Letter To A Ces Director

[omni]

I'm a carpenter. I'm not wealthy, my wife is retired and she has a pension. We sacrifice many things to own a boat and live on it. I drove a 20 year old truck and stored it at my Mom's until recently. Our first cruising boat was 29K about the price of a used BMW wagon. We worked on it and put our wages into it for 6 years before we took off. We have wind power, solar power and a desal machine that makes 6 gal per hour fresh water on 12 amps , 12v electricity. We used 26 gallons of diesel to sail 2600 miles, mostly to charge our batteries. We park the boat and work when we need to refill the cruising kitty. I have built homes in Cal, Nevada, AZ, Idaho and Mexico. I had a chance to build one in Hiva Oa but our last boat was too small to carry all of my tools. Our second boat is larger, carries more water and actually has a shower and running water. We use to use a bug sprayer to shower on the other boat. We never stay in marinas unless we have to. it's becoming harder to anchor out as everyone wants money from you because they think you are rich.

We had to outstretch our budget and hurry back to California to be near my Mom so now we live on the river, I work on boats and I had to sell the truck. It only got 10 mpg and I bought a station wagon. Unfortunately it'll be at least 2 years to get the bills paid and get the kitty back to useable so we'll be in one spot for a while. We need 3 more solar panels and a better dinghy. Your dinghy is your station wagon when you're anchored out.. We used to be self insured but now we have every dime we had wrapped up in this boat so we have an insurance payment to make. But she is a true world cruiser. The trick is to never be in a hurry, the wind is free but it cost a 1.00 a mile to motor. All of our belongings fit in a 43 foot boat of which about 30'x10' is usable to live in, a 6'x4' storage unit and a 2006 BMW station wagon. The beemer was a budget buster but my back is toast, the seats are heaven, it gets 27mpg hi-way and it has a warranty forever. I can carry the tools I need in the wagon or the boat.

Great story, thanks for sharing!

[rodheadlee]

Great story, thanks for sharing!

my pleasure

[DBMormon]

Lots of ad hominem attacks. Attack the messenger or minimize him by attacking  his motives. Yet to see someone address  and refute the actual contents of the letter in this thread. This is why those in faith crisis get frustrated. No one can answer the questions. Lots of hand waiving and apologetic gibberish. Have faith, ignore the man behind the curtain.

 

We assume that because one thinks he has found the Church to be a fraud, and that person feels so betrayed over such discovery that he retaliates by  trying to prove to others he is not crazy and show that what he has dicovered, you and me are not aware of, and hence we too have been defrauded......  We assume because of this that he is fair game and we in good conscious can attack him personally.  When in reality our retaliation is no better then his and perhaps even worse.   Frankly he has been open to correcting his CES letter when errors have been presented.  I am completely open to someone putting the major arguments against the Church in one place, and putting them in a format that tries to put a light on them.  He has as much right to fairly show why the Church is not what it claims as others have to show the Church as true.  If the Church is what it claims it should be able to defend itself against such a prosecution.  The real trouble is getting someone to look at both sides with an open mind and frankly that falls short on both sides.

[Kevin Christensen]

Back to Kuhn and expectations: "Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly, and hence of an occasion for paradigm change." (Kuhn, Structure, 65).

So I find it telling that the letter first raises the question of "1769 King James edition errors. An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"

So we zero in on an apparent imperfection. The fact of an imperfection seems scandalous to the point of being overwhelming, but what about examining the background expectation, doing a little bit of checking our own eyes for motes? What makes such imperfections seem so scandalous? Do we have any evidence from any transmission of scripture through any human-involved means that shows we ought to expect perfection? Do we have evidence that translation from ancient languages to a modern high language is more successful when it completely ignores existing translations of the same, or related material? What hard evidence backs up the expectation? Or is the expectation completely without firm foundation?

In discussing a passage in Malachi Joseph Smith comments that "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands." (D&C 128:18).

That one passage takes me into a different expectation, one that actually fits both the evidence of Joseph's attitude about his translations and revelations, which he felt free to edit, and was quite open about it.

Welch's in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount discusses several related translation issues.

Hugh Nibley has suggested several other reasons that made the use of King James style important, if not necessary. One reason was Joseph's audience: "When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the [Hebrew] scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? . . . No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament."19

Another reason for the use of the style of the King James Version was the nature of the record: "The scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down."20 Furthermore, "by frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into 'modern English' every thirty or forty years."21 To such points, other explanations may be added, but the foregoing seem sufficient. The King James idiom yields a good translation of both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple. In fact, a study of the Greek vocabulary used in Matthew 5–7 will show that in most cases, the traditional English translation is rather straightforward. The syntax of most of the sentences is relatively simple, the expressions are direct, and most of the words and phrases have obvious and adequate primary choices in English as their translation (although their meaning and implications still remain profound).

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1132&index=8

If I approach Joseph's translations with a view to finding real inspiration, rather than perfection, my attention will move in different directions. I might end up noticing and valuing this discussion in Welch in his next chapter.

In one important passage, manuscript evidence favors the Sermon at the Temple, and it deserves recognition. The KJV of Matthew 5:22 reads, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [eikei] shall be in danger of the judgment" (italics added). The Sermon at the Temple drops the phrase without a cause (3 Nephi 12:22).1 So do many of the better early manuscripts.2

This favorable evidence for the Sermon at the Temple has the support of reliable sources. While lacking unanimous consensus in the early manuscripts of the Sermon on the Mount (which is not unusual), the absence of the phrase "without a cause" is evidenced by the following manuscripts: p64, p67, Sinaiticus (original hand), Vaticanus, some minuscules, the Latin Vulgate (Jerome mentions that it was not found in the oldest manuscripts known to him), the Ethiopic texts, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and others. One may count as compelling all readings that are supported by "the best Greek MSS—by the A.D. 200 p64 (where it is extant) and by at least the two oldest uncials, as well as some minuscules, [especially if] it also has some Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and early patristic support."3 A survey of the list of manuscripts supporting the Sermon at the Temple and the original absence of the phrase without a cause in Matthew 5:22 shows that this shorter reading meets these criteria.

Moreover, this textual difference in the Greek manuscripts of the Sermon on the Mount is the only variant that has a significant impact on meaning. It is much more severe to say, "Whoever is angry is in danger of the judgment," than to say, "Whoever is angry without a cause is in danger of the judgment." The first discourages all anger against a brother; the second permits brotherly anger as long as it is justifiable. The former is more like the demanding sayings of Jesus regarding committing adultery in one's heart (see Matthew 5:28) and loving one's enemies (see Matthew 5:44), neither of which offers the disciple a convenient loophole of self-justification or rationalization. Indeed, as Wernberg-Møller points out, the word eikei in Matthew 5:22 may reflect a Semitic idiom that does not invite allowance for "'just' anger in certain circumstances" at all, but "is original and echoes some Aramaic phrase, condemning anger as sinful in any case" and "as alluding to . . . the harbouring of angry feelings for any length of time."4 In light of Wernberg-Møller's interpretation of the underlying idiom, the original sense of Matthew 5:22 is accurately reflected in the Sermon at the Temple whether eikei is included in the Greek saying or not.

In my estimation, this textual variant in favor of the Sermon at the Temple is very meaningful. The removal of without a cause has important moral, behavioral, psychological, and religious ramifications, as it is the main place where a significant textual change from the KJV was in fact needed and delivered.

Welch's book goes on to matter-of-factly discuss some errors, but does so without scandal, because, quite frankly, none of them change the meaning significantly. And the larger context of 3 Nephi 8-29 demonstrates remarkable inspiration in disclosing the temple background of the Sermon on the Mount. Welch's approach was impressive enough that a non-LDS press published his work as applied to the Sermon in Matthew. Welch does not ignore the errors, but he doesn't grant them decisive status. Brant Gardner's recent Translating the Book of Mormon also has important information worth careful consideration.

Jeremy's response to FAIR sees none of this:

The presence of 17th century KJV italics and 1769 KJV errors – word for word – in the Book of Mormon is its own damning evidence. These errors totally undermine the claim that Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon and the claim that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth.

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#questions

I've often referred to a passage from Betty Edward's book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain:

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.

It is not ad hominem to observe that Jeremy treats a few King James errors as "damning" and "totally undermining" Joseph's claims regarding a translation. He has decided that such things are, by themselves, decisively important.

Think about why.

Where is there any manuscript evidence that demonstrates in practice, and not just in theory, that when God is involved to some degree in the transmission and translation of a sacred text, we can know this because all known manuscripts and transmissions are completely perfect, error free, and always mutually consistent without any variation whatsoever? Any evidence to back up the theory? Anywhere?

As Kuhn says, "In short, consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise." (Kuhn, 59). What if the circumstances you are testing for are completely unfounded? What if, as Jesus says, the problem is the beam in your own eye? What if the experiment is poorly designed, due to unrealistic expectations? What if the focus on flaws as decisive has the effect of distracting a person from far more fruitful investigations and evidence? Just asking.

More Kuhn:

"Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before." (Kuhn, 111).

In looking through the Letter to the CES director, one of the things that is most evident to me is that I have seen a great deal of evidence and argument that does not enter on the balance scale. Say, for example, Mormon's Codex, or Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or In the Footsteps of Lehi, or interesting parallels between Abraham Apocrypha and our Book of Abraham, or mention of the significance of the raised leg on the figure on the lion couch, or the recently discovered papyrus that shows a similar figure and has Abraham's name.

On the website he highlights this:

"I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism."

Now it happens that I've been exploring LDS issues seriously since about 1973. "All information" is rather a tall order. What it actually means is "God-Like Omniscience" as basic human right, to be provided by authorities before any serious decision and commitment is made.

Think about it. Where exactly can we go to get that basic right fulfilled now? Does Jeremy measure up to what he demands from even the CES or FAIR? What does the assumption of that right, that expectation, do for my human experience? According to recovery literature, "expectations are pre-meditated resentments."

I've often talked about Alma 32's contrast between those who demand to "know" with absolute finality and certainty in the here and now, and those who are willing to settle for "cause to believe" based on an ongoing open-ended process of sampling even portions of the word, experiments, the experience of mind-expanding enlightenment, enlargement of the soul via participation, aesthetic pleasure in teachings tasted and savored, fruitfulness in ongoing study and experience, and future promise.

My life delivers on "cause to believe." Jeremy, I suppose will let me know when he truly has it "all on the table," omniscience neatly packaged, so that when I read his next letter, I will know that I won't be thinking that he obviously hasn't read Gardner on the translation, or Ben McGuire's detailed response to The Late War in the Book of Mormon, or Nibley, Gee, and Rhodes and others on the Facsimiles, or Margaret Barker's work as a key to understanding Book of Mormon theology as pre-exilic, rather than anachronistically Trinitarian, or Ashurst-McGee on the Captain Kidd stories, or publications of the Maxwell Institute, or the Joseph Smith papers, or Sorenson's work.

Jesus explains that "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Matthew 9:17).

There are better bottles around. And much much more wine that Jeremy has neither seen nor tasted.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 3, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[DBMormon]

Back to Kuhn and expectations: "Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly, and hence of an occasion for paradigm change." (Kuhn, Structure, 65).

So I find it telling that the letter first raises the question of "1769 King James edition errors. An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"

So we are zero in on an apparent imperfection. The fact of an imperfection seems scandalous to the point of being overwhelming, but what about examining the background expectation, doing a little bit of checking our own eyes for motes? What makes such imperfections seem so scandalous? Do we have any evidence from any transmission of scripture through any human-involved means that we ought to expect perfection? Do we have evidence that translations from ancient languages to a modern high language is more successful when it completely ignores existing translations of the same, or related material? What hard evidence backs up the expectation? Or is the expectation completely without firm foundation?

In discussing a passage in Malachi Joseph Smith comments that "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands." (D%C 128:18).

That one passage takes me into a different expectation, one that actually fits both the evidence of Joseph's attitude about his translations and revelations, which he felt free to edit, and was quite open about it.

Welch's in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount discusses several related translation issues.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1132&index=8

If I approach Joseph's translations with a view to finding real inspiration, rather than perfection, my attention will move in different directions. I might end up noticing and valuing this discussion in Welch in his next chapter.

Welch's book goes on to matter-of-factly discuss some errors, but does so without scandal, because, quite frankly, none of them change the meaning significantly. And the larger context of 3 Nephi 8-29 demonstrates remarkable inspiration in disclosing the temple background of the Sermon on the Mount. Welch's approach was impressive enough that a non-LDS press published his work as applied to the Sermon in Matthew. Welch does not ignore the errors, but he doesn't grant them decisive status. Brant Gardner's recent Translating the Book of Mormon also has important information worth careful consideration.

Jeremy's response to FAIR sees none of this:

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#questions

I've often referred to a passage from Betty Edward's book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain:

It is not ad hominem to observe that Jeremy treats a few King James errors as "damning" and "totally undermining" Joseph's claims regarding a translation. He has decided that such things are, by themselves, decisively important.

Think about why.

Where is there any manuscript evidence that demonstrates in practice, and not just in theory, that when God is involved to some degree in the transmission and translation of a sacred text, we can know this because all known manuscripts and transmissions are completely perfect, error free, and always mutually consistent without any variation whatsoever? Any evidence to back up the theory? Anywhere?

As Kuhn says, "In short, consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise." (Kuhn, 59). What if the circumstances you are testing for are completely unfounded? What if, as Jesus says, the problem is the beam in your own eye? What if the experiment is poorly designed, due to unrealistic expectations? What if the focus on flaws as decisive has the effect of distracting a person from far more fruitful investigations and evidence? Just asking.

More Kuhn:

"Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instrumentws in places they have looked before." (Kuhn, 111).

In looking through the Letter to the CES director, one of the things that is most evident to me is that I have seen a great deal of evidence and argument that does not enter on the balance scale. Say, for example, Mormons Codex, or Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or In the Footsteps of Lehi, or interesting parallels between Abraham Apocrypha and our Book of Abraham, or mention of the significance of the raised leg on the figure on the lion couch, or the recently discovered papyrus that shows a similar figure and has Abraham's name.

On the website he highlights this:

Now it happens that I've been exploring LDS issues seriously since about 1973. "All information" is rather a tall order. What it actually means is "God-Like Omniscience" as basic human right, to be provided by authorities before any serious decision and committment is made.

Think about it. Where exactly can we go to get that basic right fulfilled now? Does Jeremy measure up to what he demands from even the CES or FAIR? What does the assumption of that right, that expectation, do for my human experience? According to recovery literature, "expectations are pre-meditated resentments."

I've often taked about Alma 32's contrast between those who demand to "know" with absolute finality and certainty in the here and now, and those who are willing to settle for "cause to believe" based on an ongoing open-ended process of sampling even portions of the word, experiments, the experience of mind-expanding enlightment, enlargement of the soul via participation, aesthetic pleasure in teachings tasted and savored, fruitfulness in ongoing study and experience, and future promise.

My life delivers on "cause to believe." Jeremy, I suppose will let me know when he truly has it "all on the table," omniscience neatly packaged, so that when I read his next letter, I will know that I won't be thinking that he obviously hasn't read Gardner on the translation, or Ben McGuire's detailed response to The Late War in the Book of Mormon, or Nibley, Gee, and Rhodes and othes on the Facsimiles, or Margaret Barker's work as a key to understanding Book of Mormon theology as pre-exilic, rather than anachronistically Trinitarian, or Ashurst-McGee on the Captain Kidd stories, or publications of the Maxwell Institute, or the Joseph Smith papers, or Sorenson's work.

Jesus explains that "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Matthew 9:17).

There are better bottles around. And much much more wine that Jeremy has neither seen nor tasted.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

Kevin, any chance you want to move to the Sandusky Ohio Ward?  You would make Church more fun!  Great post

Edited March 1, 2014 by DBMormon

[juliann]

 

There are better bottles around. And much much more wine that Jeremy has neither seen nor tasted.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Indeed. To really delve into these disputes requires a sound academic basis and a lot of detail. I have rarely seen this happen, especially on the ubiquitous "we will give you both sides" sites that make no bones as to their true intent. It is so obvious that what is out there in defense of a church position goes unread. It also does not go without notice that these debates are almost always based on pitting one named person with a defined position against unnamed "apologists" that are dismissed with a wave of the hand without examination.  At the very least, we should expect to begin on a level playing field.

[juliann]

Lots of ad hominem attacks. Attack the messenger or minimize him by attacking  his motives. Yet to see someone address  and refute the actual contents of the letter in this thread. This is why those in faith crisis get frustrated. No one can answer the questions. Lots of hand waiving and apologetic gibberish. Have faith, ignore the man behind the curtain.

We all know the actual contents have been addressed. The letter writer even responded to the response so I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with such blatant disinformation. You even admit to it by calling "it" hand waving and apologetic gibberish. (And that is ad hominem.)  Four words and the thinking has been done. I wish I could be so comfortable in jumping to conclusions.

[BCSpace]

You're seriously dismissing my work over a "Buy Me a Beer" icon?  Really?

 

Yes.

 

I don't even drink alcohol.  I never have.  The "Buy Me a Beer" plug was just a stupid thing I put up because I thought it would be less tacky than putting up a PayPal Donate button.  Obviously, the beer thing turned out to be tacky.  I have since removed it.

So, what's your next excuse now that you just lost the "he just wanted to sin" card?

 

I don't think I've lost anything.  It demonstrates the type of audience you're playing to.  As I also noted, the 'work' is full of yellow journalism.  It doesn't lead anyone to the truth as many are now finding out.

[juliann]

One thing I think apologists are good at is seeing the "cost" of giving up certain ground, and only doing so when absolutely forced to.

 

In the examples you mention, admitting that Joseph Smith "borrowed" BoM place names from 19th century sources would give too much ground on the origin story of the Book of Mormon, and would lead to fatal questions regarding the translation process and other aspects of the book.  Until the evidence becomes overwhelming, it's best for apologists to stand fast on this issue.

Believe it or not, the apologists I know ( that have names)  like to be on the side of accuracy for the simple reason it is embarrassing to put something in print that is wrong. It destroys credibility not to mention making you look stupid. The FairMormon wiki is under constant construction and changes are almost always made when someone takes the time to inform us of errors.

 

Some of the so-called place borrowing is laughable....particularly when the name in question is in the Bible (which they of course, do not inform the reader, assuming they know the content of the Bible). Not to mention that come of the names they came up with weren't even in existence at the time JS was supposedly plagiarizing. They will have to a lot more accurate work to make this "overwhelming".

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/Place_names_from_North_America

 

•   Answer:  

  The Book of Mormon contains 345 names. The theory, proposed by Vernal Holley and posted by Mazeministries, is that 28 of these names were derived by Joseph Smith by looking at the names of places in the surrounding region, then altering the names slightly to create a map of Book of Mormon lands. The original map from which the author obtained this information included names of places which didn't even exist in Joseph Smith's time.

•   Fact:  

  The following correspondences are listed. In order to obtain this list of parallels, a huge geographical area must be scanned: Five states and two Canadian provinces yield this list of parallels, and it gets even smaller when one actually tries to locate many of these places on a map. In the list below,

• Names in red indicate places which either did not have that name until after 1830, or cannot be found on a map or in the Book of Mormon.
• Names in blue indicate names that are found in the Bible.
• Names in green indicate names that could potentially be a valid match.
  • Actual Place Names = Book of Mormon Place Names
  • Alma = Alma, Valley of—In the area indicated on the Holley map, modern maps show that there is a small, unincorporated community called Centerville, also known as Alma, in Tyler County, West Virginia, United States. Coordinates: 39°25′55″N 80°50′24″W. However, when we view the 1822 map of Virginia, we cannot find the name "Alma" anywhere.
  • Antrim = Antum—"Antrim Township" is located in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. It was named after County Antrim in Northern Ireland. The township was organized in 1741.
  • Antioch = Anti-Anti—The name "Anti-Anti" doesn't even appear in the Book of Mormon, nor does the biblical name "Antioch."
  • Boaz = Boaz—The name "Boaz" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
  • Conner = Comner—The name "Comner" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon. The name "Comnor" does, in Ether 14:28. Of course, "Comnor" doesn't match "Conner" quite as closely in spelling. We cannot find "Connor" in either New York or Pennsylvania.
  • Ephrem, Saint = Ephraim, Hill—The actual name is "Saint-Éphrem-de-Beauce, Quebec." Wikipedia shows the town being established with that name in 1866. This is 36 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon name "Ephraim," of course, is easily found in the Bible.
  • Hellam = Helam—According to their website, Hellam Township, Pennsylvania, was established in 1739.
  • Jacobsburg = Jacobugath.—Jacobsburg, Belmont Co., Ohio does not even show up on a 1822 map of Ohio.
  • Jerusalem = Jerusalem.—Jerusalem, Monroe Co., Ohio does not even show up on a 1822 map of Ohio. Even today the village of Jerusalem occupies only 0.2 square miles. Besides, the name "Jerusalem" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
  • Jordan = Jordan—The name "Jordan" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
  • Kishkiminetas = Kishkumen—Kiskiminetas Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania was given that name in 1832, two years after the Book of Mormon was published. From History of Armstrong County Pennsylvania, written in 1883 by Robert Walter Smith, "The petition of sundry inhabitants of Allegheny township was presented December 22, 1831, to the court of quarter sessions of this county, asking that a new township be formed out of the upper end of Allegheny township, to be called Kiskiminetas. Philip Klingensmith, John Lafferty and John McKissen were appointed viewers, who, after one continuance of their order, presented their report recommending the organization of the new township, which was approved by the court June 19, 1832." off-site Kiskiminetas River in Pennsylvania does exist prior to the town, and one would assume that it would show up on a map. The Holley map, however, does not indicate that Kishkiminetas is a river, but rather a place.
  • Lehigh = Lehi—There is indeed a "Lehigh Valley" located in Pennsylvania.
  • Mantua = Manti—According to their website, Mantua Village, Ohio, was incorporated in 1898. This is 68 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.
  • Monroe = Moroni—The author, in the next section, presumes that the name "Moroni" was derived from the capital city of the Comoros Islands, or from "treasure stories" about Captain Kidd. There is a town "Monroe, New York" which was founded in 1818.
  • Minoa = Minon—According to the Minoa town website, the town of Minoa, New York received that name in 1895. That is 60 years after the Book of Mormon was published.
  • Moraviantown = Morianton—Moravian Indian Reserve No. 47, Ontario, appears to have been established in 1782.
  • Morin = Moron—According to Wikipedia, Morin Township, Quebec, was formed in 1852. This would be 22 years after the Book of Mormon was published.
  • Noah Lakes = Noah, Land of—The name "Noah" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
  • Oneida = Onidah—See "Oneida Castle".
  • Oneida Castle = Onidah, Hill—Oneida Castle, New York is located at 43°4′42″N 75°38′0″W. The town has existed since the 18th century.
  • Omer = Omner—We cannot find "Omer" on any modern map of Pennsylvania, New York or Canada.
  • Rama = Ramah—Rama Township, Ontario, was "first surveyed in 1834." ^[1] This is four years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.
  • Ripple Lake = Ripliancum, Waters of.—Ripple Lake is so small that it is difficult to locate on modern day maps, and it is one of more than 250,000 lakes in Ontario. Are we to assume that Joseph selected this one location amongst many, and then converted the name "Ripple Lake" to "Ripliancum?"
  • Sodom = Sidom—The name "Sodom," of course, is well known from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
  • Shiloh = Shilom—The name "Shiloh" is a biblical name. There is a Shiloh, Pennsylvania on modern maps.
  • Land of Midian = Land of Midian—The name "Land of Midian" is from the Bible and it is located in Egypt. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places. We are unable to locate a "Midian" or "Land of Midian" on any modern map of Pennsylvania.

 

• •  

[Anakin7]

    I found a response to a letter to a CES Director by a individual who has a blog - http:aussiemormonguy.blogspot.com . A search of his blog will produce a part of his response.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited March 2, 2014 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

I am curious what other faith/church house door jeremy and his wife will enter into now, Roman Catholic,One of the 7 families of Orthodoxy, One of the thousands of Protestantisms, Non Denominational, Jewish, Muslim, Or Athiest, Humanist ?.

 

 

 

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[readstoomuch]

I wondered the same thing about where he and his family are going to be worshipping if any at all. Unfortunately, in a secular world often no religion can be the most common alternative. The god can be science-just do what studies show is the best behavior. Unfortunately, the science is not as clear cut as one would hope. I take a newsletter called Nutrition Action. It tries to cut through some of the hype about what it is that you are supposed to eat. It is interesting to try and nail down how to take care of your body. Then you get into behavior and how to interact with others. This study showed this and that study showed that. A coherent message from science or at least the volume of information can be overwhelming. As Richard Bushman explained, science really isn`t good at telling you how to live to be happy.

I read the Mormon Aussie Guy`s stuff. It is pretty short, but yes of course it is about perspective. The correlated system isn`t really good at explaining different paradigms. All or none statements always bothered me-especially after my own faith crisis. Either this or that happened or the LDS Church must be false. I think we all agree that the CES Letter has most of the arguments packaged for consumption. It is a sort of updated version of Mormonism Shadow or Reality for the present generation. As I said before, some of the responses that I read such as Lawrence Foster`s 1986 review of the Tanners and the Anonymous Response of LDS Historian may be useful for readers of the CES Letter. They always talked about perspective and understanding the history of an organization. Especially an organization that has been persecuted and had lies printed about it in the past. The Correlated Curriculum needs to be updated and provide better tools to deal with controversies. I think the blow by blow response to the CES Letter will not come out tomorrow or even from one place. I actually think it already exists, just not in one document that you can download and read like the CES Letter. The person writing it will want to be accurate, measured and documented as Calmoriah was implying above. Faith crises are not going away and better paths to help those who are suffering are needed. Pastoral Apologetics as discussed at the last FAIR Conference are a big part of it.

[Palerider]

A name borrowing that should have been included that I haven't seen recently is this:

Sidney Rigdon was a member in the council of the Mahoning (inception for Mahonri?) Baptist Association, convening that year at Palmyra, Portage County, Ohio.

[Tacenda]

Jumping in...does anyone that's been in a faith crisis have advice for someone who is feeling extremely lonely now that they don't think like the rest, who do? Maybe that's why John Dehlin is putting together a community of LDS that have gone through FC and no longer believe everything in Mormonism, but want to keep most of it. I've thought of joining another church, but have a feeling I would feel out of place with them also. Sorry if I've derailed.

[readstoomuch]

StayLDS, Jeff Burton's Borderland column in Sunstone, FairMormon, this board, A Thoughtful Faith, and probably others.

[Tacenda]

StayLDS, Jeff Burton's Borderland column in Sunstone, FairMormon, this board, A Thoughtful Faith, and probably others.

I know of all of these except Jeff Burton's Borderland column in Sunstone. Thank you.

[readstoomuch]

Jeff has a book called For Those Who Wonder. Very good. Read it and given it to a number of people.

[DBMormon]

Jumping in...does anyone that's been in a faith crisis have advice for someone who is feeling extremely lonely now that they don't think like the rest, who do? Maybe that's why John Dehlin is putting together a community of LDS that have gone through FC and no longer believe everything in Mormonism, but want to keep most of it. I've thought of joining another church, but have a feeling I would feel out of place with them also. Sorry if I've derailed.

 

I started a Thursday night Institute style class - where I sprinkle nuance at least once into every lesson.  Members are loving it and one couple said they are living for the class.  Multiple thanks from members appreciative for showing them Mormonism can be viewed through multiple lenses.

 

On the other hand some are uncomfortable and do not attend, they feel I am off the reservation.  But regardless the class is medicine to me.  It lets me be myself and share my thoughts in a supportive environment.  All say their faith is being strengthened and none have said otherwise even in the gossip circles.

[DBMormon]

 

Believe it or not, the apologists I know ( that have names)  like to be on the side of accuracy for the simple reason it is embarrassing to put something in print that is wrong. It destroys credibility not to mention making you look stupid. The FairMormon wiki is under constant construction and changes are almost always made when someone takes the time to inform us of errors.

 

Some of the so-called place borrowing is laughable....particularly when the name in question is in the Bible (which they of course, do not inform the reader, assuming they know the content of the Bible). Not to mention that come of the names they came up with weren't even in existence at the time JS was supposedly plagiarizing. They will have to a lot more accurate work to make this "overwhelming".

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/Place_names_from_North_America

• •  

 

 

The easy answer for this would be to pick a random place in the US and see if one could make the same "similar claims" for the local geography compared to BOM

[Paddy]

I found a response to a letter to a CES Director by a individual who has a blog - http:aussiemormonguy.blogspot.com . A search of his blog will produce a part of his response.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Anikin

That's my blog. I had some members of my ward that have been exposed to it and I felt it needed a response. I have been contacted by the person who wrote the letter asking if he could post a response. I did not expect one because in terms of blogs I am pretty small time.

I have to say that I think the letter tries too hard to find issues about the church. One the other hand I am not sure the church traditionally has been particularly smart about criticisms.

Paddy

Edited March 3, 2014 by Paddy

[Paddy]

The easy answer for this would be to pick a random place in the US and see if one could make the same "similar claims" for the local geography compared to BOM

DB

I have to say that I found the parallels for the place names to be the least convincing issues raised in the letter. I don't take much stock in those type of thing and The fair response just confirms it.

[Anakin7]

Anikin

That's my blog. I had some members of my ward that have been exposed to it and I felt it needed a response. I have been contacted by the person who wrote the letter asking if he could post a response. I did not expect one because in terms of blogs I am pretty small time.

I have to say that I think the letter tries too hard to find issues about the church. One the other hand I am not sure the church traditionally has been particularly smart about criticisms.

Paddy

    Thanks for sharing that.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, any chance you want to move to the Sandusky Ohio Ward?  You would make Church more fun!  Great post

I do have a job, spouse, daughter, and granddaughter tying me close to Pittsburgh for the present. But maybe I could drop by sometime.

I did notice that Jeremy himself took a look at my profile after the post went up. So perhaps the little gray cells got a bit of an unexpected workout.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[DaddyB]

The general theme of this open letter is why Mormons have faith crisis and leave the church. Has anyone here seen the "Alone" video by Mormon Challenges? Do you think it addresses this issue accurately or fairly?

[DaddyB]

The general theme of this open letter is why Mormons have faith crisis and leave the church. Has anyone here seen the "Alone" video by Mormon Challenges? Do you think it addresses this issue accurately or fairly?

Oops, I forgot to post the link. Here it is. http://mormonchallenges.org/category/alone-film/