian or a cipher. In any case, it was never completed, which is the best indicator of its failure.

No matter which method used, or tool used, for that matter, a translation must coincide with the document being translated. Anything else is not a translation, but merely a work of independent imagination.

True enough. However, you seem to restrict translation only to words/characters, rather than to extend it to illustrations -- which is central to Egyptology.

[tagriffy]

So are you saying that these alternative approaches view the Book of Mormon as something other than what it claims to be?

Yes. No. Maybe. It depends on how you look at it.

[Johnnie Cake]

Yes. No. Maybe. It depends on how you look at it.

Well the book claims to be ancient...the environmental approach views the book as a modern product , it can't be both...personally I view it as a modern ( if being produced in 1829 can be viewed as modern) product. But what I can't wrap my brain around is how I'm supposed to build belief and faith from viewing it as such

May want to start a seperate thread on this subject so as not to high jack this thread

Edited May 31, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[tagriffy]

Well the book claims to be ancient...the environmental approach views the book as a modern product , it can't be both...personally I view it as a modern ( if being produced in 1829 can be viewed as modern) product. But what I can't wrap my brain around is how I'm supposed to build belief and faith from viewing it as such

May want to start a seperate thread on this subject so as not to high jack this thread

The ultimate claim the Book of Mormon makes for itself is that it is from God. I'm not sure I'm allowed to start new threads yet, but I will follow if one is started.

[Glenn101]

Well the book claims to be ancient...the environmental approach views the book as a modern product , it can't be both...personally I view it as a modern ( if being produced in 1829 can be viewed as modern) product. But what I can't wrap my brain around is how I'm supposed to build belief and faith from viewing it as such

May want to start a seperate thread on this subject so as not to high jack this thread

The ultimate claim the Book of Mormon makes for itself is that it is from God. I'm not sure I'm allowed to start new threads yet, but I will follow if one is started.

So, how does one determine if the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, or the Bible is from God?

Glenn

[tagriffy]

So, how does one determine if the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, or the Bible is from God?

If you'll forgive a bit of circular reasoning, if God speaks to you through them, then they are from God.